"Release the footage"

Summary

---

Deadline: White House – "Release the footage"

Host: Nicolle Wallace
Date: December 6, 2025
Theme: Scrutiny over the U.S. military’s controversial September “restrike” in the Caribbean, examination of accountability in military and political leadership, and implications for rule of law and institutional culture.

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the growing bipartisan demand to release footage of the September 2nd U.S. military “restrike” on a boat in the Caribbean. The attack killed 11 people and prompted accusations that it may have constituted a war crime, particularly due to a second strike on shipwreck survivors. The discussion dove into the legality and leadership context of the incident, connecting it to changes in military culture and political oversight under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Trump. Also covered: new developments in the DOJ’s prosecution efforts against New York Attorney General Letitia James and reporting on the use of FBI resources for personal tasks by political appointees.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Caribbean “Restrike” Controversy

• Background: In September, a U.S. military operation targeted a suspected drug-running boat, resulting in multiple strikes and significant civilian casualties ([01:09–02:52]).

  • Notably, after the first strike, two survivors were reportedly shipwrecked, unarmed, and may have been signaling for rescue when they were killed in a subsequent strike.
  • Lawmakers and the public are demanding the release of footage to clarify events.

• Lawmakers’ Reactions:

  • Rep. Jim Himes: Called the video “some of the most troubling things he’s seen in years of public service” ([01:50]).
  • Rep. Adam Smith: Challenged military claims. “By the time [of] the second strike, you have two survivors...on top of that boat and...the decision was to strike those two people...It’s very disturbing...I have serious questions about that conclusion” ([02:10]).

• Definitions & Legal Framing:

  • The term “double tap” is critiqued as misleading. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling insists it was a “restrike” with an interval between attacks, allowing time for assessment—thus raising legal and ethical questions ([07:33]).

• Rules of Engagement vs. Lethality:

  • Secretary Hegseth and some Republicans defend the actions, emphasizing eliminating “politically correct” rules of engagement for “maximum lethality” ([03:42]).
  • Wall Street Journal editorializes against scapegoating lower commanders and calls for civilian leaders to take responsibility ([04:03]).

---

2. Command Culture and Political Leadership

• Commander's Intent:

  • Lt. Gen. Hertling: Stresses the pervasive impact of Hegseth’s rhetoric, which prioritizes lethality over legality.
    “When you’re the leader...people start picking up on it...there is now an atmosphere or an aura surrounding that commander’s intent” ([05:13]).
  • He draws on history: “There were times to think...between the first strike and the second strike...certainly give any commander...time to consider what he was doing and why” ([07:33]).

• Military Judgement and Law:

  • Adam Smith rejects the argument that survivors with no means to fight (no weapons, no radios) could still be “in the fight” ([11:38–12:11]).
  • Missy Ryan (Atlantic): The military is in “uncharted territory,” taking over traditionally law enforcement roles, and leadership signals from above now have real operational consequences ([12:56–14:23]).

• Historical Precedent:

  • The established principle in the Laws of War is to treat shipwrecked survivors humanely; this episode potentially violates that norm ([17:05, 28:35]).

---

3. Culture Wars and Revisionism

• Media Narratives:

  • Angelo Carusone (Media Matters): Argues that right-wing media is engaged in revisionist storytelling, painting the military as previously “weak” and now “strengthened” by Hegseth ([17:24]).
  • There’s division—even among conservatives—about whether to defend or criticize the strike and leadership decisions, leading to confusion and selective outrage ([18:25–18:37]).

• Trump’s Position:

  • Despite Fox News hosts giving him credit, Trump distances himself: “If there was a second strike, I wouldn’t have approved of that” ([18:28]).

---

4. Case Study Value and Institutional Learning

• Military at a Crossroads:
  • Hertling: The incident will become a case study on upholding rule of law and resisting politicization:
    “The military has been through these kinds of tests before...but certainly right now, it’s a tough time...” ([15:19]).
  • The panel agrees that accountability and learning from history are critical, and that current events will shape future officer training ([17:05]).

---

5. DOJ Efforts Against Letitia James

• Failed Indictments:
  • DOJ’s attempts to indict New York AG Letitia James on alleged mortgage fraud charges have failed twice before grand juries ([33:35–36:11]).
  • Carol Lennig reports that repeated failures may strengthen the defense’s case, especially if forced to expose FBI agents’ grand jury testimony ([38:39]).
  • “If there is a third attempt, it...triggers...that they would have a much likelier chance...of obtaining all of the agent’s testimony...That will be super helpful to the defense” (Carol Lennig, [39:00]).

---

6. Misuse of FBI Resources

• Kash Patel Scandal:
  • Reporting reveals that FBI agents were directed to act as chauffeurs for Director Kash Patel’s girlfriend's friends—an unprecedented and demoralizing use of law enforcement resources ([41:03]).
  • “Sources reached out to us because they’re outraged at the use of FBI resources as an Uber for Patel’s girlfriend’s friend” (Carol Lennig, [42:11]).

---

7. Supreme Court: Trump’s Citizenship Challenge

• New Case:
  • Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship, with far-reaching implications for constitutional law ([45:12]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Rep. Adam Smith:
  “By the time the second strike, you have two survivors with their shirts off...that was what the decision was, was to strike those two people on that boat. So it’s very disturbing.” ([02:10])
• Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling:
  “There is now an atmosphere or an aura surrounding that commander’s intent...he’s trying to divorce himself from the issue and put the emphasis on Admiral Bradley, absolutely correct.” ([05:13])
• Missy Ryan:
  “This is really uncharted territory for the military itself.” ([12:56])
• Angelo Carusone:
  “The narrative of the story that they’re sharing is...we’ve been fundamentally weak and somebody like Hegseth is going to go in there and change the culture. And that is what he promised to do.” ([17:41])
• Lt. Gen. Hertling:
  “I think...these kinds of things are going to be case studies in the future about...adherence to the rule of law...” ([15:19])
• Carol Lennig:
  “If there is a third attempt [to indict Letitia James], it...triggers...a much higher chance of obtaining all of the agent’s testimony...” ([39:00])

---

Key Timestamps

• 01:09 – Introduction of the Caribbean attack controversy
• 02:10 – Rep. Adam Smith’s disturbing description of the attack
• 03:42 – Hegseth’s defense of aggressive rules of engagement
• 05:13 – Lt. Gen. Hertling on “commander’s intent” and leadership culture
• 07:33 – Distinction between “double tap” and “restrike”; legal implications
• 11:38 – Lawmakers describe evidence (or lack thereof) of survivors’ threat
• 12:56 – Missy Ryan on new military roles and leadership signals
• 15:19 – Hertling on the politicization of the military and case study value
• 17:24 – Right-wing media and revisionism (Carusone)
• 18:28 – Trump distancing himself from the strike
• 28:35 – NYT: survivors may have been signaling to surrender
• 32:55 – Reminding the military: do not obey unlawful orders
• 33:35 – DOJ’s failed prosecution of AG Letitia James
• 38:39 – Re-indictment efforts could backfire on DOJ (Lennig)
• 41:03 – FBI agents misused as drivers for political appointees
• 45:12 – SCOTUS takes up Trump’s birthright citizenship case

---

Tone and Language

• Sober, direct, and analytical with visible frustration from military professionals.
• Lawmakers appearing shaken or disturbed by what they've viewed.
• Reporters and analysts emphasize factual rigor and warn of historical lessons ignored or rewritten by contemporary politics.

---

Conclusion

The episode underscores a moment of crisis in American civil-military relations: the tension between legal/historical norms and political/cultural change. Calls for transparency over the “restrike” footage are rooted in fears of violations of the laws of war, fueled by leadership rhetoric that prioritizes “lethality over legality.” The legal and cultural tide in Washington is in flux, with Republican and Democratic criticisms converging around issues of command responsibility and the preservation of rule of law. Beyond the military incident, the episode spotlights a pattern of aggressive and potentially politicized use of government power, from DOJ prosecutions to the misuse of FBI resources, revealing anxieties about institutional integrity and future accountability.

---

Transcript

[A]

Deadline White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts. Quote [e-mail] to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who save with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations. AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI [e-mail] that's R U B R-I K.com.

[B]

Hi there everyone. Happy Friday. It's four o'clock in New York. On the heels of yet another boat strike launched by the United States military yesterday, one that killed four people, there are growing calls from lawmakers in both political parties to release the footage of the now highly controversial double tap boat strike in September, which has called into question the legality of the actions of the United States military. A selected group of lawmakers yesterday received a briefing on that September 2nd boat strike which killed 11 people in the Caribbean and has been questioned as a possible war crime for what has been described as the military firing a second strike on distressed and shipwrecked sailors who survived the first strike. Congressman Jim Himes, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, described the footage that he saw as some of the most troubling things he has seen in his years of public service. Another House Democrat, Adam Smith, who was also briefed, described it like this.

[C]

We saw the whole video from the moment that they identified the boat to when they did the first strike. And by the time the second strike, you have two survivors with their shirts off on top of a capsized boat, that the bow of the boat is above water, that is not much above water and they're on top of that boat and that that was what the decision was, was to strike those two people on that boat. So it's very disturbing. Now, you know, the admiral offered an explanation for why they felt that those two people on that boat were still, quote, in the fight at that point and legitimate targets. But I have serious questions about that conclusion.

[B]

The New York Times is reporting that multiple people who have seen the video of the attack say the survivors climbed overturned hole and waved to something overhead, a gesture interpreted as an attempt to surrender, beckoning, rescue or trying to signal other alleged drug traffickers. But the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, and now some Republican lawmakers are trying to argue from that briefing is that the two survivors, the two people shipwrecked in the water, clinging to a boat that had just been incinerated, were exhibiting behavior that led them to believe they were preparing to continue on whatever journey or mission they had been on before they were bombed, that they were, quote, still in the fight.

At this point, it's important to remember that. Here's how Pete Hegseth describes the fight.

[D]

We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our war fighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for war fighters.

[B]

For its part, the Wall Street Journal editorial board is calling out that man, Pete Hegseth, for the position he's placed the men and women in the military in and those directly under his command. Wall Street Journal writing this quote, it's notable that Mr. Hegseth has spent the last few days saying he wasn't in the room when the second strike happened, even as he declares his full support, full and total support for Admiral Bradley. It smacks of an attempt to shift scrutiny to a military officer who can't defend his decisions in public. The message to other officers is that they'll be alone in a foxhole if some mission runs into trouble. But the administration will have to start explaining why it is asking men and women like Admiral Bradley to open fire, end quote. That's where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is here. He served as the commanding general of the US army in Europe. Also joining us, Atlantic staff writer Missy Ryan. She covers the Pentagon and the State Department. With me at the table, Media Matters President Angelo Carazone is here. Jennifer Herling, I start with you. You have been talking us through this story just about every day this week, and I wonder how you see things on this Friday.

[E]

I think you teed it up pretty well, Nicole. It has to do with something that hasn't been mentioned, I don't think, other than by me. And that's the fact that in the military, there's something called commander's intent. Commander's intent. What you see in your commander, your superior officers or civilian leaders and what they display, what they communicate, the kinds of things they say to large organizations and, and if we were to run back all of the things Secretary Hegseth has said since he's become Secretary of Defense, he has repeatedly used this mantra of do we get rid of these unnecessary rules of engagement. We're focused on lethality versus legality. There have been multiple times where he has publicly said that you don't have to give an order when you give those kinds of statements when you're the leader of an organization because people start picking up on it. From the standpoint of a guy that used to be in the military, what I'll tell you is hearing the kinds of things he has said to open audiences and directly to some people, I got the message, Mr. Secretary, that's what you want to do. So you know, whether or not he gave the order, he was in the room, there is now an atmosphere or an aura surrounding that commander's intent. And everything you just said in the opening statement about how he's trying to divorce himself from the issue and put the emphasis on Admiral Bradley is absolutely correct.

[B]

General Hurley, we've learned about this one incident.

Because there's been a lot of smoke and swirl around it. You had a high level resignation from Southcom. You had this explosive Washington Post story. The act that the Washington Post describes is the act that was briefed to Congress yesterday. And that act is still, as I think you were one of the first to point out to me, the actual textbook example in the laws of war of where the line is. And so I wonder if you've heard anything since you first sort of made that argument to us that leads you to understand better why the second strike on the two shipwrecked survivors was deemed appropriate or legal.

[E]

Nothing in my mind or things that I've talked to other retired and active duty officers about justifies that second strike, that restrike. And by the way, I'll make a comment too now, Nicole. The term double tap in my view is a bastardization of what special operators use when they engage human beings and they shoot twice very rapidly to kill a target that's threatening them in a close in raid. That's not something you do with 45 minute intervals. What is called is a restrike and it's purposeful. And there were times to think, there was a lot of time to think about it during that period where depending on what you've heard from the members of Congress that heard it, there was anywhere from 48 to 2 hours between the first strike and the second strike restrike, and then the third and potentially even fourth one. This was not a double tap where it's meant to kill the enemy immediately in two successive strikes. This was a planned operation and there was delay between the different strikes. So no, to answer your question, no, I haven't heard more about it. But in putting myself in that situation, that period of time between the first strike and the second strike would certainly give any commander on the seam time to consider what he was doing and why he was doing it. And then again, that takes us back to, to the commander's intent and does that.

[B]

I appreciate the note on double tap. I will abandon that term immediately and use restrike. Does it obscure or sort of render as pablum the idea that there was a fog of war or that no one knew what was happening? Your point is that they had time to get eyeballs and make an assessment of the damage that had been done from the first strike?

[E]

Well, yes, and what I'd say in addition to that was this was the very first strike against the boat. A boat, as I understand it. So it was the first time executing one of these strikes against a cigarette boat or a drug narco trafficking boat or whatever you want to call it. It was the first time. So there is always confusion in the first strike. And that's the true definition of fog of war. It has nothing to do with smoke or atmospheric conditions. It has to do with confusion, chaos, misunderstanding, a miscommunication. So when you do that first strike and you have the kind of results that they saw, and yet there were some additional people who were not killed in the strike, then they had to figure out, what do you do next? And it appears over the next couple of strikes to new boats, to other navigation, they had figured it out that, hey, what are we going to do? Do we collect these individuals who are not dead after a strike? Do we take them as prisoners of war? Do we gather them up and then ship them back to a country without any trial? So there was, I believe, and having been in combat, there's always confusion on the first strike, even with special operators. So I think that all plays a part in this entire thing. And one of the things that connects all this, as you just said, is what are the other people saying? I keep going back that I think a key witness to all of this is going to be Admiral Halsey, the battlespace commander, as it were. As the Southern Command commander, he had a fight, or at least some contentious comments with Secretary Hickseth. He also had a lawyer who had those same contentious comment. I think some of that testimony is also going to be important to setting the context of all that happened on that day.

[B]

Missy, let me show you some more of what the people who have had eyes on the video of the first and second strike and have watched this entire chain of events have said. This is. First, let me play Adam Smith talking about it, and then Jim Himes.

[C]

Because their definition of return to the fight was they considered it plausible that the cocaine was still on that boat. I find that somewhat questionable as well. It was hit by a strike. It was on fire, visibly burning for a while before the fuel tank separated and then capsized. Is it possible that there was still cocaine underneath the part of the boat that was underwater? I suppose there was no evidence of that. And also, what does it mean that the cocaine was still there in terms of these two people still being a threat and in the fight?

I don't want to get specific here, but there was no radio. There were two individuals clinging to flots. That's what there was. There wasn't weaponry of any kind. There wasn't a radio. There was no means for them to communicate other than the fact that the fire and the smoke was fairly well visible for a long distance around. But there was no radio.

[B]

Missy, in those descriptions, do you hear anything, anything that suggests there's any distinction between the example written in the Laws of War manual about how to treat survivors of a shipwreck and what was briefed to Congress yesterday in terms of the video they saw?

[F]

It's a great question, but the distinction that I see is actually the administration's maritime campaign, which is newly militarized, and it's taking over what has traditionally been a Coast Guard and law enforcement domain, Coast Guard interdictions, law enforcement, prosecution, intelligence gathering. And this is something unfamiliar and new for the US Military. And the other crucial distinction, and potentially more important, is something that General Hertling referenced earlier, and that's Pete Hegseth and the way that he is leading the Pentagon, the messages that he's sending down the chain of command about what is and isn't acceptable. And, you know, I've covered nine or ten secretaries Defense, and since Hegseth took office, he started doing all these sort of unorthodox moves in his leadership of the Pentagon. I've really asked myself, what is the lasting impact that he's going to have on the institution? And I think that this is starting to give us some clues in terms of how this impacts operational decisions that are occurring in the military. And I think some of these things are always going to be debatable in the moment. And I think when you have a campaign that puts criminals, people who have traditionally been viewed as criminals, not terrorist, in this new light, this is really uncharted territory for the military itself.

[B]

General Hartland, let me bring you back in on the point Missy's making. I mean, that Hegseth is changing the military was, I suppose, unavoidable based on who he is and how he crossed Donald Trump's radar. They first knew of each other because Pete Hegseth was on Fox and Friends on the weekends, championing the cause.

Of two members of the military who had been through the military's justice system. Hegseth wanted Trump to intervene, and he did, over the objections of then Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. That's their connection. And I wonder if you think that Pete Hegseth has changed the culture, military, if you think that he has now put men and women of the military in the position of being accused by Republicans and Democrats of carrying out possible war crimes.

[E]

There has been an emerging trend over the last couple of decades, Nicole, of politicizing the military. And it's something that's discussed in war colleges and command and staff colleges, in every one of the services, case studies, this kind of thing. I think that there has been an attempt to bend the military to take them away from their apoliticalization and also their oath of office. I don't think it's going to break the military. I agree with, with Missy. Some of the things that are happening right now are going to be case studies in the future about the adherence to the rule of law and understanding of the personal courage that's involved in standing up to subordinates and say, we're not going to do that, what to do in those kind of situations. The military has been through these kinds of tests before, and they've always usually improved and gotten better afterwards. But certainly right now, it's a tough time because as I said before, as I'm listening to the key leader in the Pentagon, the secretary of Defense, he's sending messages, and so is President Trump, about what the military should and should not do. And it happened in the first term of the Trump administration as well. In terms of establishing palace guard, having parades, using my generals, my military. Those are the kind of things that I think impinge upon a culture which my experience over 40 years in the military is that it's a very strong culture. We are taught things in different schoolhouses, but it's certainly being tested right now. In the future, there's going to be A lot of young officers and NCOs that are looking back on this and saying, wow, how did all this happen?

[B]

Yeah, because Angelo, I mean, that will happen in the future because what happened in the past resulted in the example in the Laws of War manual being this example of how one treats shipwrecked people. Yeah. That is the line that has been drawn based on the study of history.

[G]

Yeah. And I think it's worth noting that, you know, we talk about that as the study of history, but a big part of what Trump and all the people around him are engaging in and the right wing media underneath it, is revisionism. A lot of this started with a revision of what our history is. And that is a big part. So ignoring it is key.

And that's, I think, to me the biggest piece of all of this is that the narrative of the story that they're sharing is one in which we've been fundamentally weak and somebody like Hegseth is going to go in there and change the culture. And that is what he promised to do. And that's what we're having now is this fantasy, the story that he had been selling for so many months started to become materialized. And obviously it wasn't well thought out. And you have all these operational issues as a result of it. And that to me then if you add it all up, if you look at what the coverage is in the right wing media and Trump supporters, it's either they're ignoring it or they're confused. They don't know whether or not to be upset or to celebrate it because this is now conflicting with the reality. So for instance, Handy wants to give Trump credit for these killings. You know, he has been saying that this is an example.

[B]

Trump doesn't want to take any credit or have anything to do with the second strike.

[G]

That's exactly right.

[B]

Trump has been asked publicly twice and once he said, if there was a second strike, I wouldn't have approved of that. And when he was told by Jim Himes wanted the video release, he said, yeah, I'd release it.

[G]

And that, I mean, that should. And yet Hannity still wants to give him credit for it. And he still attributes it to him, says, well, this is an example of the kid gloves that Joe Biden put on the military coming off. And you know, other Fox News hosts like Jesse Watters are giving Hegseth all the credit. The chyrons read finish the job. Right. So they want to celebrate it. Other parts of the right wing media are saying, well, we don't like this. This is too far. This is confusing, but the majority are ignoring it. And I think that is, to me, the illustration that they've ignored all the history. They have their own narrative, their own version of it. It's obviously been a fantasy and now we're seeing that materialize into reality.

[B]

No one's going anywhere. I want to play some of what you're talking about, what the right wing fantasy sounds like. Also ahead for us, after another setback to Trump's retribution efforts, could a grand jury be shown more evidence again to re indict James after yesterday's colossal failure? The no true bill vote by the grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia? We'll ask that question of those who know that. And new reporting on how the Justice Department is still claiming that Trump loyalist Lindsey Halligan is a real live US Attorney despite a court disqualifying her last month. Plus, a new report reveals how Kash Patel and his girlfriend are using the FBI for their own personal needs. Later in the broadcast, a leading voice in the intelligence community joins us to weigh in on what Pete Hegseth and these allegedly potentially illegal strikes are doing to America's credibility around the world. I'll have all those stories in much more. More when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

[D]

He says big blustery things that people want to hear, but he goes way too far. And then when the military says we won't follow illegal orders like torture or killing families, which is not loosening the rules of engagement, he suddenly realizes, wait, I might actually be commander in chief. And the problem here is, is that voters don't know whether you get the bluster Trump, which is the armchair tough guy, or you get the one who walks it back on a statement now and says, no, no, no, I'll follow the law. The military is not going to follow illegal orders. And so the Trump campaign was forced to change their position and say, we're going to try to change the law so that the military can operate within the law.

[C]

That's a tall order.

[A]

Also, find new customers on a platform that's here to stay. With TikTok for business, anything is possible. If you've ever thought about advertising your business on TikTok, now is the time to do it. You can drive more customers to your website, sell products right in the app, and you can even use TikTok's creative tools to easily make content and find creators to help sell your products for you. Find new customers today, just open your browser, type in get started.TikTok.com tiktokads and grow your business fast.

[H]

Hey, Riley herbst here with 23xi racing, waiting for the bus, staring at traffic crawl hard pass. I rev up Chumba Casino instead. Fast spins, blazing winds, all fun, no downloads needed. Why let the clock drag when you can let the reels spin? Next stop, chumbacasino.com let's Chumba.

[A]

No purchase necessary VGW Group void where prohibited by law.

[I]

CTC's 21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[J]

Come to DSW for the shoes, stay for the fun. Because let's be honest, if shoe shopping isn't fun, are you even doing it right? So go ahead, try something new. Try something different, good different. Try something that feels like you, you know, the real you. And then definitely brag about it later. Because at dsw, you've got unlimited freedom to play. Find the shoes that get you at prices that get your budget at DSW stores [e-mail] Let us surprise you.

[B]

What's amazing about Pete Hegseth and before him, J.D. vance, who called Trump, quote, America's Hitler and before that Marco Rubio, had the epic hand sized battle with Donald Trump is that they've all had the harshest things to say about Donald Trump. And in Hegset's case.

With such specificity, what do you make of where we find ourselves?

[G]

Well, I mean, look, it is a testament to Trump we shouldn't. Trump built an organized power on what used to be considered the fringes. And his vehicle for doing it was the larger right wing media echo chamber. He leaped Fox News and captured the Fox News audience. He pulled in all these other QAnon and other conspiracy theorists. That is the engine of his power. And so how does it make sense with somebody like Hegseth? Well, a big reason why these guys were out there in the first place is there was a point in time and it was very fashionable. And you would be rewarded for criticizing Donald Trump as Trump was trying to seize and hijack power, political power on the right and he was using the media. There were people that were being booked or like Hegseth who was trying, who hadn't had a job at Fox News yet but was still just a guest. He was coming on to fill the role of the person criticizing Trump from that perspective. That was the thing that was incentivizing him. So to me, what it tells me is not just about the structures here, but that ultimately a lot of them are weather veins and they go where the weather blows, you know, where the wind blows. And so when you have this Authoritarian, rotten, sort of fascist push, they'll just go in that direction. When you have chaos and disorder and disorientation and stagnation, they'll sort of just middle along, and that's kind of where we are right now. There's a lot of core. They're coreless, they're incompetent, but they're going to be responsive to where the trajectory is. And I will beat this drum. The time when the vibes are good and the echo chamber is working, they can move the country, the politics, the culture in that direction. When it's not, you get disorientation, you get stagnation. Things sort of retrench back to standard politics and the engines can start to work again. I don't think it's an accident that we're talking about this today, not because of what happened, but because you had Republican members of Congress say, I am willing to do something about this. I don't know if they would have done this three months ago.

[B]

The vibes are very different before the November election.

[I]

That's right.

[B]

Well, I think what everyone has woken up to is that this will end, and when it ends, there will be accountability because this sort of. I mean, Donald Trump and his pardon machine won't be sitting there forever. Missy, I want to show you what MAGA Republican Senator Tom Cotton said, because to the point Angela's making seemed to sound ridiculous to the host to whom he's speaking. Here he is on, I think on cnn.

[A]

Did you see any evidence of them.

[D]

Trying to use a radio in the video you saw?

[C]

Well, I saw lots of evidence of them standing on the boat that had been capsized?

[E]

That wasn't my question.

[B]

Did you see any evidence trying to.

[C]

Get it back up, trying to. Trying to flip it over?

[B]

Did you see any evidence of them trying to use a radio?

[C]

No, I didn't.

No, John, but they were clearly not incapacitated. They were not distressed. One guy took his T shirt off like he was sunbathing. They were trying to get the boat back up and to continue their mission of spreading these drugs all across America.

[B]

So unless they were going to dredge them up from the bottom of the sea, dry them out and then blow them there. The Washington Post described the vessel this way. It was, quote, on fire from bow to ster.

Do you have any. I mean, it sounds like Tom Cotton saw the same video that Congressman Smith and Congressman Himes saw. Do you know where that analysis comes from? That they were sunbathing and they were. He saw evidence that they were there Was any scenario where they could get their burning boat back up to continue and make it to America.

[F]

I think like so much else these days, you're seeing a sort of partisan split screen when it comes to the response to a single, single piece of information, in this case this imagery, the footage from the September 2nd strike. So I think the basic facts that we have in our reporting, talking to people from both parties, is that there was this extended period, something like 40 minutes, more than 40 minutes between the first and second strike. And you had the two survivors clinging to what we were told was a dinner table size or large door sized piece of wreckage. They were trying to flip it and that they did not have radios that anyone could discern, that they did not have any way to. They were adrift, essentially. They didn't have any way to, you know, restart the boat or anything like that. And like we discussed earlier, Admiral Bradley decided that that was sufficient evidence to conclude that they continue to pose a threat under the framework, the order that Hagsett themselves had laid out. But I think what is really interesting right now and something that we've been reporting on today is the way in which this, in addition to the signal gate inspector general report that came out this week, in addition to the lawsuit that the New York Times launched this week, in addition to a number of different things, you're seeing a potential turning point on Capitol Hill for Hegseth. It's still very quiet, but I think there is some reason to think that the complaints that many Republicans in Congress have about Hegseth are beginning to accumulate right now, according to our reporting. It's not something where people are willing to call President Trump on the phone and ask him to be fired. But I do think that for a number of different reasons related to, you know, the Pentagon's policy on, on troops in Europe, on the actual top line number of the budget, on the, on the strikes and some other reasons there are Republicans who are going frustrated by, by some of Hexess leadership, by the drama that we've seen. And I think it just remains to be seen how long Trump, you know, Hexa's audience of one will stick with him.

[B]

Joe Hartley, I want to read just one more piece of reporting about what the video shows. This is from the New York Times. The signaling by the survivors has been interpreted in different ways. Some of the people viewing the video thought the waiving by survivors could have been an attempt to surrender, which could raise questions about whether the military had violated the rules of armed conflict during the operation. Others who viewed the video said the most logical explanation was that the two survivors had seen the American aircraft above them and started signaling for a rescue. But it's not clear from the video that the survivors had seen it. Even the frame of the two scenarios as reported by the New York Times still doesn't square with what is, to me, a bright line taught at every level of the United States military. And that is how you handle survivors who have been shipwrecked, who are floating in the water and the history of that and the lessons learned from that. And so when you talk about this being a case study in the future, I still can't get my brain around how this happened right now.

[E]

I'd add to your description too, Nicole. Unarmed survivors. It was apparent that they were unarmed. And yeah, I haven't seen the video, so I won't comment on it. But I will comment on something that to me is fascinating. Listening to the clips that you just showed of Secretary Hegseth. I hate to tell a war story, but I will. In 2007, I was preparing the first armored division to go to Iraq, and we had seminars on law of war, rules of engagement, those kind of things. And we studied three different actions and how they affected the combat operations. The first one was Abu Ghraib. I was in Baghdad when that occurred, and I saw how that tactical issue of maltreatment of prisoners turned into a strategic catastrophe. The second one was something called the Black Heart scandal, which occurred in 2005, where a bunch of soldiers raped and murdered a couple of Iraqi citizens and their daughter. The third one was something called the Tartar island issue, and it came out later in an interview or, excuse me, a magazine article in the New Yorker in 2009. Secretary Hegseth was a soldier in that unit where other soldiers committed murder. They attacked into an island. They were told by their commander, a well loved colonel, a very charismatic colonel, to kill everyone on the island because that's where Al Qaeda was. Well, when the soldiers got there, they didn't find just Al Qaeda, they found citizens. And yet some of them killed a lot of young boys and a lot of men that were farmers. One was 60 years old. So the soldiers were sent to Leavenworth. They're still serving time there. The commander was relieved and his career was ended. And Secretary Hegseth was a member of that unit. So that kind of dynamic, you would think, as Angelo said before, that people would learn from and apply it as part of their history and as they build cultures within an organization. But that doesn't seem to be the case today. And that's why it's so important, truthfully, that we continue to remind soldiers that they should not obey illegal orders, period.

[B]

And just you ending on that gives meis so powerful because that was the message that six members of Congress sought to send. Not to people like me, not to the cable hosts, not to Donald Trump, not as a political barb, to the men and women of the military, to protect them from ever having to be in that situation. And I guess I'd give you one more quick last word. What do you make of the six members who continue? I've interviewed four of them. They all face ongoing threats to their safety and lives and those of their families.

[E]

It gets back to a narrative versus factual data. They did nothing wrong. You can debate whether or not they should have done it, but they were just reminding military personnel what they get from their first day of basic training, that you don't obey illegal orders or unlawful orders.

You know, what you make from it is people are upset because it was a counter narrative to what was happening in terms of killing drug smugglers, killing criminals that should be detained and arrested.

[B]

Lt. Gen. Mark Kirtling, we've benefited so much from being able to talk to you all week long. Thank you so much for joining us again today. Missy Ryan, thank you for being with us today. Angela Stevenson sticks around for the hour. Up next for us, Trump's DOJ refusing to take no for an answer, all in pursuit of Trump's rather diabolical retribution campaign against his perceived political enemies. We'll bring you that update next.

Our friend and colleague Carol Lennig is back today again with more extraordinary reporting that Donald Trump's Justice Department could actually try for a third time to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on charges related to alleged mortgage fraud. It hasn't been 24 hours since Carolina broke the news on this program that DOJ's second attempt to secure an indictment failed to clear the low bar of probability for the grand jury. But the DOJ's now desperate attempt to meet Trump's demands for a political prosecution of James and former FBI Director Jim Comey has been plagued from the start by controversy. And the big one here, factual challenges and a first attempt to indict that fell apart, overseen by the now dismissed, unlawfully appointed insurance lawyer and former White House adviser Lindsey Halligan. I want to bring into our coverage senior investigative reporter Carol Lennig. Angela is still with us. Carol, it was rather dramatic when you got the news of the no True bill, the no Grand Jury indictment on the air. I will not ask for a command performance, but just tell us happened since you left us.

[G]

Tyler redick here from 2311 Racing.

[B]

You think racing's tough?

[G]

Try getting your friends to agree on dinner plans.

[I]

I'm in.

[G]

Wait maybe what time again?

[C]

While they figure that out, I rev.

[B]

Up Chumba Casino play on your browser.

[G]

No downloads necessary. No need to negotiate. Why wait on them when you can spin for yourself?

[B]

Play [e-mail] let's chumba no purchase necessary.

[A]

VGW Group voidware prohibited by law.

[I]

CTC's 21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino Looking.

[A]

For a new way to grow your business with TikTok? For business, anything is possible. If you've ever thought about advertising on TikTok, now's the time to do it. You can drive more customers to your website, sell products right in the app, and you can even use TikTok's creative tools to easily make content and find creators to help sell your products for you. Find new customers today, just open your browser, type in getstarted.TikTok.com TikTok ads and grow your business fast.

[J]

Busy work weeks can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet rejuvenates you at the cellular level, lets you enjoy real food and does not require an injection. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute, Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolism, skin health and fat loss when combined with proper exercise and nutrition. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com PandoraPromo.

[I]

There'S something going on with you and me, Nicole.

[B]

I seem to learn something.

[I]

I learned something in my ear on my phone about six seconds after I'm supposed to be on air with you. And somehow you intuit that so well, you must have a spidey sense you could be a reporter is what I'm saying.

So there's just. It's just been a crazy news week. You know it. You feel it too. We broke a story early this morning that Cash Patel was ordering FBI agents to do something. But let's stick with Letitia James for a moment. Yesterday on your program, we broke that there was no true bill, which is code for grand jurors believed that prosecutors had failed to establish probable cause, a very low bar that a crime had been committed by Letitia James. They as you know, the proposed charge involved mortgage fraud and lying to a bank, making a false statement. And the majority of the grand jurors said we don't believe a crime has been committed. We don't believe there's a probability to believe that one has been committed. And we have sources who shared that information with us in a very timely way. I do hate to say that I have new information for you now. That is from my two great colleagues, Fallon Gallagher and Lisa Rubin, who discovered that there is an order entered into the court in Norfolk that shows that this rare event did happen. And when I say this event, I want to be careful. The order says we are registering essentially that there was a rejection by the grand jury of a proposed indictment. And the bench in that district requires a report back to the court when there is a no true bill, partially because it is so incredibly rare. The order does not mention Letitia James. But I'll just say again, using my spidey sense, it sort of strains credulity that in the court on the day that we reported there was a rejection of indictment, that this particular one that happened on November, forgive me, December 4th isn't the same. The one and the same. I'm going to take a breath and listen to your next question.

[B]

What happens next?

[I]

So if the Justice Department leadership wants to try to re indict Letitia James, and our information from a Justice Department source speaking on background is that they intend to, that may change if they try to re indict. It could happen next week in Alexandria. It could happen two weeks hence in another Virginia office. There are several of them in the Eastern District of Virginia. There could be an attempt to present to another grand jury this set of facts and seek to have them believe that there is a crime that is likely committed regarding her application for a loan. But there's something not so great for the government if they do seek to do this a third time. It first improves Letitia James and her defense attorney's hand in arguing that this is a pretty selective and vindictive prosecution because it's so embarrassing for a grand jury to not actually believe you met that low test. And second, sources have been telling us, Nicole, that if there is a third attempt, it also triggers something else that's beneficial for the defense, and that is that they would have a much likelier chance, a much higher chance of obtaining all of the agent's testimony. The FBI agent presenting testimony in the grand jury. Not the norm for the defense to get that. But if the defense gets that, it will be really interesting to see if there's a consistent account in each of the three grand jury experiences. Were all the grand juries told the same thing? Did the story get better? Did it get worse? This will be super helpful to the defense.

[B]

Potentially.

Amazing. So even by losing and refusing to sort of take two losses for an answer, they're weakening their case if there eventually is one. And as you hinted at there, you have another scoop this morning. I want to ask you about that. I want to bring Angelo in. It gets at how the FBI and all of our tax dollars are going toward Keshe Patel in his private spaces, in his life. We'll tell you about it next.

Caroline is still with us at the end of a very busy week of reporting for her. It includes a stunning update to what those taxpayer funded agents have been up to in Nashville. Pulled away from their SWAT mission to protect FBI Director Kash Patel's girlfriend. Reportedly sources telling Carolinek and Kandelanean that orders now include taking her allegedly inebriated friend home after a night of partying. An allegation the FBI denies. From that reporting, quote, Patel's girlfriend, Alexis Wilkins asked FBI agents on her security team at least two times, including once this spring, to drive her friend home. And agents objected to diverting from their assignment, said the sources who were granted, who spoke anonymously to discuss non public matters. But Patel insisted they do as Wilkins requested and in one case called the leader of Wilkins security detail and yelled at him to do so, end quote. We're back with Carol and Angelo Carroll. This is, this is just remarkable. Remarkable and potentially so explosive for any agents involved. He's been so punitive of any information that reflects badly on him.

[I]

That's right, Nicole. You know, one of the things we have to think about when we're reporting information that we think the public needs to know about how the FBI is operating, operating now, is how this could bring people a load of hurt. But sources reached out to us because they're outraged at the use of FBI resources as an Uber for Patel's girlfriend's friend. Right. That's what that is what is bothering them. They're worried about the larger mission of this revered institution, protecting us from a terror attack, intervening before somebody is engaged in a mass shooting or a bombing. And they see their, their, their work depleted and their efforts depleted as FBI agents are sent hither and yon to cities to try to round up potential immigrants who haven't complied with this or that court requirement. And they see their friends being driven out of different agencies, forgive me, field offices of the FBI and leaders being fired without legal cause. So they're under a lot of pressure. And then this happens. Patel, the director's girlfriend has a security detail which is unprecedented. And on top of that, she has wanted and asked her team to drive home her friend after a night of drinking. And this has happened more than once. And this is really pushing the FBI agents to the brink, the colleagues and the people involved.

[B]

It's amazing. The FBI at the brink isn't anything you want to hear at a time when we face so many threats. I want to give you the last word. I have to sneak in one more break.

[G]

Well, when I think about the both of these stories, I think they're a tie into where they sit right now in terms of their power and influence. You know, the James story, I think about that as much as a Pam Bondi story, because when you can't divorce, how that conversation in the right wing media is playing out. Every time they talk about one of these James, Letitia James things not working out, they blame Pam Bondi. They're mad at her. And I think it's the same thing playing out with Cash Patel. There's more of these leaks. There's more of these reports about him coming out because I think the people around him that actually can do something see him as being potentially weak and vulnerable and they have a chance right now to maybe get him out or to weaken him even further so that we can get back to normal order. And I think that's kind of what you're seeing play out in both the pan things a little bit different. I think they're going after her because they want to replace her in the case of the Patel thing. I think they just want to go back to normal order.

[B]

Well, and the stories about Patel have been so personally embarrassing him in a woman's FBI coat. I mean, stories obviously meant to show people what's really happening behind the scenes. And it ain't pretty. Carol Lennig, a banner week for journalism. And central among that journalism is yours. Thank you very much for bringing it to us here and some of it live while I was on the air. It's an honor. Angela, thank you for being here at the table. It's a treat to have you here in person. Another break. We'll be right back.

The United States Supreme Court today agreed to take up Donald Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship, the long held reading of our constitution that confers automatic citizenship for any person born here. The Supreme Court did not announce a date for oral arguments, but it will likely happen in the coming months with the decision by late June or July. The Supreme Court previously sided with the administration on a procedural question around implementing nationwide injunctions. But now they'll hear the case on its merits, or lack thereof. We'll stay on top of that story after the break. For us, one of our most trusted voices in the intelligence community on the deadly re strike in the Caribbean and America's standing in the world right now, the next hour of deadline White House starts after a quick strike.

[H]

Hey, Riley herbst here with 2311 racing, waiting for the bus, staring at traffic crawl hard pass. I rev up Chumba Casino instead. Fast spins, blazing winds, all fun. No downloads needed. Why let the clock drag when you can let the reel spin? Next stop, jumbacasino.com let's Chumba.

[B]

No purchase necessary.

[A]

VGW Group Void where prohibited by law.

[I]

CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Jumba Casino.