The Beat With Ari Melber 6/3/26 | 🅼🆂🅽🅱️🅲 Breaking News Today June 3, 2026

Added: 2026-06-03

[00:00:00]He joins me in a moment. I do want to share the context for these elections.

[00:00:03]There are fears across the Republican party that Donald Trump is not only going to be held accountable for what he's done for policy failures for an open-ended war for high prices, but also for really gaffs of choice, damaging the Republican party and its brand at a vulnerable time with scandals, vandy projects, blunders, odd statements, late night out of touch tweeting, and a a real rejection of people's concerns about this economy. The big story this week as well in Washington, but one that's resonated across police and military households was Donald Trump's very controversial idea to siphon your taxpayer dollars and give it to defendants and convicts and even potentially people who'd attack police.

[00:00:45]Now the administration is trying to retreat to back away from that over billion dollar fund which could pay all kinds of people. As we've reported, it's already paused in court. It may be a situation where they know they're losing and want to get out from under it. It's also not a story that is over yet. We've told you we will cover these types of controversies without fear or favor. We will tell you what the law is. I've told you from the jump that much of this program is unprecedented and likely unlawful, but that has to be tested in court. Right now, it's merely paused.

[00:01:15]And so whether this is a game where they're trying to back down from it during voting and a period of of pressure or whether they're really going to drop the whole thing is an open question. Indeed, in our democracy, sometimes it depends on what happens, what you do, what the public says, the reaction, the pressure. I can tell you that the acting DOJ, Chief Blanch, was before lawmakers today who have in both parties been very upset, concerned, even described as quote pissed or angry about this proposal, this program. Now, he was saying the administration will basically, in his view, not go forward with most parts of the fund. But we're not just taking his word for it. and there hasn't been a a formal disillusion of the program. Trump also doubling down on these so-called revenge politics, basically trying to do the very lawfare he said he wouldn't do and put more partisan warriors in positions that could endanger you and our national security because instead of having competent veterans or intelligence professionals, he now has what is considered one of his sort of most extreme unqualified individuals with no intelligence credentials whatsoever appointed to lead and be acting director of national intel.

[00:02:25]In other words, someone who probably could not get a entry-level job in intelligence at that organization, at that part of the federal government has been put into lead. And if it's not for his credentials, what's it for? Well, we have reporting on that. It's for the partisan brawling. Other top MAGA voices who failed to push Trump to get back focused on the things that would actually potentially help him hold on to Congress, they are now saying it's probably too late. It's going to be a Republican midterms wipeout.

[00:02:57]Now, as with all predictions, whether you like the sound of them or not, these are predictions. It's still important that everyone make up their own mind and go vote. And I I like to remind you of that, especially on a night like tonight where people in some parts of the country are still voting. Uh, and these are primaries, not the midterms yet. But with that in mind, people who've been around politics a lot, who have been sympathetic to Trump and the MAGA movement, like Megan Kelly saying this, >> we assume we're going to lose the house on team GOP and but now more and more political pundits are predicting that the Republicans are going to lose the Senate. So all the math is bad. We don't have the cards to play. It's already a quagmire.

[00:03:39]That's just some of what passes for like the baseline. That's like the premise of how it's looking among people who aren't saying that because they are, you know, rooting for Republicans to lose. Megan Kelly, Fox News vet, very supportive of Trump for years, although she's been back and forth in those issues at times like some other Republicans. But she's saying that as a kind of a concern or a warning, and that's just in that sort of conservative space. Democrats, meanwhile, have seized on not only the macro factors, the economy, the open-ended war, which remember Trump promised would have been over by now. It ain't over. And they're using a lot of Trump's words against him in new attack ads.

[00:04:19]>> Gas.

[00:04:20]>> I don't think about Americans financial situation.

[00:04:23]>> Groceries.

[00:04:24]>> I don't think about Americans financial situation.

[00:04:27]>> Utilities.

[00:04:28]>> I don't think about Americans financial situation. Trump's agenda is making everything more expensive.

[00:04:36]>> That's the cost of living. That is recent remarks from the president where he doesn't even pretend to say, "Hey, I feel your pain. I'm with you. I'm thinking about you. We're all going through this together." No, he says, "I don't care." I want to bring in James Carville. We've got a slew of issues to talk about. But first, James, uh, your view on the elections, these primaries that are unfolding right now. What are you watching? What are you thinking?

[00:04:59]Well, what I'm watching and hoping for is that Democrats elect the most electable general election candidate.

[00:05:06]And you know that that's a question that somebody's going to have to ask themselves. But in terms of like winning the House and the Senate, I'm reminded what Yogi Bar said. He is dead at the present time. But at the present time, we would win. But unlike being dead, you can change. And the only way that we can change this is by nominating unelectable people. And that's always a I lost you maybe for a second, but I got you back and I'm going to play. Here was Ted Cruz just today.

[00:05:47]>> Do you think that that will hold in the midterms? meaning that the idea of national security, which I think is where you would argue >> versus whatever you think the implication is for inflation, for the price of gas.

[00:06:02]>> I don't think it's going to impact the midterms materially. I've seen no data that suggests that this is having a big impact on on the midterms.

[00:06:12]>> He hasn't seen it. Uh what's he saying?

[00:06:15]Do you buy it?

[00:06:18]>> No, I don't buy it. Of course I don't buy it. Neither does anybody else buy it. You know Moody's which is a pretty high class outfit estimated that his stupid war has cost the average American household already 750.

[00:06:33]And we're going to say when people are strapped and and kind of living paycheck to paycheck that he doesn't see any evidence that this is having any effect when every congressional is not a congressional generic scene where the Democrats are not really up. I I look I Senator Cruz is a very educated man. He knows better than this. I don't think he'd be ashamed of himself, but he know he knows he's not telling the truth. And people watching that, of course, this impacts people's views. If you don't think it does, ask Kla Harris.

[00:07:02]>> No doubt about it.

[00:07:02]>> You know, they Yeah. And we see this when when they say, "Oh, well, the classic political fables, you know, the emperor has no clothes." And in the beginning of the fable, everyone's going along with it. That's what the story is about. You almost get the feeling that Trump says none of this matters. Uh which a lot of people say is like being naked intellectually, politically to what's actually going on. And so then Cruz is is is sort of trying to sound like and look like the emperor. Oh, this is what they're all going to do now.

[00:07:31]They're going to say this as if Trump has the right message. Of course, as you know, and I think our viewers know because they follow politics closely, not everyone thinks about it. Remembers that Trump's not on the ballot. uh he may not care because he doesn't care whether other House Republicans who've tried to back him up every which way whether they lose their seats. So that's part of that message. Whether that works, I want to play for your response.

[00:07:54]What we put what we have together here, which is how often Trump is is is adopting that line that Cruz is echoing.

[00:08:00]Take a look.

[00:08:04]As the president said, I don't care if they're over. Honestly, I really don't care. I couldn't care less. If they're over, they're over. If they're not, you know, I think they took too much time.

[00:08:14]Frankly, I think they started to get a little boring.

[00:08:17]>> I don't think about American financial situation. I don't think about anybody.

[00:08:22]>> President Trump meeting with cabinet members at the White House, claiming he doesn't care about the midterms when it comes to Iran.

[00:08:29]>> I don't care about the midterms.

[00:08:32]James.

[00:08:37]>> Well, you know, if I were a Republican House member, Senate member, I' I'd be pretty like he doesn't care. What does that mean? It's a new message. I've never in all my years in politics, I've never heard the leader of a political party say, "I don't care if we win the election. That matters nothing to me."

[00:08:53]And maybe he is so self-absorbed that that's true, >> right? that he's blurting the truth and they might be talking about it the day after the November elections. Again, I don't like to get ahead of it. Um, but if he says, "I don't care." And does all these things that really show that he doesn't care. Uh, and what these people, I mean, you know, you've consulted for these candidates. Some of them spend decades trying to get these jobs that they might lose for really avoidable reasons. No.

[00:09:24]>> Yeah. And, you know, political party had he he doesn't care. He he what accomplishments he has. They're very meek. I'm trying to give give me a couple of weeks and I can come up with something. But this it's very unique that a a president would say I don't care. And you know the the other thing is something is wrong here. This guy goes to Walter Reed more than I go to the bathroom. I mean there something is there's something here that's just not adding up. And I'm not sure that we know what it is, but I suspect at some point we we will know. And can you imagine when we have troops and we have a dangerous situation that he's bored by it. But tell you who's not bored, people on the Gerald R4 that were like deployed for nine months. They I guarantee you they're not bored. I guarantee you the pilots that are flying these missions, the ships that are guarding these things, they're not bored at all. Th this is amazing that you'd say I'm bored about the United States's position when we have troops some way. I just I can't that it's it's almost impossible to digest.

[00:10:32]>> There's just not anymore.

[00:10:36]>> Well, you you're our reality check when you said it. You said it very clearly.

[00:10:40]You've never seen a leader of political party say, "I don't care whether we win or lose." I mean, that that tells you something about where he's at and that he's not even willing or able uh to pretend otherwise the way one might if they if they had the an iota of care.

[00:10:55]And the final question I have to you tonight because again, I don't think we should normalize this stuff. um and and longtime beat viewers, if they go back a few years, they'll remember James Carville came on here and said he was concerned that then President Biden um was operating in a manner where he might be too old for the next campaign. And you caught heck from your own party for that and you said it on this program more than once. Uh, and so if anyone has been around the block on this and and cannot be assailed for having a political angle, ironically, it might be you, a political pro James Carville, when I ask you about something that is not normal America. The president of the United States went up late at night and wrote 47 posts, reposts or comments in a span of 30 minutes. Uh, which breaks his prior record of 52 in 6 hours. And these are jokes. Some of them are hateful, some of them misleading, some of them are from AI. None of them show any sort of forethought about the mighty power and platform and reach that he has. Uh some of them were, of course, as usual, fan-made tributes, which seems to draw his attention, whether they're made in this country or by some foreign influence campaign. He doesn't use the available resources to have the government check. He just posts willy-nilly. Uh is this something that should concern Americans beyond the so-called optics about what's actually going on in his mind state right now?

[00:12:16]Well, if you're not concerned by now, I don't think a 47 tweet night or whatever he does is going to concern you. If you've looked at, you know, the the the White House has become a crime syndicate. I mean, look at reading the paper, look at the the number traded in in the defense industry on wars. I mean, it you if you are not turned off by all of this, then there's something you're just never going to be. And the but the good news is 65% of the country is turned off by it. And I don't know if we can get any more than that. And I you know I never the guy lies all the time.

[00:12:51]I never think he's telling the truth. He may not care. He may be just that self-absorbed that what do I care? I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I I don't know. But it is really really unique. And again if I were Republican Congress senator I would be asking myself what am I doing?

[00:13:10]I've worked all of my life to get here.

[00:13:12]I've supported this guy. I've taken every stupid vote that he asked me to take and now I'm walking the plank and he doesn't care. He's going to shove me off the end of it. Okay, that's fine. I mean, but you should have known that before you got involved with it.

[00:13:27]>> Yeah. Wild. Uh, all fair points on primary night. I got reporters standing by in the field, so I'm going to bring them in. James Carville, thank you. We love seeing you. Appreciate all your perspective. Jacob Soberof uh is at a polling center in LA which is one of the most pivotal places we've seen with the California governor's race among others.

[00:13:45]Uh Jacob take it away.

[00:13:48]>> The biggest election jurisdiction uh in the nation, Los Angeles County, Ari Melber. And uh since I was on the air last with our friend and colleague Nicole Wallace, the line has grown from just a couple of people, let me just show you the end here. Sam, let's just walk around the corner real quick to stretching around the corner here at Grand Avenue and Fifth Street in downtown Los Angeles. Um, people are fired up and they're excited about this primary election day uh here in Los Angeles and in California. We're picking a governor obviously in the state to succeed succeeded Gavin Newsome. But we're also picking a mayor here in Los Angeles, Karen Bass, the incumbent is facing a challenge both from uh and I'm sorry I left the the reality star Spencer Pratt and Nia Ramen, city council person here in Los Angeles. I was just talking to you um as I passed by a minute ago. You said you're a pickle ball coach at the YMCA here in downtown, right? What's your name?

[00:14:33]>> I'm from downtown YMCA. My name is Motown.

[00:14:35]>> And so you decided to come on over and vote today. We have a mayor's race and a governor's race. Correct me if I'm wrong. You said Javier Bera, the former secretary of health and human services uh for governor and Nitia Ramen for mayor of Los Angeles.

[00:14:48]>> What's on your agenda today? What brings you out to vote?

[00:14:51]>> Honestly, I was going to mail in vote, but I kind of messed up my mailing vote um card, so I decided I'm just going to come out in person.

[00:14:59]>> What are the issues that I mean that's the that's the uh the procedure. But what about actually in practice the policies? What are the things that you're thinking about that got you out to vote today?

[00:15:08]>> You know, the homeless situation is a crisis that just keeps on um not getting better. It is and I was going to vote for the previous mayor, but my partner brought some things to my attention and I like what um Nithia has to offer and and I started to pay attention to her a little bit more and I'm like, "Yeah, we should."

[00:15:27]>> In this governor's race, Gavin Newsome has really been a foil for President Trump. I was saying to my colleague Nicole Wallace in the last hour here on MS Now, those ICE raids that played out a year ago were right here on the streets of downtown Los Angeles and Gavin Newsome was here. Uh the mayor was standing up against him. What are you looking for in a governor of California, the fourth largest economy in the world when Donald Trump is in the White House?

[00:15:47]>> I'm looking for a governor that's going to speak out against Trump, that's going to put his foot down, that's going to go against all these inhumane ICE raids that are that are happening. It it it shouldn't be happening and someone has to put a stop to it immediately.

[00:16:02]>> And then just uh on the YMCA pickle ball thing, can anyone show up and play pickle ball at the Y down?

[00:16:06]>> Anybody can show up. You can get a guest pass. I'm the coach. We got a great community. Come in, have fun, learn pickle ball, be a part of our community.

[00:16:14]>> I don't know if Ari member's a big pickle ball guy, but it's really nice to meet you, Ari. That's just the voice of one voter here, but um as I walk back and I just show you all the way inside, it's uh it's going to be an exciting election night here in Los Angeles and throughout California. and we'll all be a part of that special coverage with Rachel starting at 10 o'clock on the east coast. My friend, >> uh, Jacob, couple things. Number one, you're going to be busy. Everyone should watch all night. We got a lot to follow.

[00:16:37]Number two, uh, respect, but pickle ball always struck me as easier tennis.

[00:16:45]>> Oh, yeah. I'm not good at either, uh, to be honest with you. So, um, that's why I was wondering about lessons.

[00:16:52]>> Well, we could all use lessons at a lot of things. Uh, Jacob, we'll be checking back in with you and keep working the lines. Uh, and and our our thanks to you. Uh, tonight I'm going to tell folks we got a lot more coming up. The official behind Trump's controversial AI, Jesus image, now wants to run US Intel, not a joke, serious issue. We have the push back. Andrew Weissman explaining what all that means, as well as legal views tonight. and the Trump acting attorney general claims that maybe they're backing down on parts of this controversial fund with money that could go to defendants, convicts. Uh but there's a lot more to the story. We have a representative. We are staying on what I've told you is one of the biggest legal controversies ever. Next 90 seconds.

[00:17:36]The other big story that has really rocked the White House and DOJ now for some time, a conflict and controversy of their own making, and one that I've told you is probably unlawful, but it requires the courts, Congress, and others these days to make sure that unlawful things don't happen. The Trump administration had put forward an unprecedented, likely unlawful system where they wanted to take over a billion dollars of your taxpayer money, not appropriated by Congress, and give it out to defendants, convicts, even potentially people who violently attacked the January 6 police officers who were defending Congress that day, which we know because they wouldn't rule that out. Now, a judge did pause it temporarily. I've reported on that along with my colleagues here, and that was already a quick setback. Now today the DOJ acting attorney general Blanch was before a key committee and this is how he puts their plans.

[00:18:32]>> We are not moving forward with the fund.

[00:18:34]Period.

[00:18:35]>> Not moving forward ever.

[00:18:36]>> Correct. Notwithstanding what we do in those litigations and and defending our rights and making sure our rights are protected. Um we're not moving forward with the fund.

[00:18:47]>> Not moving forward with the fund.

[00:18:49]Correct. That's it. If those words mean what they say that they will not seize the taxpayer dollars and use this fund to hand them out, that is a huge and formal retreat. And in other eras, of course, the news, and I'm part of it, right? A news anchor would say, "Well, he just said it to Congress. It's a crime to lie to Congress. We're going to take that as a pretty big news development." Well, these days, they lie all the time. Indeed, the New York Times has a story this week about how how the DOJ has been caught lying in court where there are sanctions. So whether Blanch really means it and this happens has to be pursued over time. As for the funds, some convicted January 6 riers and convicts and even seditionists are telling PBS that the president will find a way that there's going to be money. The whole fallout over this likely illegal plan has rocked Trump.

[00:19:41]Republicans were upset about it to the degree that they did something they don't usually do. they actually refused to help him on a vote as a first order way of saying this is bad and we might go further. Politico reported that some top leaders say that even if the fund is sort of paused right now given the track record, it's just not enough to calm the concerns. Senate Dems are trying to force a vote to block the fund formally under the force of law. that would further strengthen the challengers in court because remember judges in court have already paused this thing temporarily because they need to review whether it's even legal. If on top of that, Congress actually takes action to say we didn't appropriate this, it's not legal, well that would further strengthen the efforts to stop it in court. And we've shown you unlike some things in the MAGA era here pretty prominent members of both parties condemned this likely illegal fund plan.

[00:20:37]This is a corrupt deal. I think it's stupid on stilts. That is the definition, as Thomas Jefferson, I think, once said, of tyranny.

[00:20:46]>> It's our job in the Congress and the Senate and the House to hold the executive branch accountable.

[00:20:52]>> I don't think it's an appropriate use of money.

[00:20:54]>> What are your thoughts about this weaponization fund from the president at this point?

[00:20:58]>> Yeah, not a big fan.

[00:21:00]>> I call it a payout pot for punks. It's all about weaponizing the tax dollars of the American people to support Donald Trump's private militia.

[00:21:11]>> So that had been the immediate growing bipartisan push back. Now, if the DOJ does say the fund is over, that's the money part. It's not clear what would happen to another unsavory, conflicted, possibly also unlawful thing they're doing, which is that Trump sort of sued himself and then says the IRS and DOJ will agree with himself to never investigate him or his kids. Should the Trump administration try to go another direction to sort of bob and weave on this for a few weeks and then bring it back, you have to remember something that I want to show you tonight that we put together. There is no room under our constitutional order to have a president seize billions of dollars from you, the taxpayer, for any just madeup goal. In this case, one a lot of people oppose.

[00:21:59]But even if it were a more popular goal, and override the sacrosan, longstanding power of the purse that sits only with Congress.

[00:22:13]The Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power to decide how the government spends taxpayer money.

[00:22:19]>> It is ultimately Congress, not the executive, that has the power of the purse. The power of the purse rests with Congress.

[00:22:28]>> We can take that power of the purse through appropriations.

[00:22:30]>> If we surrender the power of the purse, which is our most important power, uh there will be little check and no balance left.

[00:22:38]>> The founders gave us that for a reason to check an out of control executive branch. If the executive had unbridled power to determine how to spend the money, we would have an imperial presidency.

[00:22:51]>> We would indeed. Those are members of both parties on multiple issues. This is a bedrock principle and this is America.

[00:22:58]If you have the money for something, you can get a lot done. And if you don't have any money for it, whether you're a random person or the government, well, that's going to slow you down. Here, they wanted to give out money to some of the worst people you can imagine legally. That's why so many of them had faced legal consequences in the past.

[00:23:14]And I'm going to bring in one of the individuals, a congressperson who was questioning Blanch just today on this newsworthy topic and discuss this bedrock limit when we return.

[00:23:28]The Trump administration has been in really active public retreat over its controversial, possibly unlawful plan to try to seize taxpayer dollars and hand them out to defendants, ex-convicts, potentially even people who attacked police. That has been temporarily paused in court while it's under review. Uh members of Congress in both parties have spoken out today. We heard from the acting attorney general that they are backing down, but the details are not clear nor certainly final. We have a very newsworthy guest right now, Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivy, who is on that key committee questioning Blanch today. Welcome.

[00:24:03]>> Thanks for having me.

[00:24:06]>> Uh, great to have you. Let's start with the news as best we can get it out of your committee and then we can also talk about the law and the ethics here. Um, but what do you understand uh Todd Blanch to have committed to today, if anything?

[00:24:21]>> Well, I mean, he made a verbal commitment to not go forward with the slush fund. Um, ironically or oddly enough, he refused to put it in writing, even though they had put the slush fund initially in writing to lay it out to start with. So, not clear on why there is such a strong u opposition to that on on his part and the administration's part, but it's a step in the right direction. The other part of this though is the other side of the equation which is the immunity agreement which never should have been slow down agreed to.

[00:24:51]>> Sure.

[00:24:52]>> Can I slow you down on and let's finish your you make a point about whether they're discontinuing the program. Then there's that immunity which whole second piece which goes to nepotism and his family. But as you say they started this as most things in government must with an actual written plan that then staff can consult and follow. And your point is that if if he were being 100% honest and this were over, you would expect them to then issue guidance or a statement, a letter of something to end or retract what is currently the written guidance inside the DOJ. So, while you say it's a step in the right direction, what else do you think Congress should do here on that point?

[00:25:27]>> Well, I mean, to to your point, you people have already announced that they want to seek uh compensation out of that fund. Um, and it's in writing that this fund will be created. Let's, you know, one of the things that could happen is somebody files to get the money. Um, and then you've got a scenario where you've got a written document on the one hand that says this fund is going to be created and on the other hand, you have a verbal statement with a guy who is the acting attorney general but not actually even the attorney general yet. And let's face it, the only word that matters in the Trump administration is Donald Trump's. So I don't think >> you know I don't think we can re be real comfortable with with that alone is the commitment from the administration to retract or rescend the document that they put out there. They put it out in writing. They should rescend it in writing.

[00:26:15]And then turning to the other part that uh independent judge and others have questioned which is how Trump could sue himself and potentially make a mockery of this whole system and then make a deal with himself. And you you mentioned that this uh claimed family immunity, the other part of the deal. What what did you want to tell us about that tonight, sir?

[00:26:35]>> Well, I think you know it's it's beyond unusual for a scenario like this. You've got the boss telling the IRS and the Department of Justice to give him an immunity agreement that shields him.

[00:26:47]I've seen estimates in the range of a hundred millions of dollars of uh liability and members of his family even though the government doesn't get anything in exchange for that which is normally the only time you give an immunity agreement like that. So um so you've got a deal where you don't actually have parties who have um the freedom to make objective and neutral decisions because Trump is one of those guys who will fire staff u or administrative officials who do something he doesn't agree with. So presumably they're going to do what he says. And as one judge hinted at, there really isn't any case for controversy here. He's suing himself basically. So I I think a I think the whole thing is illegal and and b I think they should u strike the whole thing down including the immunity agreement. He and his family members should not be immune from prosecution uh for tax fraud or any kind of tax crimes that they may have committed.

[00:27:42]>> Yeah. Uh well, Congressman, like I mentioned, you were in there today. So, I think uh just getting your readout on what it meant, what you heard, what your committee drew out from the DOJ is important. Helps us and our our viewers, we believe, understand what's going on.

[00:27:54]And you've laid out where you think the pressure is going next. So, I appreciate that, Congressman, for your time.

[00:27:58]>> Thanks. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

[00:28:01]>> Absolutely. Yes, sir. Uh still ahead, we'll go back live on the ground out this time to Iowa uh because we're trying to keep track of all the different primaries today and we'll be covering that for you on MS Now all night tonight. So get comfortable. We got a big night together. Also, Trump has a unqualified pick to be in charge of US intelligence. This is a national security crisis. Next Following a big national security story, Donald Trump is announcing that a kind of partisan warrior who has been accused of misusing government power to target Democrats and misuse information, MAGA ally Bill Py will be the new director of national intelligence. His current post is in housing. He has no apparent national security experience. If someone with his background submitted a a resume or had their LinkedIn reviewed to work in US intelligence, you wouldn't expect them to clear that early review for any job like intelligence analyst, let alone become the director. Uh he also is allegedly planning to stay in his current job. So he would do both. Now Mr. PY has been known most not for intelligence or housing policy, but rather for using critics say misusing the current role to get up dirt and cook up cases against people that Trump wants indicted, many of whom remember were not indicted in any previous context because apparently there wasn't enough evidence to do so in a lawful manner. Take New York Attorney General Leticia James or Lisa Cook who served on the Fed. PY used a kind of a hook where he had housing information to try to refer them for criminal prosecution. So he took materials that he had and made what are allegations in the news we tell you whether something's been proven or there's a lot of sources or not. These were just kind of broad-based allegations that he said people that Trump didn't like probably committed mortgage fraud. How convenient that it was only people that were on Trump's enemies list. He also reportedly was involved in aspects of the failed probe into Fed Chair Powell. So that's the background. This is still a big intelligence post that deals with national security and other countries and depending on what's going on can become more or less important if intelligence matters more. You can remember in the run-up to the Iraq war, other periods where you want a really top person working full-time and it's still a hard job. There could be an uphill battle here as well on Senate confirmation.

[00:30:43]>> Well, we don't need a weaponized DNI.

[00:30:46]Um, we need professionals there. If he's somebody that won that position permanently, he's got, as you all know, a lengthy role to have.

[00:30:54]>> My understanding is the Senate doesn't have a role in uh in confirmation of an acting director, but um would you like >> I see no evidence of any qualifications for that job.

[00:31:08]no qualifications for the job. I want to bring in Andrew Weissman, former FBI general counsel. He was also top prosecutor in the Müller probe and as a prosecutor has of course worked uh on plenty of law enforcement, national security issues where competence, independence is paramount. Um we could start in so many ways. I'm just curious if you could begin with that point. Um, is it good or bad for US national security of someone this inexperienced who seems to be there based on his last job as as a way to do a partisan war potentially illegally uh rather than the actual job.

[00:31:46]So, let's let's leave the partisan issue to the side for the moment and let's just it's relevant, but let's just focus for a moment on experience. And this is what I'd like viewers to think about.

[00:31:59]You are president of the United States.

[00:32:02]You have seen for four years the presidential daily brief day in and day out. There are serious threat streams involving people who want to harm Americans. Um involves what's happening here in the United States within uh the homeland and overseas. Obviously people can remember 911 but there have been many terrorist attacks both international terrorists and domestic terrorists. You see that every day you know that the most important thing is keeping the country safe and keeping people in this country safe. and then you decide you're going to choose somebody who has no experience whatsoever in the intelligence community and in law enforcement as far as I know.

[00:32:58]>> Um that just ask yourself who does that?

[00:33:02]Why why would you pick somebody like that? um and not somebody who is the most qualified, the most seasoned um and have their experience brought to bear to keep the country safe.

[00:33:19]>> Yeah, Mark Warner's involved in this. I want to play his reaction as well. Take a look.

[00:33:25]What appears to be his qualifications is that he was in his housing authority job was willing to take confidential information about mortgages and use that as a way to try to bring prosecutions against Lisa Cook on the Fed or Adam Schiff in Congress. Even though the very same practices of owning two homes, half the Trump cabinet has done the same.

[00:33:52]Uh that's a concern there from a top intel Democrat Semaphore reporting uh that Roger Stone who's had his share of legal troubles and we should mention you as part of the probe you all dealt with him investigated him that he and other allies u see py's attack dog mentality as a way to wage war and ramp up declassification of sensitive information. Um does that reporting concern you as well in terms of what the goal is here?

[00:34:18]Um that does Roger Stone um obviously as is his right went to trial. He had due process um but a jury uh convicted him.

[00:34:29]The the president as also he has the power to do pardoned him. But this is somebody who was convicted of multiple felonies including lying to Congress and obstructing Congress. Um, so you would think that that is not somebody who if the reporting is accurate, you would want to rely on for the person who is going to be the head of the intelligence community. Um, and so because of the lack of qualifications, it really does lead you to go to the next step, which is well, what does this person bring to the table? And it is what you've been saying and which is that it's hard to you have to look for some qualification.

[00:35:09]And the qualification appears to be that he is a hatchet man who is willing to do things for Donald Trump that are completely inappropriate. And frankly, grand juries and judges have been rejecting um the things that seem to emanate from this individual. It's notable that I don't think he is being nominated officially. In other words, you this idea that he's going to be acting, which is a way around um having a Senate hearing because you are hearing people correctly pushing back. And I have to say from my experience when I was at the FBI dealing with the intel committees, they are serious bodies in the House and in the Senate. They they see the threat streams. They see how dangerous this world is and they would understand just how irresponsible it is to be putting somebody like that in this position, >> right? And the abuse of this acting thing, running the government through temps, that's what it is. It's reducing everything to temps uh for the wrong reason. Not because, oh, there's an emergency, you need a line of succession. People understand that, but uh this trick is clearly running out of steam in Congress. And that's even before if the midterms lead to more pressure. While I have you, your new book talks about the importance of truth in our society. Uh the current administration has misused the government to press the public media uh at times in ways that may violate the first amendment. U there's quite an unusual and intense story that I want to read. It quotes Scott Py who is as old school as it gets when it comes to CBS news and the MAGA ownership's pressure on 60 Minutes which is the most watched news program in the country. Um this is from an internal meeting where Py I'm going to put this on the screen refers to that MAGA aligned ownership the Ellison's who put in Barry Weiss and says that she is quote murdering 60 Minutes. She does not love this place.

[00:37:09]He's telling this to her installed new boss and this was after they did some firings at 60 Minutes. He asserts she was brought in to kill it and she's been doing exactly that. She has no qualifications for her job. Addressing uh the New York Times vet who was a new hireer there by her, he says, "You have slender qualifications for this job. The changes that she's made at the evening news have been catastrophic.

[00:37:33]So why should we expect any of this is going to be any better?" Uh really, if anyone has ever heard P on air, you know this is for him a 10. And this is from an internal meeting. The New York Times obtained the audio that I'm reading from their reporting. Uh Mr. Bilton, the new hireer replies, "I care so deeply about this institution." Mr. P says, "Oh, please." And on it went. Um your thoughts on on that rather stunning leak uh out of uh 60 Minutes and and calling into question its future.

[00:38:05]So I I mean 60 Minutes is emblematic of the attack on the fourth estate on journalism and journalists and independent reporting. Um that is the life's blood of a democracy. Um and it is so absolutely critical. um put together what you just said with what many people who even don't follow politics on a day in and dayout basis.

[00:38:34]Um but they they are aware of what happened with Jimmy Kimmel. They're aware of what happened with Steven Colbear. Um that's it's all of a piece which is this is if you don't like the message, you kill the messenger. Um, and the same thing, this is Scott Pelly's comment about you're killing 60 Minutes, which is trying to do objective reporting. It doesn't mean you always agree with the reporting. That's what it means to be in the public eye. That's what it means to be a public official.

[00:39:05]If you can't take the heat, don't take that job. But that's what it that's what it means to do that. you you know I remember working for the FBI director, Director Mueller, and you know, we knew day in and day out that somebody was going to be unhappy with what we were doing in one way or the other, but that's part of the job and being responsible about it and knowing that those are the people you work for. Um, this is an entirely authoritarian response to what is supposed to be the fourth estate and journalism and what you do day in and day out. Ari, >> I appreciate you saying that. It's again, it's so striking and it shows the level of people that are concerned. This is this is not rhetoric. This is not a close call. Uh, and Mr. P is serious and careful with his words and he feels that this is killing the actual journalism they do. Important for the reasons you mentioned. Thank you, Andrew. A lot going on. We will be right back.