“Just plain foolish”

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Just Plain Foolish" – Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace

Release Date: May 30, 2025

In the episode titled “Just Plain Foolish” of Deadline: White House, host Nicolle Wallace delves into the tumultuous landscape of Donald Trump's second term, examining the promises, policies, and controversies that have defined his administration. Engaging in deep discussions with key experts and analysts, the episode unpacks the complexities of Trump's trade deals, the administrative chaos surrounding his policies, and the broader implications for American democracy.

---

Trump’s “90 Deals in 90 Days” – A Broken Promise

The episode opens with Wallace scrutinizing Donald Trump’s ambitious promise to secure "90 deals in 90 days" to reshape global trade relations. As the deadline surpasses, the reality starkly contrasts the rhetoric:

Wallace [01:20]: "But Trump went about it anyway, promising 90 deals in 90 days... more than halfway through that timeline. And what exactly does the US have to show for it?"

Treasury Secretary Scott Besant updates listeners on the negotiations:

Besant [02:34]: "They are a bit stalled."

Besant [02:39]: "I believe we may at some point have a call between the president and Party Chair Xi... confident that the Chinese will come to the table when President Trump makes his preferences known."

Despite Besant’s optimism, Wallace highlights the minimal progress:

Wallace [02:58]: "So from 90 deals in 90 days, one, in the words of the Treasury Secretary, stalled negotiation, one framework... 90 days, it could still happen, but time is running out."

Economist Justin Wolfers expresses skepticism about the sustainability and legality of Trump's tariff threats:

Wolfers [04:37]: "The court told us they didn't all but tell us."

Carusone [04:43]: "You can assume that even if we lose, we will do it another way."

Wallace criticizes Trump’s strategy, referencing the famous saying:

Wallace [05:10]: "You can't con people, at least not for long... Of course, that dealmaker was Donald J. Trump himself."

---

Economic Implications and Small Businesses Under Siege

The discussion shifts to the tangible impact of Trump's policies on small businesses and the broader economy. Joni Ernst, a Republican senator, joins the conversation to shed light on the repercussions:

Ernst [17:33]: "And I'm working to ease the burden... ensuring their benefits are protected from waste, fraud and abuse."

Wallace underscores the bipartisan nature of Medicaid usage:

Wallace [60:37]: "Do you know what percent of Democrats have either been personally covered by Medicaid or have had someone in their family? It's 62%. Do you know what percent of Republicans? 62%."

Ernst confronts the backlash from her constituents:

Ernst [48:42]: "For heaven's sakes, for heaven's sakes."

The panel critiques the lack of political alarm among Republicans regarding the widespread impact of Medicaid cuts, emphasizing that both Democrats and Republicans equally benefit from the program.

---

Elon Musk’s Controversial Tenure in the White House

A significant portion of the episode focuses on investigative reporting about Elon Musk’s drug use during his time in the White House. Megan Tuohy, an investigative reporter from The New York Times, details her findings:

Tuohy [34:44]: "Musk had been using ketamine often, sometimes daily, and mixing it with other drugs. The line between medical use and recreation was blurry, troubling some people close to him."

Wallace [37:39] raises concerns about the lack of transparency:

Wallace [37:39]: "SpaceX receives billions in contracts and is required to maintain a drug-free workplace, yet Musk received advanced warnings of drug tests."

The panel discusses the broader implications of Musk’s behavior:

Gessen [75:28]: "If he's using all of his power and influence to gut and eliminate critical medical aid... that makes you sad and angry at the same time."

---

Senator Joni Ernst’s Medicaid Cuts and Public Backlash

The episode highlights Republican Senator Joni Ernst's contentious stance on Medicaid cuts, which drew ire from her constituents:

Ernst [48:42]: "I've never felt like this before. It's like, you just get me."

Wallace criticizes Ernst’s inability to effectively communicate the policy’s consequences:

Wallace [56:14]: "It's the party that's so pro-life they'll let women die... can't connect with them and share that understanding."

Reverend Al Sharpton and other panelists condemn Ernst’s remarks, labeling them as indicative of a deeper moral and political decay within the Republican Party.

---

Corruption and Crypto-Related Controversies

Addressing alleged corruption, the panel discusses allegations that Trump’s crypto ventures may be a conduit for illicit financial flows:

Carusone [68:27]: "This crypto dinner represented all kinds of people seeking all kinds of favors from the government... foreign states channeling money to Donald Trump through this new crypto meme mechanism."

Angelo Carusone [72:04]: Explains the potential violations:

"Foreign emoluments clause says that the President cannot accept a present and emolument... Donald Trump sent a $400 million gift from Qatar while the US government was buying from Qatar."

The discussion underscores the lack of transparency and the aggressive pursuit of investigative measures to uncover the extent of such financial dealings.

---

Democracy at Risk: Slipping Toward Autocracy

A recurring theme in the episode is the erosion of democratic norms and the perilous shift toward authoritarianism under Trump's administration. M. Gessen, a Russian-born New York Times columnist, and Justin Wolfers, an economist, provide critical insights:

Gessen [84:16]: "Deploying policies like deportations and bans on gender-affirming care has become routine, not news."

Wolfers [85:02]: "We're in the habituation stage... People figure out how to get their footing, but it misleads us into complacency."

The panel emphasizes the importance of robust political institutions and the rule of law in safeguarding democracy:

Wolfers [90:01]: "If we can mobilize, we can fight this thing back."

Gessen [27:05]: Warns against the administration's attempt to undermine fundamental democratic principles:

"They are trying to cheat and do this thing where they like, democracy means that since Donald Trump got elected president, he can do whatever he wants because the people elected him... trying to turn Donald Trump into kind of a soft autocrat."

---

Conclusion: A Nation at a Crossroads

“Just Plain Foolish” paints a compelling and concerning picture of the current American political climate. Through incisive analysis and expert commentary, Nicolle Wallace highlights the gaps between presidential promises and administrative actions, the corrosive effects of unilateral policies on the economy and democratic institutions, and the alarming signs of authoritarian drift.

The episode serves as a call to action for listeners to stay informed, hold leaders accountable, and actively engage in the preservation of democratic values. As the nation stands at this critical juncture, the discussions in this episode underscore the urgent need for transparency, integrity, and united resistance against policies that threaten the foundational pillars of American democracy.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Wallace [05:10]: "You can't con people, at least not for long... Of course, that dealmaker was Donald J. Trump himself."

• Ernst [48:42]: "I've never felt like this before. It's like, you just get me."

• Gessen [27:05]: "They are trying to cheat and do this thing where they like, democracy means that since Donald Trump got elected president, he can do whatever he wants because the people elected him."

• Wolfers [85:02]: "It's the habituation stage... People figure out how to get their footing, but it misleads us into complacency."

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the critical discussions and insights presented in the “Just Plain Foolish” episode, providing listeners with a clear understanding of the pressing political and economic issues shaping the United States today.

Transcript

[Nicole Wallace]

Psoriatic arthritis symptoms can be unpredictable.

[Tim Miller]

I had joint pain and I couldn't.

[Nicole Wallace]

Move like I used to. I needed relief. I got Cosentyx.

[Tim Miller]

It helped me move better. Cosentyx Secukinumab is prescribed for people 2 years of age and older with active psoriatic arthritis.

[Nicole Wallace]

Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentyx before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered.

[Maria Aspen]

Ability to fight them may occur. Like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal.

[Nicole Wallace]

Or viral infections, some are fatal.

[Tim Miller]

Tell your doctor if you have an.

[Nicole Wallace]

Infection or symptoms like fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough, had a vaccine or planned to, or if inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, serious allergic reactions and severe eczema like skin reactions may occur.

[Justin Wolfers]

Learn more at 1-844-cosentyx or cosentyx.com.

[Nicole Wallace]

Ask your rheumatologist about Cosentix.

[Tim Miller]

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're.

[Angelo Carusone]

Not sure where to start.

[Tim Miller]

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.

[Nicole Wallace]

Download today. Hi there everybody. Happy Friday. It's now 4 o' clock in New York. Handful of people called it ambitious. Many, many, many more called it reckless or absurd or plain foolish or unnecessary. But Trump went about it anyway, promising 90 deals in 90 days, they said, a hostile reforging of the global economy in which other countries would, in their telling, trip all over themselves for the opportunity to hash out new trade deals with the US now, though, well, more than halfway through that timeline. And what exactly does the US have to show for it? Well, the framework of a deal with the UK I guess. A preliminary deal with China, maybe a handshake agreement forged in Geneva that Trump now insists China has violated. Quote, so much for being Mr. Nice Guy, he posted on social media this morning, which is amazing at every level. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant addressed the negotiations a short time later. Watch.

[Tim Miller]

They are a bit stalled.

[Nicole Wallace]

I believe that we will be having.

[Tim Miller]

More talks with them in the next few weeks, and I believe we may at some point have a call between the president and Party Chair Xi. I am confident that the Chinese will come to the table when President Trump.

[Nicole Wallace]

Makes his preferences known. So so far from 90 deals in 90 days, one, in the words of the Treasury Secretary, stalled negotiation, one framework. So we'll call it one and a half. But 90, 90 days, it could still happen. There is, to be fair, time left, just less and less of it by the day. And if you think about it, even if you don't know anything about trade, think about the state of America's bargaining power, the state of the administration's ability to have any leverage. Imagine you're a trade negotiator representing another country in these negotiations. It's not exactly classified. You pick up any newspaper and you'll see the stories pile up. Court rulings, while currently paused pending appeal, are casting serious doubt on Trump's authority to make good on any of his tariff threats. In other words, if there's an open question as to whether or not the people sitting opposite you at the bargaining table representing America can legally impose tariffs, what is the incentive to make any concessions at all in a deal with the US in its latest reporting, the Washington Post quoted a former Indian Commerce Ministry official who said this, quote, these tariffs may or may not be there, but agreements are forever. How can we give him concessions on something that may not even last? It's a good question. Meanwhile, the Trump aide who touted 90 deals in 90 days insists there is nothing to see here. Everything is fine. So, look, the tariffs remain in place.

[Tim Miller]

The court told us they didn't all but tell us.

[Angelo Carusone]

They told us, go do it another way.

[Nicole Wallace]

So you can assume that even if.

[Justin Wolfers]

We lose, we will do it another way.

[Tim Miller]

And I can assume the American people that the Trump tariff agenda is alive, well, healthy, and will be implemented to protect you.

[Nicole Wallace]

There's going to be within the next.

[Tim Miller]

I don't know, say, few days because.

[Nicole Wallace]

That puts me too much on spot. But you will see a cascade of.

[Tim Miller]

New deals coming out in the near future, and these will all be good.

[Nicole Wallace]

For the American people. Okay, so Mr. 90 deals in nine days is now promising a, quote, cascade of deals in the next, quote, few days. Okay. It calls to mind the wise words of one very famous dealmaker. Quote, you can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement. You can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, the people will eventually catch on. Of course, that dealmaker was Donald J. Trump himself. Go figure. It's where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. NPR financial correspondent Maria Aspen is here. Also joining us, professor of economics and Public policy at the University of Michigan. Justin Wolfers is here. Also joining us, MSNBC political analyst, host of the Bulwark podcast. Tim Miller is here. Tim, I'm going to start with you because I know this is economic in nature and is about trade, but it's really about Donald Trump and the absolute tsunami of baloney that comes from his mouth. 90 deals in 90 days is in the same vein as Mexico's going to pay for the wall. There are no deals. There is one framework, and in the words of Scott Besant, one stalled conversation that has commenced with China. That is it.

[Reverend Al Sharpton]

Yeah.

[M. Gessen]

Can you have a baloney taco? That doesn't sound very good. Just trying to mix our food metaphors with the Trump trade deals. Look, here's the thing about all this. It's all been bluster and fake from the start, right? And the question was, how much of this was he going to be allowed to do by the courts? How crazy was the advisors around him going to let him get? How bad were they going to let the, you know, bond market get? But it is, you know, the whole Trump MO on this. It's this, as you mentioned, it is how he was as a businessman. It's exactly the same thing that we're seeing in the Russia, Ukraine negotiations. I was just kind of listening to you talk about how we had 90 nails in 90 days. Then it's going to be a few days and a few more days. It's the same thing as the Russia, Ukraine thing. He keeps saying it's going to be two weeks. In two weeks. In two weeks. He's been saying two weeks for three months. So that is just the reality of this. It's chaotic leadership. He has a direction that he wants to go, which is he wants people to come in and ask for him for favors. And he wants to feel powerful. And the tariff card allows him to do that. But there's no actual plan here. And I was mostly struck by listening to Besant over on Fox. And it's like the Chinese will come to the table, he said. I think when Trump lets his priorities be known, it's like, what, what have we been doing so far? Like, the Chinese don't know what Trump's priorities are. I thought we had a deal with the Chinese. Like, it's all smoke and mirrors because they can't make any deals because the courts might not allow it and they don't know what the boss wants day to day.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah, I mean, Justin, jump in on what Tim is talking about. How do you make a deal With a nation pertaining to trade with across the board, tariffs and specific tariffs on and then paused and then reduced while paused and then off pause. If you don't even know if the thing that's been on, off, paused, reduced and raised is his authority to grant or take off.

[Jamie Raskin]

Yeah, very hard. I don't even know how to answer that question, to tell you the truth, Nicole. I was like, I am an economist. I do have a PhD in these things. And then when you say it that way, there's the pause that was paused and then they paused the pause on the pause, worrying they unpause that.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah, yeah. But they lowered it and then paused it again. Yeah.

[Jamie Raskin]

After the pause that was paused was paused. Then the courts blocked it and then they blocked the block, which means it's unblocked. And I sometimes the way I try to answer this is I think to myself, imagine I get to do this. Not all you viewers do. Imagine the Australian Prime Minister called me and asked for advice. Right now, it's actually a useful way of thinking about this. I just say, stay home. You don't know what this bloke's going to do or say. We do know from the British, not a deal, that he just walked into the room and they said, the tariffs are 10%. That's what it is. Full stop, no deal. And then they made a couple of little carve outs so that they could each have a press conference and each try to convince their own populations there were useful things going on. So I do think the president made. The president fashions himself as a great negotiator, but I actually think he made a really, really tragic mistake. Look, if what he wanted to do was get the attention of another country, say China, he did that by imposing tariffs. But you don't have to impose the tariff, which by the way, hurts the American people. You can just call the president, President Xi and say, I could impose tariffs. You just have to say, you've got the bug. Everyone understands that by actually imposing the tariff, that led the court to say, no, you can't do that. Now he's actually shown that there's nothing left. We had. I just, I have to get this in for you, Nicole. You're going to love it. Yes, Tim talked about the taco, but what we had yesterday was the burrito. We had the blatantly unconstitutional rewriting of the rules of international trade.

[Nicole Wallace]

That's so good.

[Jamie Raskin]

Just for you.

[Nicole Wallace]

I'm going to have to make a graphic in the break so that we can come back with that. Say it One more time.

[Jamie Raskin]

The blatantly unconstitutional rewriting of the rules of international trade, obviously. And look.

[Nicole Wallace]

Oh, I love it.

[Jamie Raskin]

Nicole, I have to get one more in for you.

[Nicole Wallace]

Tell me.

[Jamie Raskin]

What we really need in response is a charro. We need to understand that the courts have ultimate responsibility to restore orders.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, look, Maria, I mean, this is what I wanted to ask you. Who now? Well, two things. What makes China meet with Trump the way Besant just said they would? I mean, China has a. For a complicated and different conversation, but a much higher tolerance for pain. So they have all the leverage. It's the American voter that's given Donald Trump a 33% approval rating, and it's the American consumer that drives this economy that hasn't even begun to feel what Walmart and Target have already promised, which is higher prices. So what on earth is bringing China to the table, as Besant promises?

[Joni Ernst]

It's a really good question, and it's, you know, something that has been asked by a lot of the business leaders I've been hearing from the last couple of days. You know, Nicole, I am actually at the Reagan Presidential Library. There's an economic forum. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, spoke a couple of hours ago, and he brought up this exact point. He said, folks, I would engage with China. They are not scared of us. So when you have the. The CEO of the largest and most powerful bank in the country pointing out that, you know, we might need China more than they need us at this point, I think that's, that's something that sort of underlines where the balance of power is right now.

[Nicole Wallace]

I mean, Tim, I'm not good at, you know, the acronyms of the letters, but we need something for. So dumb it hurts. I mean, what is the point at this point, Trump's base will go along with anything. If he came out and said, never mind, I love tariffs and so much, but I don't know, everyone's too dumb to do what I'm so smart to know is the right thing. We'll try something else. What keeps him on this road, which will only further erode his approval ratings, putting him farther and farther away from his own electorate, which will make it increasingly easier for Republicans as their own elections near and they contemplate losing their seats, to speak out and tell the truth about a whole host of things which distances him from the people that he used to, at one point, care about and that are the people like Jamie Dimon.

[M. Gessen]

Yeah, it's a good question. I think it's A combination of things. One of them is stubbornness. Right. He doesn't want to have to admit failure or defeat. I mean, he could try to spin it. Right. Is not that this is something we've seen in the past from him. So I don't think that's the only thing, but I think it's certainly part of it. I think the second part is what I mentioned earlier. I think he likes the power of the tariffs. He likes it. Tim Cook has to come to the White House and ask him to grant him an exception when it comes to cell phones. Right. Like he likes that element of the tariff regime. I think for sure. And I do think that this is. You referenced Art of the Deal earlier. I didn't know you were a reader of that book, Nicole, but I read it. This is one of the issues that he's been consistent on very few since way back then in the 80s, the foreigners are screwing us. Back then it was Japan, Japan is screwing us. That didn't really bear out in the ensuing 20 years that Japan had a great economic advantage over us, but somehow he just transitioned that into China being the boogeyman that is taking advantage of us. I think that confluence of things is why he is still stubbornly sticking with this, at least to a degree. Maybe a little less than he was a month ago.

[Nicole Wallace]

I mean, I can't get beyond, though. I mean, Justin, to your point, if another country is reaching into ours or watching our news coverage, it is not a right left piece of, you know, data. And data really doesn't have a right or left bend. But it is a fact that two courts have stalled a very big and one much more narrow piece of the tariffs. If they are illegal, Justin, how does anything, how does it not paralyze the whole gambit?

[Jamie Raskin]

Actually, I think if it's illegal, it's terrific. If it's illegal, you've given the President an off ramp. Now, the problem with it being illegal is it's not the only off ramp. Sorry. It's not the only way they can move forward. So what happened was they have to find an authority to do this. The Constitution says tariffs belong to Congress, but sometimes Congress writes a law that says, hey, Prez, you can have this. Now it turns out there are other ways forward. Peter Navarro, in the clip you showed earlier was referring to one of them where, for instance, the president could unilaterally, literally this afternoon put a 15% tariff on any country he wants. That particular Authority lasts for 150 days and then it has to get taken off and go to Congress. The tariffs on steel and autos and aluminium, those are wait, aluminum, those tariffs are done under national security. And so we could widen the net of that. And there's already work underway to do this. So I would like to think the courts are going to knock the whole thing out, but I understand that's way too optimistic. So, Nicole, I just want to leave you that I think this is going to be a salsa economy. We're going to continue with shaky alliances, lopsided strategies and trade antagonism.

[Nicole Wallace]

Oh, my God, that's so good. I'm going to build all of these in the break. Maria, I want to ask you what else Jamie Dimon had to say at the Reagan Center. And I also, you know, the Reagan center is near the two two of the biggest ports. And I've had the folks that run both the port of Long beach and the port of LA on I mean, this isn't a story they're following for what might happen next. This is a story they're following because it's hurting them now. It's hurting people that move goods off of containers. It's hurting people that run restaurants that feed the people that move the goods off the container. It's hurting the people that build things with the parts that make up half. I learned that from Justin, of the things that are in those containers. And it eventually will hurt the consumers who are going to pay more and have fewer options because there are fewer those containers right there near you.

[Joni Ernst]

And I'll add there, it's also hurting the small business owners who don't necessarily have the resources that say big companies do. My colleagues at NPR published a story today talking to one small of several small business owners. But one woman pointed out that it's not just the underlying price of the goods. She said she's getting squeezed by on all sides. The shipping labels have gone up, that boxes have gone up, and her her costs overall have gone up 10 to 15%. And this is something that we're seeing across the country, but it's also something that we are seeing. It's been really fascinating the last couple of days. I was at a Goldman Sachs conference yesterday before this. And this is something that a concern that I'm hearing from people, you know, at the highest levels of business as well as small business owners. You know, I would say bankers at Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are going to be less affected perhaps than our small business owners. But everyone is worried about the impact this will have on the overall economy. I mean, Goldman Sachs, for example still thinks that we is still predicting that we're in a about that the U.S. has about a 35% chance of a recession within the next 12 months.

[Nicole Wallace]

Wow.

[Joni Ernst]

Now that's down from early April when President Trump imposed all of these tariffs and Goldman said that there was maybe a 45% chance of recession, but it's still pretty high. I should note, though, that I apologize a little bit because I did not come prepared with any acronyms or fun.

[Nicole Wallace]

I didn't either. I didn't either. I feel so inadequate here. We're all being put to shame. Tim, just quickly, before we go to break, I mean, the power of the small business owner and you know, the anxieties of the small business owner is one of the most powerful and potent forces in our politics. And it especially is the case with independent and swing voters because for all the reasons Maria's articulating, they are the most sensitive to economic dips. You don't have to be in a recession for a small business owner to get wiped out. It can just be a dip that affects whatever product or products or whatever distribution they have. Why isn't there more political alarm for Republicans who represent small business owners?

[M. Gessen]

This is a good question. I think I've mentioned on the show before, I talked to somebody in New Orleans who owns this kind of a chotchki shop for tourists. And a lot of the materials there is from China, not all of it. When the tariffs were 145, she was telling me that her business is going to go under. The business can't continue now that it's at 30. I checked back in with her. Basically the feedback is, I still don't know what to do. It takes a long time to get this stuff across the ocean. And what happens if he has a tantrum and it goes back up to 80 by the time it comes to the port? Then I have to pay it. Then we're going to go under again. I think there are a lot of individual small businesses, businesses that are going through situations like that. And I think that part of the reason why there isn't more political alarm is that all just takes time to filter through. And I think that right now Republicans are still caught in this place where the thing they're the most scared of is getting on the wrong side of their own voters who want them to be loyal to Trump. Polls continue to show that right now. And so that is their highest and best purpose. I'm not excusing it. Obviously, I find it gross, but I think that's just the political reality of Republicans on the Hill. And I think the pain has to be ratcheted up more, I guess is my point on the small businesses before that calculation starts to change. But I think it's a real risk. As we look to the months ahead.

[Nicole Wallace]

I have to sneak in a break. But on the other side, I want to show you what this has generated in terms of an emotional reaction both to the taco and the acronyms. I don't even think they've heard about burrito and salsa yet, but I'll show you. We'll talk about the reaction from the president himself as well as Stephen Miller's totally off the rails rant about judges. I'll sneak in a quick break. We'll do that next. Also ahead for us, I know you're sad to hear this, but today is Elon Musk's last day in the federal government. It comes amid bombshell truly staggering. Stop in your tracks and read it on your phone report reporting about, quote, intense drug use on Elon Musk's part during the 2024 campaign. We'll talk to the reporter whose byline is on that reporting. Also ahead, Joni Ernst. She's a Republican senator from Iowa. She is facing backlash today for jaw dropping comments she made about Medicaid cuts at a fiery town hall in front of her own constituents. We'll show you what she said to them. All those stories and more when DEADLINE White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. When the Moore family ditched cable Internet and switched to Sidly Fiverr, they got so much more. Mr. Moore got more upload speed for next level gaming and live streaming to the masses. With reliable service, Mrs. Moore is no longer her family's IT guru, leaving her more time to stream games into overtime. Let's go. And young Mason Moore got more done quickly uploading HD product demos and video conferencing.

[Tim Miller]

Without freesight, the numbers look good, Brad.

[Nicole Wallace]

You're on mute. Switch from cable Internet to Ziply Fiber.

[Tim Miller]

And get more of what you love.

[Nicole Wallace]

For $65 less per month than [e-mail].

[Maria Aspen]

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 the career you [e-mail] now back to your regularly scheduled listening at Designer Shoe Warehouse. We believe that shoes are an important.

[Joni Ernst]

Part of, well, everything from first steps to first dates, from all nighters to all time personal bests, from building pillow.

[Nicole Wallace]

Forth to building a life for all.

[Joni Ernst]

The big and small moments that make up your whole world. DSW is there and we've got just the shoes. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love at brag worthy prices at your DSW store or dsw.com.

[Nicole Wallace]

The President is the sole head of the executive branch. He's the only officer in the entire.

[Tim Miller]

Government that's elected by the entire American people.

[Nicole Wallace]

Democracy cannot function. In fact, democracy does not exist at all if each action the President takes.

[Tim Miller]

Foreign policy, diplomatic, military, national security, has to be individually approved by 700 district court judges.

[Nicole Wallace]

That's democracy. So if there's 15 communist crazy judges on the court, that each of them.

[Tim Miller]

As a team working together can block.

[Nicole Wallace]

And freeze each and every executive action. Joe Biden was allowed that by same court system.

[Maria Aspen]

Some of them are Trump judges.

[Nicole Wallace]

Why did Trump put these crazy communist judges, as you call them, on the venue? You heard, you heard, you heard President Trump himself say that the Federal Society and Leonard Leo has created a broken system for judicial vetting to be a fly on Leonard Leo's wall today. Who's going to auction that off and put that money toward all the programs killed by usaid? Tim Miller, let's unpack this for a second. There's a point where Stephen Miller says that's democracy and he means it with a question mark. But it's actually that's democracy with the period. And the judges include a lot of judges appointed by Republicans. I mean, as many Republican appointed judges have deemed illegal Trump's moves as judges appointed by anybody else. This is a serious escalation in their attack and their war on the judges. What does it say to you?

[M. Gessen]

It is. I'm happy you mentioned that because I was gonna say it too. At some level it's like, should we even take seriously this administration's comments on democracy and they're pretending to care about democracy when they literally tried to overturn the election in 2020. We shouldn't. But I think it's an important exercise though to just say specifically what we are talking about. Because. Because liberal democracy, not liberal like left versus right, but liberal democracy. The system of government that has governed the west, that has governed America since our founding, is based on yes votes of the people, but also the rule of law, also checks and balances. I mean, Stephen Miller knows this, but it's just important to say it clearly, like, this is the system that undergirds the Constitution that has allowed America to thrive since its founding. So I do think that's important. They're trying to cheat and do this thing where they're like, democracy means that since Donald Trump got elected president, he can do whatever he wants because the people elected him. And for folks who aren't that schooled in it or who have an interest in that being the case, I can think that could be a compelling argument. But that isn't true. And they're doing it in a very pernicious way in order to do things illegally, attack the judiciary and essentially try to turn Donald Trump into kind of a soft autocrat in the model of what we see from Orban or Erdogan or some in other countries around the world.

[Nicole Wallace]

I mean, Justin, if you want to go though the democratic route that Stephen Miller flirts with in his performance on CNN, 66% of all Americans disapprove of the tariffs. I mean, what is it that, that you hear as an economist when the person known to be closest to the head of state is on TV attacking judges?

[Jamie Raskin]

Yeah, we economists, Nicole, we're worried about the whole enchilada, economic nationalism, chaotic handling, illogical levies and disrupted alliances. I got that out of my system. There's actually a very serious question here. Too often in the media, we focus on what's going to happen next week and next quarter. What really matters, though, is the long run. Why are some countries rich and some countries poor? What makes the United States different than Argentina and Argentina different than Burundi? And the answer is the quality of our political institutions. It's respect for the rule of law. It's the absence of crony capitalism and the forces of actual market competition, where people compete to create the better products rather than to be closer to the president at Mar a Lago. It's a sense that if you invest today, that your investment will not be taken by the state. You will not be told by the White House where to build your factory or who gets to build it, which country or who you're allowed to do business with, that if you invest today, you'll be allowed to continue in the future. It's an openness to new ideas. And those are the very, very deep forces that make some countries rich and some countries poor. They make the 21st century rich and the 17th century poor. The absence of them. And those are the forces that are being undermined. And that, I think, more than anything, is what I want your viewers to keep their eye on.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah, Maria, I've been asking you and Justin and my own colleagues, Steph Rule and Andrew Ross Sorkin for what feels like 11 years, but it's probably more like 11 months. Do any business leaders care about democracy and about America remaining a democracy? Not out of the goodness of their heart or because of what this democracy has given them. They're some of the richest people, not just in this country, but on the plan it. But do they care about it in terms of their bottom line? Do they understand that autocracies are not places where capitalism flourishes?

[Joni Ernst]

Yes. And I think I'm definitely hearing from business leaders a concern that the United States is risking some of its geopolitical standing and just the sort of automatic confidence of those of us around the globe. We saw that last week, for instance, when bond yields spiked above 5% in the CEL America trade sort of reared its ugly head again, that the United States government debt, for example, undergirds the global financial system. And investors are starting to worry that it's not as safe and stable as it's been assumed to be for decades. So, I mean, the, the thing that people have said to me in the business community is, yes, this is a danger. Yes, this is bad, not just for democracy, but for business, for our economy, for our ability to make money. But also it is known that nobody really wants to become a target of President Trump's. Nobody wants to become a target of an individual political attack.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, I mean, that's the whole tension, right? You either stand up for democracy, you stand against tariffs which have destroyed economies, or you hide. I mean, that's where they all are. Maria Aspen, amazing reporting. Thank you for being here with us, Justin. I don't even know where to begin. We're going to have to build a graphic with all of your. We're going to call you as soon as we get off to make sure. I got burrito, but I'm going to have to call you for enchilada. Thank you. Tim sticks around with us for the hour. Up next, shocking new reporting from the New York Times reveals that the world's richest man and Trump ally. We're talking about Elon. Elon Musk was extensively using drugs while on the 2024 presidential campaign trail. The reporter behind that story, Megan Touhy, is our next guest. Don't go anywhere. His rocket company is the only reason we can now send American astronauts into space. Come here. Take over, Eli. Yes, take over. Hi, everyone.

[M. Gessen]

As you can see, I'm, I'm not just maga.

[Nicole Wallace]

I'm dark maga. This next story could explain some things. Maybe that was just one of the many chaotic moments, performative moments of Elon Musk's time alongside Donald Trump on the campaign trail in 2024. Now, some truly shocking new reporting by the New York Times finds that while campaigning with Donald Trump last year, Elon Musk engaged in drug consumption. That quote went well beyond occasional use to the point where it began to have a physical impact on him. New York Times reports this quote. As Elon Musk became one of Donald Trump's closest allies last year, leading raucous rallies and donating about $275 million to help him win the presidency, he was also using drugs far more intensely than previously known. That's according to people familiar with his activities. Musk's drug consumption went well beyond occasional use. He told people he was taking so much ketamine, a powerful anesthetic, that it was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use. He took Ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms. And he traveled with a daily medication box that held about 20 pills, including ones with the markings of the stimulant Adderall. That's according to a photo of the box and people who have seen it. Musk has said that he was prescribed ketamine to treat depression, taking it approximately every two weeks. He told his biographer this quote, I really don't like doing illegal drugs. However, the Times reports this quote, Musk had been using ketamine often, sometimes daily, and mixing it with other drugs. According to people familiar with his consumption, the line between medical use and recreation was blurry, troubling some people close to him. The New York Times notes that it is unclear whether he continued to take drugs when he began working at the White House. Elon Musk's time in the administration was defined by the massive cuts he made to the federal workforce, which have frequently been challenged in courts and often blocked, as well as reported interpersonal clashes with senior cabinet members, including trade advisor Peter Navarro, who he called a, quote, moron and quote, dumber than a sack of bricks, end quote. In the Oval Office today, Elon Musk lashed out at the New York Times without answering questions about the substance of its reporting. NBC News has not been able to independently verify the Times reporting the White House and Elon Musk did not respond to requests for comment from NBC News. A White House spokesperson did issue a statement to the New York Times. He declined to comment on Musk's drug use. Joining our coverage is investigative reporter for the New York Times, Megan Tuohy. Her byline is on that reporting we read from. Say more.

[Maria Aspen]

Yeah, yeah. Well, listen, there has. You're right. There has been some coverage of Elon Musk's drug use in the past. He himself has acknowledged that he used ketamine, as he said it was with a prescription and only every couple weeks to help with depression. He. But what we found is that the drug use was much more frequently than previously known. And it wasn't just the volume. It was that these drugs appeared to be mixed. So from the ketamine use that at times has been near daily and got to the point where it was causing bladder issues as he was joining Trump on the campaign trail, to the use of ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms, as well as this pillbox that contained, you know, as many as 20 pills, including one with the marking of Adderall. So there were some people close to him. It's been really hard for reporters to penetrate the sort of circle of people who, who know him. But in recent months, people had started to talk to me and my colleague Kirsten Grind, because there have been people close to him who have had concerns about his drug use.

[Nicole Wallace]

This is going to sound like a dumb question, but what is ketamine and how do you take it? And what would a normal either recreational or prescribed use look like?

[Maria Aspen]

Yeah, that's a good question. It's this powerful anesthetic that can serve as a sedative. And it has been approved by the FDA for use in medical procedures. There are doctors who have prescribed it for psychiatric treatment, like depression, but those doctors are supposed to have special licenses. And the FDA has warned that the use of this drug can come with these serious side effects and risks, including addiction and bladder issues.

[Nicole Wallace]

Does that mean you lose? What are the bladder issues?

[Maria Aspen]

The bladder issues? It's not one single bladder issue. That can come from chronic use of the drug, which can be, you know, can be consumed in a variety of ways, including like through lozenges and nose sprays. In addition to being used medically, it has also become an increasingly popular recreational drug, I think, particularly in the sort of out west in the tech world. And so. But the FDA has warned that it can have these side effects and the bladder issues can involve like, like, pain and control.

[Nicole Wallace]

My God, you don't even know what to say. I mean, what is the sense that, obviously the reporting is about a period in time that ended in November. He's leaving after a lot of political analysis sort of assessing that he cost the Republicans a seat in Wisconsin. I mean, what is the sense of how much we still don't know about Elon Musk and Donald Trump?

[Maria Aspen]

Well, I think that that's a really good question. And obviously our story comes at this moment when he is departing from Washington at least to some extent. And I think that we're, you know, all of us are going to be processing and analyzing what has happened both publicly, but also behind the scenes over the past year. And it's also important to note that while our reporting on his drug use, this drug use that was much more intense than previously known, kind of only went up through the end the of of last year and we can't say with certainty whether he was using, continued to use drugs once he entered the White House and was given the keys to slash the federal bureaucracy. And listen, we asked the White House about whether or not they had drug tested Musk and they refused to answer those questions. Space X, one of his companies after he smoked weed in 2018 on Joe Rogan's podcast that triggered SpaceX has billions of dollars in contracts and they are required because of that to maintain a drug free workplace and test their employees. And our reporting showed that Musk receives advance warnings of those tests. So what's certain is that there doesn't seem to be any, like there hasn't been any sort of scrutiny or true monitoring or testing of this drug use, even as it sort of bubbled up behind the scenes. And you know, today the White House issued a statement saying us saying that they, you know, just basically saying that they gave Musk a lot of credit for what he's done, but still refusing to answer our questions about whether or not they've drug tested him.

[Nicole Wallace]

But importantly, did they deny anything in your story?

[Maria Aspen]

Nobody has denied anything in our story. And today at this press conference, you know, the first question that Musk fielded was about our story and he shut that down. He didn't even let the question out in its entirety. He just, you know, he refused to engage in our reporting. You know, he hadn't responded to our questions. So he started to submit as early as Monday and he basically just instructed everybody to move on.

[Nicole Wallace]

I know he has a lot of personal relationships. Are all of those relationships governed by NDAs or is it possible to report on any of his past partners?

[Maria Aspen]

It is extremely hard to report on him. Like many powerful people, he has required NDAs as of people in his inner circle and who have interacted with him. But we were able to ultimately Interview More than 12 people, more than a dozen people who have known him or have worked for him. And so, you know, that Felt to us like it was a significant body of people, including people. Growing numbers of people who have been close to him who have been worried about this.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah, sometimes it's. It's not people trying to make him look bad. It's people that are most worried. What can you tell us about the box of pills and the 20 pills a day? I can barely choke down my vitamin.

[Maria Aspen]

C. Yeah, listen, I mean, we can't go into all the details of what we've observed in that box and say things with certainty. We were able to see a photograph of this pill box, this daily pill box that contained about 20 pills.

[Nicole Wallace]

Can you say how big it is?

[Maria Aspen]

Yeah, like, just like it's like about this big with divided, like a.m. and p.m. and so, yeah, so we saw a photo of it and we've talked to people who have seen it. You know what we can say with certainty? That it includes the stimulant Adderall. So we're talking about Ketamine, which is a sedative. We're talking about Adderall, a stimulant. We're talking about these other psychedelic drugs. And so once again, the concern has been not just the volume of drugs and the frequency. Frequency, but the mixing of them.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's unbelievable reporting. It's so nice to see you at the table. I hope you stay on the beat if there's more to learn. Megan Tuohy, thank you very, very much. More on the story with Tim Miller on the other side of a very short break. Don't go anywhere. We're back with Tim Miller. I mean, Megan's an incredible reporter, and I feel like I was hearing for the first time that Space X gave him advanced warning before they were doing drug testing. This feels like a tip above the water with a whole lot more story underneath the surface.

[M. Gessen]

Yeah, it was truly a remarkable story that I devoured immediately this morning. And it was interesting to hear a couple of additional layers there for Megan. So kudos to her on the reporting, I guess. I have two thoughts about this. One is kind of comedy and one is pretty tragedy. More like tragedy. The comedy is like, I have pretty libertine views when it comes to people's personal lives and what they want to do. If you're using so much ketamine that you have bladder control issues, it might be time for a lifestyle change. Might be a time to consider yoga or something else. So that is true, what she's reporting. That's way too much ketamine. I think we can just leave it at that. The tragedy Part of this is this, is that this guy, whatever the details are true. As a total megalomaniac, he's the richest man in the world. You've seen his power and influence. He could have used it for anything. He could use it for good. There are obviously areas where he has real expertise, particularly when it comes to some of the stuff around what SpaceX has done that other companies have been able to do. The fact that he used all of this power and influence to be the tip of the spear on just horrific gutting of aid for the poorest and most vulnerable people from throughout the world, a type of aid that at a bipartisan level, both Republican and Democratic administrations, for our whole lives have been committed to. And the fact that this guy gets in there with his pillbox, allegedly, and decides that the thing to do is slash and gut and eliminate this critical medical aid, this critical food aid, and support for the least, the most vulnerable people all the way throughout the world, that is the thing that just really makes you sad and angry at the same time.

[Nicole Wallace]

What's interesting is that a lot of the reporting, and Megan described it sitting here, comes from people who, who are not his critics. People not like you and me, but people who were his friends. Let me read that to you. As Musk jumped into the political arena, some people who knew him worried about his frequent drug use, mood swings and fixation on having more children. This account of his behavior is based on private messages obtained by the New York Times, as well as interviews with more than a dozen people who've known or worked with him. Quote, elon has pushed the boundaries of his bad behavior more and more, said Philip Lowe, a neuroscientist and one time friend of Musk's who criticized him for his Nazi like gesture at a rally. In a January newsletter explaining why their friendship ended, Sam Harris, a public intellectual, wrote that Musk had used his social media platform to defame people and promote lies. Quote. There's something seriously wrong with his moral compass, if not his perception of reality, Dr. Harris wrote. Tim, I'm going to let you respond to that. On the other side of it. I'm just sneaking a break. I messed up my timing. But you get the last word on the other side. All right, Tim, you get the last word.

[M. Gessen]

Well before the break you quoted. It's from Sam Harris and I had him on the podcast after he wrote that substack post about his friendship with Elon and how it fell apart. And his main point is something that we can all see. It's just like Regardless of what he's doing recreationally, the posts that he's putting out there on his social media feed that he's forcing everybody to see through their for you page are totally unhinged. And so he either is knowingly spreading all of these lies or he has lost touch with reality to such a degree that he can't tell truth from fiction. I mean, he is reposting the craziest people on the Internet and the most malicious. And so that behavior is unacceptable regardless of what is underlying it. And we were able to all see that without the really impressive reporting for the New York Times. And I think that goes to show you just how irresponsible he was during his short tenure in the White House.

[Nicole Wallace]

Yeah, it's what's public facing that's the story. The reporting is just something that we now have learned underneath. Tim Miller, thank you so much for spending the whole hour with us. We love it when you do that. Coming up next, a Republican senator receives a shocking response when told that her constituents will die if they lose access to Medicaid thanks to Trump's big, beautiful bill. We'll show you what that looked like next.

[Joni Ernst]

I've never felt like this before. It's like, you just get me. I feel like my true self with you. Does that sound crazy? And it doesn't hurt that you're gorgeous? Okay, that's it. I'm taking you home with me. I mean, you can't find shoes this good just anywhere. Find a shoe for every you, from brands you love like Birkin, Nike, Adidas and more at your DSW store or dsw.com.

[Tim Miller]

Introducing the weeknight on MSNBC, join.

[Nicole Wallace]

Hosts Alicia Menendez, Michael Steele and Simone.

[Tim Miller]

Sanders Townsend for a spirited conversation challenging each other and our leaders about the.

[Nicole Wallace]

Biggest issues of the day.

[Maria Aspen]

It's about knowing what you are for.

[Nicole Wallace]

Who you are for.

[Tim Miller]

That's what politics is about.

[Jamie Raskin]

It's engaged.

[Joni Ernst]

We are going to dive deeper into the legal side of today's breaking news.

[Tim Miller]

The weeknight, Monday through Friday at 7:00pm Eastern on MSNBC.

[M. Gessen]

Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes.

[Reverend Al Sharpton]

This week on my podcast, why is this Happening? Veteran, progressive organizer, former head of MoveOn, Anna Gallant on where we go from here.

[Maria Aspen]

I just keep thinking like we're going to be digesting the results of that election for the next four, five, ten years to really fully understand it. So we should have strong opinions loosely held and make some decisions on them.

[Joni Ernst]

And also not neglect the work of.

[Maria Aspen]

Standing up right now to fight back. Because that actually, if we get too preoccupied and navel gazing into what we just did wrong, we might actually undermine the work of confidently, powerfully standing up and resisting the very scary stuff that's coming at us.

[Reverend Al Sharpton]

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

[Nicole Wallace]

When you are arguing about illegals that are receiving Medicaid benefits. 1.4 million, 1.4. They're not, they are not eligible. So they will be coming off. So we people are not well, we all are going to die. So for heaven's sakes, for heaven's sakes.

[Maria Aspen]

Folks.

[Nicole Wallace]

That'S a wrap. What's the point? Effort. We're all going to die. In the words of Republican Senator Joni Ernst. Hi again everybody. It's five o' clock in New York. We have come a long, long way from the party of Lincoln or the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. That jaw dropping reveal of exhaustion and utter callousness from Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa was from a town hall she held earlier today in Butler county where keep in mind 72% of the voters there voted for Donald Trump. They were receptive to whatever she was shoveling out there in the BS category and she couldn't even respond appropriately to them. Earns today facing pushback from her own constituents about the cuts to Medicaid in that quote, big beautiful bill passed by the Republican led House last week. That bill now on its way to her and the Senate gives tax cuts to the ultra wealthy while making cuts to Medicaid, domestic food aid and clean energy tax credits. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the Medicaid portions of the bill would lead to 10.3 million people losing coverage under the Health Safety net program and 7.6 million people going uninsured. And as someone in the crowd said, quote, people will die. A spokesperson for Senator Ernst said this, quote, while Democrats fear monger against strengthening the integrity of Medicaid, Senator Ernst is blah blah blah, focused on improving the lives of Iowans. Those were Iowans. She then continued by essentially doubling down on her boss's gross comment saying quote, there's only two certainties in life, death and taxes. And she's working to ease the burden of both by fighting to keep more of Iowans hard earned tax dollars in their own pockets and ensuring their benefits are protected from waste, fraud and abuse. End quote. Meanwhile, Jenny Ernst is focusing on something that has become a Republican talking point. This idea, this talking point about undocumented immigrants receiving care. But they're not because they are not eligible for Medicaid. In fact, as the National Immigration Forum writes, quote, under the law, undocumented immigrants may only access federal benefits that are deemed necessary to protect life or guarantee safety in dire situations, end quote. But the bottom line comes down to this. Americans want their elected representatives to first and foremost protect them, keep them safe, work hard to ensure that their constituents can lead as healthy and happy of a life as possible. Jenny Ernst today in a 72% supportive group, couldn't connect with them and share that understanding or find any commonality among our own constituents. As Ernst's colleague, Democratic Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, said in her response to today's comments, quote, I thought my job as senator was to try to keep my constituents alive. Life and death is where we start today with chief political columnist, host of the impolitic podcast for Puck, MSNBC national affairs analyst John Heilman's back. Plus, president for Media Matters for America, Angelo Carazones, here with me at the table, host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, president of the National Action Network, the Reverend Al Sharpton's here, John Heilman. I guess we're all old enough. I was going to say you and I are old enough. We're all old enough to have lived through the death panels. This is the Republican invoking, we're all going to die. This is, this is. And I know we're not in normal times, but this is even in Upside Down, Alice in Wonderland, up is down and down is up and bad is good and good is bad. This is a 72% supportive crowd. And she can't connect. She can't explain herself other than to say everybody dies.

[Tim Miller]

Happy Friday. Nicole.

[Nicole Wallace]

Hi. I know you were closely watching our ketamine coverage.

[Tim Miller]

Oh, yeah, that's right. That's right. I'm not going to go down that Kettleman, that K hole, as they say in the trade, but I will say that there's such a. So dark. What a dark thing to say. One of the things that I think you and I as me covering politics, you working in it for a time, there are a lot of differences between Democrats and Republicans, but existential dread fatalism, dark forecasts of our inevitable but hopefully a little bit off in the distance demise is not like a strategy I've ever really seen before by any politician ever. It's really, I mean, it's unprecedented. I think in some ways that she may be projecting my thing about Trump where everything he says is projection of confession. I think in this case, this is Joni Ernst kind of projecting some stuff here that kind of the darkness that she sees. This is this person who decided to, who almost certainly would have voted against Pete Hegseth for defense secretary, having been someone who knows something about the military and having been a victim of sexual assault. And, and then she, they threatened her with a primary challenge and she had to back down. I just, I guess I don't hear many Republican politicians saying things that some of that you and me and some of our friends say in kind of a gallows humor way about the world, about the world we're living in right now. The last thing. So it's a really weird moment, your Alice in Wonderland thing. But here's the thing that comes through first and foremost in this entire thing, which is everything that the Trump administration was worried about and that a lot of Republicans are worried about, about why cutting Medicaid is politically toxic is present in that performance, in the interplay with the audience, with the, with the 72% Trump district where, hey, guess what? A lot of MAGA is on Medicaid. Trump knows that. Suzy Wiles knows that. That's why they were like, we're not going to cut Medicaid. We're not going to cut Medicaid. There's no world where you can extend these tax cuts and not cut Medicaid. And so they're cutting Medicaid a lot in the House they want to cut. Some people in the Senate want to cut it even more. And everybody out there who's worried about what will happen to the Republican Party if they go through with these Medicaid cuts should watch that, because that's the look of a politician. Joni Ernst knows that there are a lot of MAGA voters on Medicaid, too. And her inability to answer that in a convincing way is a sign not just of her projection of existential dread, but of her understanding of the grim, grim politics. If this budget bill, this big bullshit, beautiful bill, whatever they want to call it, if it goes through in anything like its current form, it's going to be Armageddon for a lot of Republicans.

[Nicole Wallace]

I cannot get over, though, that the party that's so pro life they'll let women die, based on the ProPublica reporting, has now landed on a message that is literally, quote, everybody dies. That's where that is just so peak. Trump 2.0 Jon.

[Tim Miller]

Yes, and like I said, it's, you know, I don't know how to explain it. It's like part of what I'm stammering around about here in trying to, I'M always looking for precedent, Nicole. I'm trying to think about, you know, have I ever seen anything like that before? I don't know. I'm pretty sure that after today, that won't be the message that Republicans have landed on because they will see how badly it has gone for Senator Ernst. So I'm not sure that's going to be the songbook they're singing from two weeks from now or even two days from now. But I mean, again, when have you ever heard a politician who thought it was a good idea to talk about death that way? Well, we all got, you know, even the death and taxes line is kind of a, is meant to be really focused more on the taxes than on the death. Right. It's like, well, you know, you better get used to it because eventually you're going to be in the ground, you're going to be worm food. Vote for me next Tuesday. I mean, it's just not really a thing that you ever see.

[Nicole Wallace]

So, Angelo, you frame my political worldview around this idea of narrative dominance, I would say, and I know this isn't universal, but this is an example of slippage in that category here.

[Reverend Al Sharpton]

Oh yeah, it really is actually, because this ties in with John was saying before about an example. I can't think of a political figure that's made that point, but I can think of right wing media figures have been saying that starting in 2020 with COVID Tucker Carlson was the one when there, there was a point with COVID where, you know, there was a little bit conspiracies where people still wanted to protect themselves. And they, we largely agreed that, you know, we shouldn't just have mass death, even though we had very different opinions about how to survive that. But we weren't cool with mass death. And then Tucker got out there, you know, in the early summer and started saying, we're all going to die. Literally on the timeline, we're all going to die. So we have to put all of these policies and all these efforts to protect ourselves from COVID on that scale. And since we're all going to die anyway, all of these Republicans that are lining up that are supporting policies, that are restricting access to schools, are thinking about how to sort of mass policies, all these things, they're taking away your life, your quality of life, when you're going to die anyway. So they're the enemy and you need to start putting pressure on them. And what he did was plant a seed in that larger landscape that started to take off and then they weaved in conspiracies to help grow it and propagate it. But that was one of the big turning points. That and a few other conspiracies that really started to shift and soften the ground about where the tolerance level was for mass death, not individual policies, but it shifted it. And yeah, it's not their whole scale perspective, I think, but it really has an example of the change because it, it's not that that's their, their overall angle, but what is a reflection of this other piece of the slippage that you're referring to is the rot. They become callous and cruel and indifferent, nihilistic, you know, for the people that largely believe in something. Right. These are supposed to be the religious people too. They're really, they're really nihilists. She mean, she went right to the void. And I thought that was when she voted for Hex, like John said before, where she sort of really gave up her position as a steward, as a legislator and whatever principle she had and said, no, I'm all in for Trump. Now, if you can rationalize that, you can get up there just a few months later and say the thing that she said and the last thing that's I think, critical. So one is that they've sort of tested this before and it worked. Two, that they got cruel and callous and indifferent and nihilistic and that's just a consequence of the poison being pumped into the system. And the third is that they are so confident or I don't think it's stupidity, I don't think it's indifferent. But they looked at their opponents, size them up at Democrats, and they've said, given our, what we're. We're confronting and given the terrain that we stand on, which is our information landscape, and today has proved it so far, there's not been a right. A peep about Ernst, Ernst's comment in the right wing media. Not one, not one critical, not even one saying, well, I'm an armchair quarterback and I think that's stupid. No, no, no, they're just quiet about it. She's not going to suffer any repercussions, at least in the larger landscape. She will politically a little bit it, but she's sizing up her competition and she says they're so bad and I have so many advantages already with this larger terrain that Trump sort of is the conductor for that. I'm going to win no matter what I say, that I could literally tell my constituents to die and I'm still going to beat whoever they put up against me. And that's the problem when you add it all up. And that's what I see. I see that overconfidence based on an assessment of the landscape. Real cruel politics.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, we'll see. We've got more than a few people in that media ecosystem who keep tabs on everything you all say on this program. So I know that they'll know what's been said. Here's the other thing. Do you know what percent of Democrats have either been personally covered by Medicaid or have had someone in their family? It's 62%. Do you know what percent of Republicans? 62%. There is no partisan difference in terms of who has benefited directly from Medicaid. Democrats and Republicans are the same with Independents a little bit higher. No.

[J]

And I think that fact is not being, in my opinion given enough volume, sound attention by the Democrats because the Democrats ought to be saying, wait a minute, this is not a partisan issue. We are equally users and those in need of Medicaid. And yes, it's way over the top to talk about all of us are going to die. But where are the Democratic leaders?

[Nicole Wallace]

Where are they?

[J]

We're asking each other. I mean we should have been out there dancing on this two minutes after she said it. Yeah, she can be overconfident about a primary, but I mean nationally you have a midterm election. This is an easy shot.

[Nicole Wallace]

Let me. I mean, and this to your point, Rev, I mean this is exactly what Republicans did. Obama absent the facts. The thing here is you have all the facts on your side, you have all the politics on your side, you have all the data on your side. And Democrats should be activating not just Democrats but all 62% of Americans which happen to split exactly evenly between Democrats and Republicans to support Republicans not leaving.

[J]

Them to die and now verbalizing saying we all gonna die. The other part is the argument that she was using is talking to us like we're stupid that there are so many immigrants on Medicaid which the facts have come out about that. But she's saying so many. That is why we have to cut Medicaid. Well, why don't you just get if you had some immigrants off, why are you cutting everybody's services and how do we know what that number is? So you're telling me you're going to cut my Medicaid because there's some fraudulent over here. We don't know how much fraudulent, but whatever it is, I'm going to be cut. And that sounds like a logical argument. The Democrats ought to Be saying that does not make mathematical sense.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, John Heilman, we talked a lot about the Musk Bannon battles. At the beginning it appeared that Musk had prevailed in those battles. I feel like Bannon was one of the keepers for the 62% of Maga that had been on Medicaid or the MAGA that depended on Social Security. I don't know where he is, I don't know how involved he is. But the things, the policies that Trump and the MAGA Republicans are pursuing don't seem to have his. I don't even want to give him enough credit to call them sensibilities, but his political sense about who they're hurting.

[Tim Miller]

Yes. Well, look, I mean, I think Nicole, it's a really fascinating thing on like a much level that right before the big beautiful bullshit bill started going through the House, Trump said a bunch of things that normally because of Trump's power in the Republican Party would have been like, would have caused chaos to break out. Right. He went to Mike Johnson and said, I want to see the top income tax rate raised. That's something that Steve Ban it is for. He went and said he wanted to see the carried interest loophole closed. That's something he's talked about since 2017. And the C Ban is very much for. He had that, the overtime thing, the tax on tips things he's getting right now. One of those I think has survived. Right. But the bit like huge news, right. Donald Trump went to the speaker of the House and said, let's raise the top rate now. He wanted to create a new tax bracket that was a people who made more than I think $4.5 million a year, very high, wouldn't have affected very many people, but would have raised a non trivial amount of money. And it wasn't that it got rejected explicitly. It was that no one in the House took it seriously. No one said, well Donald Trump's telling us we gotta do this somebody, let's talk about this, let's get into it. They just. And it's the case that he had been saying for two years we should not cut Medicaid. Suzy Wiles others have been telling reporters we're gonna, we can't cut Medicaid. Don't cut Medicaid. The House White House is against that. Donald Trump doesn't want it. And instead of pursuing what would have been the Bannon path, I would say, and again, I don't want to lionize Steve Bannon, but the populist path, which would have been close, the carried interest loophole, raise the Social Security tax threshold on what you can, what part of income you can tax, do the carried interest, do the other tax cuts that you want to do to help middle class and working class Americans do all those things and then go after the rich and the other stuff you want to finance. But don't, for God's sakes, go after Medicaid. That is what Steve Bannon would advocate and that is what Trump Weekly advocated. And no one in the House gave a crap about it. They didn't scurry, they didn't panic and they didn't do what Trump said. And I don't see anyone on the Senate side who's saying that either. If anybody is defying Trump over there, it's the ones who want to cut Medicaid more. I think that you're starting to see the first moment where clearly the politics of Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, the populist politics and the politics of the House Republicans and the House Republicans, Senate Republicans are starting to diverge and we're getting closer to the midterms and the Congress, Republican Congress is kind of going to, you know what, we got to look out for ourselves because Donald Trump not going to save us and not running again.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, what's interesting is that the populist instincts may be more politically popular in the midterms. No one's going anywhere. You're all going to stick around for most of the hour. When we come back, it's not just the callousness and cruelty that we've been talking about. It's also Donald Trump's corruption that is breaking through now and resonating with voters across the country. Democrats are looking to capitalize on that. Congressman Jamie Raskin is our next guest. We'll ask him about that. And Joni Ernst comments later in the hour, a chilling warning that we are further along in the slide to authoritarianism than we might realize. Why Russian born New York Times columnist M. Gessen says we have entered a dark new phase of the Trump era. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. For their part, Democrats are fed up with Donald Trump enriching himself and his friends off the presidency and are calling for transparency and accountability. From new reporting in the Washington Post, quote, Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, demanded Donald Trump turn over the names of the guests who attended last week's gala after pouring millions of dollars into the president's crypto venture. In a letter, Raskin writes, this, quote, publication of this list will also Let the American people know who is putting tens of millions of dollars into our president's pocket so we can start to figure out what beyond virtually worthless meme coins they are getting in exchange for all this money. Joining our conversation right now is Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. Congressman, thank you for being here.

[Angelo Carusone]

Delighted to be with you.

[Nicole Wallace]

I'll warn you, our group is in a Friday mood, so we may, we may jump around. But first, tell me if you expect I hate sort of banking in what we've seen from Trump over nine years, but just tell me what your expectation is in terms of a response.

[Angelo Carusone]

Well, I think it all depends on the level of public clamor about this. I mean, we really cannot let it go. This crypto dinner represented all kinds of people seeking all kinds of favors from the government. I mean, one typical example is Justin sun, who was facing SEC charges for fraud. And then he bought into Donald Trump's own crypto entity, which they got shortly before inauguration World Financial with, I think, something like 70 or $75 million. And what do you know, the SEC charges were dropped. So this SEC meme coin, this novelty item that really has no intrinsic value, is like the Trump Hotel on steroids. Because any foreign government seeking favor with Trump, anybody looking for a pardon, anybody looking for a particular tax break, can just essentially channel money on a basically hidden, anonymous basis to Donald Trump. But this dinner was a way for Donald Trump to gain some visibility into who's giving him the money and for them to know that they're being seen by Donald Trump. And so the cases are now just multiplying. You know, there's the guy who was facing 18 months in prison and $4 million in fines for his various tax offenses. And then his mom went to a million dollar a plate dinner in Mar a Lago for Donald Trump. And what do you know, those charges got dropped, saving him $4 million. So the constitutional question, of course, is whether we've got foreign states that are channeling money to Donald Trump through this new crypto meme mechanism. It appears like more than half of the money that was put down for the meme coin among the 220, 20 top donors came from foreign sources, as far as we can tell. So we're piecing it together. But this is ridiculous. We're talking about the President of the United States. And if it were campaign contributions, it would be very clear. It's got to be recorded. These are people just throwing money at the President of the United States. So we are hopeful that there will be enough pressure Coming from Congress, I'm hoping on both sides of the aisle that there will be enough pressure coming from the public and the press that they will have to turn over the names of people and we will be able to determine whether foreign money is getting in, whether the money of criminal gangs, organized crime is getting in. But we have no idea where it's coming from. But we're getting a taste of the kind of pay to play buffet that it was.

[Nicole Wallace]

Say you get all that information and there are or is a stream of money coming from any one of those groups you just listed, then what happens?

[Angelo Carusone]

Well, we sent to Donald Trump a demand about the $400 million jumbo jet flying grift bribe, force one from Qatar, a letter demanding that he come to Congress to ask for our consent. Now, obviously, the Republicans have this extremely narrow majority, so there's not been a formal request from the House or from the Senate. And yet the Democrats are demanding that the President comply with the Constitution and come and ask for our consent. Because the foreign emoluments clause says that the President cannot accept a present and emolument, which means a payment in way, a office or title of any kind whatever from a king, prince or foreign state without the permission of Congress and every other president has complied. You know, Abe Lincoln showed up to ask for the Congress's permission to accept two elephant tusks that he loved from the King of Siam in the middle of the Civil War. He took the time to do that, and Congress said, no, hey, we love you honest aid, but no, you can't keep those. But you name it. Andrew Jackson, John F. Kennedy, even when he was given the opportunity to have honorary citizenship in Ireland, decided not to do it because of the emoluments clause, even though that wasn't a technical violation. And Barack Obama, when he won the Nobel Peace Prize, gave the million dollars away, even though the money didn't come directly from the Swedish government, even though it came from an independent foundation. But he felt that that offended the spirit of the monuments clause. So nobody has come close to the kinds of things that we're hearing about now on a weekly and daily basis. A $400 million gift from Qatar, which is obviously an autocratic dictatorship, deeply invested in US Foreign policy, military policy, military sales. Nobody's come close to just taking that. And by the way, in the train of all the foreign money that is going to go into that airplane from a foreign government, we're going to have to invest hundreds of millions, if not more than a billion dollars in our taxpayer Money to get it up to snuff, because it's also, you know, a flying threat of surveillance and espionage. So it's going to take a huge refitting of that airplane. That's money that goes from the US Taxpayers essentially, to Donald Trump. Trump, because he's taking that plane with him, you know, technically to his museum, but he'll be able to keep it for whatever he wants because he's going to run his museum. So the grifts just keep multiplying on a daily basis. And while we're fighting to just defend Medicaid, defend Social Security, defend the basic programmatic achievements of American democracy, they're just making out like bandits. You know, that trip over to the Middle east, that wasn't really a foreign policy trip. That was a business trip for Donald Trump and his family, paid for by the US Taxpayers. And they're making deals all over the Middle East. So they've completely submerged the government of the United States into the Trump organization. And the U.S. government is now basically like a division of the Trump businesses.

[Nicole Wallace]

Congressman, you are, in this beyond debate, one of the brightest legal minds in the entire government and one of the most effective communicators in your party. To your point, the grift is so audacious, the norms are so annihilated, we can't even see them in the rearview mirror. And the threats to real people, and there is no partisan divide. And who has benefited from a receipt? So the cuts affect every American. How do you break through to the whole country? And how do you counsel your party to get down and explain what you just did to us every day, to every American, regardless of who they voted for?

[Angelo Carusone]

Well, look, this is going to be a struggle, Nicole, between right wing authoritarian populism, which thrives on racism and immigrant bashing and scapegoating targeted minority groups versus progressive populism, the tradition that goes back to the 1890s in America in the 1930s and the new Deal and the Great Society. We have got to make the government an instrument for the well being and the progress of the American people. And we got to take the government back from all of the grifters and autocrats and dictators and people who are just trashing the basic values of the country. Whether we're talking about a professional civil service, whether we're talking about due process, which is what separates the rights and freedoms of the people from arbitrary governmental power and dictatorship, whether we're talking about free speech or free press. You know, they're kicking the Associated Press out of the White House because they dare to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico. The First Amendment gives you the right to tell the truth in addition to the right to lie. So, you know, I don't think that we're gonna be able to wave a magic wand and make all of this go away. But we are fighting every single day in the House and the Senate, in the state legislatures and the councils, city councils and county councils, and we're fighting in court, and we are winning every day. And people need to understand, understand that we have totally boxed in Donald Trump and all of the lawlessness, their attempt to dismantle birthright citizenship in America, his attempt to usurp the powers of Congress by just launching a trade war against the whole world, except for Vladimir Putin. All of these tariffs were struck down last week as an absolute abuse of the President's powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It doesn't mention tariffs. Nobody's ever used it that way. And as the court stated, it's up to Congress to regulate international commerce. It's always been Congress that has decided on tariffs before. So I guess my answer to your question is we're just going have to go and fight like hell every single day, and we have to educate people about what the Constitution really stands, stands for, what the rule of law is in America, and how our basic freedoms and rights are under attack by these people.

[Nicole Wallace]

I think fight like hell is going to be music to the ears of a lot of folks. Congressman Jamie Roskin, thank you so much for your time.

[Angelo Carusone]

Great to be with you.

[Nicole Wallace]

We're going to sneak in one more break. Our panel will be back on the other side.

[Tim Miller]

The destruction of the checks and balances that the President has, has already put in place. He's fired inspector generals, he's fired the leaders. Any leader of the federal government that disagrees with him on any political notion.

[Nicole Wallace]

And you folks have let it happen. You've sat back and done nothing.

[M. Gessen]

The House is the best example we're still seeing on the Senate. Looks like there's a little gumption to.

[Tim Miller]

Fight back against the new dictator.

[Nicole Wallace]

But this has been like a Nazi.

[M. Gessen]

Blitzkrieg, and you folks have sat and done nothing.

[Tim Miller]

Are you afraid of Trump? Are you corrupt like Trump?

[Nicole Wallace]

Or are you just at the point you don't care anymore and that's why.

[M. Gessen]

You don't do anything.

[Nicole Wallace]

No. So. So, no. First, thank you for your service. I do appreciate that. Obviously, I. I don't agree, because I don't think our country is being destroyed. On the other hand, I See, rev, that's this town hall with Senator Jenny Ernst and she was being questioned by a political science teacher, a Navy vet with some undeniable facts.

[J]

And I think that this is indicative of where most people in the country are looking at this because you're not just talking about now a guy that has some kind of behavior that is over the top. You're talking about the real dismantling of the principles this country was built on, checks and balances. You're talking about respect for making sure that we can take care of people with health needs. And they've thrown all of this to the whim. And we've not seen real confrontation by not only Republicans that have a conscience, but by the Democrats. Why aren't we talking about not only saying the people that went to the dinner that the president who said, by the way, he went on his private time, so when do you check in and check out of being president?

[Nicole Wallace]

And there is no president.

[J]

That's a new one. But why aren't we talking about calling before Congress some of the people we do know that were there and at least making people uncomfortable with going to these kinds of things or accountable. Or accountable. And I think that the fact that people feel there's no pushback when you have people like this is in Iowa. JONI Ernst, these are Republicans that are in the audience raising more points than the elected senators in congressmen than we are in a real problem.

[Nicole Wallace]

All right, from your lips, Rev, from your lips. John Heilman, Angelo Caracson, the Reverend Al Sharpton, thank you for spending time with us on this Friday. When we come back, America's backslide toward autocracy may be reaching a dangerous new point under Donald Trump. The Russian born New York Times columnist who is sounding that alarm is our next guest. Don't go anywhere.

[Angelo Carusone]

Democrats right now should be trying as much as possible to embody and perform the energy of their voters who are deeply opposed to this administration.

[M. Gessen]

And the most important thing the Democrats can do if they don't like where.

[Nicole Wallace]

Trump is taking the country is to win a bunch of elections. And just by winning a series of.

[M. Gessen]

Special elections, they can already put some.

[Nicole Wallace]

Fear into the hearts of moderate Republicans.

[Justin Wolfers]

It has taken blood, Putin, years, decades to get to this level of brazen lawlessness that the Trump administration has built.

[Nicole Wallace]

So New York Times opinion columnist at the hundred day mark on the perils of this moment in our country. Four months into Donald Trump's second term and things in America increasingly resemble the early signs, the early things that happen in an autocracy Our next guest, Russian American journalist M. Gessen, who you saw there in the last election clip in the video, lived through and reported on in Russia. Gessen warns in a New York Times column this week that the initial shock, even to the most extreme policies eventually fades. Something Gessen says is happening right now here in the US Quote, in this country, too few and fewer things can surprise us once you've absorbed the shock of deportations to El Salvador, plans to deport people to South Sudan. Aren't that remarkable once you wrap your mind around the Trump administration's revoking the legal status of individual international students? A blanket ban on international enrollment at Harvard isn't entirely unexpected once you realize that the administration is intent on driving thousands of trans people out of the US Military. A ban on Medicaid coverage for gender affirming care, which could have devastating effects for hundreds of thousands, just becomes more of the same. As in a country at war, reports of human tragedy and extreme cruelty have become routine, not news. Joining us now, New York Times opinion columnist, author of Surviving Autocracy, the aforementioned M. Gessen. It's a piece this week that stopped me in my tracks.

[Justin Wolfers]

Thank you.

[Nicole Wallace]

Tell me where you think we are.

[Justin Wolfers]

I think we're in the habituation stage. And I feel like I've been there before, many, many times. I mean, it took Putin much longer to establish autocratic rule than it looks like Trump is taking. And there were so many moments when it just seemed like, I can't go on, I can't breathe. When he annexed Crimea, when he invaded Georgia, when this full scale invasion of Ukraine happened. And then life goes on. And it's sort of a beautiful thing about human nature that we figure out how to get our footing in any situation. But it also misleads us into a kind of complacency, like, oh, well, this is livable.

[Nicole Wallace]

Well, it's right. It's the adaptive response to trauma. But does it have a downside in terms of putting our country on a path to resist autocracy?

[Justin Wolfers]

Well, the downside is the obvious one, right. It's that just when we have our footing, just when you have gotten your mind around what's happening, is the time to act. That's when you have the most ability and the most room to act. And you know, again, because Putin took so long to do what he did, there were so many times when you could look back to a year before, two years before, 20 years before, and say we could have done so much because that was before there was censorship, that was While there were still elections. That was before people were going to prison for peaceful, peaceful protest. Right. And when we had all that room, we didn't act. And so it's always too late if we give in to that adaptability response.

[Nicole Wallace]

And what is your diagnosis of the American response right now? I think we're probably at about 130 days, 128 days.

[Justin Wolfers]

Well, we don't have a robust resistance. I mean, we have many things that people have done. Right. And I want to give credit where credit is due.

[Nicole Wallace]

Like what?

[Justin Wolfers]

Well, I mean, I think the legal profession's response, by and large has been amazing. And the courts have really shown that most of them, with the possible exception of the Supreme Court, believe that it's their job to uphold the law and to protect institutions. There have been more protests than, you know, if you actually look at the numbers and the places, there have been more protests than there were in this time during the first Trump administration, which felt like there was more of a cohesive resistance. And I think that's something that should give us pause. Right. Why doesn't it feel like it's cohesive? Why doesn't it feel like we're really trying to stand up to something? Probably because we're not. Probably because there isn't a cohesive message. There isn't a sense that we're united by a mission to do something and, frankly, protect our institutions. It's a great goal, but it's not a very inspiring mission.

[Nicole Wallace]

What is the inspiring mission?

[Justin Wolfers]

I think the inspiring mission is a vision of the future that can be opposed to Trump's vision of the past.

[Nicole Wallace]

Does it require a leader or can it be decentralized?

[Justin Wolfers]

I think it requires at least some leaders who canwho really have a pulpit to broadcast a message. Right. And that message has to be about a glorious future. Right. Trump is saying, I'm going to take you back to great imaginary past, and somebody should say, I'm going to give you a glorious future. That really addresses the anxieties that you were acting on when you were going along or even voting for Trump. But we can do better.

[Nicole Wallace]

Is the economic piece, which is so different from Trump 1.0. I mean, the Terrafor plant threatened to destabilize our economy to really limit people's buying power to hit the hardest. People who are working class or middle class families for whom all the tariffs will be regressive. Taxes does that. What role does that play in either side?

[Justin Wolfers]

Yeah. So I think, you know, it's very hard to make predictions, but I think there are a couple of things to be aware of. One is that of course it can harm Trump because there are plenty of people who see what's happening and have a negative reaction. And I think especially people with money and power who really don't like what looks like his intentionally tanking the economy. On the other hand, hardship is generally good for autocrats. We have this idea that if people thrown into poverty, they will rebel. That's actually not true. Usually it has happened, but most of the time, people tighten their belts and they focus on survival and they don't have the time to go to protest, and they don't have the psychic energy to really think about a future because they just need to get by day to day.

[Nicole Wallace]

Is there anything that you see happening in this country that gives you hope?

[Justin Wolfers]

Sure. I mean, with all the comparisons that I think are super useful, we shouldn't entirely give up on American exceptionalism. And I don't mean we should sit back and say, oh, this country is special. Nothing like that can happen here, because it can. But this country is special. This country is founded on a set of ideas. This country does hold ideals of freedom and justice as sort of the core of its national identity. And this country does have the most robust media hobbled, but still robust in the most robust civil society that's ever existed in the history of the world. So if we can mobilize, we can fight this thing back.

[Nicole Wallace]

It's an incredible piece. Thank you so much for being here.

[Justin Wolfers]

Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Nicole Wallace]

I'm guessing, please come back. Keep talking to us. Keep talking us through it. Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right, right back. Before we head into the weekend, I want to thank you. It's been 24 hours since we announced our podcast, and I've heard from so many of you who have signed up to listen to it or written to say you're excited to listen to it. The Best People starts on Monday. That's when the first two episodes drop and you can listen to them. I'm so excited to finally share them with you. We've been on a journey. Psych. Learning a new sport, and I am a slow learner. Podcasting, as it turns out, is very different from hosting a cable show, but it's been a really, really wonderful experience, full of laughter and learning and wisdom, and that is abundantly true. I think you'll see it for yourself in the first two episodes, starting with the hilarious Jason Bateman, who is also my inspiration to try my hand at podcasting, because Smartless was so essential to me. The other episode you'll hear for the first time on Monday is my conversation with the person we refer to as our North Star here, my dear friend and colleague Rachel Maddow. I cannot wait for you to listen to both of them. I will look for any critiques or feedback on Blue sky or Instagram and respond to as many of them as I can. And I thank you for your support. If you haven't signed up to follow the Best People podcast yet, you can do it right now. Scan the QR code on your screen and follow to subscribe and you won't miss a single episode. One more break. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes for another week of shows. We are grateful At Designer Shoe Warehouse we believe that shoes are an important part of.

[Maria Aspen]

Well, everything.

[Joni Ernst]

From first steps to first dates, from all nighters to all time personal bests.

[Nicole Wallace]

From building pillow forts to building a.

[Joni Ernst]

Life for all the big and small moments that make up your whole world. DSW is there and we've got just just the shoes. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love at brag worthy prices at your DSW store or dsw.com.