Nobel Economist: Trump's War Driving Up Prices

Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNow Daily Newsletter.

Each morning you'll get analysis by experts you trust.

Video highlights from your favorite shows.

Voters weighed in.

Donald Trump's dismissal of their concerns has been weighing on his political standing.

Updates on our latest podcasts and election coverage,

plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves,

all sent directly to your inbox each morning.

Get the best of MSNow all in one place.

Sign up for MSNowDaily at ms.now.

Greetings agreed upon reason for this region to matter, the oil,

but he would abandon US strength.

He would leave without reopening the key straight of her moves.

20% of the world's oil moves through the strength.

Iran is blocking it, and that is a huge reason why prices are spiking.

Gas now $4 a gallon.

That is already having other impacts.

The stock market doesn't think with just one mind,

but we can show you amid this war and the uncertainty Trump has caused,

stocks are now on pace for the worst quarter in four years.

You can see the drop right there.

You'd have to go back many years in a different administration to find anything like this.

Some traders call it a gut punch that will become a Trump recession.

Not all recessions can be cleanly blamed on the incumbent,

but if this recession is a cause of this, it's caused by this war,

well that's Trump.

Wall Street Journal reporting about the straight that in recent days,

Trump and AIDS assessed a mission to pry open the choke point,

could push the conflict beyond his timeline.

And Trump now, having started the war, says maybe that's just other people's problems,

telling countries to get their own oil.

The president was clear this morning, it is truth that there are countries around the world

who ought to be prepared to step up on this critical waterway as well.

It's not just the United States Navy.

Last time I checked, there was supposed to be a big bad royal navy that could be prepared to do

things like that as...

amid this obvious policy confusion, what in energy terms might be called a surrender

on the very key issue in the region.

There's also talk in the White House about mulling boots on the ground,

having the preparedness to do that, whether that is a strategic threat or something serious,

you should know there are over 50,000 U.S. troops in the region.

I want to bring in Richard Stangle, an MSNOW analyst and a former diplomat under President Obama,

and Barbara Star, the veteran Pentagon reporter, the author of a sub-stag newsletter,

Barbara Star reports two well-known voices on these issues. Richard, you may know the old phrase,

talk softly and carry a big stick. I'm only talking softly because I'm getting over a cold.

It's not a geostrategic signal, but I say that so viewers know.

Speaking softly only for that reason, I'll let both of your voices carry your thoughts, Richard.

Well, Ari, I hope you get better. Trump does the opposite. He talks loudly and carries a small

stick. The stick that he's been using in Iran hasn't quite worked. One thing we know that Trump

is good at is quitting. He's looking at the problems that this has all caused him. Part of what Iran's

strategy here was they can't defeat the U.S. in a military sense, but they can cause so many problems

for America that Trump would basically pry out and leave. The other thing that has happened

and you alluded to this too, they've constantly lowered the bar about what qualifies as success or

victory. No longer really regime change, although Trump says that has happened. No longer getting rid

of the nuclear threat. Marco Rubio published half a dozen ideas about what would qualify as a victory.

I think number five was that Iranians need to buy much more American hummus than they are now. That

was a joke, by the way. They've actually so lowered the bar that they can declare victory and

people will go, okay, but when you mentioned the Strait of Hormuz, they didn't even seem to calculate

with this invasion that the Strait of Hormuz would be closed. That didn't seem to be part of

their strategic planning. He caused its closing and now he's going to lead with it only half open,

that's half a dictionary. Barbara, your view on this and help us understand, is the US

worse off if we leave this region or this war and abandon the Strait? Well, the Strait of Hormuz,

you know, the president is suddenly making the claim, oh, that's all about other countries. They

use it more than the US does. It's their responsibility. Of course, the Strait was open before

this Trump war started and now it is not. So he leaves it now if he does with Iran for the first

time in economic control of the Strait, possibly by seeking tolls from ships going by, even just by

their decisions who to allow through who to not. Even though the US is bombing constantly at

Iranian military targets, this is an asymmetric situation, a mine, a sniper, a small boat, a small

attack can cripple one tanker and basically keep the Strait shut. It's an international situation,

international oil markets react to this. That involves the US and that means US gas prices are not

going to come down anytime soon. Richard, there has been more pushback. I want to play some conservative

voices disagreeing with the policy, maybe trying to blame the aides who allegedly talk the president

into it. Take a look. I counseled as loud as possible against doing this in the first place.

Just please do this. Don't nation build. As the thing goes south, we need to know exactly who

talked him into it and what representations were made to convince the president that this was a good

idea. Get the hell out of there. That's all we have tolerance for. That's all that will work.

Richard. Well, and of course, I then Trump campaigned on ending the so-called endless

wars in the Middle East and now he has perhaps gotten his into one. I mean, I too would like to

know who talked him into this, but at the end of the day, he's the commander of chief. He's

responsible. He needs to take responsibility for the decision. He doesn't even want to take

responsibility for the decision. You remember, of course, the Colin Pallas pottery bar and rule.

You break it. You own it. The Trump rule is we broke it. You own it. You take care of it. That's

what he's talking to with the allies now and the other irony in Barbara alluded to this.

The Straight of Hormuz is a choke point, but you're opinions by most of their oil now from the

United States of America. They used to buy most of their oil from Russia and then we persuaded

them to boycott Russian oil and buy American oil. They're okay. Yeah. Barbara, I also want to play

another piece of Fox questioning this because the president didn't explain it. He didn't go to

Congress. He's looking at an off ramp. Even though we didn't have a real war powers debate,

like we're supposed to under law, it would seem that the White House has a problem on the right,

the left, the center among the military veterans, family community, among civilians who don't serve.

It's a pretty broad opposition. Here's what Laura asked.

Was the president fully briefed about the risks of all of this from the beginning?

And was he then able to take it all in and understand the complexity of this,

how complex it could actually get and further possibilities of casualties or other damage,

the difficulty of dealing with these people? Or was he told this would be relatively quick

in and out? A lot of questions, Barbara. This is about as dovish as Fox gets towards a mega

war. Well, I think she makes some very interesting points because what we all know is that the chairman

of the joint chiefs briefs any president of the United States on military options before a president

commits troops to action. A chairman would insist upon that. General Kane would have briefed the

president on the military options on the table. The interesting question that he asks is,

was the president able to take it all in? Or did he potentially just listen to his own cheer

leaders, which are more frankly in the Hexeth camp? I think one of, I think there's been a really

interesting developmentery tonight. There is a piece of video out there of Pope Leo talking to

a group of journalists and clergy very much off the cuff about his concerns about the war.

And Pope Leo himself uses that same phrase that he hopes Trump is looking for an off-frame.

That's a fascinating piece of information in the very careful world of Vatican diplomacy for a

Pope to use that very, shall we say, universal common political term, if you will, which is

its most reference in political circle these days. I think is fascinating. The Pope is very much

coming out in recent days, very publicly calling for peace and urging president Trump now tonight

to take that road and urging president Trump by name. So that puts another mark on the wall

for the entire international community about just how serious this is all being taken.

Really striking. My thanks to Barbara and Richard. We have a lot coming up. Populous

Democrat shared Brown is here on the midterms. How the January six crimes are staining.

A case headed is Supreme Court by Trump tomorrow. And some great guests, Andrew Weissman

and Nobel economist Paul Krugman when we're back in 90 seconds.

Listen to your favorite MS now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoying new episodes of Morning Joe,

Deadline White House and the Rachel Maddo Show. Every small,

democratic muscle that we have is flexing. Plus the last word with Lawrence O'Donnell,

the beat with Ari Melper, the weeknight and more on the go wherever you get your podcasts.

For ad free listening to all of your favorite shows, subscribe to MS now premium on Apple podcasts.

When Florida was at 412 this morning, I believe was 290 before the war.

Stocks get and hit the transports rails and truckers get and hit. Imagine lifting Uber drivers right now.

That's how it looks out there. It's not getting better yet. Paul Krugman is the Nobel prize

winning economist. He writes a newsletter on Substack Paul Krugman where he just wrote about the oil

crisis getting physical. Of course, we hope people read you. I've been reading you my whole

adult life professor, but let's start with a preview of what you've written there for our viewers

tonight who might not have read it yet. Okay. Up till now, you see oil crisis fluctuating.

With those are all prices of futures. They're cleansed on a barrel of oil next month.

It's not the actual price of a barrel of oil literally. And so far, it takes 4 to 6 weeks

for oil from passing through the Strait of Hormuz to reach its major markets.

So we've been living all this time. The world has been living on oil that was already in transit

has not been affected by the war, but that runs out now. Basically, the first physical shortages

of oil in Asia will be starting in a day or two. The physical shortages in Europe will be starting

next week. So all of a sudden, this is getting real. This is no longer financial speculation.

This isn't actual. Now, where is the oil? And if you try to think about what happens then,

normally, you know, shortages. There's already some rationing going on in Asia, but also the price

that the actual price, the actual price, we're already seeing a lot of rising prices at the pump

and even more. By the way, diesel is a much bigger deal than gasoline and people should be talking

about that. But at a certain point, the price will has to rise enough so that people stop driving,

stop doing stuff enough so that the demand for oil is reduced to the available supply, which is

down a lot. And so this gets really, really ugly. Even if we reopen the straight in a day or two,

we're just not going to happen, it's still going to be ugly for a while, but it's going to get really,

really ugly if this goes on for an extended period. You know, in college, the first day of a lot of

courses, they try to convince everyone why it matters, why great books matters now, why sociology

matters. You don't have to do that in econ. People have student loans. People might be trying to make

a little more money than they grew up with. And with econ and gas, I want to show you just people

outside dealing with this right now. Take a look. We need help with it. I mean, because we're

citizens and we have to pay these prices and it's not easy. It's not easy at all. I feel like

anytime something dealing with words going on, we as the people are getting affected by it and I

don't feel like that's fair. We already have to deal with grocery store prices. Then we got to

deal with the gas prices going up. It's a lot. I mean, if you're in the rat race all day and you're

in your car for eight o'clock in the morning till five in the afternoon, it's a rough life.

Everything he said for is nothing but these doing anymore.

Is this a direct consequence of Trump policy and was it in your view mostly or entirely avoidable?

Well, this is all Trump policy. I mean, it has one of your, I think, as you may have said. I mean,

this war didn't have to happen and it's all of what's happening to the price of gas,

lean to the price of diesel. Everything else is because of the war.

We, the straight form who was open, stuff was flowing through it fine on February 27th,

everything was okay. That we had problems with, as we long have with Iran with other

countries, but we did not have a global oil shortage. So this is all one man's decisions that

have brought us to this past. And he still seems to be completely clueless about what's going on.

I mean, in that truth social post in which he said, why don't the British clear the straight?

The world's greatest military can't, but a second rank power that would be clear can.

But also he said, and if you know, if you're not willing to be courageous and get the jet fuel,

why don't you buy it from us? We have plenty. Well, do you know what's happened to the price of

jet fuel? It makes what's happened to the price of gas lean look like nothing. It's basically jet

fuel prices have doubled. The CEO of United Airlines has said we're gasoline flights because we can't

afford to fly the planes. So this, this is all, this is, I mean, I've been tomorrow and in the

subject, I'll be saying that, that you know, and so in a way, $4 gallon gas is that's less than

half the problem. The effects on diesel fuel, which deal everything runs on everything on every

truck runs on diesel every every all of the business activity runs on diesel and gas is up a

dollar gallon. Diesel is up $1.70 gallon. Jet fuel has doubled. The price of fertilizer for

America's farms has surged because a lot of fertilizer turns out was flowing through the

Strait of Hormuz. So this is a, this is all a really, this is this is the greatest shock to global

energy supplies ever. It's worse than the 1970s. And it's all because of one man's decision to

that he wanted a war, but she doesn't want any more. Wow. Right, which he's packing off of. We

hear a lot about how the stock market's not the entire real economy. But when you see the crash

in the fourth quarter or correction or slide, you'll, you'll give us more precise wording.

And a lot of traders saying part of it is this, both the real world contagion of this and the

uncertainty part the markets don't like. Give us your view of that. And then what do you say to

viewers who are only maybe in the markets in their retirement? If at all and say, well, that's,

that's not my life. Trump seems to be worried about it for the midterms. Give us your, your

explanation on all that. Well, this is, this is nasty. We're seeing, although, you know, stocks

were way up today because basically they're way up because it sounds as if Trump may be

pairing to surrender, which tells you something about how the war is going, right? The markets are

cheering the fact that the United States team seems to be running away. But it's not clear that we

can succeed in running away. I mean, I, to be honest, I've never, I've never been to track the

markets minute by minute. But these days, I keep a window open all day, not for stocks, but for

the price of crude oil. I'm looking at the price of Brent crude, and which is again, it's a

futures price. It's a financial price, not the actual, not physical stuff on hand. But, and that

price came way down today because again, everybody's cheering that Trump appears to be surrendering,

but maybe not. You know, there's a lot of US boots headed for the region. They, no one is sure,

what will happen tomorrow? I would say that the, the current price of crude oil, and I think in stock

prices, also are priced as if this is not going to last very long. It's not going to be really

as bad as it should be. And I, when I run the numbers on what a sustained closure of the

Strait of Hormuz means, it's way worse than where we are right now. And yeah, you know,

there's enormous uncertainty there, but you know, 200 of barrel oil is not unreasonable. It's not,

it's not my most likely thing, but it's, it's definitely, it does not take very much in the way of

of things going a bit wrong for us to get to that. And that is, that is really quite catastrophic

for the market for everything else. Really striking, Paul Krugman, thank you, sir. Thank you.

Coming up, we will hear from a populist Democrat who has won in the middle of the country,

former Ohio Senator Shared Brown, and a Fox host warning, Trump is giving up.

I call Pete, I call General Kane, I called a lot of our great people. We have great people,

and I said, let's talk. We got a problem in the Middle East, where we can take a stop and make

a little journey into the Middle East. That's Trump talking about some of this. That's the January

six issues that are catching up with a case heading to the Supreme Court tomorrow. We have

the ultimate guests for our legal preview, so you know exactly what the court's going to be doing.

Andrew Weissman, next.

When covering the war in Iran, gas prices coming up, we will get to the midterms, but we also

turning right now to a legal briefing that we think you should really know about tomorrow.

The Supreme Court hears Donald Trump's completely fringe effort to tell you that what the constitution

says, it doesn't really say, and there is some sort of crime and race baiting sprinkle in.

The brains behind this push is a discredited lawyer, John Eastman. You might recall him from

January six, political reporting. He's been pushing this theory for many years, arguing that while

the current law and the Constitution are clear, he says maybe children of foreigners living

permanently in the US shouldn't be granted birthright citizenship. That runs directly contrary

to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which says all persons born or naturalized in the US are

citizens of the US. We read that to you again, because there are parts of the Constitution that

get a little wonky, but look on your screen, you don't need law school for this one. All persons born

here are citizens here. That's what it says. Bill Barr, a very conservative Trump loyalist who ran

the DOJ, cited Eastman's fringe theory that ignores this sentence and pretends the Constitution

says something else, as one of the reasons that he didn't believe him or find him credible when

they were kind of serving together. Barr, of course, outranked him. He was on to something, because

by the end of that same first Trump term, Eastman was trying to get Mike Pence to commit crimes

and overthrow the election. Remember this? Did the Trump legal team ask you to prepare a memorandum

regarding the vice president's role and the counting of electoral votes? Did you advise the

president of the United States that the vice president could reject a lecture from seven states?

Is that statement in this memo, true?

Fifth, and President Trump authorized you to discuss publicly your January 4th 2021 conversation

with that. Fifth, you will not discuss those same conversations with this committee. Fifth,

that failed. Eastman and others involved were disbarbed. That is the ultimate

ignomity for a lawyer. And yet he is the one pushing these fringe arguments heading towards a

supreme court tomorrow. I'm joined by Andrew Weissman, former FBI general counsel, Mueller

prosecutor and former federal prosecutor. Welcome, Andrew. There's the link here is a way to think

about it because Eastman's embrace of this argument tomorrow was so fringe that as I mentioned,

I want to read a little more of what Bill Barr said that Trump cited Eastman to bar.

Quote someone who had this great idea about how you could eliminate birthright citizenship.

I told him that was wrong. Trump kept invoking Eastman. I asked Eastman to come over to my

office and explain it to me, and he did a very good job of it. This was at a time where people

were testifying about that crime screen. We all live through it. Does it matter and is it revealing

that it's this kind of figure pushing this tomorrow? You know, it's one of those things where it

could matter if there was any marriage to this, but I love the way that you are praised this because

I hate to go out on a limb and predict what's going to happen, but let's just say

widely within the legal community, the question is how close to 9-0 will this decision be

against the administration? It's a real sign of where we are that something that you correctly

said was so fringe is now in front of the Supreme Court. Every single judge, every single one that

has had this issue, including judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents, have rejected

it. The first judge I believe to hear this asked the DOJ lawyers, where were you when someone came

up with this idea? Where were the lawyers in the room to say, you've got to be kidding me,

this really is the kind of thing that the first year of law school, you would be able to look at

this and go, that's not going to win. And so it's correct to really think about why we are here,

and more than that, why would somebody want to push this idea? In other words, who are you

dealing with? Let's finish this position. So when you're going to go to part two, I'll let you

speak to that, but we'll put this back up on the screen, which is part one, when it says all

persons born here are citizens, for a country like the United States, which was founded by immigrants

and has this policy, there's no mainstream or counter precedent that all persons born here are

citizens doesn't mean what it says. I mean, some language changes over time, but this is pretty clear

cut, Andrew, and then go on to your point, too, please. Sure. Well, I want to make sure people

understand what the administration's saying. One of the things that they are saying is that even

if your parents are legally here, let's say they are here and they have green cards and they're

in graduate school just to put it in an academic setting. So I feel comfortable. And while they're

here in school studying math or law and they have a child, they're saying no, no, no, that doesn't

work because it's temporary. And so it means that even though the child is born here, that the

Constitution somehow you should read into it, language that does not exist. And so it's not just

saying that if someone came to the country illegally and had a child here, that they shouldn't

have citizenship, although the language of the Constitution is they do. If you're born here,

you're born here. Period. It doesn't matter how your parents got here. And so this is one where

I actually am viewing this very much as a litmus test for the Supreme Court justices to see

are there any justices who are going to be so and are so enamored of the Trump administration

that they're willing to actually say that this position is lawful because it is one that is

never, ever been accepted by any court, ever in the history of this amendment.

We don't do a lot of predictions, but when I look to past cases,

Thomas and Alito have been quicker to embrace losing fringe arguments even to their own legal

disrepute for whatever their reasons are. I don't know, as you say, whether this is enticing to them,

but more broadly, the Trump administration seems intent on pushing these things to send their

messages even when they know it's losing. I'll also mention that the ACLU is said, I'm just looking

at this note, that they view this as an effort to change the demographics of the US to really

get more, if they were to win it, to get more control, racially, is the allegation at least from the ACLU?

Yeah, and even if they were to not prevail, because I don't think they will,

and I agree with the ACLU that that is a perfectly legitimate theory as to why this is happening,

but even if they don't prevail, it is still signaling that kind of xenophobia and racism

to appeal to some segment of their base to whom that is a, those are values that they adhere to.

And so I think that is totally fair thing to look at is why would you be pushing something?

Because there's an issue about whether something is lawful or not, but secondarily,

why would you even, as a policy matter, want to be doing this? It's so against what are nations

dance for? And it's so different than saying, oh, if you're here and you're not a citizen and you

commit a terrible crime, you should be removed from the country. That is one totally valid argument

that I think everyone agrees with. It's really different to say that we're going to

want to remove people who are here lawfully and have a child who under the exact literal term

of the 14th Amendment are citizens that those people should not be here. And you really do have

to harken back to the president's remarks about what kind of country you come from, that if you

essentially if you're a sort of white Protestant, we want you. And if you're not a white Protestant,

particularly if you're from a black or brown community, he has used extremely vulgar

language to refer to those countries and keep all in a way that is so contrary to what we're supposed

to stand for. Right, and it echoes and proves the critique from these massive no-kings protests

over the weekend that this is a king-like effort to override the Constitution. No other DOJ

in modern history has done something like this on a core part of the Constitution. If you had a

politician who said they don't like the First Amendment, very few have gotten the DOJ to go argue

that it doesn't say what it says, or they should jail people who disagree with them.

We're really in a different turf here. And the fact that he's found people at DOJ or made DOJ

so partisan in that realm for what you say could be a very lopsided loss is a problem in of itself.

I want you to stick around and just here for another block will be right back together.

January 6 protesters are suing law enforcement agencies for more than $18 million. This is about

using the legal system to construct a new narrative for what happened on January 6th.

I'm back with Andrew Weissman, a prosecutor. You've worked with federal law enforcement. That's

the FBI. People think of police. That's often local in DC. They're federal. These people were

convicted of these heinous attacks. We know Trump pardon them. And now we have one step further,

which is some of them trying to sue your reaction to this. And is it important that people

keep a hold of the legal facts and baseline that everything's upside down and are well-earned now?

Yeah, well upside down is perfect description. So it's worth remembering the kinds of lawsuits

that we're seeing that are I think a term for it is collusive. It seems to be a favorite word

of President Trump. You have Michael Flynn who just received $1.25 million of taxpayer money

on the ground that he was improperly charged when he initially pled guilty and was fired by Donald

Trump from his job reportedly because he had lied to the vice president of the United States,

Mike Pence, or the incoming vice president of the United States. Two, we have a similar lawsuit

being brought by Donald Trump himself seeking tens and millions of dollars for his claim that he

was improperly targeted in a court authorized search in Mar-a-Lago where the facts seem very clear

and he did everything could to never have those facts come to light in a court of law.

And now you have people who you can see on videotape were part of a violent protest. Now it doesn't

matter if some of the people or even all the people who are part of that lawsuit did not themselves

participate in the violence that day. The thing that they're challenging is the way that a police

acted to try and sort of stem the violence that was happening that day. The thing that so outrageous

here is that type of lawsuit, the sort of, oh, the police acted with excessive force are routinely

rejected by the courts and the Department of Justice is on the side of the police saying you

need to reject these. It's very, very hard to prevail on this kind of case. And yet,

that's, by the way, that's true for the Michael Flynn case as well. But when you have a Department

of Justice that essentially is looking for a big leaf to dull out tens and millions of dollars

that's our money, this is what can happen. And what I have said. Yeah. And if there's no good

fake basis for this settlement, my question is, what is the difference between I quote unquote

settlement and Pam Bondy actually just stealing the money from the public? Yes. And giving it to

humanity. I got to fit in a break, but you're nailing it because Trump earlier won a 200 million

dollars and they keep finding ways to move the goals and try to create precedent. Then, you know,

on his way out, you might see him actually do this and then dare the next administration to claw it

back. I mean, that's the corruption question we're facing. Andrew, on more than one topic, thank you.

I'm going to fit in a break and we come back to GOP midterm panic. That's next.

There are protests signs and they were just great. They came for Minnesota and we said,

oh, no, you don't. Does this ass make my country look small? No, foe king way.

The turn right. And Jimmy Kimmel has higher ratings than you.

Just some of the mix of massive social and civic engagement with having a sense of humor,

you know, in these times, Colbert, tipping his hat, of course, to some of the signs. These

no kings protests are a massive and historic development. Organizers estimate about 8 million

people were marching. This is unified. It's broad. It is not strictly democratic or strictly

partisan. It is about defending American rule of law and democracy. And while this type of

enthusiasm is important for voter turnout in a non-presential year, in November, the polling also

shows a more broadly complete rejection of Trump that might even terrify him as one headline puts it,

71% disapprove on these high prices. Super majority on Iran and tariffs, 61% on jobs. Overall,

disapproval has hit 62. Trump is the least popular president in the history of polling of the

second term. Congressional Republicans are retiring. Many seeing that as a quick exit rather

than looking weak and being swept away in a blue wave they're preparing for. Some in conservative

media say Trump doesn't even care. He's kind of written it off. I don't know what political price

he could possibly pay. He's not running for president again. If it's the midterms, I don't know if

he cares that much. He's going to do what he can, but he understands history and knows that

it's probably likely that the Republicans won't be able to hold it even if they try.

If that's what the cheerleading sounds like, what does the objective assessment sound like?

We're joined by a candidate in these midterms. Ohio, Ohio's own shared brown, of course,

was Senator there. He's running in the special Senate election that is still filling the old

JD Vance seat because that's, of course, from the last cycle. Welcome back. We could talk about

your race and what your Midwestern voters are concerned about. But first, these rallies were

huge, historic. We did account once that against the larger estimates for the Tea Party rallies,

these aren't double or triple. They're over 20 times. And those got a lot of elite media attention.

This is happening out in the real world. Your view on one this weekend.

We lost a chair. Senator, I think we have you muted because I don't hear you and I don't think

our control room does. Like with me. It does. Start from the top, please.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, there were more than 100 of these rallies around Ohio,

big city, small town, rural areas, suburbs, and people recognize the systems rigged against them.

They recognize the systems more rig than it's ever been. They people that are struggling have

been told by John Houston that those people don't know how to navigate the rural world. He's

saying that the war is going better than we expected. People rebel against that. They know this

system doesn't work for them. And I see it everywhere. I go. I see it talking to veterans in a

little town called Jackson and Apple. I see it talking to farmers. I see it in Cleveland yesterday.

crowds are bigger than I've ever seen. Thousands of people are going online to contribute.

People just know that we've people desperately want to see change in this country. And they know they

want to be part of that change. And they're just out in huge numbers at every kind of event as you

point out. All right. Yeah. You know, Trump and Republicans have at times done better when things

are really partisan, really divided. And yet when the conversation is about stuff that I've

got to know you professionally over the years that you've been leading on your whole life,

which is food on the table. And who's looking out for you? And do you have any bargaining power? I

mean, it's one thing to be good at your job and another thing to work in a system that has some

level of bargaining power for that, rather than these giant multinational companies,

screwing people over even when they are working hard. And so I'm curious whether this

looks more like a populist type year. And as one example, I want to show you, while people are

out there doing this weekend, presidents really out of touch talking about his fancy ballroom

in a year when he's reaped hundreds of millions in self-dealing. Take a look.

I think it'll be the finest ballroom of its kind anywhere in the world. This is a,

a view of the columns. As they are going to be made, they're going to be hand carved in their

beautiful top of the line. They'll be Corinthian, which is considered the best, most beautiful by far.

Sure. Yeah, you, you, they see that. People see that. It's what they don't see. It's they don't see

John Hewstedt and others fighting for lower prices. They don't see John Hewstedt standing

up to four farmers when the price for fertilizer goes up when diesel fuel, which is what they use,

goes up even faster than oil, then oil prices. They just don't see help with tariffs, with what's

happened to soybean markets. They don't see what's happened with price. John Hewstedt said that

struggling people don't know how to navigate the real world, whatever that means. He said that

the work ethic in this country is broken. That's why to build the kind of grassroots effort, we need

to beat the hundreds of millions of dollars. They spend more against me two years ago than any race

in Senate history. I asked people to come to share Brown dot com and chip in 10 or 15 dollars because

we raise our money that way. They raise it with dark money coming from Wall Street and the oil

companies and the drug companies. And that's really the fundamental difference. He was a special

interest guy in Columbus. He was a point of the Senate by the governor. Now he's a special interest

guy in Washington. And we know what special interest guys do. They, they play the inside game. They

help, they, they help the president. But it has been his war, but don't help, don't, don't do

anything to stand up for people for lower prices. All really interesting, which is how we thought

of you coming out of this populace weekend. Share Brown. We'll be checking back with you on the

way to November. Thanks for your time tonight. I want to tell viewers that the Republican,

just, yes, thank you. Republican, just mentioned, Senator Huston is, of course, the incumbent that

Brown is running against. He's welcome to join us on the beat as well. We'll be right back.

Favorite shows subscribe to MS now premium on Apple podcasts.

Sometimes you got to look beyond politics and beyond our planet. There will be the first flight

to the moon for humanity since 1972 tomorrow. The Artemis mission set to launch from Cape

Canaveral, Florida, rocket carrying a crew to the moon and back, but it will not land. The crew

is three Americans, one Canadian, the purpose of the mission, testing life support systems for

future missions to that uninhabitable lunar surface. We're going to be covering it on MS now,

and it's also a reminder. Sometimes we got to look out there at what else is going on. That does it

for us. Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MS now daily newsletter.

Each morning you'll get analysis by experts you trust. Video highlights from your favorite shows.

Voters wait in. Donald Trump's dismissal of their concerns has been weighing on his political

standing. Updates on our latest podcasts and election coverage, plus written perspectives from

the newsmakers themselves all sent directly to your inbox each morning. Get the best of MS now

all in one place. Sign up for MS now daily at ms.now.