'Corrupted’

Here's a shift worth noting.

Better health care is care that meets patients where they are.

United Health Group is bringing it directly to living rooms.

This is a win for patients managing chronic conditions.

And here's the interesting thing.

By closing those care gaps, administering in-home exams and identifying risks earlier,

more diseases can be prevented and patient outcomes can improve.

In 2025 alone, United Health Group patients received over 19 million home visits.

Learn more at unitedhealthgroup.com slash commitment.

Bringing your business dreams to life takes heart and about a thousand decisions a day.

That's why Atlantic Union Bank's knowledgeable bankers are here for you.

With the right guidance and customized solutions to help you reach your business goals.

So whether you're planning your next move, upgrading your space, or scaling to meet demand,

we make sure your business is ready for what's ahead because we are big enough to support you.

Yet small enough to know you.

Atlantic Union Bank.

Anyway, you bank.

Good evening and welcome to the weeknight.

I'm Alicia Menendez with Simone Sanders Townsend and Michael Steele.

We are following breaking developments on several fronts starting with the Trump administration

subpoenaing former FBI director James Comey.

It's according to new reporting.

It is part of an unprecedented conspiracy case designed to undermine the midterm election.

Also breaking the House Oversight Committee just finished

deposing Jeffrey Epstein's former lawyer in a moment will speak with Congresswoman

Summary Lee, who was the target of that crude remark from the committee's chairman,

caused Democrats to walk out of the briefing with Pam Bondy.

And later, Republicans have failed to come up with a coherent defense for sky high gas prices.

Senator Jackie Rosen is here to react to their out-of-touch remarks.

But we begin with that breaking news.

Axel's reports that former FBI director James Comey has been subpoenaed, quote,

in the wide-ranging grand conspiracy case against the ex-officials who investigated and prosecuted

President Trump two sources with knowledge of the situation till Axios.

U.S. District Judge Eileen Cannon, the Trump appointee who tossed out Jacksonous classified

documents case against the President, well, is now overseeing the grand jury that issued this

subpoena. The grand jury is based in the southern district of Florida, according to Axios.

And it comes after an attempted prosecution of Comey failed in the Eastern District of Virginia.

So far, according to Axios, this investigation, quote,

has produced more than 130 subpoenas, the sources say, and targets top officials who worked

under former President Obama and Biden. The officials, including Comey, have all decried the

investigation as political persecution and law fair. This, quote, unquote, grand conspiracy,

posits that democratic officials bent the rules, broke the law, and lied under oath to investigate

prosecute and otherwise undermine Trump from his election in 2016 through his federal indictments

in 2023. Want to be very clear, there's no public evidence to support that theory.

And let's, to be even clearer, this retribution effort isn't just about settling scores for Trump.

No, it is also part of a larger effort to undermine trust in the 2026 midterms and beyond.

Joining us now is former federal prosecutor, Brendan Ballou. He's the founder of the public

integrity project, and MSNOW political analyst Tim O'Brien is also with us. He's also senior executive

editor of Bloomberg opinion. Brendan Ballou, I mean, they have tried this out in court. It has failed

over and over again on court. I get that it's really hot on the internet, but the fact that they

are choosing to double down on this, what does that tell you about where they're thinking us?

I think it tells you that they've more or less given up on their efforts in the eastern district

of Virginia, which as you know, and as your viewers know, really struggled in their prosecutions of

James Comey and Latisha James, you know, those cases basically have had about a half dozen reasons

to fall apart and fell apart on just one of them. So even if that gets revived on appeal,

there's all sorts of reasons why that could fail. So it seems like they've tried to move the effort

to go after Trump's political opponents in a potentially more favorable jurisdiction.

The Southern District of Florida, but even from the get go, they're going to have challenges

starting with that jurisdictional question, which is, you know, if this is a grand conspiracy

about an investigation into Donald Trump in the 2016 election, and let's assume for the hypothetical

that all the things that they're alleging are true, well, all those crimes occurred in Washington,

D.C., not in the Southern District of Florida. So right out of the bat, you're going to have a

jurisdictional problem. But on top of that, you're going to have some statute of limitation

problems, which again, let's assume that everything that they're alleging or investigating

was in fact a crime. Those would have been crimes that occurred nearly a decade ago.

Most federal statutes of limitations are five years. So, you know, it seems like they're struggling

in their old jurisdiction. It seems like they're going to struggle in this jurisdiction too.

I guess from my perspective, a lot of this, Tim, is the typical fodder. You know,

counsel here is just laid out the legal hurdles that this made up prosecution or investigation

of what a hell they call it. What did you say was some on a grand conspiracy?

Grand conspiracy. Grand conspiracy. Yeah, okay. The grand conspiracy took place when no one gave a

damn about Donald Trump because no one thought he was going to win the presidency in 26, including

Donald Trump. So all this grand conspiracy to take out a guy who nobody thought was going to win,

no one focused that kind of energy on this man. The most energy was focused around the Axios,

Axioli would take thing. I mean, so my point is, why are we here? And I think the politics

is driving this more than the law. I think Epstein files drives this. I think of flailing about

administration in Iran drives a lot of this. This sort of hook and ladder list sort of gravel we

can to put to put the fire out on our terms when there is no fire makes no sense to me. Help me make

sense as my friends Simone would say. Well, I think the grand conspiracy here doesn't involve Jim

Comey or or or or or anyone else. The grand conspiracy here involves the current White House,

the current Justice Department and the current FBI. And and what they're essentially doing is they are

you know, servants in Donald Trump's effort to go on a revenge and retribution tour. That explains

most of this. You know, there's three big components there. There's obviously that, you know,

the Rushagate investigation back in Trump's first term and then the two subsequent investigations,

the classified documents investigation in the 2020 election investigation. They're all different.

But if you just look at what Comey appears to be in subpoenaed about, solely is is that first term

investigation on Rushagate. Remember that that the FBI's own inspector general Michael Horowitz

investigated the fact pattern on all of this with the support of Republicans in Congress

and Donald Trump in the White House. And in 2019 he produced a report saying that

the FBI's investigation wasn't motivated by political bias that they proceeded by a large

with some flaws in a very straightforward manner. The only sort of gravity could pull out of his hat

was that the steel dossier was used inappropriately to issue a phisal warrant against Carter Page

one long ago member of the Trump circle. That was the only meaningful way the steel dossier

played a role in any of this. I had nothing to do with that by the way.

I know different steel. I got all my god. Everyone thought I was the steel.

Everywhere Michael there was Christopher steel. But this has been amply investigated. There is no

there there. And in fact there were very good reasons for the federal government to be concerned

about Trump and the Trump campaign's intersection with Russians. Democrats computers were hacked

during the 2016 campaign. Donald Trump's son Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with a Russian

lawyer in Trump tower who claimed to have dirt on Hillary Clinton. Vladimir Putin will personally

sign off on internet trolls who were planting fake news on US websites. All of this it didn't

amount to a criminal conspiracy. But it did amount to a very vivid intersection that deserved an

examination by federal investigators and they were just doing their job. I just want to play Marco

Rubio defending the Intel community's findings in 2018 saying that he never had any doubt.

Take a listen. The intelligence community has assembled probably an unparalleled

amount of evidence in regards to the Russian not just efforts to interfere in 2016 but ongoing

efforts to interfere in American society. I take you back to October of 2016. I was running for

reelection and these whole weekly leak issues were coming up and I said I wouldn't talk about it

because it was a work of informed intelligence agency at the time. I still think that while we

may have been aware of what was I wouldn't clear yet how that was be classified but I've never had

any doubt. So we'll see if Marco Rubio backtracks now that he is the national security advisor,

slash sectarian state state slash whatever other jobs they're going to give him. This is from an

analysis by Molly Roberts at Law Fair, Brendan. So let's set that over there. This grand conspiracy

thing is a much like the conspiracy theory. This is what she writes. It proponents a ledge,

it's proponents a ledge, a plot against Trump that somehow manages to connect Hillary Clinton,

Barack Obama and James Colmy to Joe Biden, Mayor Garland and Jack Smith. The supposed scheme with

which these people are all allegedly involved manages to span three separate presidential elections

and tie together matters as obviously distinct as Russian interference in the 2016 election

and the classified documents search at my log up. This is a conspiracy theory that was also tied

to the big lie to be very clear. So the government, because conspiracy theorists are now in charge,

the government is now actively investigating a conspiracy theory when there's no there there,

when they won't release the rest of the Epstein files. They refuse to investigate the people that

actually had traffic children. Okay, it could tell us something about that. They don't want to go,

they don't want to touch that one. But because they found that conspiracy had a little there there,

but this one, they're willing to elevate with lies. And my concern is that this is not about 2016.

They are laying the groundwork for what they plan to do this November and in subsequent

November's after that. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. So I think there are a couple of

concerns here, a couple of purposes to an investigation like this. One is to just raise the cost

of opposing this administration, you know, even if in a prosecution, even if investigation is

completely unsuccessful, you got to respond to subpoenas, you got to respond to calls to testify.

That eats up a lot of time for lawyers and costs a lot of money. I think that there's also an

aspect of probably internal bureaucracy and politics here, which is even if this is going to be

completely unsuccessful, it feeds a base that believes in this conspiracy and it feeds a president

that believes in this conspiracy. But I think the biggest concern is exactly what you're saying,

which is even if it doesn't particularly matter from a legal perspective, I don't think you get

from an investigation like this to shutting down polling places in Arizona or something like that.

What I think it does allow you to do is or tell allows the administration to do is tell a story

saying, look, the last guys we're trying to hijack an election, implicitly this gives

us the right to hijack an election. So I think just as much as the law, this is about a narrative

to set up interference in a future election. Brenda, before we sconsored over to him,

I do want to ask you something very specific because we now have MS now reporting confirming

that James Comey was subpoenaed as part of this controversial Florida based investigation.

One of the details I find interesting, the subpoena sought documents, not his testimony.

What kind of documents related to government investigations would Comey even have?

Ideally, none. Presumably most of the most, if not all of those documents would be classified.

So one would imagine that he doesn't have any in his possession if he's following the law.

That's a pretty standard subpoena that you try to get documents before you call for somebody's

testimony, but I also think that suggests that they don't really have the goods on James Comey.

If they did, they would have called him into testify right away.

Yes. Did you have something for Tim? I thought you had a follow for Tim.

I always have something for Tim, but you go ahead.

I do. And it's from the Atlantic. And it involves Judge Eileen Cannon.

Yeah, Eileen Cannon. Cannon's involvement could change the trajectory of the president's

retribution campaign. Trump's efforts to prosecute perceived enemies have thus far rested on

thin indictments, brought before skeptical judges, but Trump allies insist that there is much

more to come. This was from December of 2025. We are now in March of 2026. And the good old judge

has reared her ugly head on top of this matter. How dangerous is this judge

in promoting, you know, phony lawsuits and elevating conspiracy claims as Simone is laid out?

Well, I think she's dangerous, Michael, because she's already demonstrated in the classified

documents case that she's willing to sort of turn normal court procedures on their head

and normal evidentiary practices on their head in order to serve the White House's own interests

and needs. And it was very bald faced during that investigation. And it got very heated towards

the end of it between Jack Smith's prosecutors and investigators and Judge Cannon. And the only

reason that investigation ran aground along with the 2020 election interference investigation

is because Donald Trump got reelected president. And had he not been reelected president,

those cases would have moved forward, they would have moved forward vigorously and the evidence

in both of them were damning. And she did, Eileen Cannon did everything she could during the

Mar-a-Lago probe to just throw a wrenches into what was a fairly straightforward investigation

with a lot of evidence and including cameras from Trump's own estate at Mar-a-Lago. So I suspect

what is going to happen here is she's going to play the same role as regardless of how bald faced

some of the information or evidence may be. I think she'll do everything she can to sort of throw

body blocks on behalf of the White House, which is important because it's just another cog

in the judicial system being corrupted on behalf of the White House.

And to that point, she must really think that Donald Trump is going to make her Supreme Court

justice. I can't otherwise, that judicially it makes no sense for her to behave the way she's

behaving. Funny that you mentioned that, to be very clear, the concern that I have heard from

Democrats on Capitol Hill and why they believe they need to win this next election.

And not just in the House, but specifically in the Senate, is that if they do not gain the majority,

that there are at least one, one, maybe potentially even two justices that will step down.

And then Donald Trump will have the ability to dominate two justices to fill vacancies

on the Supreme Court. And they're going to be young. The Supreme Court is definitely on the line

here. Brennan, I see you shaking your head. You're going to get the last word on this. Am I

am I being dramatic? Is that too far? I think if Republicans retain control of the Senate,

Eileen Cannon has a bright future in the federal judiciary. There it is. There it is.

There it is. Look, from where I'm sitting, I think that makes a lot of sense, Alicia.

I think where these investigations go next survives because Judge Eileen Cannon will allow it to survive.

And it's going to be some some hard work by some good lawyers to prevent the bad stuff from

happening. Oh, there we go. We're going to leave it there. Brennan,

thank you, Tim O'Brien. Thank you. And just a moment, folks. Congresswoman Summer Leigh joins us

after House Oversight Chairman James Comer attacked her, telling her to quote,

stop bitching during that private committee briefing with Pam Bondy on the Epstein files.

And later, Nevada Senator Jackie Rosen is at the table after JD Van said the high gas prices

punishing Americans are just a temporary blip. You're watching the week. Here's a shift

worth noting. Better health care is care that meets patients where they are. United health

group is bringing it directly to living rooms. This is a win for patients managing chronic conditions.

And here's the interesting thing. By closing those care gaps, administering in-home exams,

and identifying risks earlier, more diseases can be prevented, and patient outcomes can improve.

In 2025 alone, United Health Group patients received over 19 million home visits.

Learn more at unitedhealthgroup.com slash commitment.

Breaking tonight, the House Oversight Committee just wrapped a deposition of Jeffrey Epstein's personal

attorney, Darren Indyke. Who has worked for Epstein since 1995 and is now co-executor of his

estate. Docum is reviewed by MSNOW, suggests Indyke facilitated payments to women and

directed witnesses to avoid talking to law enforcement. Darren Indyke denies any wrong doing and

has not been criminally charged in connection to Epstein. Also tonight, we're learning more about

what caused House Democrats to walk out during a private briefing with Pam Bondi on Epstein.

Here's what happened when Democratic Councilman Summerley pressed Oversight Chairman James

Comer for answers. Instead of answering as an adult, he said that I was bitching.

I stand by what I said. And Congresswoman Summerley,

a Pennsylvania joins us now. Congresswoman, this is some more of what Chairman

Comer had to say because choosing to defend a comment about bitching is in and of itself a choice.

Fact check, true. I said Democrats were bitching and wasting everyone's time because Democrats

were bitching and wasting everyone's time. What was your takeaway from yesterday's exchange?

That he does not have the temperament or perhaps the competence to be able to lead this committee.

It shouldn't be this hard for us to get answers. We should not have to drag people to hold

pedophiles accountable. It was a simple exchange that he blew up like that is one because

there's no accountability. And he doesn't expect any because there were no cameras and there were

no witnesses outside of us. But too, he wouldn't talk that way to other people. He wouldn't talk that

way. He wouldn't have blown up like that if he wasn't insecure about the questions that we were

asking. If he wasn't insecure about people outside putting pressure on them to do the right thing.

And he knows that Pam Bondy is in contempt of our previous subpoena and he's going to let her

be in contempt of this one. One follow up on that that I have a question about today's testimony.

Do have you heard from Congressman Comer today? No. Very interesting. Talk to us about today's

testimony. This seems Congresswoman to be, and I know you weren't in the testimony today,

but obviously it's my understanding that Democrats on the committee you all have been in constant

communication. What did you think you all were going to glean today? And then what is the next

move here? Obviously, Pam Bondy is supposed to sit before the committee on April 24th.

At this point, we don't know if she's coming, but what is next?

Yeah, you know, at this point, these folks are going to do anything they possibly can to try to move

this aside, try to get through this. Their hope is that this all goes away. So were we surprised

that his lawyer, his intimate, someone who is intimately connected to all of his enterprise,

his dealings, to his inner thoughts, to this case, that he would not know anything, that he would

have no understanding or no knowledge of what's going on. Is that believable to the public?

I think he knows it's not believable. We all know it's not believable to the public,

but that is why we continue to put pressure on the Justice Department to give over all of the

information that they have. So the next thing is we keep digging. We knew this investigation

wasn't going to be easy. We know that these wealthy, these very well-connected people,

we know they're not accustomed to accountability. So that's why we have subpoenas out for the banks

for bank records. That's why we have subpoenas out for other people and his network and his web.

And it's why we need the last three million pages from the Department of Justice so that we are

able to see a full picture of everything that we have information on. So these folks are not able

to lie to cover up anymore. And their Department of Justice should not be running cover for them either.

So the next step for this is to get Pam Bondi here. But also, I introduced the impeachment

resolution because she's already in contempt, because she's already weaponized at DOJ,

because she's already used it to cover for President Trump and for his allies.

She's already used it to go after his political enemies. And we have seen enough here. We

need people in here who will do the work of the people and not the work of the president.

And Congressman, so I want to just put a little pen when you were talking about those insecurities

at the beginning of your question answer. He's also the show some insecurity about being asked

a tough question by a black woman who has authority to sit in the same room that he's in.

Because I guarantee you, Congressman, I absolutely guarantee you that if one of your male colleagues

had said that those words would not have left his lips. He would not have framed his response

that way. So let us all just be very clear. That is about as close as he could get to saying what he

was really thinking about you in that moment without actually having saying it. So we'll just let

that rest for everybody to understand for what was going on in that case. I want to go to

Mr. and I know you were not in the hearing within Dyke today. But I do want to go to his opening

statement because I want to get your thoughts on something that tags right into what you were just

talking about. He said in his opening statement, had I know that he Epstein was abusing or

trafficking women, I would have quit working for him at once and severed all ties with him.

The truth is that I did not know what Mr. Epstein did after hours behind closed doors

and in places where I was not present. I'd like to note for the record that Mr. Epstein was arrested

for solicitation of minors and for prostitution in 2008. Mr. Indy started working for Epstein in

1995. So I find it a little bit hard to believe that in a 13-year span given the tightness and

the closeness of those operations that you had no, not a whisper. No one was gossiping on the side.

All those individuals with highfalutin profiles and finally manicured nails coming on to the

island and no one knew anything. You tell me what you think Congressman about the cover-up.

That also is insulting. It is insulting. They are gaslighting us and the public. The deeper we get

into this, the more clear it is that this was evident to very many people. We've heard people

talk about the young, very young girls going in and out of his properties. We've heard tell

of the men going into a private island. We have heard and we have seen reports from Palm Beach police.

The DOJ fouls are millions of pages wide and long. The idea that his attorney knew nothing

is incomprehensible and he knows that. And they again, again, what they are doing here is saying

it does not matter what you the public think or what you want of us. It does not matter how obvious

it is that we're lying. We will get away with this and they have gotten away with it for this

long. But what we have to do here is say that no, we're not going to let up. We're not going to go

for obvious falsehoods. We're not going to continue to pretend that what is clear to everybody in

the world is not sitting there, right? That the emperor has no clothes on. This is a very similar

issue with that, right? This idea that the American people will not believe what we see with our eyes.

Don't believe what we hear with our ears. He knew he was his lawyer.

Congressman, to a point you made earlier about the fact that the chair felt he could speak this

way to you because this was all happening behind closed doors earlier. Congressman Robert Garcia

talked about the necessity of public hearings. Let's take a listen to what he had to say.

We've long believed it's time for public hearing. And in fact, because there's been no public hearing,

we're actually organizing our own public hearing with survivors, with other folks in Epstein's

orbit, with people from Palm Beach, from other areas of the country that have information about

the case. So if the majority does not schedule public hearings around this investigation,

us as over to Democrats will certainly host those ourselves. And that's going to be happening

in the weeks and months ahead. Congressman, in the last 30 seconds we have,

can you give us a sense of what those public hearings might look like? Who might testify in them?

Yeah, so we have been in close contact with the lawyers of so many of the survivors, some of the

survivors themselves. They have told us that there is a willingness for them to come forth

if they are called. We've talked to Comor about that and he has created so many excuses for why he

doesn't want to do that. So I imagine that for those who are willing, we would want to create that

platform for them. But we also want to do it in a way that is official, that is safe for them,

and that contributes to the public record, and not just a circus that they have been a part of for

far too long against their will. We want them to have justice and we want clarity, but we don't

want to add to their harm. So I imagine that those are some of the things and the avenues that we

will have to look at in the future. If Comor and the Republicans will continue to refuse to do

anything around it. Comor someone, Summerley, thank you so much for taking the time to be with us

tonight. Thank you all so much. So I had Donald Trump, JD Vance and other Republicans, they have

no clue how to talk about high gas prices. Nevada, Senator Jackie Rosen joins the conversation in

just a moment to react right here on the weeknight. Here's a shift worth noting,

better health care is care that meets patients where they are. United health group is bringing

it directly to living rooms. This is a win for patients managing chronic conditions.

And here's the interesting thing, by closing those care gaps, administering in-home exams,

and identifying risks earlier, more diseases can be prevented, and patient outcomes can improve.

In 2025 alone, United Health Group patients received over 19 million home visits.

Learn more at unitedhealthgroup.com slash commitment.

Breaking tonight, the White House is struggling to contain the economic fallout from Donald

Trump's war of choice with Iran. Gas prices are up about 90 cents a gallon on average since the

start of the war. And oil is hovering near $100 per barrel. Situation is so desperate,

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says the U.S. may remove some sanctions on Iranian oil

in order to increase global supply. There's also a looming shortage of fertilizer,

which would hurt American farmers and drive up grocery prices.

But Trump is trying to convince voters the pain at the pump while it isn't so bad.

I said, you know, when we do that, oil prices will go up, the economy will go down a little

bit. I feel it would be worse, much worse, actually. I thought there was a chance it could be much

worse. It's not bad. And it's going to be over with pretty soon. The Dow just hit 50,000

a couple of weeks ago. They said that couldn't happen for four years.

Speaking of the stock market, the Dow dropped 203 points today, closing at 46,000 down about

8% from that all-time high. Joining us now, Democratic Senator Jackie Rosen of Nevada,

she serves on the Senate Armed Services and Senate Foreign Relations committees.

Welcome, Congressman. It's good to have you back at the table.

The Senator.

The Senator. I just said Congressman. Senator, I just want to keep this straight forward.

Yes. How do you translate what we just heard? I mean, Dow 50,000, some of the stuff that happened,

at this point for a lot of families, ancient times, because they've had a lot of price hikes

just at the gas pump in the last two to half, two and a half, the three weeks.

How do you see their pain right now relative to the President saying there is should be no pain?

Well, first of all, it's absolutely ridiculous. And I want to say this, who pays their bills off the

Dow? Nobody pays their bills off the Dow. You pay your bills off the paycheck. You tell how much

it comes in and how much goes out. And this ridiculous war that Donald Trump, I was

been in classified briefings, Armed Services Foreign Relations. We can't say what they did in

there, which is another issue, but they have not shown an imminent threat to enter this war.

And now food is up, electricity is up, gas is up, and the gas prices are going to cause food to go

up more and more. And he hasn't done a damn thing to help anybody at the kitchen table. No one pays

their bills off the Dow. They pay their bills off their paycheck. And when the paycheck doesn't go

as far as it did before, when you're losing your job to AI or whatever it is, why should the

American people have to say they're going to have to take a little pain? Where's the pain that

Donald Trump feels? No, none. You know, listen to Senator, former Senator, current Vice President

J.D. Vance. And then an aspiring Senate member of the United States Senate, Senate candidate

Michelle Tafoya, talking about gas prices. Look, gas prices are up, and we know they're up,

and we know that people are hurting because of it. And we're doing everything that we can to

ensure that they stay lower. I will say, hey, the President said this, and I certainly agree with

it. This is a temporary blow. Maybe you take one less trip to Starbucks, and so that gas goes

a little further until this thing is over, and these gas prices come back down again. Let's just

try to be patriots about this. I don't know if a lot of folks in this country have taken a trip

to Starbucks this week, but I know people that still have to get their children to school,

I know people that still have to get to work. And so I'm just wondering if this resonates with

people in Nevada. It's kind of like let them be cake. You'll have one less Starbucks when people

can't pay their bills, when people can't fill up their tank. They're in a silver, they're in a

billion there, bubble over there. And how do people in Nevada feel? They're losing their health

care. Tourism is down because of the tariffs, tariffs up, prices up, and nothing has been done

in this administration to address affordability. Take more pain. Take more pain. How much more can

people take? And so it's absolutely ridiculous that they're going on and on no justification,

no eminent threat, a billion dollars a day. How many hungry kids that could feed?

You know how many folks who are sick that could help? They cancel pediatric cancer research,

RFK Jr. Maybe they could fund some of that back. And maybe they could return that 220 million

that Christy Nome spent on that. But is it her segment of why she wants to be in Yellowstone,

I think 220 million that commercial. And so maybe they need to return that because I know

there are people hurting not just in Nevada, across this country. And that money could be spent

right here right now for good. So Senator, I've asked other Democratic senators what happens when

all of a sudden Republicans need to decide if they want to sign their name to legislation,

allowing a larger budget for this war. Other Democratic senators have contended. This is already

Republicans' war. They have already signed off on Donald Trump and his mission here.

I do think it is fundamentally different when they decide to vote in favor of a supplemental.

What are you hearing for your Republican colleagues about where they are on sending more money

to war that does not have a specific end goal or a specific sense of what victory looks like?

Well, I'm afraid that they're too afraid of the president.

There are so ready to bend and take a need for whatever the president says that they will vote

to send us down the slippery slope of war in the Middle East, again with no proof of imminent threat.

And they haven't come out in the light of day from those classified hearings to even let us talk

about it. Haven't come to us for supplemental. Haven't talked to us last time I checked Donald Trump

isn't a king. He doesn't say I get to declare war I'm in I'm out and just leave the rubble behind.

We have men and women in uniform. They're 13. Have already lost their lives.

Folks injured and there'll be injuries that you can see and soldiers carry those injuries that

you can't see for the rest of their lives. So there's a lot going on here and the Republicans need

to be mindful of the real toll that it takes on us and bring Donald Trump a little bit back to

reality. Well, that reality is is something that he tries to avoid as much as possible because as

as the political headlines noted yesterday that the Donald Trump is pressuring the Hill

on voter verification, the SAVE Act, but not his own housing plan. So going back to what you were

saying. He's trying to save his butt act. He's trying to save the SAVE his butt act. I like that Senator.

I like that a lot. I want to say something else. So talk about what that what that sounds like in

the cloakroom off the floor when you're talking to Republicans who are sitting there looking

at this this pressure campaign to pass something that they know at the end of the day voters don't want

and two does not advance the ball for them back in the districts or across their states.

I think they're in a panic because the war is unpopular. This is why Donald Trump's trying

to blame everybody else just like he always says. The minute it doesn't suit his needs,

he throws somebody under the bus and blames them. The war is not popular. Prices are up the

SAVE Act. This is not a voter ID. So they just want to take the vote. They just want to take the vote.

And plus I know for your previous segment, this is a distraction from Epstein too because they

figure the longer we're talking about this, the more he doesn't have to be held accountable for that.

You mentioned voter ID though. Jake Sherman from Punchbowl was reporting today. The Schumer said

Democrats support a voter ID bill. Why? It's a trap. Like the SAVE Act has nothing to do with

it's really about citizenship. And so I feel like Republicans have backed y'all into a corner.

And y'all are like, yeah, now we'll do a national voter ID bill when

what in the world is that since we're the Democrats support for an ID?

But what I'm saying is it's fine. I can tell you in Nevada, we have to have a signature

verification when you go vote. Which is fine. That's not a national voter ID bill.

But that's not a national voter ID. Why a national, are you going to vote for this?

For this? If it goes to the floor? No, I am not. And I will tell you why. Especially I want to talk

about the SAVE America Act. Well, I want to ask either of you and anybody listening.

Would you like all of our voter rolls to go to the Department of Homeland Security,

Kristi Nome and Kristi Nome 2.0 possibly in my point? Tell no. What are they going to do with it?

Then they're going to look at it. Decide who's worthy to vote and who isn't.

And I took my husband's name. I'm proud to be married 33 years this year.

Well, I have to have an order to vote. First of all, you don't know who the DHS

are going to purge. You won't know to show up to vote.

Order to vote, I have to have my birth certificate. Which doesn't match my married name.

So then I have to get my marriage certificate and a passport. And God knows what else.

Military ID is not allowed. A bunch of other things. And go sit in person all day long.

And if I don't have the right things there, they kick out and maybe you'll come back and you

won't get to vote. This is clearly a voter suppression. They just don't want you to vote.

And it's not just women. It's people in rural areas. Every time you would move,

you'd have to go in person to register to vote. They won't take a real ID. This is a citizenship

test. It is shown over and over and over state after state, county after county that there

is no voter fraud. And elections should be run by the states and not by the Department of Homeland

Security. I think Alicia to Simone's point about the citizenship piece on here and the fact

that Democrats are seemingly from Chuck Sumer's point of view at least ready to do something on

national voter ID. Why are Democrats making the argument that Republicans want them to make?

Because in the reality of it is when they start to push back about voter fraud,

Republicans is looking to go, well, wait a minute. This is voter ID in national. You said you

liked that. This isn't voter fraud. That's not what this bill is. Right. And they're lying about

it. It is not what the bill is. I don't think anyone has an argument about showing a driver's

license, signature verification. We do that in states all across this country. This bill is not that.

It is a voter urge. They're going to decide who votes and who doesn't. Senator, I will just very

quickly note. I agree with you. That bill is not that. But Sumer is saying that Democrats would

vote for a national voter ID bill. And now at least there's one Republican Senator that is talking

about bringing it to the floor under unanimous consent. Signature, I don't think the question

on the table isn't whether people are going to verify who they are when they go to vote.

Voter ID is about the fact that Republicans are saying that people are going to vote as other

people who they aren't. That's not an issue in America. So why would Democrats support that?

You know, I'm not sure what a leader Sumer was talking about, but I can tell you this.

I guess we better have a conversation because the last time I checked the Constitution

states run the elections. Our states have been shown over and over again to run good elections.

We can show who we are when we get there, but we shouldn't have to go through hurdles,

financial, and otherwise to, oh, oh, and you have to take off work Monday through Friday to

go to these places. Who can do that? A day off of work, $200, maybe to get a passport,

to get all of these things. It's just a poll tax.

We're capitulates to Republicans on voter ID, Alicia.

Senator Jackie Rosen, as always, thank you so much for being at the table ahead.

We have stunning reporting about just how many people have access to Donald Trump's

private phone number and the major national security concerns that poses that is next

when the weeknight returns.

Right now, everyone in Washington DC wants and believes they can get Donald Trump's phone number.

The Atlantic reports that CEO's and crypto-brows are trying to buy it, and reporters are

haggling with each other to get their hands on it. And that is because in the second Trump

administration, a direct cold call to the president of the United States would actually grant

you an audience with him. That reality is sparking fear in the White House that anyone could

obtain Trump's number and give him bad information or try to sell him on a dangerous conspiracy.

It is very problematic. Michael Still, when I worked at the White House,

the president and vice president, they were issued specific phones.

The phones can only do a certain amount of things. I even make calls and receive calls and

they had an email on it. The email address, nobody knew. The number was closely held. They

could not tax. And at least some vice president Harris was found. The phone call wouldn't even

ring through unless your number was programmed into the phone. So this is crazy what is going on.

And I think we should definitely assume that the communications have been compromised.

Oh my gosh. Donald Trump is talking to everybody and anybody who has that number. He's giving it

out freely. Everyone feels they can access them. They want to be the last person to talk to him

because that's the last thing he'll do. Look, this is not surprising. This is one way Donald Trump

gets fed the love that he seeks, the reinforcement of approval, the survival responses from people

who want to be close to him. And he gets it directly on his little black box and it's in his ear.

But why doesn't he just pick up the phone and call people? At the White House, you can literally

call anybody you want. I have an answer for you. I have an answer, Simone. This is from the Atlantic.

You're asking a good question. During his first term, Trump often used the White House switchboard

to make calls and screen incoming ones. But he just as frequently did not, in part because he

assumed that nearly everyone in government was part of the deep state career bureaucrats working

against him. And he worried that they would somehow listen in on his calls, Simone. I thought they

fired all of those people this go around. You know what I'm saying? The argument is so crazy.

The deep state is insane. It's not real. It speaks to his paranoia. And that idea that

everyone has access to him makes him actually more powerful in respect that people feel that they

can call the president of the United States on their phone. And he picks it up. Reporters,

business people, mom and dad's out there. It doesn't matter. That's how our government's run.

But here's the problem. The breach part is the serious part of the information from those phone

calls that leaked out or whatever we'll play. They'll see. I don't want anyone calling me on

myself. I'm coming up at the top of the hour on all in. Chris is down with Senator Bernie Sanders

to discuss the latest on Trump's war with Iran that is eight o'clock Eastern right here on MSNOW.

We're going to be right back.

Let me scare me a little bit. So listen, let me know what you think.

Or scaling to meet demand, we make sure your business is ready for what's ahead,

because we're big enough to support you. It's small enough to know you.

Atlantic Union Bank. Anyway, you bank.