"A warning that everyone should hear"

I just left a classified briefing on Iran, and here's what I can say. It is so much worse

than you thought. You are right to be worried. Trump administration has no plan in Iran.

Legal war is based on lies, and it was launched without any imminent threat to our nation.

Donald Trump still hasn't given a single clear reason for this war, and he seems to have no plan

for how to end it either. Like a lot of you, I am really angry. I am angry at what Donald Trump is

doing, and I feel grief for those already killed in this unnecessary conflict. And I will keep doing

everything I can to fight to end this war. Senator Warren's alarm there, not being put to

rest one bit, but what is transpired today, and what the administration is saying today,

today there is a growing threat that new fronts will open in the war against Iran.

A senior NATO military official tells our network that a ballistic missile launch from Iran was

intercepted as it approached Turkish airspace. It was shot down by NATO air and missile defense system

stationed in the eastern Mediterranean. Any attack on a NATO nation and NATO member would be a

major escalation in the war. It could activate our mutual defense clause, potentially pulling

the 32 NATO member states into the war. Also happening today, the United States used a submarine

launch torpedo to sink an Iranian warship in the Indian Ocean near Sri Lanka.

Important to know this, it is the first time an American submarine has been used to fire

to launch a torpedo against an enemy ship in combat since World War II.

Iranian forces are striking back, according to a New York Times analysis of satellite imagery and

videos quote, Iranian strikes conducted over the weekend and on Monday damaged structures

that are part of or near communication and radar systems on at least seven U.S. military sites

across the Middle East. The targeted locations appeared to indicate Iran was aiming to disrupt

the U.S. military's ability to communicate and coordinate. All this is happening against the

backdrop of that $64 million question. Will there be troops on the ground at any point?

Already more than 1,000 people have died in Iran. At least 10 people have been killed in Israel.

In six United States service members have lost their lives in this war.

Here is how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth addressed the deaths of U.S. troops today.

This is what the fake news misses. We've taken control of Iran's airspace and waterways

without boots on the ground. We control their fate. But when a few drones get through

or tragic things happen, it's front page news. I get it. The press only wants to make the

president look bad, but try for once to report the reality.

Then skin doesn't get you too far. That was from a briefing he held this morning where he declared

that more and larger waves of strikes deeper into Iran are on the horizon.

That the United States is accelerating, not decelerating the conflict, and that quote,

we will take all the time we need to make sure that we succeed. Of course, what success looks like

is a question that the administration, including Mr. Hegseth, has either failed to or refused

to define publicly for the country. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs also told reporters that the U.S.

military campaign will shift inland. Donald Trump's war escalating and expanding as this

administration is very much sounding defensive and appearing to have no real plan that they're

willing to share with the country is where we start today. Washington Post reporter John Hudson is

here. Also joining us former director of the CIA, our senior national security and intelligence

analyst John Brennan's here. And with me at the table, Paul Reikoff. He's the host of the

Independent Americans podcast and the founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America.

How are you doing? I am bracing and processing like the rest of the world, but I'm going to come

back to what I've been saying to you for months since he got elected. The most important story in

the world is that Donald Trump can do anything he wants with the most powerful military the world

has ever seen and nothing is stopping him. Not in that intro, which was very comprehensive. He

also hit Ecuador yesterday. He had an entirely new country and the question is not really what

is Trump going to do because we know what Trump is going to do. The question is what is Congress

going to do? They didn't even interrupt their weekend for an emergency session when he declared war,

like we waged war on Iran and six Americans died. They still haven't voted on Iran and he's

already onto another country. So Congress is broken. This is not working and the question should be

can anybody do anything to stop him or even slow him down? I think that's the question for any

elected leader of any party you have on this show because he's just going all gas, no breaks

and throwing his middle finger up in the rearview mirror as they try to catch up and he's going to

go for boots on the ground because he said he will. Believe him when he says it. He telegraphs his

punches. He does what he says and it could be Cuba next. Six U.S. service members have lost their

lives. A strike was intercepted about Turkey. We're going to have Senator Blumenthal on the next

block. He said he's never been more afraid of boots on the ground in Iran. What does that mean?

I don't know. Frankly, I'm tired of the tweets and the posts and the cable news hits from all

the senators who say that they're afraid or they're alarmed. The question is what's their strategy?

What is Blumenthal going to do about it? Is there anything he's going to do to stop boots on

the ground for the folks like Elizabeth Warren who say this is an illegal war? Then impeach him.

To something to slow him down. This is a box on both parties. Obviously the Republicans are in

control here, but they're not even going to get a war power. Is that maybe tomorrow? Congress

is failing here and I think NATO will likely get involved. We've got a full regional war now.

It's not contained only to Iran and there is no sense that this is going to slow down. It seems

to accelerate. It's a true test of our very basic foundations of democracy. If Congress can stop

and our allies can't stop him, what can?

Dr. Brennan, let me just ask you. If you were sort of assessing what was happening in this country

as the CIA director for the UK or for another country, what would your assessment be of where

things stand here right now? I think well said very well. The fact that all of United States is

very formidable resources and capabilities in the military law enforcement all across the

board are in the hands of someone like Donald Trump. I think a lot of intelligence achieves

around the globe or looking at the United States and saying things that really broke it there.

In terms of how policy is formulated, it's not. It's just something that Donald Trump decides to do.

I think it's really quite worrisome and I think the feeling is it's at a very dangerous point

because as this Trump realizes, I think that the war in Iran is not going the way he had hoped

and wanted. This is a real mess and how do we get out of this? It really, aside from the fact that

this is such a needless war and such a necessary death and destruction that is taking place,

as we pointed out, the fact that it's almost like an amateur show. If you really wanted to go

forward with some type of regime change, you wouldn't have just had the military operations.

It would have been doing a lot of advanced work in terms of coordinating with allies,

in terms of reaching into the Iranian military and trying to recruit generals and units and

get them to the fact that as soon as the bomb started falling, farming and equipping and training

such as the Iranian courage and other types of things. There would be a simultaneous combustion

inside of Iran. As much as I don't think that should have happened at all in light of the lack

of any human threat, it just shows that there wasn't any type of strategic plan that went on and

so it's ad hocism that's happening. Unfortunately, people like Marco Rubio and others,

they know better, but the fact that Donald Trump is leading them all around,

you know, by the ring in their noses. Again, I think the Brits and others are looking at us and saying,

my God, the world has changed so dramatically because the United States is acting in such an

armatory capricious and reckless manner. What is coming from a headless, and I do think that

there are a lot of questions about what the rest of this year and the rest of the Trump

administration is going to look like. Dr. Brennan, I want to read you this reporting in the Wall Street

journal to your point of, I mean, regime change is one of the rationales that's been offered up.

My Donald Trump, what's your journal's reporting this? The son of Iatola Kamani is the top

contender for Supreme Leader. Quote, the son of Iran slain theocratic leader is the top contender

to replace his father to steer the embattled Islamic Republic and its worst conflict in decades.

That's occurring to people familiar with the matter. He would likely opt for an even more

hardline direction to Supreme Leader, Iranian officials, and analysts say, this feels like the worst

possible outcome. What has already been the loss of American treasure in the form of six lives

that we take someone out who's replaced by someone that the Wall Street Journal says is,

quote, even more hard line as Supreme Leader. Absolutely. He is, and I think he represents a real

element within Iranian society, not just the government and the regime, but Iranian society.

You know, we tend to look at things through the American prison and point out all the very

odious and heinous acts that Iran has committed over the course of the last number of decades,

particularly since the revolution. The Iranians look at us and they say, okay, the CIA

inhibits overthrew the democratically elected prime minister, Mosadek, in 1953.

We armed, equipped, and trained the Sabah, which was the Shah's secret police that tortured and

oppressed Iranians across the board. You know, we have engaged in different types of bombing

activities. We invaded Iraq. We killed Qasim Salimani, you know, we assassinated some of them.

So they keep saying, you know, it's eye for an eye, and we can go back into history.

The big question is, how do we move forward and get out of this cycle of violence and retribution?

But the Iranians are looking at us and saying, boy, they're raining hell down on them.

Should they just roll over and just give up? No. And I also heard the reports that the

Israelis say that they're going to kill the next Supreme Leader. Obviously it's a, you know,

a war on the religion in any respects as well, given the, the combination of religious and political

leadership in Iran. So again, this is so messy. And again, I'm just a gas that a U.S.

administration engaged in something like this without thinking through the implications,

the repercussions, and where we go from here. It is just appalling.

John, Hudson, we've been trying to keep track of what's been publicly stated. Obviously,

we don't know what we don't know. You might know some of what we don't know, and we'll ask you

about that. But in terms of the timeline, they have said, Trump said he could end it in days.

We've heard four to five weeks, and we've heard, quote, much longer. In terms of why we went,

we heard Rubio give the most sort of detailed response when he said because we knew Israel

was going to strike and then Iran would retaliate. We heard Trump talk about regime change.

And I think there's at least one of the rationale that's been publicly articulated. Boots on

the ground. Caroline Levitt, I'm not going to remove an option for the president that's on the

table. Donald Trump speaking to the New York Post put that on the table. What is your understanding

for why they can't have the same answers to the same oft-ask questions?

It's a great question. It's almost as if the administration is shopping around

rationales for why this conflict happened. They've also been shopping around objectives for

the conflict, and then shopping around timelines. All of those things have resulted in different

responses that the administration has offered. The only thing that I can assume is that they're

trying to see what sticks and what seems to sound the best. You mentioned Secretary Rubio saying

that one of the reasons why the administration did this is because they felt that Israel was going

to attack, and if Israel attacked, then that would result in the United States taking in casualties

from Iran so that they had to enter first. That exploded in a lot of anger, especially in the

megabase, which said it sounds like Rubio is saying the Israelis dragged us into this war,

what happened to America first? Not to mention the anger on the parts of the left about that

happening, and so then Trump projected that. It truly looks like Director Brennan used the word

ad hocism. It's also ad hocism when it comes to testing out what sounds right to the American

people, and I think that's largely of the role of the negative polling surrounding where the

public is on the United States getting engaged in another war in the Middle East, and the negative

reaction that has happened within the megabase surrounding a new war with Iran.

Is this being driven? I guess you answered my question for me, John. It's being driven by reaction

inside the megabase, which has been, revolt might be too strong of a word, but the most public

and high-level rejection of anything Trump has done in 10 years from folks like Tucker Carlson

and Megan Kelly, a political civil war between Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, or Levine, I don't know

how to say his last name on one side, and Megan Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Canis Owens, on the other.

And then there's the weakness, the fecklessness that I think all Americans would not like when

Marco Rubio went before Congress and said and closed in open door meetings that we had followed

Israel into war, that because they were going to attack, we anticipated Iran would respond, and we

would be in danger. Is there anything in the mix that suggests a national security

person thinking about U.S. national security, or is this all vibes and whims?

Vibes is a great word to introduce into this. And I think the most important question was,

was there an imminent threat, because that was the first thing that they put out there,

and that would be one of the strongest rationales for going to war. I can tell you from my reporting

based on what's been happening in classified closed-door sessions between congressional staff

and administration officials, they tried to really drill down on this point. Not one cameras were

around, not one that you could easily get a televised moment. And the response was, no, the

administration was not able to say that the Iranians were plotting to attack the United States

first. They were not able to say that there was an imminent threat to our U.S. bases

in the Middle East based on planning for an attack. What they rested this on when they were

talking to professionals was that the Iran's reconstitution of its ballistic missile program

itself constituted an imminent threat. A lot of people would say that that's a significant stretch,

because you're talking about a conventional weapons program, which clinicians are allowed to

have that. We might not like that our adversaries have missiles, but it's not what's seen

according to international law as a justification to preemptively launch a massive bombing campaign

that results in the assassination of the highest rungs of another country's military and political

leadership. Dr. Brennan, what do you assess to be Iran's capability to sustain its current

level of strikes against American military installations, against America's allies, against,

I guess what we used to do, soft targets in places like Dubai. What do you assess their capabilities

to be to keep that up or accelerate their offensive? Well, there's no doubt that the capabilities

are being degraded by the massive and overwhelming demonstration of US military power,

but they're going to be opting for whatever capabilities they have, whether it be drones,

or whether it be other types of attacks. They see this really as a matter of survival. Why should

they hold back that and anything they have? And I do think the next order is going to be terrorist

attacks. They probably don't have things sort of off the shelf that they can launch, but who's

to say that they don't have in fact capabilities and operatives or whatever in different parts of

the world that could launch mortars or engage in IEDs or other types of things. So as I think

their missile inventory is going to be decreased in terms of capability size. They're going to opt

for other types of things and they see that this is time really is on their side because they're

going to continue to withstand the barrage that they're facing. But again, they see this as

fall out war. And so why should they hold back when Israel and the United States are not

holding back on their side using their capabilities around a resort to whatever capabilities they have

remaining? What are you here when you hear Trump and Caroline Levitt leave boots on the ground

in Iran on the table? What does that look like? It's made it sounds like they don't know what's

going to happen in the future. And I think increasingly they're they're recognizing that they're not

going to be able to achieve their objectives with just this aerial bombing campaign. There's

just no way that's going to happen whether they're talking about on their regime change or the

program, whatever else. But it's clear that the Trump administration's propaganda machine is in

full full sway right now. And it's really quite worrisome when at a time of war, if you have a

dishonest administration that is fueling the disinformation out there, misrepresenting the facts.

That is really dangerous. And this is where it is up the cars. I agree with Paul that

need to find a way to try to rest from the administration than this narrative that they are

misrepresenting again. The facts not only in terms of the cause of the rationale for the war,

but what is actually happening. And I do think that again, the the the future is really quite

fraught and uncertain, which is why I think they don't want to take anything off the tape because

they don't know what their next move is. And by all accounts, there is no real good interagency

process that's going to be bringing to the fore the expertise, the intelligence, the strategy

that is really necessary to get out of this mess, which is really going to be tough to do.

Yeah, Mark Mazzetti was here yesterday and made the point. I asked about the NSC process and he

said that there's no reporting that suggests there was one to your point, to all your points.

Director John Brennan, John Hudson, thank you both so much for starting us off. Paul stays with us.

When he and I come back, we'll talk with a senator who is briefed by the administration and left

alarmed and talk specifically about what we're talking about right now that Trump could be

planning to put boots on the ground and soon. Also ahead for us,

Cash Patel's politically motivated purges at the FBI new exclusive reporting. We're bringing you

here for the very first time around the pattern of these firings. What our team has uncovered

with their reporting is proving dangerous for American national security. One and only Carol

Lenick joins us on her new reporting, plus a remarkable move late this afternoon by House

Republicans on the Oversight Committee. They have voted to subpoena Attorney General Pam Bondi

for the Justice Department's mishandling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

And later in the show, Trump explicitly saying today what we've all been afraid he would do,

urging Republicans in Texas to cancel their runoff election and saying that voters should no longer

have a choice. All those stories and much more when Devon Whitehouse continues up to a quick break,

don't go anywhere.

The United States Senate right now is voting on advancing a war powers resolution to try to

force Donald Trump to stop the strikes against Iran. I want to bring in Democratic Senator Richard

Blumethal, Connecticut. He serves on both the armed services and Homeland Security committees.

I want to start by asking you about that vote. Tell us how you expect it to go.

I'm sad and angry Nicole because I anticipate that the Senate will fail to approve the Iran

war powers resolution that would impose constitutional restraint on the President of the United States.

The Constitution requires that Congress approve a war. And the President's called it a war,

the Secretary of War has called it a war. And yet sadly, my Republican colleagues are failing

to show the backbone and spine that is necessary to impose constitutional restraints and pull back

from an expanding, burgeoning war that threatens to put American sons and daughters in harm's way.

Six American sons and daughters have already lost their lives. We've learned the identities

of four of them last night, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, and 56% of the country to about 70% of the

country opposes a war in Iran. What is plan B if this resolution today fails?

I fear we are at the precipice of a major expansion that would involve

our putting American troops on the ground in Iran. The reason I fear it is that the objectives

continue to be undefined, confused, and contradictory. The administration seems to be making it up as

it goes along. Test marketing a war that is going to be deeply unpopular when the casualties

tragically mount. I'm a dad who has two sons who have served. One is an infantry officer in

Afghanistan, the other is a Navy SEI. I know what it's like to stay awake at night, wondering

how your sons are doing. And I have been a state official when the body bags and the

funerals came back to haunt us during Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The failure to define

strategy is different from possible success in tactics. We may be seeing success in the bombing,

but so long as the administration continues to think that regime change is an objective here,

they are heading down the path of American sons and daughters being in the line of fire in

Iran. We can't count on others to do it if we want to change regimes bombing at 30,000 feet

has never changed a regime and it can't be done without some presence there.

So you're saying that based on the briefings you've heard that one of the objectives that

your hearing is regime change is Donald Trump has said publicly and that your understanding

is that that can't be done without US troops on the ground.

Donald Trump has shouted the quiet part out loud. He has said he wants to see regime change.

His personal animus and vanity are driving this war in a way that is absolutely

unconscionable and ought to outrage the American people as angry as we are many of us on the floor

of the Senate voting today and yes my fear after that briefing has only mounted because the

failure to rule out putting troops on the ground with the president saying that it is one of his

objectives means that all those other goals such as destroying Iran's missile capacity or

its nuclear arms program or its terrorist activities throughout the region all of them bad things we

want to stop them but considering that ultimately he wants to destroy the leadership of this regime

and replace it with something else means that it's a real danger that our troops will be there.

Paul Reichoff, let me bring you in on this. The publicly contradictory messages about all three

why we went, what the objectives are and how the war will be waged seem unsustainable.

What are your thoughts about holding them accountable in some way to simply answer the questions

for what has already come to pass? Not having one rationale also is a strategy to ensure you're not

held accountable and you can wait for something to land. This is like yellow cake and weapons of

mass destruction and Saddam's a bad guy all over again but I think your question to the senator

is a central one. What is planned be? He didn't answer you respectfully senator you did not answer

because they're about to have a war powers act vote on a war that's already happening. Last night

he hit a whole new country in Ecuador they haven't addressed that and he's talking about hitting Cuba

so at what point are they going to get ahead of this runaway train? They're always chasing it and

everybody's angry everybody's upset everybody's fearful but what is the strategy to stop it

and I think that is the question that remains for Senator Blumenthal and for every member of the

Senate right now. Senator I'll give you the last word. Well we're going to continue this battle.

This vote is not the last that we will have the war powers resolution will be raised again I believe

Republicans will be held accountable remember today every Republican and will be on record

and if this war continues they will be held accountable for these votes we will have votes as

well possibly on a supplemental but keep in mind we're in the minority our tools are limited

let's direct the outreach at Republicans who really deserve to be held accountable they're the ones

who are voting my guess is almost unanimously today and they deserve to be held accountable that's

what will be on the ballot this November it should be a matter for every one in this country to be

asking their representatives their senators will you take a stand. Senator Richard Blumenthal

first of all I'm sure we'll be many of these conversations thank you for having it with us

all right cough thank you for your contributions this hour as well after the break there's new

exclusive reporting we're going to bring you here for the very first time FBI agents are sounding

the alarm about Kashfetel's pattern of finding himself under fire because of his own behavior

and then how he lashes out at agents Carolinic joins us next on that don't go anywhere

turning out to brand new blockbuster reporting an MS now exclusive from Carolinic and

Kendalynian about an explosive pattern that begins with FBI director Kashfetel under fire for

eyebrow raising headlines and ending with him lashing out to fire experienced FBI staff

as we learn this week that includes those with expertise and counterintelligence global espionage

and Iran today Carolin can report this quote in four key instances Kashfetel's decision to

fire FBI agents and staff came within hours or days of unflattering accounts emerging about him

and his competency to run the FBI they add this quote inside the FBI staff and agents have been

tracking this pattern and growing concerned that Kashfetel is jeopardizing the FBI's mission

as a byproduct of trying to eliminate his bad press and shore up support with Trump

according to multiple FBI sources who spoke to MS now the key instances of bad press that they're

talking about these are headlines that you might remember forever reporting that Kashfetel

knowingly broke the law when firing senior FBI executives reporting about flight records showing

that Kashfetel misuses the FBI jet to visit his girlfriend reporting that described Kashfetel

as an unserious leader who had demoralized and weakened the bureau and most recently Kashfetel's

trip to the Olympics in Italy again aboard a government jet we're seeing here he guzzled beer

and sprayed it all over everyone in the room while parting with the USA men's hockey team

and want to bring in Carol Lenick who's reporting we've been reading from also joining us

former assistant special agent and charge at the FBI and national security intelligence analyst

for us Michael Feinberg I'm Carol Lenick take us through this really wider look at a pattern

that's become clear thanks Nicole for focusing on this you know as you know from covering this yourself

in a way and and tracking what's been going on at the justice department and the FBI we can sometimes

become a little bit numb to these serial purges there have been story after story that we've

broken here at MS now or that some of our colleagues and competitors have broken about FBI agents

and staff being fired by Kashfetel since he took office in February of 2025 as the director

but what we started to look into was the seemingly eerie coincidence or coordination depending on

your perspective between moments when Kashfetel is personally in hot water and moments when

these FBI agents are having their careers ended unceremoniously often without any cause or

justification given to them about why they're being fired I would like to emphasize that there are

people at the FBI we learned in the course of this reporting who have also noticed this trend but we

tried in our reporting to focus very specifically on those moments when Kashfetel is in big trouble

and within days or hours even he is firing a group of people who work for him in his own staff

and we found these four instances that had this eerie overlap. Kashfetel through a spokesperson

told MS now told me and can that firings are based on investigations and findings of impropriety

and nothing more I just think it's important to say what they say is happening.

Let me go through them again and I love that we can especially with Michael here

look at this I think of it as like a crater that they've created at the FBI and without

putting them together it's hard to understand just how deep it is and I guess what I want to ask

you to talk about on the on the other side is I mean he's perpetually in trouble and so I want

to know from both of you where the bottom might be of that crater but let me just go through the

examples again. In mid-September Kashfetel faced a string of media reports but a lawsuit claiming he

knowingly broke the law when he fired three top FBI officials I believe they counter sued.

So this is what happened immediately afterward. Within a week Kashfetel ordered the firing of 10

FBI agents who were pictured five years earlier taking a knee to show solidarity with people protesting

the police killing George Floyd. Second example in October so unless later a social media

influencer revealed flight records that showed Kashfetel took the FBI jet to see his girlfriend

sing the national anthem at an event at Penn State. Fire of the day after the news broke a 27-year

FBI veteran named Stephen Palmer who headed the critical incident response group that oversees the

FBI jet fleet. The third example January 22nd, 2026 so about six weeks later the New York Times

published an article quoting former current FBI employees describing Kashfetel as an unserious

leader who had demoralized and weakened the FBI. The next day Kashfetel ordered the firing of six

agents who were based out of the FBI's Miami field office as well as a handful of senior agents I

think those had had some role in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Example four last month February

22nd, 2026 stories about Kashfetel flying on the FBI jet to the Olympics in Milan on February 24th

the day after a video emerged to Patel partying in the hockey team's locker room. A new account

emerged from a whistleblower who said Kashfetel's use of the director's jet for a personal trip

to Florida in December and his confusing orders delayed an elite FBI evidence team from reaching

the scene of that mass shooting at Brown University to handle some of that evidence on December

13th and then February 25th. The next day Kashfetel ordered the firing of at least 10 FBI agents

and support staff who'd worked on the investigation examining Trump's withholding of classified records.

Carol, you know, one could be a coincidence, two could be a unlikely pattern. Three is obviously a

practice. Four seems like an obsession. Is there anything that the FBI agents association

or Congress can do to protect the remaining agents? So far no. I mean obviously as you know there have

been these counter suits which look like they are at least in some measure going to be successful

because it's improper to fire someone without cause and in the case of for example that lawsuit

that prompted more firings. The lawsuit about the firings involving former acting director Driscoll

and two other senior officials. They essentially said we were told we were being fired for a political

reason without just cause. We were told that we were going to have to be removed to please the

White House. That is the claim in the lawsuit but your larger question Nicole is you know what is

going on here and it is true that cashmatell is in is often in the news because of insider accounts

that are emerging about problematic behavior or use of the government plane for personal travel that

doesn't appear to follow any protocols for how previous directors used a government taxpayer

funded jet going to see a men's hockey game in the main and a few security meetings in Italy for

example has has really upset a lot of people inside the FBI embarrassed them and as these insider

accounts emerge the the results is overwhelmingly that more agents are fired which FBI sources tell us

they believe is an effort to basically change the channel an effort by Patel in their view to

further ingratiate himself with Donald Trump and protect his job the problem for those sources

and for many in the FBI is it is undermining the actual bureau and the critical missions that they

perform. To say nothing of the war we're now in the hot war in the Middle East I want to

bring that into the conversation on the other side of a short break with both of you.

Stay with us will I'll be right back.

We're back with Carol and Michael Michael Feinberg I know a lot of this rings true but just

again bring me to the consequences of this pattern.

So the biggest consequence is that we have already lost decades if not centuries of

subject matter expertise investigative acumen and sound operational judgment and it shows no

sign of abating simply because cash Patel shows no signs of moderating his behavior to be a more

metaphorically sober director of the FBI. I also think it's important to note one that I want

to really comment on something Carol said which was when she quoted the FBI spokesperson that

nobody is dismissed except as the result of investigations. We know that's demonstrably not true

because the people who have been fired have been terminated without the benefit of an office of

professional responsibility investigation. There has been no determination by OPR or the office

of disciplinary appeals about their situations. In other words these are summary firings these are

not the result of any policy or procedure. Carol where does this go? Where's this heading?

It's a great question you know I think some of what we are learning in a very kind of cold

and dry way is that the only way that someone who runs a cabinet office in this administration

is held to account if is if Donald Trump the president of the United States is dissatisfied with

their performance and cash Patel has been a unflagging incredible ally of Donald Trump's

staunch supporter willing to you know carry out his bidding even though the FBI is supposed to be

independent from the political wishes of the president and I don't think I mean sort of

to paraphrase Mike I don't think that there's going to be a bottom for a while because

this many people have been fired. The argument that cash Patel has made in many of the cases

that they were not loyal and that they engaged in some sort of impropriety by investigating

open source evidence of a potential crime as assigned by their supervisors and overwhelmingly it's

because they were investigating Donald Trump or had some role in one of the Trump investigations

either for his concealing and withholding classified records or is effort to interfere in the

election. I don't see a bottom for a while unless the president of the United States gets fed up

with this. Carolinic it's another stunning piece of reporting from you and and our colleague

Kendallynian thank you for bringing it to us. It's up right now on our website Michael Feinberg you'll

be back with us in the next hour after the break. How Kristi Nome's spending limits at the agency

she leads delayed disaster aid for weeks. The report is found we'll bring it to you next.

A stunning new report by Senate Democrats reveals that a directive by Department of Homeland

Security Secretary Kristi Nome led to delays to the tune of tens of millions of dollars

in recovery aid for victims of natural disasters. Among those delays named in the report

aid for the victims of July's deadly flooding in Texas the death toll there was well over 100

people many of them children who were in a sleep away camp along the banks of the Guadalupe River

survivors of Hurricane Helene in multiple hard hit counties in Western North Carolina are still

waiting for the federal government to make good on its promise to pay back millions of dollars at

local officials have spent or allocated for recovery. This report dropped just weeks after news

broke that Kristi Nome has been crisscrossing the country on a luxurious private jet and once

got mad when her blanket wasn't moved from one to the other. DHS is in the process of buying it for

$70 million far less than the 46 million it owes to one of North Carolina's hardest hit counties.

We'll stand top of this reporting after the break. Five Republicans joined Democrats today

in issuing a subpoena for Attorney General Pam Bondi in its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein

that rather surprising development when Devon Whitehouse continues after Quick Break stay with us.