[0:00]The Trump repost that crossed a line. A social media moment of reckoning for a White House now facing GOP restlessness and skittishness.
[0:11]Talking to Iran, what is the US ultimate goal? Regime change, nuclear walkback, an end to the deaths of protesters. Wary US allies in the region worry. What
[0:22]comes next? The Winter Olympics have begun. An Olympic champion and Olympic trivia master John Neighbor share stories of Winter Games greats you might
[0:33]not know. [music] Hello everyone, I'm Major Garrett in
[0:43]Washington. Welcome to the takeout. Dow Jones Industrial Average today closed above 50,000 for the first time ever. Yesterday in the evening, the White
[0:53]House unveiled its cash only website where consumers can find a handful of popular prescription drugs at discounted prices. [music] During the Super Bowl this Sunday, a commercial will air
[1:04]touting the economic benefits of soon to arrive Trump's savings accounts. All the things I just mentioned in one way or another are part of the economic and affordability conversation in which this
[1:15]White House plays a central role. and all of it buried under the odious sludge of racism and bigotry. A direct result
[1:24]of and therefore a reflection upon President Trump, his White House, and its intentionally provocative social media habits. You know the essence of
[1:35]this story. President Trump at 11:44 p.m. Eastern last night reposted a video with mind-numbing pratt about voter fraud in the 2020 election. Near the end
[1:45]of that video, there is a clip depicting former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as apes. Before I get to what happened next, let me say
[1:56]this. We debated how to handle this for quite some time today. Do we share the video, short and vile as it is, or do we show just one frame? And does limiting
[2:06]this to one frame in any way lessen the inherent cruelty? How, we wonder, do we have a conversation during Black History Month, no less, about this spasm of
[2:17]social media sewage? What's the proper context? How do we build an intelligent conversation around one of these questions that asserts itself? Is there going to be long lasting political
[2:28]damage or effects from all this? As you might imagine, booking a conversation like that brings its own challenges. There's social media courage, then
[2:38]there's TV courage. There was more this day of the former than the latter. But as ever, we will do our best. Now, let's get to the what happened next part because it may mark in the arc of
[2:50]Trump's second term something of a watershed. Republicans who dared speak about this used unflinching terms to denounce the repost. South Carolina
[3:00]Republican Tim Scott, an ally of the Trump White House, said this, "Praying it was fake because it's the most racist thing I've seen out of this White House.
[3:10]The president should remove it." Note the phrase, "The most racist thing I've seen out of this White House." Meaning, by any fair interpretation, that it sits
[3:21]a top of list of racist things Senator Scott has noticed before. A small GOP cascade then followed. New York Congressman Mike Lawler, incredibly
[3:31]offensive. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, totally unacceptable. Nebraska Senator Pete Rickettts, a reasonable person sees the racist context. Maine
[3:42]Senator Susan Collins, appalling. At first, the White House through press secretary Caroline Levit mocked inquiring reporters as peddlers of fake
[3:52]outrage. But this time-t tested Trumpian retort, so frequently resilient, crumbled under the weight of its own indefensibility. Then came something almost as shocking.
[4:04]The White House reached, maybe clutched is a better word, for the oldest con in politics. Anonymously blaming a low-level staffer, also nameless, for
[4:16]the mistake. No responsibility from the president. Just before noon, that repost was taken down. The handful of Republicans who called for an apology and the internet has recorded your
[4:28]names. Well, you've been left wanting. We turn now or I look straight ahead to Ouija Jen at the White House. Ouija, this happened within an hour in which there were dozens upon dozens of posts
[4:39]and reposts. That's interesting to note. And also, we have reporting that the president today spoke to Tim Scott, the Republican senator from South Carolina. >> Major, that's right. the president, or I
[4:50]should say the president's official account on Truth Social, uh, shared this racist video as part of a tweet storm
[5:01]uh, that started around 10:45 p.m. And this particular video was shared at 11:45 p.m. Um, and so the reason that matters
[5:11]is because as you laid out right now, the White House uh says it was an unidentified staffer who was responsible for this. And I can tell you all day we have been pressing the White House about
[5:23]who this person was, what kind of access does he or she have to the president's phone and social media accounts and what kind of consequences, if any, this
[5:33]person will face and major, so far we have heard nothing. Um, but to your other question, yes, the president, we have learned, uh, exclusively here at
[5:43]CBS News, called up close ally, Senator Tim Scott, who is also notably the only black Republican in the Senate. He told
[5:52]Scott uh, through our reporting that it was a staffer who made this mistake and then said he would take it down. But major, the reason why your timeline that you just laid out is so critical is
[6:04]because it seems that initially the White House did not understand the harm and the pain that this reposting caused
[6:14]so many Americans, even calling it fake outrage. But that real outrage poured in and it might have been a small cascade
[6:24]as you described it of Republicans, but still in this administration that is quite notable because typically Republicans are very hesitant to weigh
[6:34]in, especially when it's about criticizing the president, especially when it's about his social media activity because he participates so
[6:43]often um in social media. And so it is extremely notable, major, that that very real outrage forced this White House to
[6:53]change its response and acknowledge that a mistake had been made. >> Ouija Jen, North the White House. Thank you very much. I promised you a conversation. Joining me now, NAAC
[7:03]President and CEO Derek Johnson and Republican strategist Malik Abdul. Malik, I want to give you the opening word. >> Well, I'm glad to stay. >> Yeah. So, I'm actually gl first of all, thank you for having me. Obviously, this is my first time here on CBS in general.
[7:15]Great to have you. >> Um, so I'm glad that the president deleted the tweet. I don't I hear what they say and I'll be honest. I don't believe that this was a lower lever
[7:25]staffer. I don't believe that it was not that it was wasn't intentional. And I say that because this is one of many instances where the president or the people around the president have made
[7:36]sort of um these type of that things that could be racially we'll say even racially insensitive and the White House hasn't backed out from it. We saw that during or this time last year with the
[7:47]Doge staffer and JD Vance was one of those who said that the person who made those, you know, he was a young guy, you know, bring him on back. We saw it again with the New York Republicans where they made both racist and anti-semitic marks
[7:59]in the with the New York Republicans. JD Vance kind of embraced him then. We saw it in 2024 when we were saying, "Hey, this what you're saying about the Haitians eating dogs and cats, that has
[8:10]a tone to it that we don't like." So I don't believe that for one Donald Trump didn't post them post this himself and I'm glad that you did the reporting because they were specific. If a lower
[8:20]level and I'll tell you if a lower level staffer had indeed done that then it would have been very easy easy for the White House press secretary Caroline Levit to immediately denounce it. Well,
[8:32]she did not. And the only reason that I could think of that she not just that she doubled down on it. She didn't just say that it was, you know, fake outrage. He said that there are other things that
[8:43]the American people should be concerned about. You would not say that if it were a lower level staffer because it's very easy to throw a lower level staffer under the bus. >> They're going to bring you into this
[8:54]conversation. Your assessment of this day and is it a moment, do you think, where there was because of this Republican push back that I noted that it's different than times past?
[9:06]be clear, the president either posted this or directed for this to be posted. Uh we have been ringing the alarm for over a year since he assumed the position for his second term. Uh this is
[9:17]consistent with the tone in the voice of the president. Uh finally, we're beginning to see there is a red line uh that Republicans say you cannot cross. Uh but unfortunately for the majority of
[9:28]African-Americans across the country, we knew that this is how he felt about the community. He has demonstrated that throughout his second term, in fact, his first term, and the policies that he
[9:39]advocate for, the posture that he has taken, and his reaction to African-Americans, particularly who disagree with his uh policy and his voice. >> Do you believe, Derek, that this will
[9:51]have longlasting effect on the president's image within the African-American community in our country? >> I think the African-American community, for the most part, have made their mind up about his image, who what he
[10:02]represent, and who he is. Uh this is just another example, an extreme example. Uh we begin to question whether or not he has a mental capacity to continue to serve as president. We are
[10:12]looking at an individual who have who have demonstrated diminished capacity in insensitive behavior towards uh communities that uh that he doesn't believe should be considered as
[10:23]citizens. Uh dehumanizing approaches such as this. This is a old tactic uh to dehumanize communities so you can justify aggressive policies towards
[10:34]their existence. Uh this should be extremely concerning not only to African-Americans, which it is, it should be extremely concerning to all Americans, and I am finally glad to see there's possibly a red line uh that has
[10:46]been drawn. The president talks with justifiable pride about how he did with the African-American community in the 2024 election and the Latino community. I'll ask you the same question I just posed to Derrick. Do you think this could have
[10:58]any longl lasting effect? >> I do. And this is something and people have talked about it. They've kind of centered Donald Trump in this move. If you look at what's been happening with Republican governors, whether that's
[11:07]Brian Kemp, whether that's um Ohio's governor Mike DeWine, there have been moves that the Republican party have been making have been making with minorities. At the presidential level, Donald Trump, it did something that was
[11:19]pretty historic. And he talked about a message. He talked about economics. He talked about affordability. He talked about a lot of those things. Even when you get into the social issues that many of us concerned about where they they've
[11:30]amplified the issue of trans kids and things like that, many people in the black community are saying then that you know we do have a problem with that. So Donald Trump had a very unique
[11:40]opportunity but I think that you know unlike because I was one of those who were I was doing media in the first term. We had a lot of room to run with in the first term. Whether you're talking about the First Step Act,
[11:51]opportunity zones, things that the administration was actually doing to help minorities compete for uh >> support for H.B.CU, >> H.B.CU. There were a lot of things
[12:02]that went down because the president's advocacy. >> Yes. But this time around 2.0, I honestly, and I've talked to the White House about this and expressed my concerns, whereas that first term, I
[12:13]could talk about all of this stuff. Well, I can't talk about a second uh step back because I don't see it. Sure, he's done some work around H.B.CU, but when you look at the employment numbers, well, the employment numbers for
[12:24]African-Americans, both male and female, those numbers are up. We don't have more money in our pocket. So, this will make it very difficult at a time when Republicans are already slated to lose
[12:34]seats in in pro more than likely in the House rather than the Senate. It will make it very difficult to message, well, what do we get out of this? Because that's going to be the question going
[12:44]into the fall. Donald Trump won't be on the ballot and you'll have many people as I've been asked even coming on the show. What is what did we get out of this? And if Donald Trump doesn't have a
[12:55]better economic message and even messaging coming from the White House, leave the memes alone and all those sort of things. If he doesn't have a better message, a better um footprint in the black community as far as the progress
[13:07]because I think what we do, we kind of overstate the notion that somehow the federal government does something exclusively for black people. Well, the federal government doesn't do that, but he has to give us something to work
[13:18]wrote with. And what he's doing right now is something that is actually just going to push back all of the gains that he made. >> Derek, I describe this as a conversation. I want you to have the last word and engage Malik if you want to or any of the Republicans in my
[13:30]audience watching this who might be wondering what your appeal or message to them might be in this particular painful moment. Well, the real question for me is as
[13:41]president of the most powerful nation in the world, surely there's something else that he could be working on or doing other than sending out negative, nasty, unhinged messages on social media
[13:53]platforms. I mean, we have economic crisis. Uh we have a crisis around global warming. We have a crisis in terms of our immigration uh concerns and
[14:02]how ISIS uh addressing citizens and non-citizens, but particularly citizens. uh we are confronting uh issues around uh hostilities towards Canada of all
[14:13]places or Greenland, surely there is something else he can be doing other than sitting in the White House on social media platforms attacking and ridiculing communities. Uh and if he
[14:24]doesn't have anything else to do, I go back to the question, is he competent to serve in the position? I think this is diminishing capacity and he's going back
[14:33]to infantile behavior as opposed to being presidential. the CEO and president of the NAACP, Jerick Johnson. You've been on the program many times. I know you'll come back. Malik, it's your first time. I
[14:44]hope you'll come back. I appreciate the conversation very much. Thank you both. Still to come on the Takeout, Congress will be able to view the full Epstein files on Monday without redaction. Scott
[14:55]McFarland will explain how that's going to transpire [music] and give us more on those details. Also, American and Iranian negotiators [music] met in Oman for the first round of nuclear talks today. the progress that was made,
[15:07]what's been said about it so far, and California Democratic Congressman Jimmy Gomez joins the show. I'll ask him [music] about ICE, immigration enforcement, and much, much more. The
[15:16]Takeout returns in 90 [music] seconds. Welcome back to Takeout. There's been some serious criticism on how the
[15:28]Department of Justice, that's putting it mildly, has so far handled the Epstein files. On Monday, members of Congress, we just learned late this afternoon, will be able to begin reviewing
[15:37]unredacted versions of those Epstein files. CBS News justice correspondent Scott McFarland joins me now. So, fill in the blanks here. What are they going to see and in what form? And can they
[15:48]take it away? What do they have to take notes? How does it going to help play out? >> You go into a secure room at the Department of Justice. They call it their reading room. And you have access to all of the files compiled and held by the Department of Justice,
[16:00]>> released and unreleased. Is that correct? >> That's key. The unreleased ones are viewable. They can look at the released ones on their phones right now if they wanted to, but they get access to the ones that have been either redacted or just have been kept out of view
[16:11]altogether. Now, asking a member of Congress to go into a room and look at 3 million pages of records is an ambitious task because if you had a whole team of
[16:21]people, it would take you many weeks to go through three million pages. We know this from experience because we've had a team of people and we're still going through the three million pages that are out there. So this could be um one of
[16:32]those needles in a order of magnitude of hay stacks, but they have that access. This is not a courtesy by the Department of Justice. This is in the law, >> right? And let me ask this, just
[16:42]thinking through this in a practical way. I'm a member of Congress. I'm not, but let's imagine for the sake of arguing that I am. >> And I go in and I say, I want this and that and this. I come up with a specific
[16:54]list. Are they obligated to do that or I say, no, here's your three men. Find it on your own. I think there's going to be a support service provided to members of Congress if for no other reason because you have to secure a secure space and make sure that things stay where they
[17:06]are and are where they are and stay organized where they are. But this also can be a very digital enterprise too. >> But the functioning of this website where they have the 3 million pages that
[17:16]are currently posted has been an imperfect operation to put it charitably. We learned today the Department of Justice has pulled down more than 9,500 pages of those records because either things were redacted that
[17:27]shouldn't have been or things that should have been redacted weren't. And this is going to be a process that plays over the course of weeks and months. What's just in public view? Now, >> another practical question comes to my
[17:38]mind. Can a member of Congress send a designated staffer to the Department of Justice to do this work? >> I'll look into that. I'll tell you, I don't think the law specifies design,
[17:49]but with the Department of Justice and the tonnage they're working with, they may they may have some flexibility built in. >> Scott McFarland, thank you. You know, we sometimes think of this as an apartment. You're going to go out through a dramatic exit to the back door, so please enjoy yourself.
[18:01]>> Very dramatic. >> You say that. Yes. Heading overseas now. Iran's foreign minister says talks with American negotiators about the future of Thran's nuclear program were quote a good start. What does that mean? Well,
[18:12]we're going to try to find out. Meanwhile, here's some pictures. special envoy Steve Witoff and adviser informal Jared Kushner led the US delegation and this comes against the backdrop of well
[18:23]let's put it mildly broader tensions between the United States and Iran. President Trump has repeatedly threatened military action over Iran's crackdown crackdown on protesters that
[18:33]has left thousands maybe tens of thousands dead within that country. Sam Vinegrad is here with me now. Sam, lots to get to. Uh, in addition to
[18:45]the members I just Steve Whitoff and Jared Kushner, also there was the head of central command in these talks in Oman. Is that meaningful? Is that interesting to you? >> Well, it's interesting because it called
[18:55]into question what actually were they negotiating about? You know, they said it's a good start and it brings to mind that Dave Matthews song Where Where Are You Going? Because the Iranians, the
[19:05]regime is refusing to negotiate on anything but the nuclear program, >> right? And the United States under the Trump administration brings a much broader portfolio. >> They sure do. And they're particularly with the presence of the SenCom commander, they want to talk about the
[19:17]ballistic missile program, rightfully it's it's huge. Iran support for proxies, essentially the crackdown and the massacre of protesters. So the United States is entering these
[19:26]negotiations with a much broader agenda than the Iranian regime. So when we say it's a good start, the question is where are we going to go >> and how should we characterize or think
[19:37]about some of the utterances in public that are cautious from our regional allies and what we are told and what I've been reading and I'm sure you much know much better than I do much more urgent private diplomatic channels being
[19:48]said we do not need a US military strike on Iran because we're afraid it could spin out of control. Well, having been involved in the early days of the Iran negotiations, whatever is being said
[19:58]publicly, Major, honestly, I don't pay a lot of attention to. We have these overt acknowledged talks that are happening behind the scenes. There are probably some covert channels that are underway
[20:09]talking about a whole range of things and secret communications that we're just not privy to and probably shouldn't be yet based on the stage of just where they are. So, we should expect a war of words to continue. Certainly regional
[20:20]allies other than Israel historically have not been supportive of a US strike against Iran, but I wouldn't count out a US military strike despite the fact that
[20:31]these negotiations are ongoing. Trump still does have a sizable military presence off the coast of Iran in the Sentcom area of responsibility and US
[20:41]administrations can walk and chew gum. they can engage in diplomacy while assessing whether the other party is credible and actually committed while keeping military options on the table >> and to your point Sam we have been
[20:51]moving more military into the region >> not pulling it back so yes I understand it's peace through strength negotiate
[21:02]with leverage and demonstrations of potential negative consequences if negotiations they'll proceed as well but we're positioning ourselves for something it feels like >> we are it's interesting
[21:13]You know, every negotiation is different, but certainly with Iran, we are trying to send a message that we won't be engaged in endless negotiations. And I think the military armada that is in the region is intended
[21:24]to signal that. At the same time, you look at a negotiation like Russia and Ukraine, and that's a very different approach than the president is taking. But certainly, the military assets in the region are intended for force
[21:34]protection, but also to signal that time is not endless in this negotiation. Time is not endless because at some point you have to make a decision about repositioning or moving them somewhere else. And that's a timeline in of its
[21:46]own. On of its own. I'll get the grammar right. Samant I appreciate it. Grammar always elusive to me. Democrats are fair to say mostly in lock step over their opposition to President Trump's
[21:57]immigration policy specifically when it comes to internal enforcement. But they are divided and exactly how [music] to pursue the aims that they have. We're going to speak with California Congressman Jimmy Gomez next who is
[22:09]calling for a stripping of nearly $200 million from the current ICE budget and he also opposed this week's government funding deal. More on all that when we come back. You're watching [music] the
[22:18]Takeout. Welcome back to The Takeout. Now for an update on a story that has understandably garnered massive national
[22:29]attention. Search for Nancy Guthrie, mother of Today Show co-host Savannah Guthrie. Well, it continues into its sixth day. This is important. It's just happened. The Pima County Sheriff's
[22:39]Department says it is aware of a new message regarding Nancy Guthrie and investigators are trying to confirm its authenticity. We do not know the
[22:49]contents of this message. What we do know is NY's son released a video message last night asking the people who took his mother to form a direct line of
[23:00]communication with the family. Please take a listen. This is Cameron Guthrie. I'm speaking for the Guthrie family. Whoever is out there holding our mother, we want to hear from you. We haven't heard anything
[23:12]directly. We need you to reach out and we need a way to communicate with you so we can move forward. But first, we have to know that you have our mom. We want to talk to you and we are waiting for
[23:23]contact. >> Of course, CBS News 247 will continue to monitor all developments in this space and bring them to you as they come in. As you probably know, one week from
[23:34]today, federal funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires. That was part of the deal to end the partial government shutdown, at least most of it. The odds of extending that DHS funding by that deadline, don't
[23:45]appear to be very good because Democrats and Republicans are very far apart on what would constitute practical, measurable reforms of ICE and Border Patrol tactics in the interior of our
[23:57]country. Democratic Congressman from California, Jimmy Gomez, joins me now. Congressman, it's good to have you here. Several Democrats have told me that this is not a typical legislative
[24:07]negotiation. Renee Good is dead, Alex Prey is dead, and something different has to be in part of these conversations because the result, they argue to me, has to be fundamentally different. Would
[24:17]you count yourself among those Democratic voices I've encountered? >> Absolutely. I think they're absolutely right that um these negotiations um
[24:27]regarding uh appropriations and spending are not the same and that's because you have a president and an administration that's operating outside the bounds of the law. They're trying to use ICE and
[24:38]CBP, also agents within the Department of Homeland Security, not from keeping us safe, but trying to um implement an agenda that um is about cracking down on
[24:50]Democratic cities and democratic states to send a message to the electorate. Um and right now there is about $175 billion from their one big beautiful
[25:00]bill. It's a slush fund essentially uh that Trump can do whatever he wants whenever he wants especially when it comes to these raids. Um and that money
[25:10]is super dangerous. Um if we weren't dealing with I think with a bad actor and Donald Trump that who's somebody who doesn't stick to their word um we
[25:19]wouldn't have to insist on all these uh checks. But because this is somebody that doesn't want any congressional oversight, doesn't want Congress to tell him how to run the executive branch,
[25:31]this is something that we have to do because that money in his hands is extremely dangerous and more people are going to lose their lives. >> Let me just walk my audience through what you just said. You don't trust a
[25:42]memo from this administration. You don't trust an executive order. You don't trust a rhetorical shift from the president or Tom Hman or anyone else. You want legislative language that is
[25:52]binding that if it's not lived up to, you can go to court and challenge. Is that what I hear you saying? AB: >> Absolutely. And that's because they have shown time and time again to ignore the
[26:03]letter of the law. Good example is that under appropriations language that we've included since 2020, members of Congress can go and do um surprise inspections of
[26:14]any facility that's holding undocumented or docu or or documented immigrants. Um they had denied us access. We had to sue
[26:24]in order to do that. Um then all of a sudden they said, "Oh, the $175 billion is um is being used to run these facilities. Therefore, that language
[26:35]doesn't apply. So, whatever he comes up with, whatever they we we do, they're going to lie about it. So, the more um legislative language we have, especially on spending bills, the better chance we
[26:46]have to hold them accountable. If not, they'll continue doing what they want to do. And then they'll make up facts and lie about it if the facts on the ground don't support their public narrative.
[26:56]>> You made reference to a large tranch of funding in the so-called big beautiful bill. That's the legislative name for it for DHS ICE Border Patrol. When the DHS
[27:05]Secretary Christy Gnome said all ICE personnel will have body cameras if funding is available, that left me somewhat confused because it seemed to me there is plenty of money available
[27:16]for that. >> Exactly. There is plenty of money if they choose to use it. That money um doesn't have a lot of guard rails or strings attached. At the same time, when
[27:26]it comes to body cameras, it's oftent times um mandated what when you have to turn it on, when do you have to turn it on, how is it stored? Um all that
[27:36]language she doesn't talk about because what she's saying is not true. She's probably just saying, "Oh, we want to have them wear body cameras, but when money comes, they have plenty of money
[27:46]that's funded for the next 10 years, $175 billion." So that's another example of them just blowing smoke up the American people's, you know, behinds.
[27:58]>> I hear you on that. Uh are you in favor of abolishing ICE? >> I'm in favor of abolishing Trump's ICE as it stands. Um but I don't think that
[28:08]goes far enough because the money under this administration is funible. You can take it and all of a sudden put it into more CBP agents. You can put it into more Department of Homeland Security
[28:18]agents. Um, so unless you tackle the funding, tackle the procedures and the min and the legal rationale that they're
[28:28]working under, these kind of abuses will continue. Good example, there was the legal memo that was leaked that showed that ICE and CBP no longer needed a
[28:39]judicial warrant. They only needed administrative warrant. Well, that is the legal rationale that is causing these um violations of the fourth amendment is uh causing people um that
[28:50]are citizens and not citizens to be just pulled over based on who they are. So, this is um we need to go really after the money, after the policies, and after
[29:01]the legal rationale. So, I want people to think broadly because the person that shot Renee Good was an ICE agent. the person that shot um Alex Prey was a CBP
[29:11]agent. So abolishing ICE in a vague way doesn't fix the abuse of Department of Homeland Security, ICE, and CBP as a whole.
[29:22]>> California Democratic Congressman Jimmy Gomez, I appreciate the time, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you. From brat summer to headquarters winter, well, we're going
[29:33]to try to explain the relaunch and the rebrand of Kla Harris's social media presence. That and so many more [music] fascinating topics coming your way right here on the Takeout.
[29:44][music] Welcome back. Political panel time. You know how much I love that. Let me introduce them. Republican strategist Kevin Sheridan. You've seen him before,
[29:56]but very first time here on the takeout. Deputy communications director for the DNC, Hannah Mulav. Hannah, it's great to have you. Thanks for joining us, Kevin. Always great to see you. >> Good to be back. >> The Kamla HQ thing. I'm sure you have
[30:07]thoughts, Kevin. >> Yeah. Well, it's I'm not a Democrat and I'm not Gen Z, so I'm not the target demo there, but uh >> how do you evaluate it on merits?
[30:18]>> Cringeworthy is the only thing I could say. Look, she when she got into the race, >> taking your antipropy out, you would just say it's generally cringeworthy. >> It's generally as a piece of political
[30:29]whatever it's cringeworthy, but look, when she got into the race, she was a front runner in 2019, uh, or or near the top. And she quickly went to zero and was out of the race before, you know,
[30:40]before Iowa. So, this time she's she's also the front runner again. And we'll see what happens. But this isn't going to I look Democrats. >> I don't know if this is a delegate for you or not, but if you have any
[30:51]thoughts, please please offer. >> Look, we need every Democrat to do everything they can to try to get people to hold Donald Trump and Republicans accountable. If we need to target Jenzi, which we know we do, Democrats lost
[31:03]young people in 2024. This aims to help that. Then we want everybody to be doing that. I will say we need to be doing things that aren't just on social media as well, like really getting people out
[31:14]registered as Democrats, which is something the DNC is doing. We launched a new initiative. It's called When We Count. We're getting out there to try to register young people, black voters, and Latino voters because we lost them. So, we need to do everything that we can to
[31:26]do that. This is one of those things that's um a part of it. I think we need every Democrat to be helping us do that. So, we spent a lot of time on this at the top of the show, quite necessarily,
[31:36]the repost from the president about the Obamas. Any thoughts? >> This is a disgusting racist tweet. And I thought it was interesting and good that
[31:46]we saw Republicans in Donald Trump's own party stand up against this, his loyalists. Even Piers Morgan said this was ridiculous. I think it's concerning that immediately Caroline Levit went to
[31:58]defend this and overreact because of it. But that's not surprising. This is from the guy who said that he wanted to see Barack Obama's birth certificates. We need to hold Donald Trump and Republicans accountable. I'm glad it's
[32:09]coming from within the Republican party as well. And Democrats are calling for it, too. We need to hold them accountable. We need to win in the midterms, and we need to make sure that a Democrat is in office in 2028. >> Kevin, did this feel like uh something
[32:19]that was different in terms of Republican reaction? >> Yeah, I think they're reading the polls. They know that they need to speak out and they need to um you know get some separation going into next year. But uh
[32:31]look this I I'm not going to defend the tweet. He deleted it. Uh but >> do you buy that it was an anonymous staff? >> I I doubt that. But you know look I don't >> that is the oldest as I described it the
[32:42]oldest con in politics. >> Whether or not look I I don't know if this is true or not but I heard there was a longer version of it. I don't know if that's actually reality or not but if he didn't see that part of it maybe that
[32:52]would be the only excuse. Otherwise, I no I'm not. >> But as you know, >> not defending >> and history tells us responsibility begins and ends at the desk when you're the president of the United States, especially when it's your account on your platform.
[33:03]>> The dangers of tweeting. >> No doubt. No doubt. >> True thing. >> Uh this thing about the gateway tunnel. Do you know anything about this? >> I know that a thousand workers are going to go home and tell their families. >> It's a 16 billion dollar project. New
[33:14]Jersey and New York. Big tunnel. Metro uh in metro neighborhoods in northern New Jersey and obviously New York City care about this held up according to
[33:25]Punch Bowl News because the president wants Dulles airport and Penn Station renamed after him. Kevin well it's for a vanity project for large look as a
[33:37]negotiating piece of for it's very low stakes because who would want their name on Dallasos airport? [laughter] It's worse. >> I know there are a lot of Dallas airport haters. I ab I actually like Dallas airport.
[33:48]>> It's not good to look at, but maybe look, if he's going to rebuild it, I would say great, make it the Trump airport. Um, but look, you know, whether or not this actually happens, they'll probably just rename it as soon as
[33:58]Democrats get back into power. But but Schumer, this is low stakes, though. Schumer should just say yes, we we'll do that. And >> he should, I think so. >> But he doesn't have the power do it. He doesn't have the power to do it. It's a whole separate thing legislatively. You
[34:10]know that. >> Okay. Yeah, please. Yeah. >> I think that it there are high stakes is the truth. Donald Trump is holding this up for a vanity project to put his name on everything. We know he put his name on the Kennedy Center already. And
[34:20]people are losing their jobs from this. Union jobs, good paying jobs. I saw some workers say that they voted for him. Some of the workers that are going to be laid off because of this funding freeze and they're pissed. They say Donald
[34:31]Trump doesn't have their back. I'll say too, we see that there's already action being taken lawsuits from the New Jersey federal government, the attorney general to stop this. and Democrats have been winning in court when it comes to
[34:42]funding freezes and the attempts of them by the Republican administration. So, I think it's ridiculous. I think it shows Donald Trump's true colors. He said he would lower costs on day one and he's trying to rename everything about him.
[34:54]>> Kevin, there's going to be a rather interesting political backdrop to the halftime show of the Super Bowl. There's Bad Bunny. Then there's the alternate universe >> USA.
[35:03]>> Yes. Of counterprogramming from those in the MAGA Trumpian world. assess that for me. >> Yeah, I think I'll be flipping over to that because I >> You don't want to see Bad Bunny
[35:14]>> discussion with my wife last night that I'm not a big Bad Bunny fan, but she she's gonna watch it. Look, I think people will, you know, if they don't if they don't love this music, they'll tune in something >> and consistent with the pattern in American life presently where politics
[35:25]basically shows up everywhere >> pretty much. Super Bowl has gotten very political. Last year it did not, but >> Hannah, this year it does. >> I mean, should we watch the Puppy Bowl? You know, I think you could watch the puppy bowl if you didn't want to watch um Bad Bunny, but
[35:37]>> we will be watching. [laughter] >> Bad Bunny came out and said that he wanted ICE to get out of Minneapolis and I stop. There's a reason why this is becoming political and it's because when Donald Trump is president, >> but it was even political before that
[35:48]because the alternate programming was already existing as soon as Bad Bunny was announced. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that things get political when Donald Trump is president because he seeps into our lives. We don't want this. Can we go back to, you
[35:59]know, debating some policy between Democrats and Republicans? That's not who Donald Trump is. >> Hannah, because you're a first time participant here at the family table, you get the last word. Kevin, Hannah, have a great weekend. Enjoy the Super
[36:10]Bowl and the Winter Olympics. Speaking of that, roll the prompter, please. That's what we do here. The 2026 Winter Olympics. I just mentioned them. They're underway. Next, my conversation with legendary Olympian John Neighbor, who
[36:21]knows a thing or two about bringing home the gold for Team USA. That's next right here on the Takeout. [music] Welcome back to the Takeout. The 2026
[36:40]Winter Olympic Games are underway. This was today's opening ceremony. More than 2900 athletes are taking part, representing 92 National Olympic
[36:50]Committees. Earlier, I spoke to American Olympic swimmer John Neighbor who brought home four gold and a silver for Team USA in 1976.
[37:00]Take a listen. You love Olympic and Parolympic competition. So, as the winter games begin, John, what are you most looking forward to? >> You know, I'm the new sport for me is
[37:12]skio, ski mountaineering, where they use crosscountry uh skins to climb up a mountain and then they come down an alpine course. So, it's not the telmark slow stuff. It's going to be
[37:23]fascinating. And then they have a bunch of relays this time around where you go down the bob sled run, you touch a finish line, and then somebody at the top has to start again, and they're doing a collective time. All of this is
[37:33]new to me. It's going to be fantastic. So, you wrote a terrific book, which I highly recommend, and I and you don't need me to do that. Lots of people love this book, Olympic Trivia Challenge. So,
[37:44]there are several great trivia questions in there regarding Winter Olympics past. So tell my audience who Steve Hulkcom is and why he matters.
[37:56]>> Steve Hulkcom was the American driver on the bobsled that won the first gold medal in over 60 years. Steve Hulkcom um
[38:06]uh tells a wonderful story. Sadly he was uh not able to deal with the postathletic downfall and he uh he took his own life a couple of years later.
[38:16]But Steve Hulkcom drove the night train that won the gold and uh is one of the greatest bobsled drivers we've ever had and a wonderful guy. >> And he drove it having a hard time
[38:28]seeing. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yes. Correct. He had a he had an eyesight problem where uh everything was fuzzy and if you're a bob sled driver at 90 miles an hour around these turns, not
[38:38]to be able to see was rather uh uh confusing for him. So he had some surgery. the the image was perfectly clear and it was so unnerved him that he decided to take a sandpaper or something
[38:49]and scuff up the front of his mask to make it blurry again so that he was back and comfortable and he said he drove by the seat of his pants by the feel of the turn rather than what he could see.
[39:00]>> Tenley Albbright >> doctor Dr. Tenley Albbright is >> is America's first Olympic champion in
[39:10]women's figure skating, but she was also one of the first two women to graduate from Harvard Medical School. So, Dr. Tenley Albbright is is the first of a
[39:22]long list of great Olympic figure skate champions, but in my opinion, her post-athletic career was every bit as spectacular as her athletic career. And that 1956 Winter Olympics, she was
[39:33]injured right before the most important competition. >> Yeah, it's amazing. These athletes, what what she did is similar to what uh Lindsey Vaughn is attempting to do this
[39:43]week. Lindsey Vaughn tore her ACL tendons in a in a training run just less than a week ago. And yet, she's going to get up on those skis and she's going to give it her best shot. Because the
[39:54]Olympics come around once every four years, you don't have the luxury of saying, "I'll get him next year." >> And Tenley Albright, like many athletes, will just rise to the occasion and do
[40:05]what's necessary to to win that elusive gold. >> She suffered a pretty significant ankle wound. I guess had her father, if I read the book correctly, stitch it up and then go compete in figure skating where
[40:17]your ankle is kind of important to the whole thing. Yeah, it's it's it's a lot more professional now than it was then. I remember like Pecky Fleming's mother
[40:26]handstitched her own competitive dress, her own competitive garb. Now they hired designers and they did, you know, it's real fancy. But in those days there
[40:37]there wasn't the resources that are currently available and just people had to make do. >> Esther Leiddca. >> Yeah. Well, I I call her Katie Leiddki's
[40:48]uh relative. Esther Leiddca [laughter] competed and won gold in two different Olympic winter sports. And this was what's so amazing. She just it was one
[40:59]of those things where well, I'm since I'm done with my alpine, let's see if I can try this freestyle. And so what she was able to do shocked most of us because we didn't think she was going to
[41:10]compete in both. and she did relatively a short notice and she did it with a plum and it was a wonderful story. Now, not for the US, but that's what I love about the Olympics. You can cheer for
[41:22]athletes from other countries. If you're a Dallas Cowboy fan, you don't you dare not tre cheer for the Rams, but if you're an Olympic fan, you can cheer for them all, right? And and we love the international athletes.
[41:33]>> So, John, you won four gold medals and a silver medal at the 1976 Summer Games in Montreal. You write in the book, Olympians are extraordinary, but they're not extraordinary human beings. They're
[41:45]ordinary human beings who have trained and persevered and competed at an extraordinary level. >> And that's the thing that I think is wonderful about the Olympics. A lot of
[41:55]us watch the NBA or NFL and say, "Wow, those are super athletes. I could never do that." But at the Olympics, you got boys and girls with the help of mom and dad who found a way to be the best in
[42:06]the world at something. And I say you can win a gold medal by standing perfectly still and holding a bow and arrow. Right? So there's the the athletic skills required vary from sport
[42:18]to sport and everybody can find a sport that suits their style and they can find a way to become the best in the world. You you major are probably one of the fa
[42:28]one of the best interviewers on the planet. But how do you prove it? Right? [laughter] But at the Olympics on day one, you can prove today I was I was the best in the world. >> Last question, John. I've always wanted
[42:40]to ask this of someone who competed at the Olympic level. What is the emotional distance from bronze to gold as compared
[42:48]to not being on the podium at all? >> I I like to say that the bronze medalist is very happy he's on the podium, unless he thought he could win gold. But but in
[43:00]many cases, you're trying to do the best you can and and you can't really believe you're going to win. But if you finish fourth, the Olympians call that the lead medal. It it's not valuable. It it it
[43:11]car it it it pulls you down. But if you make the awards ceremony, if you make the podium, it's a great reward. Usually the saddest person in the arena is the
[43:20]mother of the silver medalist. >> For good reason. I can see that. John Neighbor, what a pleasure. Thank you so much. Enjoy the Winter Olympics. Thank you, Major. You, too.
[43:31]>> Happy Friday, everyone. Happy Olympics. Happy Super Bowl weekend. This is the Takeout. Relentlessly curious, reliably civil, occasionally clever. The daily report coming up