John Hylman (4:07)

Trump is following the same playbook as almost every authoritarian in history. The playbook is, first, get elected to address legitimate issues. In our case, the cost of living. Once in office, surround yourself with people loyal to you, accumulate power and influence, and then start using it against your perceived enemies. But here's the kicker. There comes a time in every authoritarian playbook where you hit a tipping point. You accumulate so much power that you realize if you ever lose and your opponent gets elected, they could use that very power against you. So you hold onto it with everything you have. That seems to be Trump's approach right now. And from everything we've seen so far, the Caribbean strikes, the list of domestic terrorists, military and law enforcement deployments across our American streets, he seems to be laying the groundwork to stay in power.

Nicole Wallace (5:06)

That's where we start the hour. Some of our favorite experts and friends. Co founder and executive director of Protect Democracy, Ian Bassin is back with us. Also joining us, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, MSNBC international affairs analyst Michael McVaul. He's the author of a brand new book, Autocrats vs. Democrats, and Chief political columnist for Puck News. MSNBC national affairs analyst John Halman is still with us at the table. Ian, I read this Times editorial the same way I watched Alyssa Slotkin's speech, with my heart and my stomach. These are conversations you and I have had for more than a year. And tragically, you were right about everything. What do you make of the public's awareness? Not Just in the pro democracy side, but beyond about all these dots at the Times. And Senator Slotkin are trying to help the public connect.

Ian Bassin (6:01)

Well, as you mentioned, we've been talking about this, you and I, for eight years or so because it was pretty clear the symptoms that were beginning to infect our body politic. And every doctor with experience diagnosing this has found every symptom in this country under Donald Trump to be at check mark for the disease of creeping authoritarianism. He's doing all the things, no matter what metric you use. But the key, I think, in Alyssa Slotkin alluded to this is when the tipping point comes, because we're really in a race where Trump is absolutely trying to put himself in a position where he is immune to the normal mechanism of accountability in this country when the people don't like the direction the country is going in, which is elections. We know the only time he's ever lost an election here, he refused to gracefully exit the stage. We know he will try to hold on to power, but the race is whether he will lock himself in before he becomes so unpopular that he can't lock himself in. And if you look at what happened, for example, last year in South Korea, where the South Korean president tried to declare martial law, but was only at about 18% popularity, it didn't work, because when you're at 18% popularity, it's very hard to successfully declare martial law. And so this is the race that Trump said he's right now becoming ever more unpopular by the day by approval polls. At this point, he's 20 points underwater. He's at his lowest point of public approval at any point, really, in his two presidencies. The public now identifies more with the opposition party, the Democratic Party, than the Republican Party, at higher rates than any time since the midterms of 2018. I think Gallup has it at plus nine. Democrats, what Trump is doing is wildly unpopular. And the race is whether that unpopularity will sink so low before he's able to totally consolidate power that it will be impossible for him to do so. And that is a question about us and whether we can make sure that that unpopularity sticks before he locks himself in.

Nicole Wallace (7:58)

And Ian, how would you grade us, the public?

Ian Bassin (8:02)

So I think we've gone in a series of cycles since Trump entered office for his second term. I think the first couple of months, we were trending in a vicious cycle of authoritarian consolidation, where you saw law firms capitulating and universities capitulating and the Congress completely supine. And Trump was really flooding the zone and the shock and awe which had everybody afraid and unwilling to do anything to check power. But then sometime around the beginning of April, Liberation Day, right, he announces his tariffs on the world. He's about to fire Jerome Powell, and then the bond markets tank and Trump blinks and he sort of walks back his tariffs. He walks back his threat to fire the chair of the Federal Reserve. And from that point forward, you started to see a bit more of people stepping forward. It was the first no Kings protests. The Republican senators rejected Trump's nominee for D.C. u.S. Attorney. The Supreme Court went from 5 to 4 against the Alien Enemies act to 7 to 2 against Trump's invocation of it. And Trump could feel that the cycle was starting to spin in a much more positive direction. And that's when he deployed troops to Los Angeles. That's when he needed to reassert fear. And I think from that point, when he deployed troops to Los Angeles, for a couple of months, he had the upper hand again. And we were cycling in the wrong direction. But I've started to feel the winds shift. Just in the last two and a half to three weeks, the university's changed course and they rejected Trump's offer of favorable, quote, unquote, favorable treatment if they would sacrifice some of their independence. You had airports across the country refuse to air a clear Hatch act propaganda, Hatch act violation, propaganda video that the Secretary of Homeland Security sent around. You had the entire news, sort of all of the media that covered the Pentagon walk out en masse, including Fox News, rather than agree to a gag order. And then you had your biggest no Kings Protest. More than 7 million Americans go out peacefully onto the streets to stand up for what is fundamentally American. And I think the cycle is spinning in the right direction right now. You're seeing courts across the country rule against the administration again and again. So this is going to continue to go back and forth, but I think right now the wind is at our backs and we need to seize it.

Nicole Wallace (10:11)

Ambassador McFaul, you said something that has stuck with me since you were at the table talking about your new book, and that was that. The most disappointing thing so far is the business community. You're in Silicon Valley. I am from Northern California, and this is a little uncomfortable. My own parent company helped fund the destruction and demolition of the east wing of the White House. In its place will go a Russian style gold gilded ballroom. I don't have to tell anybody here what's happening in media. It is not a pretty picture. Most of the major news organizations have had some sort of symbolic, winnable lawsuit that they've settled. Some people call those bribes to Donald Trump. He sees them that way. He tweets about them and posts about them. What do you think the disconnect is between the unpopularity of Trump's brand and the subservience to it from corporate America?

Michael McFaul (11:10)

I don't know, and I wouldn't want to generalize about all of corporate America because there's a variation there. They're not all. They didn't all show up to the inauguration. They didn't all contribute to the, whatever we're calling it, ballroom. And I would just remind you, when they built those kind of ballrooms in Russia, I was actually walking around with President Obama in the Kremlin about 15 years ago. I said, man, these are really big offices, really beautiful. And then I reminded him, well, yes, you know, Mr. President, they had a revolution because they built these big, gaudy, golden things. And he laughed and he said, yeah, my office is modest, but it's the American people's office. Right. And I say that to remind you that the Oval Office, the West Wing, that is America. We are not an imperial monarchy. We don't need things like that. But back to your question. I do think, just to think about this, comparatively, when the oligarchs get together, as they did with Putin, that's when things get dangerous because they control a lot of resources. When they split, as they have in other countries, I think of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, when they didn't all line up behind Yanukovych and they split and some supported President Yushchenko. Then there was a more competitive space there. And more generally, I would say we have talked many times about the checks and balances on the executive branch and how Putin eroded them in the early years of his administration. And to echo something that Senator Slotkin said, Putin in particular used a crisis. It was this horrible terrorist attack September 1, 2004, in Beslan. And he used that to get rid of elections for governors. And I'm with Senator Slatkin. I've known Senator, we work together. I worry a, that we have some crisis and that he uses it to go further. But what happens when that doesn't, when it's not that case, is when the ancient regime, when the existing order is split, that helps to hold back the power of the executive. And right now, we haven't seen that. That's a factor that I wish we'd see more of. That is not present in America today.

Nicole Wallace (13:25)

Halman, yesterday you laid out all the Public facing data that supports what Alyssa Slotkin said. And pretty ominous picture based on what is public facing. Let me ask you today to contrast that. Everything that's just in public view, Trump's doing it all in public with the incredible and growing deficit to his brand. I mean, Mag is more unpopular this time than it was last time. And yet they have the entire sort of corporate, media, tech, all of these industries in the palm of their hand. And it extends to law firms that once bragged and boasted about working for Democratic presidents like ian and Ambassador McFaul's former boss, President Barack Obama. They are universities that have championed their values as being academic freedom. They have capitulated. They have stumbled over themselves to get in there and kneel before Donald Trump. What to you explains the fact that other than maybe Jimmy Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, Bruce Springsteen kind on one hand, people really speaking to the country's disapproval of Donald Trump?

John Halman (14:32)

Well, there's a thread that runs through a lot of things. We've just been talking about that. Ian said this thing as he was describing the ebb and flow in the early period of Trump 2.0. And he talked about how when the bond market rebelled over the tariffs, there was a moment where Trump was kind of knocked back on his heels. I mean, I don't know how to say this. We're all political people here. If we had a bunch of people here, hedge fund people and private equity people, they would all be looking at us like, you guys don't really get this. Money makes the world go around and Trump, a big part of what Trump's doing is trying to enrich himself. He's also enriching all these people in various ways so they see an upside in being friends with Trump, which is making more being on the side of someone who can dispense largess. Sometimes that large s isn't like a directly money, but it's regulatory. Right. In all of these cases, driven by fear, you ask why corporate America look at someone with a 39% approval rating. Doesn't matter whether his FTC, his FCC, his various regulatory bodies can still block a merger regardless of whether he has a 12% approval rating or not. And so if you're a large company that wants to do a deal, the media industry, for instance, is consolidating really rapidly. We can come up with precise examples of this. But anybody who wants to do a merger right now knows that Donald Trump can block that merger. He can also sue them. And the media industry, as we know it, is not financially super strong right now. So the threat of the lawsuit, the actual lawsuit, and then the regulatory retaliation, if you're focused on making money and keeping your share price up, then some of those things are their fiduciary responsibilities. But if that is your focus, you don't really look at his approval rating. You look at what he can do. You look at the things he can do.

Nicole Wallace (16:19)

Don't you look at Orban's hungry. I mean, that's not a threat. Thriving economy. Neither is Putin's mom, neither is Xi.

John Halman (16:25)

You're making a very powerful argument.

Nicole Wallace (16:27)

You're making an economic argument. And my point is, if we're at the point where we're moving toward autocracy, there is no example of a thriving economy for any of those people capitulating in an autocracy.

John Halman (16:36)

You know that I agree with you, right? This is the difference between short termism and long termism. And this is one of the fundamental problems of American capitalism. We talked about it in many other contexts for the last 30 or 40 years, which is people care about the, about the quarterly earnings report and what does it do to my share price? And companies have gone to ruin, have gone bankrupt because they've been focused on short termism. This is a thing that business schools see clashes on, which is that we have lost the long view. You've lost it in corporate America in terms of how you build a durable business. But you also lost it when you don't say, hey, in the short term, you might get this merger done, but what's it going to look like three years from now if we end up in an autocracy? This is a problem that pervades American business, not just with respect to Trump, with how they run their companies, how they treat their employees, how they do all kinds of things. But it wouldn't surprise us that they are short termist, driven by the stock price, driven by their bonuses, driven by the things that have been driving corporate America in the greedy 1980s and the greedy 1990s and the greedy 2000s. But now Trump is using the authority that he has the ability to mess with. That is the thing that tips it over into a really dangerous place. I mean, a genuinely politically dangerous place. But it is this meeting of all these streams that have been eroding various American institutions for a long time. That's why Trump has been so. Both so powerful and why he's so dangerous.

Nicole Wallace (17:56)

I mean, I just watched the big short again, and I had a chance to interview Michael Lewis, and I had this thought at the end that maybe the pro democracy experts, people like yourself and Ambassador McFaul and I put Rachel Maddow in this group, are the people who saw the bubble right in the housing market and they were disparaged by all the INV investment banks. And they were called idiots and fools. And there were moments when they doubted their own convictions and their own things that they were seeing in the data. But tragically, in the end, they were, they were correct. I'll let you guys mull that over the break. I know meat and milk or whatever.

John Halman (18:32)

This is a woman who's been called an alarmist too many times right here.

Nicole Wallace (18:35)

Exactly. No one's going anywhere. I've been handed some breaking news that proves that Trump is interested in continuing his authoritarian march. There are new rules on the White House press corps. I'll tell you about that breaking story from the Associated Press. Also ahead, there is new reporting that the Trump administration is on the verge of escalating its military conflict with Venezuela and the US Airstrikes on targets inside the South American country could come at any moment. Plus, why so many members of Donald Trump's inner circle are taking up residence in quarters that used to be reserved for the country's top military leaders. We'll get to all that reporting this hour. Deadline White House continues after quick break, so don't go anywhere.

Michael McFaul (19:17)

Hey there.

Sanjay Gupta (19:18)

It's Dr. Sanjay Gupta with some exciting news to share.

Michael McFaul (19:21)

CNN is now streaming.

John Halman (19:23)

That means you can read, watch and.

Sanjay Gupta (19:25)

Stream everything in one subscription.

John Halman (19:28)

You can watch news live 24.

Ian Bassin (19:30)

7.

John Halman (19:31)

You can also explore catch up videos and explainer videos. And you can also watch the library of CNN's originals, including my latest documentary.

Sanjay Gupta (19:40)

It doesn't have to hurt, just go.

John Halman (19:42)

To CNN.com AllAccess hey, this is Will.

Ian Bassin (19:49)

Arnett, host of Smartless. Smartless is a podcast with myself and Sean Hayes and Jason Bateman where each week one of us reveals a mystery guest to the other two. We dive deep with guests that you love like Bill Hader, Selena Gomez, Jennifer Aniston, David Beckham, Kristen Stewart and tons more. So join us for a genuinely improvised and authentic conversation filled with laughter and newfound knowledge to feed the smartless mind, listen to Smartless now on the SiriusXM app. Download it today.

John Halman (20:25)

NetCredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit. When other lenders say no, apply in minutes and get a decision as soon.

Richard Blumenthal (20:33)

As the same day.

John Halman (20:34)

If approved, applications are typically funded the next next business day or sooner. Loans offered by NetCredit or lending partner banks and serviced by Netcredit application subject to review and approval. Learn more@netcredit.com partners NetCredit Credit to the People.

Nicole Wallace (20:56)

We're back with Ian, Ambassador McFaul and John. So, Ian, this is a handout actually from the White House press office. Their new rules are that reporters can no longer freely access upper press. That is sort of where the more senior press officers prepare for the White House briefings. It used to be one of the only sort of thoroughfares for reporters in the White House press corps to walk around. I guess it's only import is a further crackdown on the ability of the press to do its job at the Trump White House.

Ian Bassin (21:27)

Yeah, I mean, look, every day they're doing another trick out of the authoritarian playbook, whether it's stopping press access or prosecuting political opponents or the other 10 or 11 things that the New York Times listed this morning. And the thing about all of it is whether you call it authoritarian or anti rule of law, whatever you call it, who wants it, right? I mean, that's the thing. That's what's driving down his popularity. You've got, you know, Black Hawk helicopters, you know, military people in military fatigues, you know, sort of repelling out of them and smashing into windows of residential buildings. In Chicago, a case we're litigating in Chicago, we're dealing with a situation where federal officials threw a tear gas canister in residential central neighborhood just before kids went out on a Halloween parade. There's reports today of federal officials pointing guns at residents in Evanston, Illinois, just for criticizing them for being violent with people who wants this stuff. And I think ultimately that is actually, you know, Nicole, I've been on, I've been coming on here for the last eight years with a lot of sort of depressing prognoses. But today I'm feeling a little bit more optimistic because I just don't think the American people fundamentally want this stuff. What they voted for was the ability to afford life a little bit more. And since Donald Trump has taken office, things are not more affordable. Prices have not gone down. Don't take my word for it. That's something Marjorie Taylor Greene said last week that prices have not come down. And that's why I think next week you're going to see, you know, a very different style. Democrats win in Virginia, New York City and New Jersey running on affordability because Donald Trump hasn't brought prices down. And what makes me, you know, sort of optimistic is you look at, you look at Europe, you look at the Netherlands last week, one of sort of the early Avatars of this far right, illiberal, kind of very authoritarian minded sort of politics was yeet wielders of the Freedom Party, very sort of anti immigrant, xenophobic party in the Netherlands. He just lost power last week. Why? Because right now, publics across the world, they're anti incumbents who aren't able to make their lives easier. And at some point, I think the Americans are gonna say, hey, where's my golden age? You promised me a golden age. Where's my golden age? And when that golden age doesn't arrive, because Donald Trump can't for anyone other than his oligarch friends, I think the American people are going to grow very, very tired of him. And we're going to have, I think, a fourth founding in this country coming out of this crisis. So here's where I am today. I think we're going to win. I think when I say we, I mean freedom, I mean democracy. It's going to look different in the 21st century. It's going to be better in the 21st century, but we are going to win because what Trump is bringing is something nobody really wants.

Nicole Wallace (24:06)

Wow. I mean, that is the most optimistic I have heard you in eight years. Is it because we got a look under the hood at what he's doing?

Ian Bassin (24:16)

You know, there's two interesting models in American history of when a president came back to office for a second term, either after having been out of office for four years, or having lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College the first time. Right. So the first of those is Grover Cleveland, who was out of office for four years, then came back in 1892. The second, obviously was George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote his first time and then won the popular vote, the vote his second time. And in both of those cases, those people won not really because of their personal popularity. They won because of background context of things that were happening in the country. And they over read their mandate and they overplayed their hand and they became very, very unpopular. And Cleveland lost power to the Republicans in the midterms and the next presidential. And Bush obviously lost power to the Democrats in the midterms, the next presidential. And I think Donald Trump is playing right into those hands by doing things that are wildly unpopular and not delivering on the thing that people elected him do, which is bring prices down, which he's not doing. And at some point, I think American democracy is going to be like a rake that he steps on and smacks him in the face.

Nicole Wallace (25:21)

That image is now front and center in my Brain Ambassador, we fall. Let me ask you, I won't, I won't inject a question about optimism onto you unless you want to go there. But let me ask you, what isn't the same from autocrats and Democrats to, you know, you write about Russia, you write about China, in what ways are we not tracking in a sure march toward authoritarianism?

Michael McFaul (25:48)

Well, I want to say first, I'm nervous about all the things we talked about before the break. And we got to keep being nervous about them. We got to keep talking about them because otherwise then complacency. That's how the autocrats win. That's a playbook I've seen many, many times. But there are two big things and we're talking about them. But I want to underscore them. Number one, compared to the early Putin era or even the early Viktor Orb era, our institutions that check executive power are still much stronger today than they ever were in Russia, in Putin's Russia. So independent media right now, this show, this show wouldn't be on in the Putin era in 2003, 2004. Congress is too weak. They're like a rubber stamp, just like the State Duma was. But we do have an opposition party. They should be more opposed. But we have one. We have governors that are fighting back. We have even some business people. You know, I just was thinking about, remember there's, they're all together, but guys like Reid Hoffman are trying to remind people about the long game, that they're not all on the same side. That's a good thing. But the biggest thing we have, and I feel this when I talk about my book on the road. I was just with Rachel, actually, Rachel Maddow last night up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 600 people came and anytime I said something that we need to fight back, back, they all stood up and cheered because we have 250 years of fighting kings and that deep, deep American value is there. And it was kind of asleep. But Trump has awakened it. And because of people like Unicole and people like Rachel Maddow that are helping to stimulate it, I am very, very optimistic about the long term. But the short term is going to be pretty choppy here. The short term is going to be pretty choppy.

Nicole Wallace (27:42)

To Ambassador McFaul's compliments, thank you for putting me in the category of those folks. But to his point about Democrats, let me show you one who is meeting the moment every day everywhere. This is Gavin Newsom with John Carl.

Ian Bassin (27:58)

I really am scared to death about what's going on in this country, I really believe it is code red. It's five alarm fire. It's breaking every hour of every day. This is a serious and sober moment. And I. So we're talking about 20, 28 or something like that. I'm not. I appreciate what you said in terms of, oh God, here we are. Politician. I'm just focusing on a day. But I'll tell you what. We won't have a country, we won't have an election that's fair and free. If we don't stand up, we won't, there will not be a fair and free election. Will be a Putin election. Was it 87% or is it 87.3%? That's what Trump wants.

Nicole Wallace (28:36)

He has been putting his actions behind his message. He's been taking his message to every corner of the media ecosystem. And he's got President Obama supporting Prop 50, which is on Valentine's Day. What do you make of the fact that there aren't two dozen Gavin Newsoms?

John Halman (28:56)

Well, I mean, you know, I think Gavin Usman, I've covered for a long time. I've known for a long time he's never been better than he is right now. And part of it is because he's being, I think, kind of the closest version of what I kind of think. I've always, sometimes he's been too calculating. He's not been a perfect leader in some respects, but other times he has been. When you saw him back when he first campaigned for gay marriage in San Francisco, when he was the mayor there, he would have this courage of his convictions and he'd get the bit between his teeth. And this is a time where he kind of, in his half hearted way tried to kind of figure out how to weigh work with Trump early on, you know, and he did these various things that were kind of. But you could tell it wasn't really, he didn't really, his heart wasn't really in it. After the fire and somehow the invasion in Los Angeles, the deployment of the troops to Los Angeles was the thing that snapped. And he's kind of in this place now where he's speaking, he's being himself. And he has this, he has the fire and the optimism about the long, the capacity of the country that we just heard from ian and Mike McFaul. And I don't think this is, this is people leading at that level, who is everywhere all the time, who took a big risk with this redistricting proposition. Right. Could really have put a huge dent in his political future if he put it all on the line for this and failed. He's not going to fail. He's going to pass. Almost nobody in California now thinks that. Two months ago, yeah.

Nicole Wallace (30:21)

Six months ago, yeah, Jumball.

John Halman (30:23)

Now the polling is kind of overwhelming. It's going to get through. They made the argument, they're going to win. But all I want to say is the spirit of all these things, people, and I mean the people on this discussion we're having right now, Ian and Mike and you, I totally share it. I just want to point out that, you know, when you make, when you talk about George W. Bush overplaying his hand or Grover Cleveland overplaying his hand, none of those guys ever thought, nor do we ever think they would consider canceling an election. You know, that's the difference. They were still rolling the military. They still fundamentally believed in giving voters a chance to repudiate them. They never thought, never crossed George W. Bush's mind that, like, hey, you know what? I'm really unpopular. After some given stage in his presidency, there were a couple places where he was pretty unpopular, where he thought, you know what, maybe we'll declare an emergency and shut down the midterm elections or my reelection in 2004. And what Alyssa Slotkin is talking about and what Gavin Newsom is talking about and what Michael Ludig, who was just on my podcast, was talking about is that is Trump's endgame. He is willing to shut down elections. And if you shut down elections, the ability for popular discontent to counter the president is really, it doesn't go away 100%, but it gets way harder when you take away that mechanism, the traditional mechanism of accountability.

Nicole Wallace (31:51)

Ian, you want a last word on that point?

Ian Bassin (31:54)

I mean, obviously we all agree this is a situation we've never faced in this country before with someone who believes the things that Donald Trump believes. And so, so the risks are immense. But we've had three foundings in this country, really, and each of them was preceded by a crisis. The birth of this country grew out of the crisis of the revolutionary period, the reconstruction, where we sort of perfected our democracy a little bit more, grew out of the crisis of a civil war period and the civil rights era and the New Deal and sort of the 20th century. Rules based international order grew out of the crisis of the Depression and two world wars. Every one of our foundings has come out of a crisis. This is a crisis on par with all of those. And I think a fourth founding is on the other side of it. So everything John said is obviously true. We all know the stakes are immense. The dangers are real. But what led us through all of those other crises to the dawn on the other side was the American people and our belief in the power of self sovereignty, popular sovereignty, freedom and democracy. And as Michael said, I think that is still alive and well in this country. We're seeing it. We got to feed it, because we are going to win. Democracy and freedom are going to win.

Nicole Wallace (32:59)

All right, I'll let that be the last word. Ian Bass and Ambassador Michael McFaul and my friend John Hylman. Thank you so much for this conversation. When we come back, the Trump administration seems ready to strike targets inside Venezuela. And those attacks could come at any moment. We'll bring you the new reporting on that story next.

Audie Cornish (33:19)

Hey, friends, this is Audie Cornish, host of CNN this Morning. And the assignment. And guess what? What? Every story you care about, every angle you want unpacked is now streaming on cnn. That means you can catch my show or other CNN programming whenever you want on your favorite device. And a subscription also gets you access to exclusive video series and unlimited articles. So subscribe to CNN@CNN.com subscription.

Michael McFaul (33:48)

Hi, I'm Jenny Slate.

Ian Bassin (33:50)

And believe it or not, someone is.

Michael McFaul (33:51)

Allowing us to have a podcast.

Richard Blumenthal (33:53)

I'm Gabe Liedman.

Ian Bassin (33:54)

I'm Max Silvestri. And we've been friends for 20 years. And we like to reach out to kind of get advice on how to live our lives. It's called I need you guys. Should I give my baby fresh vegetables?

Michael McFaul (34:06)

Can I drink the water at the hospital?

Ian Bassin (34:08)

My landlord plays the trombone and I can't ask him to stop.

Nicole Wallace (34:12)

You should make sure that you subscribe.

Ian Bassin (34:14)

So that you never miss an episode. I need to go.

John Halman (34:28)

Netcredit is here to say yes to a personal loan or line of credit. When other lenders say no, apply in minutes and get a decision as soon.

Richard Blumenthal (34:36)

As the same day.

John Halman (34:38)

If approved, applications are typically funded the.

Michael McFaul (34:40)

Next business day or sooner.

John Halman (34:43)

Loans offered by Netcredit or lending partner banks and serviced by Netcredit Application subject to review and approval. Learn more@netcredit.com partners NetCredit credit to the people.

Ian Bassin (35:00)

We had no wars. They said he will start a war. I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars.

Nicole Wallace (35:06)

It's another example of extreme dissonance or just another betrayal of his political base. Donald Trump appears to be on the verge of breaking another campaign promise. Miami Herald reporting today that a court. According to sources with knowledge of the situation, the United States of America is now poised to strike military targets inside Venezuela, a major escalation of the Trump administration's military campaign against drug trafficking alleged which has so far been limited to airstrikes on alleged drug smuggling boats. From that report, quote, the planned attacks will seek to destroy military installations used by the drug trafficking organization the US Says is headed by Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro and run by top members of his regime. They add that the targets, quote, could be struck by air in a matter of days or hours. This potential shift of operations from sea to land is because, as the Herald reports, quote, traffickers are now less willing to risk voyages that can be detected and targeted at sea. We'll bring into our coverage Democratic senator from Connecticut, Senator Richard Blumenthal. He sits on the Armed Services and Judiciary Committee. Also joining us, former acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau and member of the National Security Leaders for America, retired Major General Randy Manor is here. Senator, let me start with you. What briefings have you received on the success of striking drug traffickers? Have you seen evidence or images of drugs being found on the boats that have been struck?

Richard Blumenthal (36:44)

What briefings? Zero. None. And as you may know, I think it's public by now. There was a briefing for Republican senators only, which is unprecedented. So we've seen no evidence, none whatsoever as to who is in these boats, more than 10 of them that have been struck already, who are are manning or operating them, what they're carrying and where they're headed. Nor have we received any briefing as to what the strategy is in amassing 1/7 of our Navy, literally 1/7 of all our naval power in the vicinity of Venezuela, whether it is to strike those military installations, as the Herald and the Wall Street Journal have reported their considering doing and what the end game is. There was a briefing yesterday in the House for Democratic as well as Republican members of Congress. And my discussions with those members of Congress indicates that it was completely unconvincing and virtually uninformative. So this administration is concealing facts, if it has facts that would justify such strikes. And next week when the the War Powers Resolution reaches the floor of the United Senate, it's sponsored by Senators Kaine and Paul. I think that this hiding of facts and failure to reveal any effective or promising strategy is going to give it tremendous impetus. And I know that the administration counts on pushing Maduro out of power by striking some of these military facilities, by generating opposition within his own military ranks. But I think that may prove to be a very far fetched goal.

Nicole Wallace (38:39)

What is the pretext to the degree that any was given to Bipartisan members of the House and Republican members of the Senate. Is it about eradicating the scourge of illegal drugs? Is it part of a plan to eradicate the scourge of illegal drugs from the place where most of them come from, which is through the border with Mexico? I mean, what is the COVID story, if there is one that you've been told?

Richard Blumenthal (39:07)

The COVID story, Nicole, is that Maduro is a narco terrorist state and he is spreading fentanyl into the United States, killing Americans in that way. And it is an act of offensive warfare, in effect, an attack on the United States. That is the theory of their case. But it has a lot of leaps in logic and facts that are unfounded. First of all, the fentanyl is not coming from Venezuela or Colombia. It's coming from Mexico. Second, the amounts of narcotics coming from Venezuela in those boats is minuscule. And so the attacks on the boats are unavailing in terms of any serious impact. And third, there's no real evidence that Maduro's criminal enterprise is in fact an arm of the state conducting attacks that would justify acts of war by this country against another state. It's not like we're going after Osama bin Laden, who was holed up in Pakistan, concealing himself, and we fortunately and justifiably struck him down. It is completely different to attack another country. And he has to come to Congress. Constitutionally, he must come to Congress to conduct this kind of war and present facts that would justify it.

Nicole Wallace (40:44)

I want to bring in General Manor on the legal protections or exposure for the men and women of the military involved in these strikes. I have to sneak in a quick break before I do that. We'll all be back on the other side. We are back with Senator Richard Blumenthal and Major General Randy Manor. General, tell me what legal authority or protections there are for the men and women of the military involved in these strikes.

Sanjay Gupta (41:13)

There's two different aspects to this. One aspect is if indeed the President directs military action against targets in Venezuela, that could possibly be a legal order. In contrast, it is not clear yet because I also have not seen any evidence that says the attacks on these alleged Venezuelan drug boats is actually done by the military. I know that sounds unusual. It could very well be the CIA, which is bound by a different set of laws. It's also important to understand that if indeed military personnel are actually attacking individuals, these could be unlawful acts, illegal acts, and they could be subject to even investigation by as potential war criminals. So we have to understand that this is a very dangerous slippery slope that we're going down no matter which way it goes. And I completely agree with the, with the Senator. These are actions the President must go to Congress and Congress must demand and exert their responsibilities to hold the President accountable for these kind of actions. He's already bombed Iran. He's already said that there are enemies within the United States. He's occupying certain American cities and comparing them to worse than combat zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, which I have been to. And there's no comparison whatsoever. So we have to understand where this administration is coming from and judge it based on the facts, not what, on what he says. So we need to be very, very concerned about this continued expansion of presidential power.

Nicole Wallace (42:51)

What is the degree of concern that you can detect, General, inside the military.

Sanjay Gupta (42:59)

They'Re very concerned. You had the southcom commander resign. The four star admiral said, for whatever reason, I'm done. And, and I know he's not talking yet, yet, but I believe that later on, at some point it will come out about that he perhaps disagreed what, what is either underway or where the President is taking. So he decided, I'm certain of this, that he cannot support the operation and therefore he decided to resign. I believe that is the strongest indicator that there are actually significant wrongdoings going on in that part of the world, either by our military or by other American assets such as the CIA.

Nicole Wallace (43:44)

Wow. To be continued. Senator Richard Blumenthal and Major General Randy Manor. Thank you so much. One more break. We'll be right back. Pod Save America has been essential listening since its debut in 2017. Its pull no punches style is all the more urgently needed. During the Trump 2.0, I interviewed two of its hosts, Jon Favreau and Tommy Veder, for the new episode of the Best People podcast. And here's what Jon Favreau told me about what kind of leader the Democrats should be looking for right now.

I (44:17)

I think we set up this, what I've come to think is a false choice between a fighter or someone who's hopeful and positive and inspirational. And I think, I don't even know if that's the access. I think you need both, I think you can be both.

John Halman (44:31)

Right.

I (44:31)

Like, I mean, Barack Obama was known for sort of hope and inspiration, but he could, he could be pretty tough. And I was going to say, and in fact, like you could tell, yeah, anyone on the Clinton campaign, Anyone on the McCain campaign, people who've run against him can be like, he's known as like hope and change and inspiration, but he can be really tough and I think you can do both. And I think actually a Democratic leader needs to do both. Because if all you're doing is you're out there kicking the shit out of Donald Trump, Trump every day like that is going to get you attention. It is going to excite people who are already Democrats. It's not necessarily going to excite people who voted for Donald Trump or who, you know, thought about voting for Donald Trump but are unhappy and are open to Democrats. Right.

Nicole Wallace (45:17)

There are two of the smartest people around. You can listen to the entire conversation with Jon Favreau and Tommy Vitor on the new episode of the the Best People podcast. Just scan the QR code and subscribe to MSNBC Premium to listen right now. As always, let me know what you think. Another break for us. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes for another week of shows. We are grateful.

Michael McFaul (45:41)

Are you curious about the hidden side of everything? Then I have a podcast for you.

Ian Bassin (45:46)

I'm Stephen Dubner, host of Freakonomics Radio.

Michael McFaul (45:49)

Each week we hear from some of the most fascinating scholars and thinkers as we tackle big topics like how Wales became the face of environmental activism, how to succeed at failing, and whether public.

Richard Blumenthal (46:01)

Transportation should be free.

Michael McFaul (46:03)

Go ahead, listen to Freakonomics Radio. Wherever you get your podcasts.