[0:01]The last with Lawrence O'Donnell starts right now. Hey Lawrence. Hey Jen. Next time you have uh Amos Hawkstein on your show. Let me know. So I can just leave. Yeah. I just want to leave an extra
[0:13]10 minutes here because I could have listened to him talk about the oil markets. What's happening now? What's going to happen if Donald Trump end the war tomorrow? Uh which we know isn't going to happen. But I mean I I I know you had more questions. I have more questions. So, uh, let me
[0:29]know next time so we can just let him roll over. We can we can do a crossover episode. We'll just like hand it hand him off. I had I wanted to take notes while he was talking, but then I was like, I also want to hear Lawrence's a block. We can't be a second late for that. So, here we are. No,
[0:45]no. Next time we'll we'll let it roll right through. Sounds good. Thanks, Jen. Thanks, Lawrence. Thank you. On Sunday, the leader of the largest Christian denomination in the world
[1:01]said this. On behalf of the Christians of the Middle East and all men and women of goodwill, I appeal to those responsible for this conflict. Cease the fire. Reopen paths of dialogue. Violence
[1:17]can never lead to the justice, stability, and peace that people are waiting for. And today, the leader of no one who has the legal title of Secretary of Defense, but fraudulently refers to
[1:32]himself as the Secretary of War, said this. May Almighty God continue to bless our troops in this fight. And again to the American people, please pray for them every day on bend in knee with your
[1:50]family in your schools in your churches in the name of Jesus Christ. In the name of Jesus Christ means that the misgu misguided fanatic who is by far the most incompetent secretary of defense in
[2:06]history does not want the prayers or good wishes or anything else from the 38% of Americans who are not Christian. Donald Trump's Secretary of Defense does not want one Jewish prayer
[2:23]said in support of Donald Trump's war. Not one. He very obviously does not want a Muslim prayer spoken anywhere in the United States in support of Donald Trump's war on bended knee or not. And he
[2:39]does not want the prayer of Christians who are not literally on their knees. I used to kneel down from most of the prayers that we did when I was an altar boy in Catholic elementary school,
[2:52]but the priests didn't. Catholic priests who live an even more religious life than Pete Hexth do most of their public praying standing up which is apparently unacceptable to the religiosity of Pete
[3:08]Hexth. Pete Hgse is the first Secretary of Defense in history who thinks he can define for Americans the proper way of praying. the proper way of praying for a war on bended knee in the name
[3:27]of Jesus Christ. There are some choices here. One is that Pete Seth doesn't mean any of it. Not a single word. He wouldn't be the first fraudulently public religious person. It is possible that he
[3:41]uses excessive and false and invented religiosity to cover for a life prior to this of infidelity in his previous marriages that have led him to his third marriage and a pledge to stop what appeared
[3:55]to be his uncontrollable drinking so that he could be confirmed as Secretary of Defense. That's a possibility. If you're taking your religious direction from Pete Hegsth, you are lost. And we can only hope that the American military is not taking orders from Pete Hexth. We can
[4:13]only hope that he is the fake figure head at the Department of Defense where the American military in harm's way are under the command of generals and admirals who ignore the rantings of Pete
[4:25]Higgsf and leave him to instruct the country on how to pray to win a war started by Donald Trump. Pete Hgsth doesn't want the prayers of the vice president's wife because she is not and never has
[4:47]been Christian. And Pete Hegsth doesn't want the prayers of two of the three officials who testified to the House Intelligence Committee today about the worldwide threat assessment
[5:02]because Donald Trump's FBI director and Donald Trump's director of national intelligence are not Christian and so they will never join Pete Seth to pray on bended knee in the name of Jesus Christ to
[5:20]win the war that they could not defend today. Tulsi Gabbard continued her remarkable two-day tour of congressional testimony in which as Donald Trump's director of national intelligence,
[5:34]she has steadfastly refused to support Donald Trump's claim that Iran was an imminent threat to the United States and that Iran was two weeks away from hitting the United States of America with a nuclear weapon. The entire world knows that Donald Trump was lying when he said that.
[5:51]And so when Tulsi Gabbard is asked about Donald Trump's absurd lies about an imminent threat from Iran to the United States, she simply pretends that it is no longer the job of the director
[6:08]of national intelligence to assess or describe threats. And that could not be more insane when she's appearing in a hearing titled the worldwide threats assessment hearing. There are two of those
[6:27]hearings every year, two days in a row in the Senate and in the House. And this was day two. and Tulsi Gabbard became the first director of national intelligence in history to claim it is not her job to actually make threat assessments. It is not her job to ever use the phrase eminent
[6:48]threat. She's just not allowed to use it. She's just not ever allowed to say those two words according to her new invented lying description of her job. Director Gabbard, last year you testified
[7:04]that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Uh, do you stand by that statement? Yes or no? Context matters with that statement. Iran had all of my time. I reclaim my time to do so. Mr. Chairman,
[7:19]I reclaim my time. It's an easy answer. You either stand by what you said last year or not. It is a serious question that requires the to Director Gabbert. I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time.
[7:34]Did you? When President Trump was asked about your uh testimone testimony, he said you were wrong. Were you lying or not? I stand by the intelligence community's complete assessment.
[7:47]Director Ratcliffe, when it came to the director's testimony, she said that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon last spring in Congress. and said the Supreme Leader uh had has not authorized the
[8:03]nuclear weapons program. Do you agree with what she said or not? The director's right here. She can speak for herself. Oh, so I thought this was an intelligence community briefing.
[8:17]Let's let's move on. The weak fools at the top of Donald Trump's intelligence team. So there's the
[8:29]director of national intelligence, Telsey Gabard, and the director of the CIA, John Radcliffe, disgracing themselves in full public fear of saying out loud that there was no imminent
[8:45]threat. At the same time, they will not say there was an imminent threat. And that's after Tulsi Gabbard's deputy Joe Kent resigned in protest because he said in writing in a letter to Donald
[8:57]Trump there was no imminent threat of an attack from Iran. That's what Donald Trump wants them to say. He wants them to say that there was there was a threat. Donald Trump wants them to say that
[9:10]everything Donald Trump has said about this is correct and we agree with it. But they are boldly refusing to do that for Donald Trump in the middle of his war. They are refusing to agree with Donald
[9:23]Trump's claim that Iran was an imminent threat. Now, you can interpret congressional testimony, as I used to do professionally as the chief of staff of the Senate Finance Committee, by what a cabinet member or administration official says, or just as clearly by what
[9:38]they don't say. And so the screaming headline of both threat assessment hearings two days in a row should be Trump's director of national intelligence and Trump's CIA director do not
[9:50]say Iran was an imminent threat. That's it. That's what has happened in these hearings two days in a row. They could easily have said it and they don't say it. But in full cowardly mode, they are afraid
[10:06]of telling the truth. the truth that they know, which is that there was no imminent threat. And it has left Tulsi Gabbard lying repeatedly about what her actual job is. Did you or the IC make any
[10:26]assessments as to the timing of potential threats facing the United States from Iran in the last 90 days? Uh I'm sure there was uh timelines factored into the intelligence assessments that were that
[10:41]were delivered. Did any of them show imminence? Uh the imminent nature of a threat is provid is is determined by the president based on a totality of the intelligence and information provided to him. Did any of them show that there were attacks anticipated within the next 90 days from Iran?
[10:59]It's too simplistic of a statement to say that because it depends on various scenarios occurring or not occurring. Did those assessments show timelines for the threats that Iran posed to the United States? The totality of threats? Yes, there were timelines involved,
[11:16]where it applied and where that information was available. But again to your question about the determination of imminence, the president makes that determination based on the totality of information and intelligence. The bottom line is there is no imminent threat and you know that and
[11:30]there's no product that shows that she's lying. It's the only way she can handle the situation by repeatedly lying. The way it is supposed to work with a real director of national intelligence is
[11:44]the president decides what to do only after hearing the threat assessment described by the director of national intelligence. It seems the IC was entirely correct in its assessment
[12:00]about Iranian retaliation in the strait. Did the IC's assessment about Iranian capabilities in the Straits of Hormuse change in the past year? No, Congressman, does Iran still have the capability
[12:13]to threaten shipping in the Straits of Harm Hormuz with missiles, mines, and small boats? Uh, their capabilities have been largely degraded, but yes, they still have means to threaten passage through
[12:25]the straight of Hormuz. And there's Tulsi Gabbard again just saying Donald Trump was just lying when he said this on Monday. Why can't the US just immediately reopen the street of Hormuz? Well,
[12:42]we could, but it takes two to tango. We have to get people to take their billion dollar ship and and you know drive it up. No, that's not it. You cannot open the straits of Hermoose and you have
[12:59]not Donald Trump. Donald Trump does not have the military power to do that. And Telsey Gabbard said that today. She said Donald Trump is lying when he says they could just immediately open the Straight
[13:11]of Hermoose. Tulsi Gabbard today said Iran still has the means to threaten passage through the Straight of Hermoose. Congressman Jimmy Gomez ended up asking Trump's director of national
[13:26]intelligence and CIA director why they even have a job. If the president can determine and ignore what you're doing, why do you guys even have a job? Why are you even like why do you even advise
[13:40]him? So you're saying tomorrow the president of the United States can say China is an imminent threat and then he can take his own no matter what the intelligence says he can take his own action.
[13:52]So that's what you're basically saying. Okay, let's go on. Director Gabbard, you said that North Korea has intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the homeland. Yet the defense
[14:05]department said that Iran was at least 10 years away from achieving an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the homeland. Which one is a more serious threat, North Korea or Iran?
[14:21]These threats are taken within the context of the of the uh in total body of intelligence reporting. So So that's it should be and that's my that's my point. It's not just about having the capability of building a weapon. It's if they can actually
[14:39]deliver that weapon. If they can they they have the intention of doing that. How many weeks away are they? I haven't like we haven't we haven't heard that there were weeks away. We haven't
[14:54]heard that there are months away. We're like but that's what we're waiting for. imminent to me means is that they're they're mobilizing troops. They're moving things into position, artillery,
[15:07]they're they're getting getting ready to attack. But everything that we've heard is that this is not the case. Gentleman's time is expired and the gentleman's time is now being extended. Leading
[15:21]off our discussion tonight is Congressman Jimmy Gomez of California. He's a member of the House Intelligence Committee, also a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. Congressman, thank you very much uh for joining us tonight and uh thank you for uh wrestling with those witnesses who I
[15:38]couldn't tell I I I came out of it having no idea what they think their job description is anymore. Yeah. No, it's the most bizarre thing I ever heard that tell She's the director of national
[15:52]intelligence. She's supposed to gather all the intelligence from all the different agencies and then present information. Intelligence that means taking all the raw data, making a case of what's going on and presenting it to the president. Is it an imminent threat? Is it um what happens if you
[16:10]actually take a certain course of action? Um this is going to be the consequence. She's supposed to brief him and then based on that she's supposed to make a decision. But under her interpretation, Donald Trump could just ignore the intelligence and launch a war of choice. And that's our point
[16:27]is that he launched a war of choice against Iran, not because it was a threat to the United States in an immediate sense, but he a war of choice in order to what? uh cause regime change,
[16:43]uh degrade their military capabilities because Israel was going to attack them first and Iran was going to attack the United States. The the messaging and what the reason rationale is is all
[16:55]over the place and they're they're not doing their jobs. They're not even presenting the evidence because in the end, the president still has to justify why he went to war. And we base that off the intelligence reports that he is provided by who? The director of national intelligence,
[17:12]the CIA director, the NSA. Keep going on and on and on. But he refuses and they refuse to present the American people with the facts of why they actually went to war with Iran in the first place.
[17:26]Why do you think Tulsi Gabbard didn't just say I agree with the president's assessment that it's an imminent threat? Because she knows it would be lying and then she would be fired at the
[17:41]same time. Remember, let's look at back at any case that anybody t uh said something different when it comes to Donald Trump's narrative of any particular issue. When it came to train the AWA
[17:53]and that Muro was directing them, an intelligence analyst said, "No, that's no uh that's not true. There's no evidence." What happened to that person? They got fired. Then there was a report about Midnight Hammer that went after the nuclear facilities and Trump said it was obliterated.
[18:09]Well, the uh individual said no, it was only set back a few few weeks or a few months. Um then they asked him to go back. He went back. Same report. What happened to that person? They got fired. And
[18:22]then when they don't get fired and say they resign on their own, all of a sudden they're getting investigated by the DOJ. So, she doesn't want to get on the wrong side of Trump because she she knows she'll get fired or she might end up being investigated for the DOJ of rel uh uh releasing
[18:38]probably some intelligence that shouldn't have been released. So, we know that she's just scared just like the rest of them. And that makes us all less safe cuz if if they can't call it the way they see it, the way the intelligence um backs up a particular point of view or what is possible,
[18:57]what can happen, then they start all of a sudden they start withholding information um that should get to the commander-in-chief of the president of the United States. And what happens after that that all of a sudden we end up in a quagmire like Iran or something uh Iraq or Afghanistan. and you
[19:13]end up in a big giant mess. So, he's he has a chill on the entire uh intelligence community. They're not willing to speak up because they know that if they do, they're they're going to lose their job or worse. Congressman Jimmy Gomez, thank you very much for starting off our coverage
[19:30]tonight. Thank you for having me. Coming up, America first heard the name Darren Indk on this program and today he testified under subpoena to the House Oversight Committee about his work
[19:47]as one of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys. Congressman Roana was in the room today and will join us next. Attorney Darren Indk testified to the House Oversight Committee about his former client
[20:06]Jeffrey Epstein today because on July 23rd of last year, attorney Bradley Edwards, who has represented hundreds of Epstein survivors, said this mentioning his name on this program.
[20:23]I have numerous clients who know of the authenticity and the existence of the birthday book. Of course, it was a birthday book that was given to Jeffrey Epstein on his 50th birthday by Gilin Maxwell. Jeffrey Epstein's dead. He has an estate. Everybody who's knows anything about the
[20:39]story knows that that knows the estate exists and it's being governed by the two executives. Darren Indk, Jeffrey Epste's former attorney, Richard Khan, Jeffrey Epste's former accountant. Those are the two executives. If somebody simply called them on the phone and said,
[20:54]"Give us the book." They would probably give you the book. Congressman Roano was the next guest on this program that night. He was paying attention. He took Bradley Edwards suggestion about issuing a subpoena to the Epstein estate to the oversight committee. And that is how the oversight committee
[21:10]got the birthday book that revealed Donald Trump's signature on a birthday note to Jeffrey Epstein that included a drawing of a naked woman and the words, "May every day be another wonderful
[21:24]secret." In his publicly released opening statement to the committee today, Darren Indk said, "Let me be clear. I had no knowledge whatsoever of Jeffrey Epstein's wrongdoings." Darren Indk pointed out that as a co-executive of the Epstein estate, he has awarded $169 million
[21:41]in claims to 195 women and expects to authorize a total of quote more than $200 million to women who assert they were abused or trafficked by Mr. Epstein. Darren Indkike told the committee, "Not a
[21:55]single woman has ever accused me of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse, nor claimed at any time that she or anyone else reported to me any allegation of Mr. Epstein's abuse. Had I known that he was abusing or trafficking women, I would have quit working for
[22:12]him at once and severed all ties to him." After Darren Indk completed his under oath deposition, Southern California Congressman Dave Men said this. I have to say I'm very surprised that
[22:27]he did not take the fifth amendment. I think it's very likely he perjured himself over and over and over again. Uh and just to give you a few examples, I'm not going to go into detail, but um you know, he he claimed, and I think this is in the statement you all received,
[22:39]uh that he had no knowledge of any women or girls. And yet how that doesn't account for the fact uh that numerous women have described how he helped them fix their problems. Uh one one woman had described how she had helped he had helped her get an apartment. Uh they he helped women with
[22:54]their immigration issues. Uh he reportedly told a number of women not to talk to police when the police started investigating Epstein. Uh it's just not credible to claim that you had no knowledge of what was happening. Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Roano of California, a member of the
[23:09]House Oversight Committee. Congressman Connor, what did you make of the testimony today? Well, first of all, Lawrence, I appreciate the monologue because it can't be said enough that if you didn't have Bradley Edwards on that show, we would have no indike deposition. We would have none of these
[23:26]depositions and oversight that triggered the entire oversight uh investigation and we wouldn't have gotten the release of the Epstein files because the only reason we had the survivors on the Capitol is because Bradley Edwards was on your show. And I just want to always say that.
[23:42]But look, Indike, he gave us some information. The biggest information he gave us is that there were private investigators who have apparently hard drives with uh Epstein's information on there. And
[23:54]he said that some of the messages were encrypted that Epstein used. So we will be pursuing the uh getting these hard drives because that could really be explosive what's on those hard drives. He though just was not uh honest. I mean, he said that he was withdrawing all of
[24:11]this cash in $7,500 increments. Who does that? And that somehow it wasn't used to pay some of the women that Epstein allegedly was abusing. That's just not plausible. And as David M said,
[24:23]his uh testimony that he didn't know what Epstein was doing for decades is not plausible. He uh in his written statement he said he started working for him in 1996 and then after Jeffrey Epstein plead guilty uh to uh soliciting prostitution from a minor he believed that Jeffrey
[24:43]Epstein uh was basically sorrowful about that and would never do it again. Was that credible? It was not credible. The idea that he was withdrawing money and paying these uh women who were at baby
[25:01]allegedly girls uh just shows that he knew what was going on. The fact that he was with Epstein for decades shows that he was going on. And I am too am surprised that he didn't plead the fifth amendment because he's in a world of trouble. But you know what upsets uh the American people with
[25:17]so many folks is the cover up. the idea that we don't have people telling the truth about their involvement uh or the involvement of other men. And what is infuriating is that Pam Bondi
[25:30]isn't investigating this. How is it just that the oversight committee is investigating it? Why is there not an investigation into Indos prosecution? That is really the two tiers of
[25:42]justice that we have in this country. Congressman Roana, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you. And coming up, one of Donald Trump's federal prosecutors literally got kicked out of
[25:56]a courtroom. Something that has probably never happened to a federal prosecutor in history. Senator Sheldon White House, a former federal prosecutor, will join us next.
[26:12]In a few hundred years of American juristp prudence, including in colonial times, there are very few people who have ever seen a lawyer ejected from a courtroom. You can spend your entire life working in courtrooms and never see that happen. And it is entirely possible,
[26:29]indeed very likely, that no federal prosecutor has ever been ejected from a courtroom until now. until one of Donald Trump's federal prosecutors did something that was absolutely unthinkable
[26:41]in a federal courtroom. Until Trump, the New York Times reports a federal judge threw a top prosecutor from the New Jersey US Attorney's Office out of his courtroom during a sentencing hearing this week and demanded that the officer's leadership testify about who had authority over
[26:58]their actions. When the federal judge was questioning the assigned prosecutor in the case over whether Donald Trump's illegally appointed former US attorney in New Jersey, Alina Haba, was still involved in the case. another attorney in the office, Mark Coin,
[27:14]who had not legally filed an appearance in the case and therefore according to the rules of the court were not was not allowed to speak in the courtroom just like everyone else who was not
[27:26]a lawyer with an appearance in that case. That lawyer actually shouted a response to the judge from what was supposed to be his silent position in the courtroom as an observer. When the judge
[27:40]asked if Alina Haba was really running things in the US attorney's office and the attorney handling the case wasn't exactly sure what to say, Mark Coin shouted out, "She's not." The judge,
[27:52]having already ordered Mark Coin not to speak, then had him thrown out of the courtroom. One of the most amazing pages of court transcript I have ever read, goes this way. After attorney Daniel Rosenblum told the judge that he was not aware of Alina Haba having anything to do with
[28:11]the case. The court? None that you're aware of. Mr. Rosenlum? None. The court. All right. So, she could be operating the office. Mr. Coin. She is not. Mr. Rosenblum. She's not. Mr. Coin. She is not. The court. Sit down. Mr. Coin. If you speak again, I'm going to have you removed. I already
[28:28]told you not to speak. Mr. Coin. Your honor. The court. Sit down. Mr. Coin, if the court sit down. Mr. Coin, if a notice of appeal, the court sit down. Mr. Coin is entered. The court I'm directing
[28:41]the court security officers to remove Mr. Coin. Mr. Coin, I told you not to address this court. You didn't file a notice of appeal. You don't get to blindside this court. Kindly, I'm going to ask
[28:53]you to leave or I'll have you removed. Only in the madness of the Trump Justice Department could that happen. Today, Donald Trump, by far the stupidest litigant in Washington history, confirmed what
[29:08]a federal judge said about Donald Trump's attempted criminal investigation of the Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Well, he's under investigation because he's building a building for hundreds of billions of dollars more than it's supposed to cost. The building you see over there
[29:24]is under budget and ahead of schedule. That's the ballroom. The ballroom is a much bigger building. He should be lowering rates immediately. But he he won't do that because he's he's a stubborn,
[29:37]incompetent person. And that's a bad thing. You know, when you're stubborn and incompetent, I think it's the worst combination. Stubborn and incompetent. The worst combination. That's right, Donald. It is. Last week, in a scathing decision, federal judge James Boseberg wrote,
[29:53]"The words and actions of the president and others in the executive branch make it clear that the United States Attorney's Office issued these subpoenas with the dominant, if not sole, intent to harass, intimidate the Federal Reserve and Chair Jerome Powell in order
[30:08]to allow the president to dictate the Federal Reserve setting of monetary policy. The amount of evidence suggests that the government served these subpoenas on the board to pressure its chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning. On the other side of the scale, the
[30:22]government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime. Indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the court can only conclude that they are pretextual. And today, Axios reports former FBI director James Comey has been subpoenaed in the
[30:39]wide-ranging quote grand conspiracy case against the ex officials who investigated and prosecuted President Trump. Two sources with knowledge of the situation, Tel Axios. MS now confirms
[30:52]that report and adds that the subpoena is for documents only, not James Comey's testimony. The previous Trump Justice Department case against James Comey was thrown out after a federal judge disqualified former Trump fake US attorney for the eastern eastern Virginia Lindseay
[31:10]Halagan. But Axios notes that this time the Trump Justice Department's Comey investigation is being overseen by Donald Trump's favorite federal judge in Florida, US District Judge Aen Cannon, a Trump
[31:24]judge who threw out the 2023 federal prosecution against him in his classified documents case. She is overseeing the grand jury in Fort Pierce in s Southern District of Florida. Joining us
[31:37]now is Democratic Senator Sheldon White House of Rhode Island. is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. Uh, Senator, have you ever seen a federal prosecutor thrown out of a courtroom? No, sir. That has never happened indeed. Decades of hard work by honest
[31:53]prosecutors have built the goodwill and confidence of the court in the US Department of Justice so that it now enjoys the presumption of regularity is the phrase. So when it's gotten this far,
[32:09]it shows that in that New Jersey court, the United States Department of Justice, this MAGA DOJ has completely destroyed its own credibility. In fact, the judge went on to say, "You have no credibility
[32:23]in this court to the entire office. Your office has no credibility with the bar, in the state, with the country." So it was a dressing down that is really unheard of in the history of the
[32:36]department. And when you look at the background, you remember Alina Haba was President Trump's personal lawyer. He appointed her illegally as US attorney. A defendant said, "Hey, wait a minute. This indictment that is signed by a person that isn't legally appointed, you can't indict me over
[32:52]this." So the court had to rule on whether or not Alina Haba was legit as US attorney and it threw her out. So she retreated back to be some kind of special assistant to the MAGA attorney general uh
[33:05]Bondi. And now the feeling is that she's still running that office through a triumvirate the judge's word of staff people who nobody can accuse of being the US attorney because there are three
[33:18]of them. But the court threw out that as well. And so now you have the situation in New Jersey and also in a few other jurisdictions of a US attorney's office with no legally appointed US
[33:31]attorney. And the judges are going to have to figure out what can that office now do? Can it not return an indictment? Can it not file charges? Can it not even file a pleading because there is no law lawful US attorney to have their name put on the pleading. It is unprecedented what
[33:49]happened in the courtroom. It is unprecedented what is happening in these US attorney's offices. And it's grotesque. Equal parts gangster and gong show. Yeah. And and it jeopardizes any
[34:02]possible prosecutions going on there that could be legitimate prosecutions. Yeah. Absolutely. If a US attorney's office cannot file a pleading because all of its pleadings must be signed by or in the
[34:15]name of a legitimately appointed US attorney, it grinds the office to a stop. and real cases, legit cases that are going forward where you have real defendants and real victims who want to see
[34:27]justice. All that gets stopped because this Department of Justice is too incompetent and too stubborn to actually get a properly appointed US attorney in place or when they can't allow the
[34:42]court to appoint one. Senator Sheldon White House, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you. Coming up, the winner of the Democratic primary for Senate in Illinois,
[34:55]Juliana Stratton, will join us, and you will hear just how angry some voters are about Donald Trump in their own words, some of which will have to be bleeped on this network. That's next.
[35:12]Here's an ad for the candidate who won the Democratic primary for United States Senate in Illinois this week. [ __ ] Trump. Vote Juliana. Trump. Vote Juliana. [ __ ] Trump. Vote Juliana. They said it,
[35:31]not me. I'm Juliana Stratton and I'm proud to have lived my whole life on the south side of Chicago. I'm not scared of a wannabe dictator. I'm running for Senate to stand up to Donald Trump. I'll abolish ICE and hold Trump accountable for the crimes he's committed. Just like they said, Trump,
[35:50]vote Juliana. That's why I approved this message. Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton won the Democratic nomination for Senate in Illinois on Tuesday night. And it's not just her Democratic
[36:03]supporters who are angry with Donald Trump, as Jonathan Allen found out at a gas station with skyrocketing gas prices in Pennsylvania this week when he spoke to Amanda Robbins. If you could say
[36:16]something to President Trump and he was going to hear you right now, what would it be? You are a worthless pile of And you voted for him how many times? Three times. That was my bad. Apparently,
[36:30]I'm an idiot. And MS Now's Alex Tavet spoke to a Florida voter just a few miles from Donald Trump's residence. It's crazy. It's I mean, the prices are already up from tariffs. Now,
[36:46]the prices are going up again because of gas prices. Uh you know, you can't deliver something without spending money. So, it's just it's it's all wrong. There's nothing right about it.
[37:00]In her victory speech Tuesday night, Lieutenant Governor Stratton said this. As we turn to face a Republican opponent in the general election, we will confront new challenges and new attacks
[37:14]from a candidate unfit to stand up to Donald Trump. We will fight for Medicare for all. We will fight to abolish ICE.
[37:37]We'll fight for a real living wage, not just the bare minimum. We'll fight to defend our rights and claw our democracy back from the brink.
[37:52]So tonight, let's celebrate. Tomorrow, the work begins again. Joining us now is Illinois's Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton. She is now the Democratic nominee for Senate in Illinois.
[38:10]Thank you very much for joining us tonight. As you sit here tonight, what do you think you will be talking about in the final week of this campaign in November? What do you think will be the driving
[38:22]issue then? Well, the driving issue will be the same issues that I've been talking about over the past uh 11 months on the primary campaign trail. Uh we're still going to be talking about
[38:36]the fact that we have a president who's not making decisions in the best interest of of Illinoisans or the American people at large. A president who is a wannabe dictator and we need real fighters to stand up against him. And I think that not only in the Democratic primary, but as we just saw from
[38:53]some of the uh interviews that you just showed, people all across this country are realizing that uh this is a president who's not a normal president. He's not even a normal person, and we need to stand up against him, and that's exactly what I'm going to do. He is now a wartime
[39:11]president. He wasn't a wartime president when your campaign began. Uh but he is now. uh and they're going to be asking for another $200 billion uh for Donald Trump's new war. What
[39:24]would you what would your response to that be in the Senate? Well, I've made it very clear that I would not support any supplemental funding for a war that uh this president has not given any
[39:36]justification for and it's not something that the American people have asked for. What I hear people talking about as I've been on the campaign trail is that they want access to a doctor when they need one. They want to make sure that they can feed their families and have a livable
[39:51]wage. And that's why those are the issues that I'm talking about. Uh this president needs we need to see real checks and balances against this president. And that's why when I talk about going toe-to-toe with Donald Trump, I want to go to Washington to be a check. We're not seeing it,
[40:06]of course, from our Supreme Court that's really rubber stamping his authoritarian agenda and uh we, you know, we've seen Congress has failed to ra reign him in. So, we need to make sure that we're standing up and holding this president accountable. Your position on abolishing ICE,
[40:22]was that formed as a result of the ICE invasion of Chicago, one of the first cities where Donald Trump sent his invasion forces? Yes. I mean, we saw firsthand with the Operation Midway
[40:35]Blitz where Donald Trump said he was going to go after the worst of the worst, quote unquote, and uh what we saw was tamale vendors and daycare providers, uh federal agents going into schools
[40:48]and houses of worship and uh snatching people off the streets, stuffing them into unmarked vehicles with no due process, no warrants. And what I've always said is this wasn't about public safety. It wasn't even really about immigration. This was a a president, a wannabe dictator who was trying
[41:07]to normalize the presence of the military on American soil. I've called to abolish ICE because I don't believe this agency can now be reformed. And we need to really kind of look at a whole different system that really does help people get to a legal path of uh a path to
[41:24]legal immigration. But this isn't it. This is an effort to criminalize our immigrant neighbors. and uh we need to do a whole revamp. Juliana Stratton, now the Democratic nominee for Senate in Illinois.
[41:38]Thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you for having me. We'll be right back. Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton, now the Democratic nominee for United States Senate in Illinois, gets tonight's last word.