← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Director Brennan is going on the offensive”
00:43:28
July 1, 2026; 5pm: Nicolle Wallace conducts an exclusive interview with Former CIA Director John Brennan, his first TV interview addressing his lawsuit against Donald Trump and the Department of Justice. Brennan has been a longtime target of Trump’s retribution campaign against his perceived political enemies.
Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:01]
Commercial Narrator
A morning walk, some bird watching. It's another easy Sunday. UnitedHealth Group makes these ordinary days possible. With partners like the University of Tennessee Health Sciences helping communities manage their health closer to home. 54% of participants have lowered their blood pressure, meaning fewer heart attacks and more Sundays at the park. This might feel like an ordinary day to UnitedHealth Group. It's the healthcare system working better for everyone. Learn more@unitedhealthgroup.com commitment managing healthcare payments shouldn't get in the way of patient care, but fragmented systems create costly delays and add unnecessary friction. Zealous is here to help we simplify healthcare's financial complexity by connecting every step of the financial journey for payers, providers and members. That way, everyone can focus on what matters most. Because when the financial experience works, care doesn't just happen, it flows. Learn more@zealous.com.
- [01:01]
John Brennan
Sometimes intelligence is good, and sometimes you look at Comey. Then you look at Brennan and you look at Clapper and I'm supposed to believe that intelligence. I never believed that intelligence. You look at Brennan and you look at Clapper and you get some real beauties. Well, I think Brennan is a sick person.
- [01:17]
Andrew Weissman
How involved was John Brennan?
- [01:19]
John Brennan
Totally involved. He was totally involved. John Brennan was one of the architects, in my opinion.
- [01:27]
Nicole Wallace
Hi again Everybody. It's now 5 o' clock in the East. Suffice to say, he has been obsessed for years now. Trump has been attacking and criticizing former director of the CIA John Brennan for years. Going after him seems to be one of Trump's greatest obsessions. But these are not just hollow smears and complaints. Trump has weaponized the government he now leads to go after his perceived opponent. Today marks a significant development in that story. Director Brennan is today going on the offense. But first, a quick refresher. Director Brennan, following decades of public service in the CIA, served as the agency's director from 2013 to 2017. During those years under President Barack Obama, the director became a target of Donald Trump's, ostensibly for his role in the intelligence assessment that stated that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the aim of helping Donald Trump win. Since then, Donald Trump has railed against John Brennan as well as others involved in that assessment. He has revoked John Brennan's security clearance. And two investigations have been launched into the former director of the CIA. One is over allegations that Director Brennan lied to Congress in 2023 about the intelligence assessment. It was a referral from the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Trump ally Jim Jordan. The other is a case that Brennan is part of some sort of grand conspiracy that Caroline Levitt has talked about from the podium of the White House briefing room to keep Trump out of office. Brennan has denied any wrongdoing in both cases. Today, Director Brennan, who is an MSNow Senior National Security and Intelligence analyst, is joining us for an exclusive, exclusive interview to discuss his latest move, which is to sue Donald Trump and the Justice Department. Director Brennan has asked a judge to force DOJ to preserve all of its records from that lawsuit. Quote, administration officials from the acting Attorney General to the FBI director and the counselor overseeing the Brennan investigations have been publicly declaring Director Brennan a criminal, not only before securing a conviction in court, but even before a full investigation and indictment. And certain officials in the Department of Justice are engaging in demonstrably irregular prosecutorial activity in order to gin up a case that will satisfy the President's direction. Director Brennan expects that he will forcefully challenge any eventual eventual indictment as the product of an unconstitutionally vindictive and selective prosecution. Given the government's questionable recent history with respect to its record preservation and other legal obligations, however, Director Brennan has a well founded concern that those records and communications will not be preserved until such time as the court can review them for evidence of unconstitutional vindictiveness about Brennan's lawsuit. The New York Times writes this, quote, the request for a judicial order requiring officials to keep records about a case that has not even been filed was somewhat unusual. And yet it reflected just how abnormal Trump's revenge campaign has become in recent months. As the president's attempts to use the courts to go after his adversaries have become more aggressive, so too have the reciprocal efforts by defense lawyers who have sought to fight the inquiries at every at ever earlier stages of the investigative process. Firing back at Donald Trump's revenge campaign is where we begin this hour with former Director of the CIA John Brennan. Thank you for being here and having this conversation with us.
- [05:11]
John Brennan
Absolutely, Nicole. Thanks for having me on.
- [05:14]
Nicole Wallace
So what made you sort of take a different legal strategy? Because the facts have always been the same. And I just want to ask you to go over the facts of the of the smears and the alleged investigations into you as they've been unearthed by Trump ally John Durham, by Marco Rubio, who was the senator in charge of the Intellig Committee when it comes to that 2016 intelligence assessment.
- [05:43]
John Brennan
Well, Nicole, clearly I didn't come to the decision to launch this lawsuit against the Trump administration, President Trump, and the Department of Justice lightly. But as you and I have talked numerous times over the past 18 months, Donald Trump has been engaged in this campaign to punish individuals he considers his enemies. And I am being targeted by Donald Trump because I fulfilled my obligations in 2016 as director of the CIA to expose Russian interference in that presidential election of that year. And there was an intelligence community assessment that was put out by the FBI, CIA, nsa, and the Office of Director of National Intelligence that chronicled exactly what Vladimir Putin and the Russians were doing. Well, obviously, Donald Trump didn't like that, but also he has condemned me because I have spoken out publicly since I left office. When I see that things that Donald Trump is doing are wrongheaded or that are just reflecting, I think, the incompetence as well as the corruption of his administration. So clearly over these last 18 months, it's not just me, it's other individuals as well. It's Jerome Powell, it's Jim Comey, it's others, Letitia James, who have also been targeted. And most egregiously, he's not just condemning us publicly with his rhetoric. He is leveraging the tremendous authorities of the Department of Justice in very corrupt, unethical, and I would argue, illegal ways to use those authorities to launch these investigations against individuals. Now, there are two grand jury investigations underway in the Southern District of Florida where I have been subpoenaed. I have complied completely with the requests from the government, despite the speciousness of these investigations and the lack of any evidence indicating any wrongdoing on my part. But I have come to believe, in talking to my lawyers, that we can't trust the Department of Justice to carry out its duties in the manner that it has done over the course of past centuries, in terms of a presumption of regularity that the courts will give the Department of Justice and US Government the presumption that it is carrying out its obligations responsibly and with integrity. But it has not, in terms of forum shopping and judge shopping and having individuals and professional prosecutors who have resigned rather than pursue investigations that have no basis in fact. So if they're doing this, I also am concerned, and my lawyers are very concerned that any type of records that might in fact expose what they are doing are not being kept. They have openly decried or have condemned the obligations to fulfill their obligations under the Presidential Records Act. They are using different apps to conceal their messaging. Like signal apps, things are automatically deleted. And this is in contravention of long held requirements that the government is supposed to keep these records. So again, it looks as though with the appointment of Joe diGenova and continued investigations, and, you know, the effort underway in Florida that there could be an indictment of me, despite whatever speciousness undercurrents it. And so we don't want to wait until that point. And so this is a lawsuit that basically compels, is asking the court to compel the government to preserve all those records that they have within the Department of Justice, White House, other agencies that relate at all to the investigations into me. So that if, in fact, there is some effort here to circumvent the law and to abuse the authorities of the Justice Department, it will be available to the court if, in fact, there is going to be this indictment.
- [09:27]
Nicole Wallace
Don't you already have a smoking gun in the things Donald Trump has said about you? I mean, tell me what the records would prove, and is it that your lawyers will argue that should you be indicted, it's all a vindictive prosecution?
- [09:44]
John Brennan
Yes. Well, as we all know, in the Southern District of Florida, a very competent, respected professional prosecutor either stepped aside or was pushed aside because she was not willing to go forward with an indictment or any type of effort to try to obtain an indictment from a grand jury. And they said, reportedly she said, there's no evidence there to support such indictment. And we also see that this has been shopped around and the complaint makes clear, you know, in different districts, whether it be in Virginia or in Pennsylvania. And it's clearly that there is not a appetite on the part of those Department of Justice employees who continue to adhere to their obligations. But it's not stopped Donald Trump and the Department of Justice. And so, again, the fact that this investigation is still ongoing and there was just a recent, you know, press reporting about what team is doing in terms of, you know, additional interviews and people are being interviewed. And I'm not just doing this on behalf of myself. Yes, I'm the sole target of these two investigations down in Florida, but I'm doing it on behalf of others who are being harassed and who are being subjected to the same type of punishment and condemnation. And we have to stand up against Donald Trump and the abuses of authority and the fact that the Department of Justice is being exploited in this way. So what I'm trying to do is, you know, align myself with those universities, those law law firms, those individuals who really are pushing back. And I realize that this is going to, you know, irritate the Department of Justice or the Trump administration, but it's the right thing to do. And I think in light of what's going on in this country and all the abuses of power and all the corruption that is going on, people have to stand up because it's John Brennan today, but it's going to be, I think, many others tomorrow.
- [11:29]
Nicole Wallace
A judge in the case of, I think Kilmar Grego Garcia found that it was essentially a crime declared and then revers engineered by Todd Blanche specifically. Are you, what are you seeking from Todd Blanche in the Department of Justice?
- [11:46]
John Brennan
Well, again, what this there's a complaint and then there's a preliminary motion for there to be an immediate sort of injunction that will again compel the government, Department of Justice and other agencies that are noted in the complaint to immediately preserve all records, all documents, emails, text messages, whatever else, correspondence that might have gone back and forth between the Department of Justice, Maine and down District of Florida to preserve all of those records because we're going to need them in the event that there is going to be some type of indictment or charges against me. I really want the courts to know that this is an effort that has been cooked up again as part of this punishment campaign that Donald Trump has engineered. And the fact that you have individuals, unfortunately, his loyalists who are willing to go along with him. I am just so glad that there are still individuals of integrity within the Department of Justice, within the US at attorney's offices, officers who are saying no, you know, saying no, we're not going to do this because it's inconsistent again, not only with their authorities but also with American values.
- [12:52]
Nicole Wallace
To your point about, you know, today you're the target. Jim Comey obviously has been indicted. Tish James has been harassed. Jerome Powell has been investigated. And this is Reuters reporting about how many people Donald Trump envisions this happening to. At least 470 targets and counting, quote, in his second term, Trump has turned a campaign pledge to punish political opponents into a guiding principle of governance. A tally by Reuters reveals the scale. At least 470 people, organizations and institutions have been targeted for retribution since Trump took office. An average of more than one a day. Some were singled out for punishment, others swept up in broader purges of perceived enemies. The count excludes foreign individuals, institutions and governments, as well as federal employees dismissed as part of force reductions. 470 people potentially going through what you're going through. Can you just give voice to what it's been like over the last 18 months for you?
- [13:56]
John Brennan
Well, you know, the autocratic playbook says you really need to just try to undermine and remove any individuals who are causing you problems, whether it be in the media. We've seen this happen in the media as well in the intelligence community and law enforcement, the FBI and other places. And so for the last 18 months, clearly, there has been this increasing drumbeat that has focused not just on me, but on others, my former colleagues as well, again, with subpoenas and interviews and other types of things that are, you know, they're using. Again, it's the abuse of, of these tremendously powerful authorities in the Department of Justice, where I think every American citizen should be relying on the Department of Justice to protect them, to protect their civil rights, the privileges of being an American citizen. I have always thought the Department of Justice is one of those pillars. And what is happening to that pillar of justice, it's being eroded and corroded by the corruption that is clearly taking place. And so, yes, I have been in the crosshairs of Donald Trump, you know, as President Obama says, you know, lives rent free or sweet free in his head. And so he continues to throw out my name and Jim Comey's name and Jim Clapper's name and others, because, you know, he just wants to continue this drumbeat of that we were, you know, corrupt. We were, you know, abusing our authorities. Well, in fact, it's the opposite. And that's why I'm going on the offensive here. I told my lawyers I don't want to sit on our hands because if he gets away with the, he's going to continue to do this against others. They're individuals, professionals, who have given their lives and have sacrificed so much on behalf of this country, believing that a president, an administration is going to do the right thing as opposed to the wrong and corrupt thing. That's why, you know, enough is enough. And that's why today's lawsuit, I think, sends a clear signal that I'm willing to fight this on behalf of my reputation and what I did, but also on behalf of so many others who are either currently in those crosshairs or will be soon.
- [16:07]
Nicole Wallace
Let me read a little bit more from the lawsuit, and then I want to come back to what you think your original sin is in Trump's eyes. But let me read from the lawsuit first. Justice Department officials have engaged in a variety of inappropriate activities in their attempt to build a prosecutable case on the hollow foundation of these criminal referrals. Among those activities have been the issuing pronouncements that evince a preconceived belief in Director Brennan's guilt, making statements that disclose matters relating to open grand jury investigations in apparent violation of federal rule of criminal procedure, reportedly removing or sidelining career prosecutors who have balked at using the criminal process to promote the president's retribution agenda, engaging in apparent forum shopping by moving the investigations from federal district to federal district in an effort to find a sufficiently pliant U.S. attorney and engaging in apparent judge shopping. They've done all those things, and they've been reported, and they've done them in full view. What do you. What would be most beneficial to find the back end of, in terms of what the record shows? Is it that it was directed by Blanche? Is it that it was knowingly false? And in absence of evidence proving any crimes, what. What are you hoping that the record bear out?
- [17:28]
John Brennan
Well, I think the Department of Justice, for decades and even centuries has followed the rule of law. And they do things based on not, you know, partisanship or political interests, whatever. They're supposed to be pursuing the law objectively in an apolitical, nonpartisan manner. And clearly, if in fact, the Trump administration and Donald Trump and his loyalists are carrying out the Department of Justice responsibilities, again, in this illegal manner and doing it for partisan purposes, that needs to be exposed. It needs to be exposed so that these investigations can be, you know, pushed aside, but also to prevent it in the future from happening. Because, again, what is happening behind closed doors, as we see all of the abuses and the corrupt actions on the part of this administration, it is hard to believe that the Department of Justice now is going to be fully exploited, you know, and leveraged by the Trump administration as a way to go after political enemies. I believe that if these documents are preserved and all the records are preserved, and if it does go, in fact, to an indictment or a trial in the discovery process, this will come out. It will come out exactly just how unethical, illegal, and inappropriate these actions were, because, again, based on everything that we see, as you know, this case has bounced back and forth at different jurisdictions because there's nothing there. And I am confident that, again, my role as CIA director in 2016, when we expose the Russian interference on behalf of Donald Trump, were trying to advance his prospects of getting elected, was exactly the right thing to do. And that assessment has been validated numerous times, including by, you know, bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that was chaired at the time by Marco Rubio. And I've spoken out very publicly against Donald Trump. And so, again, it's clear that they're not going to let go of this. And again, I'm not going to wait until they have their loyalists firmly ensconced in places that's going to actually bring these very, very inappropriate you investigations to some type of actual criminal charges.
- [19:40]
Nicole Wallace
What is the original tripwire that you think enrages Donald Trump? Because to your point, Marco Rubio found what the intelligence Committee assessed to be accurate, that Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. And I think Putin himself says he preferred he wanted Donald Trump. What is still at issue in the original intelligence assessment? Even Ratcliffe, I think since he got in there, went and, I don't know, kicked over some chairs and underneath found that the original intelligence assessment was not inaccurate. Durham found that it was an accurately or justifiably predicated investigation instead of Mr. Horowitz, the DOJ I G what is the, what is the illusion of a violation that you committed in terms of the actual intelligence assessment that Donald Trump is still mad about?
- [20:34]
John Brennan
Well, obviously he's very thin skinned and he's fixated on the past and he takes great umbrage at the assessment that said that the Russians were trying to help him. We didn't say that it was because of Russian help that he was elected and he was elected as president of the United States in 2016. He took office there. But I think this is all part of his rhetoric in terms of the Russia hoax. Russia hoax and the deep state. And so he uses this and he uses myself and other senior officials from that Obama administration as examples that try to feed, I think, the MAGA base on this. But you know, with all the challenges that we face the country, with all the problems that we have domestically and internationally, you would think he'd be spending his time and you would think that the departments and agencies of the executive branch would be focusing on what we need to do to help the American people and to address the threats and challenges that we face on a daily basis. But again, Donald Trump fixates on the past to the detriment again of the welfare and the well being of the American people.
- [21:36]
Nicole Wallace
Well, we will follow this here and we appreciate you taking the time to talk to us about the decision. I'm sure from knowing you, from covering events with you, from covering these last 18 months with you, I'm sure this wasn't taken lightly. So thank you for taking time to talk to us about it today.
- [21:56]
John Brennan
Thanks so much, Nicole.
- [21:58]
Nicole Wallace
When we come back, much more on Director Brennan's decision, as he just explained to us, to go on the offense and file this lawsuit against Donald in the Justice Department and why it may very well be a smart strategy to take Trump and his administration to court where facts and evidence and truth are all that really matter there. And also as the Democrats look to take back control of Congress in November. What is behind the anti incumbency movement we're seeing in primaries all across our country? Our political panel weighs in on what Democratic voters say they want from their candidates and who's best to stand up to Donald Trump. Deadline Whitehouse continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.
- [22:42]
Commercial Narrator
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte, paint, finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app.
- [23:01]
Nicole Wallace
Download Today.
- [23:02]
John Brennan
Just got a new puppy or kitten. Congrats. But also yikes. Between crates, beds, toys, treats and those first few vet visits, you've probably already dropped a small fortune. Which is where Lemonade Pet Insurance comes in. It helps cover vet costs so you can focus on what's best for your new pet. The coverage is customizable, sign up is quick and easy, and your claims are handled in as little as three seconds. Lemonade offers a package specifically for puppies and kittens. Get a'llemonade.com pet your future self will thank you. Your pet won't.
- [23:30]
Nicole Wallace
They don't know what insurance is. Hi, it's Sierra Miller. I can't wait for you to check out my new collection of shoes and accessories at Designer Shoe Warehouse. If you love shoes as much as I do, then trust me, I got you. From cute sneakerinas to the perfect flip
- [23:45]
Michelle Norris
flops to stunning heels, these shoes are
- [23:47]
Nicole Wallace
all style, no drama. It's a girls girl summer. And DSW has just the shoes shop the Sierra Miller Collection right now at
- [23:56]
John Brennan
your DSW store or dsw.com.
- [24:06]
Nicole Wallace
As we all know, Donald Trump is no stranger to being sued a lot by lots of different people. So in that respect, the lawsuit today from former Director of the CIA John Brennan, who's also an Ms. Now senior National Security and Intelligence Analyst, is just the latest. But a tally in the New York Times finds that the Trump administration has now been sued more than 750 times. Hundreds of the suits remain active and 176 reached a final decision. Of those 176, the Trump administration only won seven 99 were dismissed who had a mixed outcome. And in 68 instances, the plaintiffs, the people other than Trump, won. I want to bring in former top DOJ official and general counsel for the FBI. Our legal analyst Andrew Weissman. Also back with us, Buck News senior political columnist national affairs analyst John Heilman is back. Andrew Weissman, your thoughts on Director Brennan's decision to sue Donald Trump and doj.
- [25:05]
Andrew Weissman
Well, I'm going to react first as a lawyer because there's a lot of human things to say about this. But as a lawyer, I think there are two important reasons why I think this is smart. One is the Department of Justice has taken the position, in contrast to, I think any other administration, Republican or Democratic, that they are not required to adhere to laws that require them to hold on to exculpatory documents. Their view is under the Presidential Records act, they are not required to hold documents. And so that gives a lot of reason for John Ben and his legal team to say, wait a second, we need you to hold on to documents that could be exculpatory, that could prove vindictive and selective prosecution because they feel like the department is above the law. Second, John alluded to this, which is that this case has been, it seems to me, shopped to Florida to be before Judge Cannon, a judge who I think the administration uses extremely favorable to them. And this is a way for John to have a neutral and detached judge in D.C. where he has filed this lawsuit. So he has a way to counteract the forum shopping by the Department of Justice. So he has a, you know, a much more favorable, and in that sense, I don't mean biased, I mean a judge who is not going to be biased rather than being in front of sort of a hand picked forum that the government has shopped its investigation to. So for both of those reasons, I think it's a, it's a very smart move.
- [26:49]
Nicole Wallace
Andrew, let me ask you about the first thing you said. I mean, what is the difference between what you just described and not hanging on to it evidence and destroying evidence?
- [27:01]
Andrew Weissman
So there is none. I mean, this is, you know, somebody who was in the department for 20 plus years, also was a defense lawyer for 10 years. There are things that you have to do and one is that you have to retain and not only retain, you have to find exculpatory evidence and then you have an obligation to turn that over to the defendant. It's, you know, this is the dual role that a prosecutor is supposed to have. They're not supposed to just be out for blood. They're supposed to do justice. And that means that you have to give documents that are favorable to the defense, either to their guilt or to their sentencing or both. And so John Brennan's case is one that is reacting to that, saying, look, I see that the department has said it is not required to adhere to the Presidential Records Act. See that the, the department is saying that you can use signal and other apps. John alluded to this, where there may be no way. Those, those are not authorized means of communication, and those may not be preserved. And so all of that is a way of undermining a criminal defendant's rights. And that is just not how the rule of justice is supposed to play in this administration. And you made the point, Nicole, which I think really bears repeating, that it's not like John Brennan is sort of chasing ghosts. And there's this specter, which is so unlikely to happen. Mr. Abrego Garcia has won his case because a federal judge found that his case was brought vindictively and selectively by this Department of Justice. And as you correctly pointed out, the federal judge specifically named repeatedly Todd Blanche, who is about to have his confirmation hearing to head the Department of Justice. So John has every reason to be thinking about vindictive and selective prosecution and to want to make sure that he has all of the evidence to support a motion and that he has a judge who is going to be fair and impartial in making these decisions.
- [29:21]
Nicole Wallace
Heilman Since I started this show, we have focused, I don't know, maybe even to our own detriment, more than anything else, more than any other story on Trump's attempts to destroy the rule of law. Whenever a Times or Post story broke on the Mueller probe, we wiped the teleprompter. We read it, we tried to understand it. I've covered Sessions Rosenstein at o', Callaghan, Bill Barr. There was a guy named Whitaker there for a few weeks or a few months in between Mueller, Smith. I mean, I guess what I'm trying to ask you is the body of evidence around Trump's efforts to destroy the rule of law is so vast that I think the other sort of lens that you have to look at this through is for Trump, mission accomplished. I mean, they are now persecuting and prosecuting the innocent public servants who protected US national security, and they didn't prevent Trump from getting elected president. He won. What are we living through? What are we watching? What are we covering?
- [30:29]
Commercial Narrator
Well, I think, God, there's so many answers. There's so many ways to kind of come at that question, Nicole. And we've come at it from all of them over the course of these past 10 years or so or, or however long it's been. I mean, we're living through hell in a lot of respects. And I was thinking about this. We were talking on the show last time I was on, I forget when that was, maybe Monday. And I made this point where I said, you know, that I had seen Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan talking about how their presumption now is that the White House, that what the White House says is not true and that he would then would try to see. You got to work back from that. That's a huge change from even in an adversarial press relationship with the White House. That's always existed and was supposed to exist for most of my career. You operated from the presumption on a daily basis that the White House was making some good faith effort to tell you the truth, but you would look for holes in that and try to find places where they might be prevaricating or might be lying or might be misleading or might be omitting. So that's a huge change. And I think when I think about Andrew and John Brennan, people who throughout from administration to administration have operated on the presumption that the Justice Department would be acting in good faith, sometimes there would be some a bad case would get brought. Sometimes there would be a politicization would sneak in. Mistakes were made sometimes back I think back to the era when John Mitchell ran the Justice Department, there was political corruption and there was abuse. But the baseline was if the Justice Department is pursuing a case, it's pursuing it from from the right place, from the trying to do justice. And they weren't always right, but they were trying that. And then you would look for holes in that. You would look for places where there were exceptions. And now I think to your point about what has been established over the course of the last 10 course of the last the two different Trump terms, I won't include Joe Biden in here, but the first four years to a lesser degree. But now, particularly in Trump 2.0, we are now at a place where I think the presumption has to be that when the Justice Department brings a prosecution, it's suspect. That's the starting point, is that it's suspect. And then we occasionally see a case sometimes where we say, okay, well, that's an exception to the fact of the illegitimacy of what they're doing and that it gets to your final the baseline of your question. Right, which is, has Trump already won politically? Clearly, he's already won in the sense that he won himself a second term one and has managed to wreak enormous havoc and done grave damage to this institution, the Justice Department, the FBI, all of those associated institutions. But I don't think that those institutions have been destroyed. They've not been knocked down to the studs. There are still some good people there. And when we get past this hell, there will be an enormous job in front of the country and in front of the people of goodwill, conservative, liberal, both to rebuild it on the basis of whatever is left. But unfortunately, there's a lot left, a lot less left than one would have hoped or one might have prayed for just a few months ago.
- [33:34]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah, yeah. No, it is stunning. Andrew Weissman, thank you for joining us today on this Howman sticks around for politics. When we come back, how Donald Trump's deep political unpopularity has given Democrats a real chance to take back control of Congress. We'll look at the rapidly changing state of play in the battle for the U.S. senate. After a short break,
- [34:00]
John Brennan
I'm pretty confident talking into a mic. Hey, I'm doing it right now. But home projects, I second guess everything. Is that noise normal? Is that water damage? Who do I even call? That's where thumbtack comes in. Just upload a photo or voice note and it uses AI powered search to match you with the right top rated local pro. So instead of guessing, you get clarity and can hire with confidence for your next home project. Try thumbtack. Hire the right pro today.
- [34:28]
Commercial Narrator
Do you love your pets? Do you love suspense? Do you love it when your pets keep you in suspense because they ate something mysterious? And who knows what the vet visit will cost? If you answered yes twice and then no, you should protect your pet with Lemonade Pet insurance. It can save you up to 90% on vet bills for checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, all the stuff that leaves you financially on the edge of your seat. Get a quick and Easy quote@lemonade.com pet and get your suspense somewhere else like from a riveting podcast.
- [34:58]
Nicole Wallace
If you're looking for new ways to get ahead, then you're our kind of person. We're Udemy and we help learners like you upskill in AI, productivity, leadership and management and more. Learn at your own pace from real world experts. You can also prep for certifications that show employers what, you know upskill for
- [35:21]
John Brennan
the career you want@udemy.com
- [35:25]
Nicole Wallace
now back to
- [35:26]
Andrew Weissman
your regularly scheduled listening.
- [35:32]
Nicole Wallace
So this time last year, the prospect of Democrats flipping control of the US Senate was farcical, silly, unimaginable. But the sheer volume of corruption and the toxicity of Donald Trump presidency and a complete capitulation of Senate Republicans to do anything in the face of all of that have made them look so weak that a window has been opened for Democrats to succeed in doing what seemed, as we said, unimaginable prevail, take control in a very challenging year with a very challenging Senate map. So to take control of the Senate, Democrats have to flip four seats. Their best chances to flip seats are North Carolina, Maine, Alaska, Texas, Iowa and Ohio. All but Maine are states that Donald Trump won. Democrats also have to hold on to seats that they currently hold in Michigan and Georgia, states also won by Donald Trump in 24. New polling released in the New York Times today highlights the very real opportunity Democrats have to flip the chamber thanks to a strong crop of candidates and a Republican Party again doing nothing, simply allowing themselves to be dragged down by the searing unpopularity, embracing corruption of Donald Trump and voters very pessimistic view of their personal economic status. I want to bring in senior contributing editor Michele Norris. Feilman is still here. Michelle. It's amazing to be reminded again by the voters, by the people of just how dynamic and volatile their political alignments are, not necessarily on the fringes, but certainly in the sprawling middle among independents and swing voters.
- [37:20]
Michelle Norris
It's interesting to see this swing what appears to be a swing to the left. But I think one of the things that is striking me is that labels don't mean the same thing that they used to. And for a long time, to be called a left wing radical was something that you would have to wear as a millstone around your neck. You'd have a lot of explaining to do. You'd have to maybe swing to the center to show that that label didn't apply to you. You know, when you talk about the sheer level of toxicity and corruption that we're facing in this administration right now, people are looking for people for candidates who are willing to put their gloves on and fight. And if you are seen as someone who was left wing, that doesn't carry the same kind of weight that it did perhaps in the past. If you're seen as someone who's even radical, as long as you're willing to take the fight to this bunch that's in control in Washington, D.C. that is appealing to people. And the other thing about Democratic socialism, because that's apparently, you know, that's what we're really talking about, particularly with the, the results that we see coming out of Colorado. For a long time, people worried that that ideology was more important than governance or than competency, you know, among those candidates. And I think with candidates like Mandami and what he's doing in New York. And, you know, looking at what some of these candidates have to offer in terms of not just their rhetoric but their background and what they're willing to do, the idea that this kind of this brand of Democratic candidate, a Democratic socialist candidate, could perhaps go hand in hand with effective governance and the idea that they're willing to make a case that's based on affordability at a moment when you're seeing downward mobility across the board, rising gas prices, falling wages, some of the things that just a few months ago, certainly a few years ago, but maybe just a few months ago seem like they may have been checks in the negative column suddenly make these candidates very appealing. And then you add to that youth and the youthful vigor that they're bringing to their candidacies, and it is an attractive package. And you're seeing it. You saw it in New York, you saw it in Philadelphia, you see it now in Colorado, and with the mayor of Washington, D.C. this now represents a trend,
- [39:35]
Nicole Wallace
Heilman. It also is a script for Fox News to sort of sing off of and reinvigorate their attacks on the radical politics of the Democratic Party. How do you see these candidates and the broader Democratic Party navigating that? That.
- [39:56]
Commercial Narrator
Well, if history is any guide, Nicole, I'd be concerned about it, if I were a Democrat, about how well Democrats will navigate that challenge. It's certainly going to come. Republicans have tried to turn Democrats, who are the furthest thing in the world from socialists or radical or left into people who people think are socialists or radical or left for a long time. I would say, to Michel's point, you know, there is no question that the left and that progressives and the DSA are on the march in certain places in urban environments, all of them, including last night in Denver. That's the case, I think, in the six states, the six statewide races, Nicole, that you mentioned, that the Times had their polling on in Senate races. I don't think any of those candidates, any of the people who we've seen who have won these Democratic primaries, the three Mamdani candidates, let's not take anything away from them. But to one degree or another, all three of those candidates and the candidate last night in Denver would be unsuitable statewide candidates in any of the states that we just mentioned, their views are considerably to the left of the mainstream voter in Ohio or in Alaska or in Texas. And so this is an important trend in the Democratic Party for sure. And I would think it's a trend that, but it's not yet a national thing and it's certainly a thing that's not yet washing across purple states in the country. The other thing I'd say is that if you look at a lot of these races, and particularly this Denver case, the incumbent that got beat there last night, Diane DeGette, Diana DeJet, 15 term incumbent. And I would bet that all three of us can remember a day when a 15 term incumbent, when that would spell in a lot of voters, minds, experience, expertise, constituent service, knowing how Washington works, being able to provide for her district in a good way. I think increasingly what you see in these various races is that a 15 term incumbent spell is the absolute antithesis of change. And for a lot of young voters it is not a qualification or an asset, it's a demerit. And that youth and inexperience are seen as positives and almost not even so much. I mean there's ideology as part of this, but that is I think driving a lot of this in deep blue districts.
- [42:27]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah. Like it's so messed up. How can someone without any pardon that make it worse? I want to press both of you on that. No one's going anywhere. We have to fit in. A short break. We'll all be right back.
- [42:43]
Andrew Weissman
How do House Republicans make the case
- [42:45]
Commercial Narrator
that you're fighting for affordability when you
- [42:47]
John Brennan
go back to your districts?
- [42:48]
Andrew Weissman
Affordability?
- [42:49]
John Brennan
What are you talking about? Well, affordability is the biggest.
- [42:51]
Andrew Weissman
I'm going tomorrow, I'm going to well over the fourth. I'm going to give me a couple big lobster tails. I'm going to get me some nice ribeyes. I'm going to sit in my backyard with my family, my neighbors and we're going to be enjoying the 4th, celebrating 250 years, the birthday. We're going to be celebrating the greatest president, my lifetime, Donald J. Trump. Maybe watch some fireworks.
- [43:14]
Commercial Narrator
Do you think 60% of Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck can afford
- [43:18]
John Brennan
lobster tails and rib eyes and all of that?
- [43:20]
Andrew Weissman
Maybe not. Maybe the, maybe the 60% of America don't work as hard as I do.
- [43:26]
Nicole Wallace
We're back with Michelle and John. So that was a congressman named Troy Nels. He's worked, I don't know if he was kidding or not. I don't know if he's auditioning for a bit somewhere. But he's worked 91 days this year, Michel, that Trump has and his MAGA Republican Party have basically made a mockery of their own voters. Very real economic distress seems to be the other half of the story about the political opportunity for Democrats in these statewide Senate races?
- [43:57]
Michelle Norris
Well, it's also a sign of autocracy, where you make up your own reality and you just pretend that the problems aren't there. It's one of the reasons why Donald Trump speaks all the time in superlatives. You know, when you speak in superlatives all the time, you can't possibly be right half the time. But this deciding that affordability isn't an issue is a dangerous game for them. And I think it probably does help create a clearer path for Republicans in the states that are seen as the real battlegrounds. Republican candidates still have a bit of an edge, but this is a pace where Democrats really could, could try to narrow that margin. It strikes me that he's talking about the 250th anniversary. For most people, they think about this, yes, as a 250th anniversary, but they also just think about it as the July 4th weekend. And that's something you celebrate every year. And it's an important marker because you do certain things every year. And because you do them every year, you have a sense of how much things cost, how much those hamburgers cost, how much those buns cost, how much it costs when you take your family to the little strip mall carnival that you're going to. And I guarantee that all those things cost more than they did last year.
- [45:04]
Commercial Narrator
Year.
- [45:04]
Michelle Norris
And so while they can talk about affordability not necessarily being an issue, it is very much an issue for their voters in particular, and that may come back and bite them.
- [45:17]
Nicole Wallace
We ran out of time, Halman, before we had a chance to talk about the bear, the new season. We have to do that before the week wraps up. Michelle Norris, John Halman, thank you both for joining me today on these stories. A quick peek for us. We'll be right back. One of the things that makes this week's guest on the Best People podcast such an important and vital voice in these times is that he always injects the historical echoes into our day to day coverage. Take a listen to what he told me.
- [45:54]
Andrew Weissman
Think about what happened with that happened with Doge and what they unleashed. All of those government workers, particularly black women, who in a blink of an eye lost their middle class footing. And this guy's a trillionaire. But you know what's interesting about the end of the 19th century, in this moment, you had the Gilded Age oligarchs seizing power. You had imperial imagination of the country. Our greatest export isn't just simply baseball at the moment. In which Jim Crow was being solidified in the South America was exporting its racial logics to Haiti, to Cuba. It's this convergence of these historical dynamics that we're experiencing in our current moment. And I guess, you know, like you said, you just gotta be you don't have to widen the aperture. The evidence is clear.
- [46:47]
Nicole Wallace
Just look.
- [46:48]
Andrew Weissman
But you know, we're shattering mirrors, as I say in the book is Ours is a time of shattered mirrors. We don't want to see it.
- [46:55]
Nicole Wallace
Eddie Glad never holds back and puts before us all of the inconvenient truths that others look away from. Listen to the entire conversation. Just scan the QR code on your screen to listen to the rest of the conversation or download it wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes tonight. We are grateful.
- [47:14]
John Brennan
Sometimes life will get you stressed out. Lucky you can always count on Text Now. Free Talk, free text, free 5G and they'll never shut you off. Cause like I said it's free. Text now got your back Nationwide. No long term contracts but all they nervous not losing service. Text Now's got your back. That's their sense of purpose. No matter what comes next. You've got Free Talk and text with the TextNow app.
- [47:40]
Commercial Narrator
Wireless plans require the purchase of a sim card.
- [47:42]
John Brennan
Visit textnow.com for terms and conditions.