C (6:37)

Regardless of your party, I have so much respect for the survivors, and I just want to say that to you now that we're in each other's orbit right here, who have demonstrated so much courage and to show up on Capitol Hill, it would have been so easy for her to acknowledge them and then still stay on message. You know, she could have easily done that. But when they live in the kind of bubble that they live in, there is this belief that they are arc benders in some way, that they can the superhuman powers to bend reality at their will. And this is now catching up to them. And part of what we're seeing, I think, is people responding to the way that this is being played out and adjudicated in other places. People are losing their jobs overseas, people have been arrested. There have been real consequences for this, and it's harder for them to remain in this bubble of their own making, this reality that they've created. When you're seeing other people face consequences at the same time. We're talking about a woman who's describing something that happened to her when she's 13 or 15 years old. Everyone has someone in their life who's 13 or 15. They've been 13 or 15 themselves. They can imagine just how vulnerable you are, how fragile you are at that age. And it's astonishing that he's been able to make it this far without having to really acknowledge what happened and face this. And it feels like this is, you know, every time you say this feels like this is a crack, there's a number of cracks in the structure now, and it's just hard to imagine that it will continue to stand with this many strat. This many cracks in a foundation that just doesn't seem like it can hold much longer.

D (8:15)

And to your point, what's stunning is we came on the air in this Hour yesterday with Kristi Noem also cracking under direct questioning from a Republican about her own telling of murdering her young puppy. I mean, you see the lack of character among the people that Trump has selected being elevated as a topic for scrutiny and critiques from Republicans for the

C (8:40)

first time at the same time that this is playing out on the backdrop against a war right at the highest possible stakes. So this is someone who won't acknowledge what's happening here, won't deal with what's happening here. And I think that the fact that we are now a nation at war in a place where we are not in. They talk about this extreme show of strength, that this will be a short war, that they don't, they don't know how this is going to play out. War is ugly. War is never predictable. And you can see this in what's happening all throughout the region. So all of this is coming together. It's sort of a toxic stew, but it's making people actually realize in a very real way what is at stake and who's at the center of this. Who's making all of these decisions that are putting America's economy at harm, American people at harm? I mean, what's going on? They talk about this being a quick, a quick war. I mean, Iran could strangle the world's economy just by keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed. Everyone is affected by that. Every single person is affected by that. And not just gas prices. If you have anything in your home that travels on a truck, on a plane, on a ship, you know, it's all going to become more expensive. And so it's, you know, it's almost weird to talk about affordability when you're also talking about a case that involves child, you know, sexual misconduct with children. But that's why I say it's not one thing. It's all of these things coming together, creating, as I say, these big cracks in a foundation that it doesn't seem like this can continue to hold.

D (10:04)

I interviewed the legendary singer Joan Baez about how this moment differs from the 60s, and she had a lot of answers. But one of the things she said was that we had each other. And what I saw in September at the press conference and what seems to have made the survivors courage so powerful and effective. I mean, we talk about, I mean, a prince has been arrested. An ambassador has been fired and is under investigation. The former White House counsel for President Obama, who ascended to be one of the most powerful lawyers at one of the biggest investment banks, has been fired. The head Of a law firm. It's one of the most powerful law firms in our country. Had to step down from his job. A health guy, I think they call them influencers. Who had crude dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. Lost his job first representing a power bar and then later representing CBS News, all because of what you guys did.

E (11:07)

Well, when you say it like that, that sounds amazing. You know, I mean, I think survivors, you know, it's. Annie Farmer said it best recently that, you know, how the question was like, how do you guys continue with such bravery? And Annie was basically like, we just put one foot in front of the. And you just don't even, like, see what's coming next. You just keep the running. You just keep it moving. And it really is that I think you feel such a responsibility to each other. And just this sense of community is something that I never thought that I could have for sure. I thought that I would always live in this very shameful silo within my own story. And meeting them in September has changed truly every single fiber of me because you start to see that you do deserve community and you deserve people in your life that. I mean, I think all of us would do anything for each other. And on those days that do feel insanely hard to keep momentum or even get out of bed, you listen to one survivor talk and you're like, okay, I'm up. Let's do the thing. How many meetings do we have today? And it really is a sisterhood that is fueled by so many other people, right? It is fueled by so many other survivors. It is fueled by folks across, not even our country, but internationally that we're hearing from. In Norway and Italy, there are survivors that reach out to us all the time about their own stories and are disclosing their stories for the first time. So I'm hoping that as a collective, we can take some of the weight off one another and put it to where it needs to go, which is to try to find accountability for, you know, against our abusers.

D (12:46)

Michael Feinberg, if you're designing a line of questioning for the Democrats and now five Republicans who have also co signed this endeavor, what do you ask? Pam Bondi?

B (12:59)

I don't know if the first thing I would say would be a question, but I think I would point out to her that her department, the Department of Justice, is the only part of the president's cabinet whose very name contains a moral imperative. And that imperative is to do right by those who've done wrong, who've been wronged. That is the meaning of justice. That is the point of the Department of Justice. And I would ask her a number of questions. First, obviously, why couldn't she look the victims and survivors in the face during her last hearing? Why has she changed her story on the Epstein files so many times from saying she had a client list on her desk to claiming there is no client list? Why has she decimated the parts of the Department of Justice that normally work with victims and witnesses and try to make them whole in at least an emotional way, even if litigation fails? In other words, why has she taken the Department of Justice, which is supposed to serve the public, and instead abandoned that mission all for the sake of simply creating a private lawfare for her boss in a public building?

D (14:19)

Let me read you what Nancy Mace tweeted Michael, about what Republicans believe is being withheld and ask you if this is in the realm of possibility because it came from Nancy Mace. But it's something I heard, oddly from Cash Patel when he appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast, quote, ag Bondi claims the DOJ has released all of its the Epstein files. The record is clear. They have not. The Epstein case is one of the greatest cover ups in American history. This global sex trafficking network is larger than what is being revealed. Three million documents have been released and we still don't have the full truth. Videos are missing, audio is missing, logs are missing. There are millions more documents out there. We want to know why the DOJ is more focused on shielding the powerful than delivering justice. Now, I understand that some of those types of evidence could endanger the victims, but they've shown no sensitivity to that. Danny's name and address were released in the original batches. So what is the possibility that that is true and that all that evidence exists and what is the path for having that made transparent?

B (15:33)

So whether that evidence exists is an interesting question that's actually more nuanced than is going to satisfy a lot of people. Just because there is evidence of a crime or because there is contextual information, whether audio or video or digital out there, does not necessarily mean that it is in an FBI case file. You know, the FBI only collects the information, generally speaking, which is necessary to prove the elements of the crime that the FBI and the Department of Justice have agreed upon to prosecute. But, and I can't believe I'm about to say this, Nancy Mason. Nancy Mason's larger point is actually true. We have no reason, based on the behavior of the past 14 months, to trust what is coming out of this Justice Department. And despite knowing that FBI files are often not as fulsome as the public believes. I do find myself agreeing with Nancy Mace that we're not getting the full story and the DOJ officials still have a lot to account for and a lot to answer for.

D (16:55)

Danny, what. What question would you ask Bambani?

E (16:57)

That's such a good question. Well, I think the first thing that I want to say, why are we always putting survivors in a place of being the doj? Like, we are always in a place of. Tell us the names. Everybody you know, in a group setting with an anchor asking us, has Donald Trump ever done anything to you? Has Jess Staley ever done anything to you? And first of all, that would be so unsafe for someone in that group setting to raise a hand and say, yes, me, because it hasn't gone through any sort of legal process. We don't have lawyers in the room. Safety and defamation are huge concerns for survivors. And so just I want to start by saying this idea of survivors releasing a list is really hurtful and detrimental, and it shouldn't. We are not the Department of Justice. That's why we have a Department of Justice. Right. So that they can bring justice.

D (17:50)

That perpetuates the whole. The whole ring that the powerful are protected and the victims have to do the work.

E (17:55)

Exactly. And it's just, you're just seeing it close in on this scale that it's an isolated scale now. Right. So the world can see it. To Pam Bondi, I'm so glad that they are going to talk to her. The first thing that came to mind was like, how's the DAO now?

F (18:13)

Right.

E (18:14)

Because it was like everything was evaded the whole time we sat there. We're like, why are we talking about the dao? Why is she asking about Jekyll and Hyde? Like, she would do anything to evade any question. And so, you know, there is a piece of me, and I'm sure with other survivors, I haven't had a chance to talk to them fully about this yet, but there's a little bit of vindication where it's like, yes, thank you. Like, actually answer questions. So I guess that's my greatest point. If she, she would listen.

D (18:43)

It's a face question.

E (18:44)

Please answer questions. That's all we're asking for. That's all we've ever asked. You know, we're not, we're not politically affiliated. It's not about a partisan line for us. It's just about getting the truth. It always has been. And so I just hope that she really will answer and not evade.

D (18:59)

Well, and I think the lack of any political affiliation on your work, not just what shows up on television, but all the hard work you guys do behind the scenes visiting with Democrats and Republicans and their staffs is showing up in this vote of five Republicans.

E (19:14)

I really hope so. It's so nice to see Republicans support. I mean, that's, we've been talking to offices and we barely see follow through.

D (19:22)

Right.

E (19:22)

And so it's starting to show up a little bit here.

D (19:25)

And there you go.

E (19:25)

Yeah.

D (19:26)

Danny, thank you for being here. Michael Feinberg, thank you for helping us across two hours. We are grateful for that. A little overtime for you. Michel sticks around with us this hour when we come back. Five days into a war with Iran and there is still no clarity from the Trump administration on why it was started, what its objectives are, how long it will take and what our aims are as a nation. Our dear friend Sue Gordon, who we turn to in times like this, will be our next guest. Also ahead, James Talarico won a clear and decisive victory last night. And now he has Democrats dreaming of doing something that has not happened in more than three decades, turning a Senate seat in deep red, Texas bright blue. We'll get to that. Plus how Donald Trump is so scared of losing that exact Senate seat, he's trying to make sure Republican voters don't have a say about who their nominee should be. We'll explain later in the hour. Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere. Meet Millie. Millie's the head of the household. She demands her dry food come with a side of wet food.

E (20:29)

Millie's sitter from Rover totally gets Millie, which is best for everyone. Find a sitter who's a perfect match for your pet. Rover.

D (20:36)

We get your pet.

C (20:37)

Cash flow Crunch on Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondac does not lend in North Dakota. All loans an amount subject to lender approval.

E (21:08)

Why have we asked our contractor we found on Angie.com to be our kid's legal guardian? Because he took such good care when redoing our basement that we knew we could trust him to care for our kids.

A (21:16)

We only met a month ago, Angie, the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com.

C (21:25)

are there measures being taken not to

D (21:27)

eliminate other possible alternatives to leadership?

A (21:30)

This is war. And we're taking out the threat.

D (21:32)

You'll concede this is war.

A (21:33)

We haven't declared war. They declared war on us. We haven't declared. Now, you said they've called it, they've called it war. What I was saying. Okay, well, that was misspoke. What I was saying that they've declared war on us. But, but war is ugly. It always has been ugly. But we're, you know, we're at a, we're taking out a regime that's been trying to attack us for quite some time.

D (21:55)

But you're not conceding this as war.

A (21:56)

We have declared war. So it's if we haven't declared war, then I don't see that the president asked us to declare war yet.

F (22:07)

This is war.

D (22:08)

We haven't declared war. They declared war. Who said war? Ever play a game of catch with a greased up watermelon? It's a little bit like that. Even the most obvious answers to the most basic fundamental questions, especially after six United States service members have died about a military campaign now being described by Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump and Marco Rubio as, quote, accelerating and quote, rapidly widening or proving too slippery to get a clear answer to for the American people. Never mind the more in depth questions like why are we at war with Iran and why did it happen? Now, because the answer to those questions are veritable, choose your adventure responses A, B, C, D, or all of the above. And they've shifted with the political currents since Saturday. At any given moment, we're expected to believe the strike on Iran was about preemptive action or about nuclear capabilities or about the protesters or about what Israel was planning. And on top of all that, today the New York Times reported this, quote, the Pentagon provided few details, but the Trump administration has said that Iran's plotting to kill US officials, particularly Mr. Trump, is one reason the United States launched its bombing campaign. An all new rationale never before made public. Joining us now, former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Sue Gordon is here. Sue, where do you want to start?

F (23:47)

Hi, Nicole. That was really hard to watch. It's all really hard to watch. Let's see. Here's where I'll start. The American system is designed. The American system is designed and underpinned by the Constitution so that citizens, institutions, professionals, Congress, courts and the president all test assumptions before a decision and an action is taken. And we deliberately make decisions about war and peace difficult. That's not weakness, that's not slowness. It's protection for us. And the founders in the Constitution designed friction to prevent impulsive action. And the constitutional process in itself is a national security safeguard. So the fact that we have had zero process around this is really problematic. I had a.

D (24:46)

Is it illegal?

F (24:49)

It certainly is antithetical to the Constitution. Right. If you look at the Constitution, the Constitution gives the power to the Congress to declare war. And everyone is saying we're at war. And I, and I think if you look at the tests that are a legal test to it, you get down to the last one that says unless you're under immediate threat, that's just not the case here. China is a much more immediate threat to the United States. Russia is a much more immediate threat. And all those conditions that they just described, people who want to take out our officials, nuclear capability, massive military capabilities, doctrinally stating that they are either in China's case trying to win a competition against this and beat us economically, or in Russia's case trying to undermine democracy, all those conditions are true. So I just don't think that when you look at what the Constitution prescribes, the friction it demands, the slowness is asked for, because this is really big. I don't see how you come to believing that this test is true. I was particularly seized by Secretary Rubio's, well, Israel was either going to attack or be attacked. He goes both ways on that. Let's talk about Israel for a second. If you've been to Israel, their geography is impossible. They are at once some of our best partners and some of our most difficult partners. And over the course of my career, that tension of their operational imperative, because they're feeling this threat and us saying, settle down. I don't know why today we couldn't manage that. The nuclear argument is specious. Even though it is true that we do not want that regime to get nuclear weapons, even though it is true that that regime is maligned, you just can't come to the immediacy. But Nicole, even more than that, I would rule, when I was a leader and a minister, if someone came to me with something they wanted to do, I said, you have three sentences. If you can't say what you're doing in three sentences, you don't know what you're doing. Can you give the three sentence description of what we're doing there?

D (27:20)

Well, the problem is there are six different sentences right I mean, so what's the answer?

F (27:25)

We don't know.

D (27:27)

What is your sense from your time as the head of our intelligence agencies to the explanation Rubio gave that we followed because Israel was. Have we ever not been able to collaborate on the timing of a strike with Israel? And do we always have to join? I mean, what did you hear from Rubio?

A (27:50)

Yeah.

F (27:50)

What I'd say to Secretary Rubio is ever thus. This is why you have these institutions and diplomacy and leaders who are professionals who do this. I don't deny Israel's imperatives. That does not mean it becomes ours and to do it at this time. And what happens to us when we don't know why we're there? So, first, let's put it off the table. Kudos to the women and men of the military and the intelligence community who have just done an amazing job with this phase of operations. And this phase of operations is wonderful. And it has nothing to do with what we're doing and how it's going to end. I'm proud of us. I'm proud of them. We are big and powerful and strong. We have cultures in those institutions that allow us to demonstrate this performance time and time again. To what end and when will it end? And even if you get rid of some subsequent regime or they somehow agree to what they're not going to do, you cannot take national aspiration off the table. Learn this with North Korea. Yes, we should make it hard. But I just, I don't, in my experience, Nicole, know what this achieves in any long term. And more than that, I don't know how we recover trust. I don't know how we recover trust in the American people. I mean, for a president who has claimed mandate for every action, this he has no mandate for, so to say, I'm going to take this action unilaterally. It isn't supported by the Constitution. It is not supported by the American people's wishes. He has not built a coalition with our allies and partners. So even if you beat Iran into some sort of submission, what's the likelihood that any agreement that is arrived at is going to be maintained?

D (30:08)

Well, what does submission look like? I mean, the Wall Street Journal reported today that Ayatollah Khamenei's son, who's more hardliner than his father was, is the next in line to lead Iran. That couldn't have been the goal.

F (30:23)

No, I mean, I think the president said it. He's like, I don't know. We killed a bunch of people. I don't know who we're going to have the Iranian people need to rise up. We have been through this as a nation before. I have sat in these rooms. This issue of what you do, if this is your aspiration, and in many cases we decide that this should not be our aspiration, if this is the work that goes in ahead of time to know how it's going to unfold next, to identify the sets of people who might lead to give the Iranian people who are, who have been repressed something to hold on to. And if you don't do something about the regime and you don't know who's going to be there, in what aspect of interest do they have in making it easy for their people? How does it not get worse? Why did they want to build a government? So I mean, what we have left undone. So yay to operational successes. But that has very little to do with have we made either Iran or the world or the United States a better, safer place. That question hasn't been answered and it ought to be answered. And there's a through line through the previous segment and this one that says if you can't trust your institutions, if you leave every decision to an individual, weakness shows.

D (31:53)

Yeah, Sue, I love doing this on live TV because it's hard to say no. We're going to need you. Please stay free between the hours of 4 and 6 Eastern. Very, very fortunate to get to talk to you today. Thank you so much for being here.

F (32:09)

Go get him.

D (32:11)

When we come back, Republicans are so afraid of James Talarico in Texas that Donald Trump is making an extra, extra special effort and undemocratic one and taking the decision on who his party nominates away from the voters. We'll try to explain that after a short break.

A (32:34)

On Deck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team or bridging cash flow gaps. On Deck's loans up to $400,000. Make it happen fast. Rated A plus by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star TR pilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

F (33:02)

Why have I asked my electrician I

A (33:03)

found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster?

F (33:05)

I was so moved by how carefully

D (33:07)

he buried my electrical wires, I knew

A (33:08)

I could trust him to bury my

D (33:09)

sweet nibbles after his untimely end.

A (33:11)

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

B (33:17)

Imagine relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of

A (33:21)

which are connected, and each one more

F (33:23)

expensive and more complicated than the last.

C (33:26)

It can be pretty stressful.

B (33:28)

Now imagine Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever need and are all connected on one platform.

A (33:34)

Doesn't Odoo sound amazing?

B (33:37)

Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient, efficient software that can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up today@odoo.com that's o d o o.com

F (33:50)

the number of independents and Republicans

A (33:53)

who voted in this Democratic primary is unprecedented. This is proof that there is something happening in Texas tonight. But tonight the people of our state gave this country a little bit of

C (34:11)

hope, and a little bit of hope

A (34:13)

is a dangerous thing.

D (34:17)

In Texas is a remarkable split screen taking place between the two political parties. You just saw the newly minted Democratic nominee for U.S. senate in Texas, State Representative James Talarico, speaking to voters after his primary victory. Talarico's broad appeal, rooted in decency and compassion, has sparked real fear and in the hearts of Texas Republicans. Republicans who, if Donald Trump gets his way, will have no choice as to who their nominee will be. Donald Trump announced that he will be making an endorsement in the Republican runoff between sitting Senator John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton. Trump saying that he will ask the candidate who does not get his endorsement to drop out. I want to bring in Buck News senior political columnist and national affairs analyst John Heilman. Michel is still with us. Hellman I have to confess to still being able to be shocked. I found this a shocking way to wake up the morning after the Texas primaries.

A (35:22)

I mean, it's a lot of things that were shocking about that primary last night, Nicole, and some of the things that happened in Dallas county were kind of shocking. Some of the outcomes, various things that some of the internal dynamics defied some expectations. People I think had wrongly cast James Talarico as like the moderate versus the progressive. Jasmine Crockett, when they basically agree on almost everything when it comes to policy. And there are differences between the two of them, but they're not ideological so much. But Donald Trump, he had adopted this posture throughout the primary up until this first round of voting, which was he was going to stay out of it. I like them all, he said about all three of the candidates. I like them all. And I thought there was a reasonable chance because Trump hates backing losers. That, especially in the wake of James Talarico winning and seeing what kind of a coalition that he assembled among Democrats and the extraordinary Democratic turnout, something you almost never see in a Texas primary where there's a big ticket Republican primary. The fact that Democrats outnumbered Republicans in voting in their primary is really, I think, unheard of. I thought Trump would be like, you know what? I'm just gonna let Paxton and Paxton and Cornyn fight it out here, and I'm gonna say that I like the two of them. Now one of them's gone. I don't like the three of them. I like the two of them. But he. Now, if Trump's gonna get in, he wants to make sure that his candidate wins. And the only way to make sure your candidate wins if you endorse them is to get the other one to drop out. And so that's what Trump's going to do. It's shocking, Nicole, but not surprising.

D (36:58)

Howard, on the Telarico side, I thought of two campaigns. I'm not making a parallel to the politicians or the policies, but I thought of Josh Shapiro's gubernatorial campaign in Pennsylvania, the big coalition that he assembled, that was just a specific coalition behind his race. It didn't really take transfer.

E (37:17)

Right.

D (37:18)

It was a Shapiro coalition. Talarico seems like someone who can build a Talarico coalition. And then I thought of Bob Bullock, who. We're all old enough to know who that was. He was a Democrat elected to statewide office in Texas. He was the lieutenant governor when George W. Bush was governor. And he, too, assembled a political coalition that might have some sort of historical structural parallels to what James Talarico assembles. What are your thoughts on Talarico's political path forward to winning?

A (37:51)

Well, he, he. And again, Jasmine Crocker ran a strong campaign. There's no diss to her. But I don't think if you were. If you were doing your predictions before the race, you would have said that Talarico won in the cities, he won in the suburbs, and he won in rural. So he took all the three main categories of counties. He won all of those, I think, to the moderate thing that I was talking about before that misperception. He was way stronger in counties that were carried by Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primary against Joe Biden than he was in the counties that. That were carried by Joe Biden, where Jasmine Crockett dominated. But that's. You don't think of James Tallarico as being like kind of a kindred spirit of Bernie Sanders. And aoc. In fact, in a lot of ways they are. He was very strong with young voters. An incredibly important thing to see. He is the perfect mix for Hispanic voters in the state because he is a populist on economics, but he's also culturally, he reads as culturally conservative. He's a minister, we understand. Not to over stereotype or anything, but a lot of these Texas communities with Hispanics who ultimately kind of cost Beto o' Rourke his moment when the culturally conservative Democratic Hispanic voters were a little uneasy with him. James Tall Rio, they love that guy. He's a seminarian and a practicing pastor. I think there's a lot of power in this coalition and I know I gotta go right now, but I will say there are some elements in the online fundraising, in the virality and in the kind of aspirational quality of it. There are certain kind of Obama like qualities to him too. I never like to call someone the next Obama, but if you put the pieces together of he is with Hispanics, progressives and this kind of, he's made for this moment and young people and made. He's a really, you wouldn't necessarily think it when you first meet him. He's a great Internet candidate, he's a great social media candidate. And that's how he was able to raise a ton of money. And he also won over both Stephen Colbert and your friend Joe Rogan, you know, so that's, you know, those are the kind of the bookends of his national fame are getting. Joe Rogan, when he first came out a year ago, Joe Rogan said you should be president the first time he met him.

D (40:10)

And then he gets, imagine having a

A (40:12)

good and gets this boost at the end.

D (40:14)

Yeah, yeah.

A (40:15)

Yes. Incredible.

D (40:17)

Why did you just say you have to go? You don't have to go. I got you for 15 more minutes. No one's going anywhere. We're just sneaking a break. We'll all be right back. On the other side. Michelle, how does Tellarico turn Texas?

C (40:37)

Well, he, as John said, he's a very good campaigner. He's very strong. He's got to create some enthusiasm among the voters that were riding strong for Jasmine Crockett. But he's really got a strong start. He did very well in San Antonio, which is sort of a part of now the big metro area, Bexar county is almost seen as Austin adjacent. But he did really well on the Rio Grande in an area where even among Hispanic voters that had shifted significantly to the right and he had brought a lot of them he was helped by Bobby Polito, the Teano candidate, who did very well and who also ran a fairly conservative campaign as a Democrat. But he also. I want to pick up on something that John said, you know, making that analogy to a young Barack Obama. There's another analogy there in that he is seen as someone who is this candidate who talked about love and extended an olive branch. He can throw an elbow. He's a tough fighter. And you heard one of his ads, he talked about we should not be afraid of the federal government. The federal government should be afraid of us. You know, that was one of the ads that he ran. And so through careful messaging, which he's good at, trying to reach across to Latinos, which he shows that he's good at. And there are a lot of Republicans in Texas who do not have a home. You know, they don't feel comfortable in the Republican Party. And if he can continue to reach out to them, build enthusiasm among black voters and just hold onto those young voters and make sure that they're enthusiastic. And if he's running against Paxson in particular, he's running against a candidate who's messy. I just noted in Donald Trump in that tweet, he said, we have an easy to beat radical liberal. I mean, I think that's what he wants to say about Puelorico, but I

D (42:17)

don't stay up late in the street.

C (42:18)

Again, that's another example of creating his own reality. You know, it's not exactly who he is. He's going to have a tough. The Republicans are going to have a tough.

D (42:25)

And for next time, I mean, it's a window into how he's lost some of his political intelligence. You know, that's. That's not how. That's not how this campaign is going to be run by whomever wins the primary and the Republican side. John Heilman, nice to see you. Michelle, thank you for being here. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. My guests in this week's episode of the Best People podcast may be familiar faces to all of you, but trust me, you have never seen them quite like this before. Eddie Glad, Mitch Landrieu and Tom Nichols join me for a conversation free of any of the, shall we say, constraints of cable television. Take a listen to some of what former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu had to say.

B (43:07)

And we have got to do a real gut check in this country about really who we are and what we want to be. And this is why the speeches of J.D. vance and Marco Rubio, which people should pay attention to because they are both giving speeches that are laying down Trump's vision and Steve Miller's vision that we are no longer a creedal nation. We're not a nation that follows the creed of we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights of life, living and property. That's not what they believe. What they're saying, and Eddie alluded to this early, is that, no, no, no, some of us, you see by virtue of how we look or by virtue of how our mom and daddy are, are actually better than other people. That, that is like a whole. Like you should be scared to death of that if you're an American and you believe in patriotism the way it was intended by the Founding fathers. But there is an entire movement that is going on right now that's gonna put that in play, that Donald Trump is trying to give great foundation to

A (44:05)

and that he doesn't. Donald Trump doesn't care about that movement except insofar as it serves his purposes.

C (44:11)

Correct.

D (44:14)

There's so much more where that came from. It was a wide ranging conversation. You don't want to miss it. You can watch the whole thing on this week's episode of the Best People, now available on YouTube. You just scan the QR code on your screen right now or download to listen wherever you get your podcasts. One more break. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes today. We are grateful.

F (44:38)

Why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster? I was so moved by how carefully

D (44:43)

he buried my electrical wires, I knew

A (44:44)

I could trust him to bury my

D (44:45)

sweet, sweet nibbles after his untimely end.

A (44:47)

This is very strange, Angie. The one you trust. Define the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects at Angie Combination.