Jeffrey (7:34)

If the.

Mike (7:35)

Gringos threaten, we will work harder. If the gringos attack, we will respond. That was Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro responding. No, not to Norway giving his rival the Nobel Prize. The response to that was him shuttering the Venezuelan Embassy in OSLO. So dramas Vidin 82 no longer the Venezuelan Embassy, just the old abandoned Maduro place. They say it's haunted. What the Venezuelan President was talking about was yet another vessel that done gone got blowed up in the Caribbean Sea six dead the fifth such strike. Drug runners, says President Trump Got any proof? Asks Chris Murphy and every other Senate Democrat besides Fetterman, plus also Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski. They want some answers under the War Powers Act. Indeed, I do have proof, answered President Trump, and you can't see it. So the administration keeps attacking fishing vessels or drug runners. Who knows the answer? No one and no one can check. It's all on the say so of the president, as accompanied by signature videos of the destruction. The Venezuelans, by the way, allege that those videos are AI. Yes, aerial incineration, that the AI aspect of it is certainly the least of the Venezuelans worries. But what if these vessels aren't drug runners? What if they're not? What if the next president of the United States after Trump wants to blow up boats he says are up to no good and go after organizations he says are terrorists, though saying so and actually documenting that through official proper designation are two different things. What then? Who knows? We can't think that far ahead. I guess might makes right or rules are for fools. Maduro likes the opportunity to call Trump a gringo. It's working out for him. He has said his country would deploy military, police and civilian defenses at 284 battlefront locations. Civilian defenses trying to fend off US guided missile destroyers and F35B jets and MQ9 Reaper drones. Good luck with that. The administration, the US administration has also doubled the bounty on Maduro's head to $50 million. Maduro responded by opening an embassy in Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe. That part is true. Ineffective but true. And that plus some historic tape of him calling Elon Musk out for a fight. That's all in the Gist list today. Text Mike 233777 for a link to subscribe to the Just List. Did you like the story I just told? 5 more of them every day. The gist is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses. Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save Hundreds of Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

Jeffrey (10:58)

Morning Zoe. Got donuts.

Dana (11:00)

Jeff Bridges why are you still living above our garage?

Jeffrey (11:03)

Well, I dig the mattress and I want to be in a T Mobile commercial like you teach me so Dana.

Dana (11:10)

Oh no, I'm not really prepared. I couldn't possibly AT T Mobile get the new iPhone 17 Pro on them. It's designed to be the most powerful iPhone yet and has the ultimate pro camera.

Senator Chris Murphy (11:22)

Wow.

Jeffrey (11:22)

Impressive. Let me try. T Mobile is the best place to get iPhone 17 Pro because they've got the best network.

Senator Chris Murphy (11:29)

Nice.

Dana (11:30)

Jeffrey, you heard them.

Jeffrey (11:31)

T Mobile is the best place to.

Mike (11:33)

Get the new iPhone 17 Pro on.

Jeffrey (11:35)

Us with eligible traded in any condition. So what are we having for launch?

Dana (11:40)

Dude, my work here is done.

T-Mobile Announcer (11:42)

The 24 month bill credit is on experience beyond for well qualified customers plus tax and $35 device connection charge credit send and balance due to payoff earlier Cancel Finance Agreement iPhone 17 Pro 256 gigs $1,099.99 and new line minimum $100 plus a month plan with auto taxes and fees required. Best mobile Network in the US based on analysis by Oakland Speed Test Intelligence Data 1H 2025 is a T mobile.com.

Mike (12:02)

The authorization to Use Military Force passed by Congress on September 14, 2001 authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th. A year later, an ad on a UMF that's the authorization to Use Military Force gave the President authority to essentially go after Iraq. Now think about this. It's 2019. We have kids who are fighting in these ongoing wars who are doing so under an authorization that was passed before they were born, passed when the leaders of those countries were the Taliban, Saddam Hussein instead of allies, if not handpicked allies of the United States. And also somehow those authorizations are used to justify US Involvement in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Kenya, Niger, Cameroon, Uganda, South Sudan, Congo, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, Gitmo and Kosovo. Chris Murphy is a Senator leading the fight to take back some semblance of control from the executive branch on this issue. It is not a partizan one. He sponsored legislation to do so when Barack Obama was President. Senator Murphy, thanks for coming on.

Senator Chris Murphy (13:16)

Thank you for focusing on this.

Mike (13:18)

Yeah, I don't think I'm doing so because I'm some sort of political science nerd or because I believe in, you know, just doing the right thing because of process. I strongly believe that there is a connection between citizens and the use of the military and these 19 or 18 year old doctrines are getting in the way of that very basic civic connection. It's not a question, but is that what motivates you?

Senator Chris Murphy (13:45)

Yeah, listen, this is one of the most fundamentally important aspects of American democracy. The skepticism that our founding fathers had about vesting war making authority in one individual. One individual who was at the same time, the President of the United States and the commander in chief of our armed forces, they made a very clear decision that when it came to putting American men at the time, and now men and women in harm's way, they wanted the whole country to participate in that discussion. So Congress was given the ability and the responsibility to declare war. Now, that used to be a little bit easier because prior to the advent of these shadowy, diffuse terrorist organizations that we are presently fighting, it used to be that armies marched against each other across open fields of battle. And when the fighting was done, there was a peace treaty. And so you knew when wars started, you knew who you were fighting, and you knew when wars ended. That's not how warfare works any longer. And so since it has gotten so darn confusing as to when wars begin, end, and who you fight, Congress has decided that they don't want to be in that business any longer because it's hard to create those definitions. And so it's better off just outsourcing the decision about how to make war to the President.

Mike (15:01)

So I want to ask you about the motivations of your fellow legislators when it comes to some authority, like as appropriators, they zealously protect that authority, but not in this area, not everyone. You. Bob Corker, when he was in the Senate, Mike Lee, to name a couple, Republicans. But it's not like there's some groundswell to get something done and to take back the power for your branch. And I wonder why. Do they think it's a losing issue? Do they worry that they might take a political hit if they authorize a war that goes bad or don't authorize a war that the country comes to regret and they'll look weak. What's the motivation?

Senator Chris Murphy (15:38)

Well, I think the motivation is. Is one. One that I can understand, which is folks don't want to make a mistake. And the worry is that if you start naming in statute the terrorist organizations that we're fighting, then it just allows those groups to change their name or to adapt into something, and then all of a sudden, America can't fight that terrorist group. Second, though, these calls aren't as easy as they used to be. Take Libya. There was a lot of consternation in Congress as to whether or not we should go in and take out Gaddafi as he was marching his armies on his own people. And so instead of having that really messy debate about whether we should give the President the authorization to do it and what we should give him the authorization to do and for how long, we should Give him the authorization. Congress just said nothing. And President Obama took as a sort of silent sign of endorsement and sent the US Forces into Libya for a period of time. It turned out to go horribly wrong. But the fact that it went wrong is indicative of why Congress didn't want to get involved in the first place, because they just weren't sure whether to say yes or no. And so they said nothing.

Mike (16:47)

Right. So that's an example where they could say, well, I guess that's on him. But I have another theory, and I think that many legislators feel that the President and the US Military are essentially doing what needs to be done, but they worry that the public won't see it that way, or maybe the. The public will be easily misled or demagogued. It might hurt them in reelections. And so therefore, by abdicating their responsibility, their hands are clean, and it never really will come back to haunt them.

Senator Chris Murphy (17:13)

So I think that's true. I've had only a couple moments in my political career that I call supermarket moments, where people are so upset about something happening in Washington that they literally yell across the grocery store to me, not waiting to, you know, get in front of me for a private conversation. And. And one of those moments was the weekend in 2013 when Congress was debating going into Syria. The one time that Congress got serious for a short period of time about debating a war authorization because President Obama said, I'm not dropping bombs in Syria unless Congress gives me the responsibility. It was pandemonium back home. People didn't want to do it. People had seen the mistakes we made in Iraq and didn't want to make another set of them. And so Congress was not going to give the President that authorization, despite, as you mentioned, a lot of members of Congress quietly thinking that they should. And so I think that was an episode that chilled Congress's enthusiasm to ever take that debate up again, because they thought exactly as you said, they might not ever get permission from the people to enter into war against somebody like Bashar Al Assad. I would argue that if you don't get permission, you shouldn't do it. That the people are smarter than you give them credit for when it comes to learning from the mistakes of the past.

Mike (18:24)

Yeah. And it also argues that if Amazon replaces all retail, then citizens will not have an opportunity to yell at their elected officials.

Senator Chris Murphy (18:32)

They will find a way, believe me.

Mike (18:34)

Aren't there ways? I understand all that, too, but what about just automatically putting a sunset in any authorization? Like, you can't authorize military force for more Than three years or five years.

Senator Chris Murphy (18:47)

So that's a good start. And that's what I would. And I've argued that when we are debating a new authorization of military force against isis, for instance, I would be much more willing to give the president more discretion in terms of how that war is waged if there was a sunset on it. And so I think you can get more common ground if there is an end date. There are other ideas, like in order to prevent these terrorist groups from changing their name in order to avoid US Military action, require the executive to come back to congress once a year to get certification through the foreign relations committee on the terrorist organizations that he that need to be updated on the list of threats to the United States. So there are different ways that you could keep congress involved rather than what we have today, which is congress literally giving the entirety of the power to the chief executive.

Mike (19:41)

Okay, let's talk about some specific areas in the world. You've been very vocal about the Saudi war in Yemen point blank. Do you think the US should be in alliance with Saudi Arabia? At what price and at what cost?

Senator Chris Murphy (19:54)

I think you have to pick and choose. Saudi Arabia is a very imperfect ally. Let's admit the things that we've done well together, They've been an important force for good in trying to create a detente between the. The sunni gulf nations and israel. For instance, there was a time when Saudi Arabia was a threat to Israel. They are not today. And they've been a force for good in that endeavor. But when it comes to Yemen and when it comes to the broader proxy war between Saudi arabia and Iran in the region, the United States doesn't have a dog in that fight. And just because we've been allies with Saudi Arabia in the past doesn't mean we have to follow them into every single reckless endeavor inside Yemen. Everything that's happening there runs contrary to national security interests in the United states. It's not just that we're killing civilians and radicalizing young yemenis against the United States because of the u. S. Made bombs that are dropping in that country. It's also that isis and al Qaeda themselves are taking advantage of the vacuum there and getting bigger and stronger. And we just found out the other day that some of our weapons that we've been selling to Saudis, They've intentionally transferred to militias that are aligned with al qaeda. So there's no reason for us to be in that conflict. But I would argue that that doesn't mean that we walk away from the alliance. We just pick and choose when we work with the Saudis and when we let them go their own way.

Mike (21:10)

Is your objection to the Saudi war in Yemen, how they've been prosecuting it, or the very fact of it?

Senator Chris Murphy (21:17)

Well, let's remember why it started. So it started because the Saudis mistakenly saw this very small tribe of Houthis, Houthis, as a threat to their interests because they practiced a different form of Islam. They were potentially allies of Iran. And so they engaged in a decade long crusade to essentially try to eradicate the Houthis through conversion campaigns and military campaigns. And so the Saudis created much of the problem that they are now dealing with. Now, if the Houthis are firing missiles at Saudi Arabia, yes, they have to defend themselves. And they are, and they are. But this is a disproportional response to create a humanitarian catastrophe that 85,000 kids have died in. And they also need to recognize that it was their overzealous export of Salafist Wahhabist Islam into Yemen that created the crisis that exists today.

Mike (22:13)

So I want to ask you about Trump and foreign policy in general. I saw a speech you gave at the Wilson center in 2016, and it was framed as there are a couple ways to view the world is the way that you were proposing, which is a sort of a progressive agenda, which includes democracy and paying attention to global warming and thinking about the political consequence of a military intervention before it happens. And then you said on the Republican side you have the neocons, maybe you have Rand Paul isolationists. Well, here you have Trump. And you know, I don't think that there is any coherent ideology there.

Senator Chris Murphy (22:46)

Correct.

Mike (22:46)

And I don't mean it just as a free floating insultant. Does it confuse you and confuse the, you know, where you want to take American policy. But to what extent does the fact that he is dissolute and the fact that he seems to not pay attention to a bunch of spots, and also the fact that he seems motivated maybe by enriching himself and his family, to what extent does that scramble the entire foreign policy picture? And just the very idea of an American ideology when it comes to foreign policy.

Senator Chris Murphy (23:18)

Right. So listen, every president has struggled to find a doctrine or to find a consistent set of tests to apply when deciding to engage in the world. And so no president has been perfect in foreign policy consistency. Trump, of course, is the antithesis of consistency in that he just listens to the latest person that happened to grab his ear, appear on Fox and Friends. And you're right, some of what he does may be Connected to. To trying to enrich himself. One of my cautions, though, is that for Democrats is connected to a worry I have that we are going to reflexively oppose anything Trump does because we have just come to convince ourselves that everything he does in general and specifically on foreign policy is wrongheaded. And that's my worry about Syria. The president is pulling us out of Syria in the wrong way. He should have planned that out with our allies better than he has. But that shouldn't goad the United States into being for endless wars. I don't actually think the president should have recognized Guido as the new legitimate ruler of Venezuela. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be actively involved in other ways in trying to promote democracy in Venezuela and other places. So I just wanna make sure that our party isn't reflexively opposing everything Trump does because some of his instincts are right, even though his implementation of those instincts is boneheaded.

Mike (24:40)

Yeah. Or even if it's not his instincts, even if it's something else that just got him to that position. But I wanna ask you about Venezuela and Guaido. You did in that op ed in the Washington Post with Ben Rhodes. You know, publicly recognizing an alternative president put the credibility of the United States behind someone who is not running the country. And it stands in a long line of bold foreign policy pronouncements from the Trump administration that are not backed by realistic implementation plans. But that was written a few days before Germany, Canada, the uk, France did the same thing. So would you reconsider the foolishness of that action, given that much of the world is now lined with up?

Senator Chris Murphy (25:19)

Well, I think the question is, would the rest of the world have lined up had the United States not done so in the first place? And so it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem here, I guess.

Mike (25:28)

Wait, so do you think they wouldn't have. I mean, if you think that that's a bad situation for all these nations of the world to line up like that.

Senator Chris Murphy (25:34)

You think there's two questions here, right? So. So I think there's two questions here. One, are we all going to be weaker at the end of this because we have recognized a leader of a country that is not the leader and will not be the leader of the country. Maduro is still there two weeks later. There's not a lot of sign that the support for him inside the military is weakening. And when you call your shot diplomatically and don't make it, as Trump has done over and over again, it weakens our credibility to influence situations down the line. Second, there's just a fundamental inconsistency with how we approach dictators around the world. Maduro is an evil, terrible person, but so are about a dozen other brutal dictators around the world, and we have only called for one of them, them to be deemed illegitimate by the world community. We don't recognize alternative leadership in Cameroon. We don't recognize alternative leadership in Saudi Arabia. And so I just think this is once again a big problem for American legitimacy and consistency around the world. If we seem to be only caring about the dictators in countries that have a lot of oil.

Mike (26:40)

Well, it's not inconsistency. It's just that the stated principle, which is something like openness and democracy, is not the actual principle, which is the US Interests. And by the way, there's something to be said for that as an American.

Senator Chris Murphy (26:52)

So I agree, and that's in part what I had said immediately after we recognized Goida, was that I'd be frankly more comfortable if Trump was just simply making this argument based on US Interests, whether they were interest related to playing more seriously in our hemisphere. Interest related to oil. But this syrupy language about this overnight conversion to democracy promotion from an administration that has showered affection on dictators left and right, right is just a little bit too much for. For a lot of us to take.

Mike (27:24)

What are the chances politically that in aumf, what we started talking about, what are the chances that something like that passes 3%?

Senator Chris Murphy (27:33)

I mean, there's, you know, there's just, there's no interest on behalf of the Republican Senate to take up an aumf. I could see the House potentially passing in aumf, but the Senate won't take it up and the president has no interest in it. So at least in the next year and a half, the chances are close to zero. It doesn't mean that I'm not going to spend a lot of, you know, time and exert a lot of oxygen making the case for it, but it's very low.

Mike (27:56)

Senator Chris Murphy is Connecticut's junior senator, but number one in our hearts. Thank you so much, Senator.

Senator Chris Murphy (28:02)

Thanks, man.

Mike (28:23)

All right, that's it. Cory Wara produces the show, a raft of others combined, but it's the Saturday show. We have truncated credits to get to. Maybe during this time, when I explained that the credits were succinct, I could have just listed people like Ashley Khan and my wife and Jeff Thomas, Craig and all the others, all the millions of others who make the dream possible, possible. But I decided not to. I'M being terse. I'll talk to you on Monday.

Libsyn Ads Announcer (28:56)

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now, and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements, or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn ads, go to Libsynads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.