"That kind of callousness"

If you are willing, please raise your hands if you have still not been able to meet

with this Department of Justice.

Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has put

them through with the un-absolutely unacceptable release of the abstin

files and their information?

Congresswoman, you set before Merritt Garland set in this chair twice.

Attorney General Bond, I can't finish my answer.

No, I'm going to reclaim my time because I asked you to.

Attorney General, the answer is to answer which is will you turn to the survivors?

This is not about anybody that came before you.

It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that

it has done to the survivors who are standing right behind you and are waiting for you to

turn to them and apologize for what your Department of Justice is.

I'm not getting the gutter for her theatrics.

Hi everyone, it's 5 o'clock in New York.

This is a really important story, so I'm relating the hour with it.

Just when you think that they can get away with anything and that the drip, drip, drip

to horrific headlines don't matter to anyone, something changes.

It is that performance that you just saw right there that is part of the portrait of callousness

that has ushered in a change.

This afternoon we learned that it has galvanized members of Donald Trump's own political

party, largely political hostages for the last 10 years to now investigate her and her

stonewalling of the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

Just this afternoon the House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena that individual Attorney

General Pam Bondy as part of its Epstein investigation.

The vote was introduced by Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace and in all five Republicans,

five members of Pam Bondy and Donald Trump's own political party voted for it along with

all the Democrats who were present for the vote.

It comes amid brand new reporting that Pam Bondy's Justice Department appears to be withholding

tens of thousands of documents relating to its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, including

those which contain unverified allegations of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump against a minor.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that nearly 50,000 files appeared to be missing from the

documents posted on DOJ's website. They report this quote. The withheld files include FBI notes

documenting a series of interviews the woman gave to agents in 2019 in which she alleged sexual

misconduct by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein when she was a minor in the 1980s according to

copies of the documents reviewed by the journal. Donald Trump has denied wrongdoing and has said

that the Epstein files quote, totally exonerated him. In her meetings with the FBI the documents

show that the woman detailed her allegations from an encounter she claimed Jeffrey Epstein

arranged with Donald Trump in New York or New Jersey when she was about 13 to 15 years old,

which have not been verified. She was, quote, introduced to someone with money, money, it was Donald

Trump, quote, unquote, according to the documents. She also claimed to have had two additional

interactions with Donald Trump. While the DOJ withholds files relating to the current president who

has refused to testify about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, a growing number of associates

of Jeffrey Epstein are set to appear before Congress now. They include Bill Gates, a billionaire named

Leon Black, and former Goldman Sachs General Counsel, Kathy Rumler, who have all been asked to appear

before the House Oversight Committee. Donald Trump's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik has voluntarily

agreed to sit for an interview with the House Oversight Committee about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

All four have denied knowledge of or participation in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes,

growing question of just how much longer Donald Trump can avoid answering questions about his

relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is where we start the hour with some of our favorite experts

and friends. Joining us at the table, Danny Bansky's back, she is one of the Epstein survivors

who has been sharing her story and advocating for transparency from the Trump administration,

also joining us contributing editor Michele Norris and Michael Feinberg is still here. Michele,

I want to start with you and let's talk me about the story which broke right before we were coming

on the air, is that there is this false notion that the Trump story is fixed and it is far more

dynamic and this story, the most volatile of all, you know, she does that which is this performance,

I mean, it's hard to call anything that anyone that works for Donald Trump unprecedented,

Pete Hexeth gave a rather unprecedented performance today on the topic of the war with Iran,

but in terms of an attorney general speaking about an investigation into a convicted child sex

trafficker, it was an unprecedented display of callousness and to see that even for Republicans,

who have marched and locked up with Donald Trump for the better part of 10, 11 years,

to see that it was too far for them is stunning. Regardless of your party, I have so much respect

for the survivors and I just want to say that to you, you know, now that we're in each other's orbit

right here, who have demonstrated so much courage and a show up on Capitol Hill, it would have been

so easy for her to acknowledge them and then still stay on message. You know, she could have easily

done that, but when they live in the kind of bubble that they live in, there is this belief that

they are archbenders in some way that they can, that superhuman powers to bend reality at their will

and this is now catching up to them. And part of what we're seeing, I think, is people responding

to the way that this is being played out and adjudicated in other places. People are losing their

jobs. Overseas, people have been arrested. There have been real consequences for this and it's

harder for them to remain in this bubble of their own making, this, this reality that they've created.

When you're seeing other people face consequences, at the same time, we're talking about, you know,

a woman who's describing something that happened to her when she's 13 or 15 years old.

Everyone has someone in their life who's 13 or 15. They've been 13 or 15 themselves. They can

imagine just how vulnerable you are, how fragile you are at that age. And it's astonishing that he's

been able to make it this far, you know, without having to really acknowledge what happened and

faceless and it feels like this is, you know, every time you say this, it feels like this is a crack.

There's a number of cracks in the structure now and it's just hard to imagine that it will continue

to stand with this many crack, this many cracks on a foundation that just doesn't seem like it can

hold much longer. And to your point, what's stunning is we, we came on the air in this hour yesterday

with Kristinaum also cracking under direct questioning from a Republican about her own telling,

a murdering her young puppy. I mean, you see the lack of character among the people that Trump has

selected being elevated as a topic for scrutiny and critiques from Republicans for the first time.

At the same time that this is playing out on the backdrop against a war, right, at the highest

possible stakes. So this is someone who won't acknowledge what's happening here, won't deal with

this, what's happening here. And I think that the fact that we are now a nation at war in a place

where we are not, and they talk about this extreme show of strength that this will be a short war,

that they don't, they don't know how this is going to play out. War is ugly. War is never predictable.

And you can see this in what's happening all throughout the region. So all of this is coming together.

It's a sort of a toxic stew, but it's making people actually realize in a very real way what is at

stake and who's at the center, who's making all of these decisions that are putting America's economy

and harm, American people at harm. I mean, what's going on, they talk about this being a quick war.

I mean, Iran could strangle the world's economy just by keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed.

Everyone is affected by that. Every single person is affected by that and not just gas prices.

If you have anything in your home that travels on a truck, on a plane, on a ship, you know,

it's all going to become more expensive. And so it's, you know, it's, it's almost weird to talk

about affordability when you're also talking about a case that involves child, you know, sexual misconduct

with children. But that's why I say it's, it's not one thing. It's all of these things coming

together, creating these, I say, these big cracks in a foundation that I, it doesn't seem like

that this can continue to hold. I interviewed the legendary singer Dumbias about how this moment

differs from the 60s. And she had a lot of answers, but one of the things she said was that we had

each other. And what I, what I saw in September at the press conference and what seems to have made

the survivor's courage so powerful and effective. I mean, you, we talk about, I mean,

a prince has been arrested. An ambassador has been fired and is under investigation.

The former White House Council for President Obama, who ascended to be one of the most powerful

lawyers at one of the biggest investment banks, has been fired. The head of a law firm,

it's one of the most powerful law firms in our country, had to step down from his job,

a health guy, I think they call them influencers, who had crude dealings with Jeffrey Epstein,

lost his job first representing a power bar, and then later representing CBS News.

All because of what you guys did. Well, when you say like that, that sounds amazing.

You know, I mean, I think survivors, you know, it's Annie Farmer said it best recently that,

you know, how is the question was like, how do you guys continue with such bravery?

And Annie was basically like, we just put one foot in front of the other and you just don't even

like see what's coming next. You just keep the running. You just keep it moving.

And it really is that I think you feel such a responsibility to each other. And just the sense of

community is something that I never, I never thought that I could have for sure. I thought that I

would always live in this very like shameful silo within my own story and meeting them in September

has changed truly every single fiber of me because you start to see that you do deserve community

and you deserve people in your life that will. I mean, I think all of us would do anything for

each other. And on those days that do feel insanely hard to keep momentum or even get out of bed,

you listen to one survivor talk and you're like, okay, I'm up. Let's do the thing. You know,

like how many meetings do we have today? And it really is a sisterhood that is fueled by so many

other people, right? It is fueled by so many other survivors. It is fueled by folks across

not even our country, but internationally that we're hearing from in Norway and Italy.

There are survivors that reach out to us all the time about their own stories and are disclosing

their stories for the first time. So I'm hoping that as a collective we can take some of the weight

off one another and put it to where it needs to go, which is to try to find accountability

for, you know, against our abusers. Michael Feinberg, if you're designing a line of questioning

for the Democrats and now five Republicans who have also co-signed this endeavor, what do you ask

Pam Bondi? I don't know if the first thing I would say would be a question. But I think I would

point out to her that her department, the department of justice, is the only part of the president's

cabinet whose very name contains a moral imperative. And that imperative is to do right by those who've

done wrong, who've been wronged. That is the meaning of justice. That is the point of the department

of justice. And I would ask her a number of questions. First, obviously, why couldn't she look

the victims and survivors in the face during her last hearing? Why has she changed her story on

the Epstein files so many times from saying she had a client list on her desk to claiming there

is no client list? Why has she decimated the parts of the department of justice that normally work

with victims and witnesses and try to make them whole in at least an emotional way even if litigation

fails? In other words, why has she taken the department of justice, which is supposed to serve the

public, and instead abandoned that mission all for the sake of simply creating a private law fair

for her boss in a public building? Let me read you a Nancy Mase tweeted, Michael, about what

Republicans believe is being withheld and ask you if this is in the realm of possibility

because it came from Nancy Mase. But it's only I heard oddly from Cash Patel when he appeared on

Joe Rogan's podcast quote, AG Bondy claims the DOJ has released all of the Epstein files. The record

is clear they have not. The Epstein case is one of the greatest cover-ups in American history.

This global sex trafficking network is larger than what is being revealed. Three million documents

have been released and we still don't have the full truth. Videos are missing, audio is missing,

logs are missing, there are millions more documents out there. We want to know why the DOJ is more focused

on shielding the powerful than delivering justice. Now, I understand that some of those types of

evidence could endanger the victims, but they've shown no sensitivity to that. Danny's name was

an address were released in the original batches. So what is the possibility that that is true

and that all that evidence exists and what is the path for having that made transparent?

So whether that evidence exists is an interesting question that's actually more nuance than

is going to satisfy a lot of people. Just because there is evidence of a crime or because there

is contextual information whether audio or video or digital out there does not necessarily

mean that it is in an FBI case file. The FBI only collects the information generally speaking

which is necessary to prove the elements of the crime that the FBI in the Department of Justice

have agreed upon to prosecute. But and I can't believe I'm about to say this,

Nancy Mason, Nancy Mason's larger point is actually true. We have no reason based on the behavior

of the past 14 months to trust what is coming out of this justice department. And despite knowing

that FBI files are often not as fulsome as the public believes, I do find myself agreeing

with Nancy Mason that we're not getting the full story and that DOJ officials still have a lot

to account for and a lot to answer for. Danny, what question would you ask for money? That's

such a good question. Well, I think the first thing that I want to say why are we always putting

survivors in a place of being the DOJ? Like we are always in a place of tell us the names,

everybody in a group setting with an anchor asking us has Donald Trump ever done anything to you,

has just daily ever done anything to you. And first of all, that would be so unsafe for someone

in that group setting to raise a hand and say yes me because it hasn't gone through any sort of

legal process. We don't have lawyers in the room. Safety and defamation are huge concerns for survivors.

And so just I want to start by saying this idea of survivors releasing a list is really hurtful

and detrimental and it shouldn't, we are not the Department of Justice. That's why we have a

Department of Justice, right? So that they can bring justice to the whole ring that the powerful

and protected and the victims have to do the work. Exactly. And it's just you're just seeing it,

you know, closing on this scale that it's, it's an isolated scale now, right? So the world can see it.

To Pam Bondy, I'm so glad that they are going to talk to her. You know, the first thing that came

to mind was like, how's the Dow now? All right. Because it was like everything was evaded. The whole

time we sat there were like, why are we talking about the Dow? Why is she asking about Jekyll and Hyde?

Like she would do anything to evade any question. And so, you know, there is a piece of me and I'm

sure with other survivors, I haven't had a chance to talk to them fully about this yet. But there's

a little bit of vindication where it's like, yes, thank you. Like actually answer questions. So

I guess that's my greatest point if she, she would listen to face questions. Please answer questions.

That's all we're asking for. That's all we've ever asked for. You know, we're not, we're not,

we're not politically affiliated. It's not about a partisan line for us. It's just about

getting the truth. It always has been. And so I just hope that she really will answer and not evade.

Well, and I think I think the lack of any political

affiliation on your work, not just what shows up on television, but all the hard work you guys do

behind the scenes visiting with Democrats and Republicans and their staff is showing up in this,

in this vote of fiber Republicans. I really hope so. It's so nice to see your Republican support.

I mean, that's we've been talking to offices and we barely see follow-through, right? And so

it's starting to show up a little bit here and there you go. Danny, thank you for being here.

Michael Feinberg, thank you for helping us across two hours. We are grateful for that.

A little overtime for you. Michelle sticks around with us this hour when we come back five days

into a war with Iran and there is still no clarity from the Trump administration on why it was

started, what its objectives are, how long it will take, and what our aims are as a nation.

Our dear friends Sue Borden, who we turn to in times like this will be our next guest also ahead.

James Talleriko, when I clear into decisive victory last night and now he has Democrats,

dreaming of doing something that has not happened in more than three decades,

turning a Senate seat in deep red Texas, bright blue. We'll get to that.

Plus, how did Donald Trump is so scared of losing that exact Senate seat?

He's trying to make sure Republican voters don't have a say about who their nominee should be.

We'll explain later in the hour. Deadlin White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Are there measures being taken not to eliminate other possible alternatives to leadership?

This is war and we're taking out the threat. You can see this is war. We have declared war.

They declared war on us. We haven't declared war on Secretary Hicks.

We haven't declared war. They called it war. What I was saying is that they declared war on us,

but war is ugly. It always has been ugly. We're taking out a regime that's been trying to

attack us for quite some time. We have declared war. If we haven't declared war,

then I don't see that. The president has asked us to declare war yet.

This is war. We haven't declared war. They declared war who said war.

Have we ever played a game of catch with a greased-up watermelon?

It's a little bit like that. Even the most obvious answers to the most basic

fundamental questions, especially after six United States service members have died.

But a military campaign now being described by Pete Heggseth and Donald Trump in Marco Rubio

as, quote, accelerating and, quote, rapidly widening,

approving too slippery to get a clear answer to for the American people. Never mind the more in-depth

questions. Like, why are we at war with Iran? And why did it happen now?

Because the answer to those questions are veritable, choose your adventure responses.

ABCD or all they about, and they've shifted with the political currents since Saturday.

At any given moment, we're expected to believe the strike on Iran was about

pramptive action or about nuclear capabilities or about the protesters or about what Israel

was planning. And on top of all that, today, the New York Times reported this, quote,

the Pentagon provided a few details, but the Trump administration has said that Iran's plotting

to kill U.S. officials, particularly Mr. Trump, is one reason the United States launched its

bombing campaign. And all new rationale, never before made public. Joining us now, former principal

deputy director of national intelligence, Sue Gordon is here. Sue, where do you want to start?

I'm not sure. That was really hard to watch. It's all really hard to watch. Let's see, here's where I'll

start. The American system is designed. The American system is designed and underpinned by the

Constitution so that citizens, institutions, professionals, Congress, courts and the president

all test assumptions before a decision and an action is taken. And we deliberately make decisions

about war and peace difficult. That's not weakness. That's not slowness. It's protection for us.

And the founders in the Constitution design friction to prevent impulsive action. And the

Constitution process in itself is a national security safeguard. So the fact that we have had zero

process around this is really problematic. Is it illegal? It certainly is antithetical to the

Constitution. If you look at the Constitution, the Constitution gives the power to the Congress

to declare war. And everyone is saying we're a war. And I think if you look at the tests

that are illegal tests to it, you get down to the last one that says, unless you're under immediate

threat, that's just not the case here. China is a much more immediate threat to the United States.

Russia is a much more immediate threat. And all those conditions that they just described,

people who want to take out our officials, nuclear capability, massive military capability,

doctrinally stating that they are either in China's case trying to win a competition against this

and be the Psychonomical or in Russia's case trying to undermine democracy. All those conditions

are true. So I just don't think that when you look at what the Constitution prescribes,

the friction it demands, the slowness is asked for because this is really big. I don't see how you

come to believing that this test is true. I was particularly seized by Secretary Rubio's, well,

Israel was either going to attack or be attacked. He goes both ways on that. Let's talk about Israel

for a second. It's been to Israel. Their geography is impossible. They are at once

some of our best partners and some of our most difficult partners. And over the course of my

career, that tension of their operational imperative because they're feeling this threat

and us saying settle down. I don't know why today we couldn't manage that.

The nuclear argument is spacious. Even though it is true that we do not want that regime to get

nuclear weapons, even though it is true that that regime is maligned, you just can't come to the

immediacy. But Nicole, even more than that, I would rule when I was a leader and a minister,

if someone came to me with something they wanted to do, I said, you have three sentences.

If you can't say what you're doing in three sentences, you don't know what you're doing.

Can you give the three sentence description of what we're doing there?

Well, the problem is there are six different sentences, right? I mean, and none of the good.

And so we don't know. What is your sense from your time as the head of our intelligence agencies

to the explanation Rubio gave that we followed because Israel was, if we ever not been able to

collaborate on the timing of a strike with Israel, do we always have to join? What did you hear

from Rubio? Yeah, what I would say to Secretary Rubio is ever thus. This is why you have these

institutions and diplomacy and leaders who are professionals who do this. I don't deny

Israel's imperatives. That does not mean it becomes ours and to do it at this, at this time. I just

and what happens to us when we don't know why we're there. So first, let's put it off the table,

kudos to the women and men of the military and the intelligence community who have just done

an amazing job with this phase of operations and this phase of operations is wonderful and it has

nothing to do with how what we're doing and how it's going to end. I'm proud of us. I'm proud of

them. We are big and powerful and strong. We have cultures in those institutions that allow us to

demonstrate this performance time and time again to what end and when will it end? And even if you

get rid of some subsequent regime or they somehow agree to what they're not going to do, you cannot

take national aspiration off the table. Learn this with North Korea. Yes, we should make it hard.

But I just, I don't in my experience Nicole know what this achieves in any long term and more than that?

I don't know how we've recovered trust. I don't know how we've recovered trust in the American

people. I mean, for a president who has claimed mandate for every action, this he has no mandate for.

So to say, I'm going to take this action unilaterally. It isn't supported by the constitution.

It is not supported by the American people's wishes. He has not built a coalition with our allies

and partners. So even if you beat Iran into some sort of submission, what's the likelihood

that any agreement that is arrived at is going to be maintained?

Well, what does submission look like? I mean, the Wall Street Journal reported today that

Ayatollah Kamini's son, who is more hardliner than his father was, is the next in line to lead Iran.

That couldn't have been the goal. No, I mean, I think the president said it. He's like, I don't know.

We killed a bunch of people. I don't know who we're going to have. The Iranian people need to rise up.

We have been through this as a nation before. I have sat in these rooms. This issue of what you do

if this is your aspiration. In many cases, we decide that this should not be our aspiration. If there's

it, the work that goes in ahead of time to know how it's going to unfold next to identify the

sets of people who might lead to give the Iranian people who are, who have been repressed,

something to hold on to. And if you don't do something about the regime, you don't know who it's

going to be there. In what aspect of interest do they have in making it easy for their people?

How does it not get worse? Why did they want to build a government? So I mean, what we have left

undone. So yay to operational successes. But that has very little to do with how we made either

Iran or the world or the United States a better safer place. That question hasn't been answered

and it ought to be answered. And there's just through lines through the previous segment. And this

one that says, if you can't trust your institutions, if you leave every decision to an individual,

weaknesses. Yeah. So I love doing this on live TV because it's hard to say no. We're going to need

you. Please stay free between the hours of four and six Eastern. Very, very fortunate to get to

talk to you today. Thank you so much for being here. Go get them. When we come back, Republicans

are so afraid of James Talleriko in Texas that Donald Trump is making an extra extra special

effort and undemocratic one and taking the decision on who his party nominates away from the voters.

We'll try to explain that after a short break.

The number of independence and Republicans who voted in this democratic primary is unprecedented.

This is proof that there is something happening in Texas. Tonight, the people of our state

gave this country a little bit of hope and a little bit of hope is a dangerous thing.

In Texas is a remarkable split screen taking place between the two political parties.

You just saw the newly minted democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Texas, state representative James

Talleriko. Speaking to voters after his primary victory, Talleriko's broad appeal rooted in

decency and compassion has sparked real fear in the hearts of Texas Republicans. Republicans

who if Donald Trump gets his way will have no choice as to who their nominee will be. Donald Trump

announced that he will be making an endorsement in the Republican runoff between sitting Senator

John Cornyn and Attorney General Kim Paxton, Trump saying that he will ask the candidate who does

not get his endorsement to drop out. I'm going to bring him puck news, senior political colonists

and national affairs analyst John Heilman. Michele is still with us.

I have to confess to still being able to be shocked. I feel this is shocking

way to wake up the morning after the Texas primaries.

I mean, it's a lot of things that were shocking about that primary last night, Nicole and some

of the things that happened in Dallas County were kind of shocking. Some of the outcome,

various things that some of the internal dynamics

defied some expectations. People I think had wrongly cast James Talleriko as the moderate versus

the progressive Jasmine Crockett when they basically agree on almost everything when it comes to

policy. And there are differences between the two of them, but they're not ideological so much.

But Donald Trump, he had adopted this posture throughout the primary up until this first

round of voting, which was he was going to stay out of it. I like them all. He said about all three

of the candidates. I like them all. And I thought there was a reasonable chance because Trump hates

backing losers that especially in the wake of James Talleriko winning and seeing what kind of a

coalition that he assembled among Democrats. And the extraordinary Democratic turnout,

something you almost never see in a Texas primary where there's a big ticket Republican primary,

the fact that Democrats outnumbered Republicans in voting in their primary is really, I think,

unheard of. I thought Trump would be like, you know what, I'm just going to let Paxton and

Paxton and Kornin fight it out here. And I'm going to say that I like the two of them.

Now one of them's gone. I don't like the three of them. I like the two of them. But he now,

if Trump's going to get in, he wants to make sure that his candidate wins. And the only way to make

sure your candidate wins if you endorse them is to get the other one to drop out. And so that's

what Trump's going to do. It's shocking, Nicole, but not surprising.

Howling on the Talleriko side, I thought of two campaigns. I'm not making a parallel to

the politicians or the policies. But I thought of Josh Shapiro's gubernatorial campaign in Pennsylvania,

the big coalition that he assembled that was just a specific coalition behind his race. It didn't

really transfer, right? It was a Shapiro coalition. Talleriko seems like someone who can build a

Talleriko coalition. And then I thought of Bob Bullock, who we're all old enough to know who

that was. He was a Democrat elected to state-wide office in Texas. He was the lieutenant governor,

and George Shapiro's governor. And he too assembled a political coalition that might have

some sort of historical, structural parallels to which James Talleriko assembles.

What are your thoughts on a Talleriko's political path forward to winning?

Well, he, and again, Jasmine Crockett ran a strong campaign. There's no diss to her. But I don't

think if you were doing our predictions before the race, you would have said that Talleriko won

in the cities, he won in the suburbs, and he won in rural. So he took all the three main categories

of counties he won all of those. I think to the moderate thing that I was talking about before,

that misperception, he was way stronger in counties that were carried by Bernie Sanders

in the 2020 Democratic primary against Joe Biden than he was in the counties that were carried

by Joe Biden, where Jasmine Crockett dominated. But you don't think of James Talleriko as being

like kind of a kindred spirit of Bernie Sanders and AOC. In fact, in a lot of ways they are,

he was very strong with young voters, an incredibly important thing to see. He is the perfect mix

for Hispanic voters in the state because he is a populist on economics, but he's also culturally,

he reads as culturally conservative. He's a minister. We understand not to over stereotype

or anything, but the lot of these Texas communities with Hispanics who ultimately kind of cost

better work his moment when the culturally conservative Democratic Hispanic voters were a

little uneasy with him. James Talleriko, they love that guy. He's a seminarian and a practicing

pastor. I think there's a lot of power in this coalition, and I know I got to go right now,

but I will say there are some elements in the online fundraising, in the virality,

and in the kind of aspirational quality of it. There are certain kind of Obama-like qualities to him,

too. I never like to call some of the next Obama, but if you put the pieces together of his Hispanics,

progressives, and this kind of, he's made for this moment in young people, and maybe he's a really,

you wouldn't necessarily think it when you first meet him. He's a great internet candidate. He's a great

social media candidate, and that's how he was able to raise a ton of money. And he also, one of

both Stephen Colbert and your friend Joe Rogan. The book ends of his national fame,

or getting Joe Rogan when he first came out a year ago, Joe Rogan said, you should be president,

the first time he met him. He said, imagine having a good person. And get this boost at the end.

Yeah, yes, incredible. Why did you just say you have to go? You don't have to go.

I get you for 15 more minutes. No one's going anywhere.

Where does he get a break? Well, I'll be right back on the other side.

Michele, how does Tallerico turn Texas blue? Well, he, as John said, he's a very good

campaigner. He's very strong. He's got to create some enthusiasm among the voters that were

writing strong for Jasmine Crockett, but he's really got a strong start. He did very well in

San Antonio, which is sort of a part of now the big metro area. Bexar County is almost seen

as Austin, adjacent, but he did really well in the Rio Grande in an area where even among

Hispanic voters that had shifted significantly to the right. And he had brought a lot of them. He

was helped by Bobby Polito, the town of Canada, who did very well and who also ran a fairly

conservative campaign as a Democrat. But he also, I want to pick up on something that John said,

you know, making that analogy to a young Barack Obama. There's another analogy there in that he

is seen as someone who is as candidate who talked about love and extended an olive branch.

He can throw an elbow. He's a tough candidate. And you heard one of his ads. He talked about,

we should not be afraid of the federal government. The federal government should be afraid of us.

You know, that was one of the ads that he ran. And so through careful messaging, which he's

good at, trying to reach across to Latinos, which he shows that he's good at. And there are a lot

of Republicans in Texas who do not have a home. You know, they don't feel comfortable in the

Republican party. And if he can continue to reach out to them, build enthusiasm among Black voters

and just hold on to those young voters and make sure that they're enthusiastic. And if he's running

against Paxson in particular, I mean, he's running against a candidate who's messy. I just

noted that Donald Trump in that treat, he said, we have an easy to beat radical liberal.

I mean, I think that's what he wants. That's what he wants to tell Rico. But I don't

get it. I can, that's another example of one as I would do.

He's not exactly who he is. He's going to have a tough, the Republicans are going to have a tough.

And for next time, I mean, it's a window into how he's lost some of his political intelligence.

You know, that's not how this campaign is going to be run by whomever wins the primary

and the Republican side. John Hyleman, nice to see you. Michelle, thank you for being here.

Quick break for us. We'll be right back.

My guests in this week's episode of the Best People Podcast may be familiar faces to all of you,

but trust me, you have never seen them quite like this before. Eddie Glod, Mitch Landrue and Tom

Nichols join me for a conversation free of any of the, shall we say, constraints of capable

television, take a listen to some of what former New Orleans mayor, Mitch Landrue had to say.

And we have got to do a real gut check in this country about really who we are and what we

want to be. And this is why the speeches of JD Vance and Marco Rubio, which people should pay

attention to, because they are both given speeches at a lay and down Trump's vision and Steve

Miller's vision that we are no longer a credo nation. We're not a nation that follows the

creed of we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men have created equal and endowed by

the creator with certain daily animal rights of life, living in poverty. That's not what they

believe. What they're saying and Eddie alluded this early is that, no, no, some of us, you see,

by virtue of how we look or by virtue of how our mom and Eddie are are actually better than other

people. That, that is like a whole like you should be scared to death of that. If you're an

American and you believe in patriotism, the way it was intended by the founding fathers, but there

is an entire movement that is going on right now. That's going to put that in play that Donald

Trump is trying to, to, to, to, to give great foundation to. And, and then he doesn't, Donald Trump

doesn't care about that movement except insofar as it serves his purposes. Correct.

There's so much more that came from. It was a wide ranging conversation. You don't want to miss it.

You can watch the whole thing. And this week's episode is the best people now available on YouTube.

You just scan the QR code on your screen right now or download to listen wherever you get your

podcasts. One more break will be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes.

Today we are grateful.