MS NOW Highlights - Nov. 24

The United States is part of something called the Five Eyes. It's five countries, the United States, the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand. The Five Eyes countries share intelligence in a relatively seamless way. This is an arrangement that originated in World War II. It continues today, and it's really, really important. Members of the Five Eyes like to describe it as the world's oldest and most significant

intelligence alliance. Literally decades of these five countries, these five like-minded nations, freely sharing intelligence with each other about everything from Soviet spies to terrorism plots to drug trafficking and everything in between. That said, it is not at all clear that the Five Eyes alliance is going to survive the Trump administration.

Quote, the United Kingdom is no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal. CNN broke the news of the U.K.'s intelligence-sharing suspension on Veterans Day this month, reporting, quote, for years, the UK, which controls a number of territories in the Caribbean where it bases intelligence assets, have helped the U.S. locate vessels suspected of carrying

drugs so that the U.S. Coast Guard could interdict them. The UK's decision marks a significant break from its closest ally and intelligence-sharing partner and underscores the growing skepticism over the legality of the U.S. military's campaign around Latin America. The skepticism is not just coming from our allies, though.

It is also coming from inside the U.S. military. The senior military lawyer at Southern Command, which is the combatant command that oversees all the attacks on fishing boats that Trump keeps doing in that region, that senior JAG officer reportedly told his superiors

that these strikes on these boats were illegal. But he was reportedly overruled and then pushed aside from the decision-making process inside that combatant command. NBC News reporting that that JAG, that military lawyer at Southern Command, quote, specifically expressed concern that strikes against people on boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern

Pacific could amount to extrajudicial killings and therefore legally expose service members involved in the operations. And if our long-standing allies are pulling out of intelligence sharing with us because they think Trump's orders on these boat strikes are illegal, and if U.S. military lawyers, senior U.S. military lawyers with expertise in the field and in the region, if they are being pushed out of their jobs for saying that Trump's orders against these boats

are illegal? Well, that might go some distance toward explaining why six members of Congress, all of them former military or intelligence officers, decided to release this video about the possibility that Trump might be giving military orders that are illegal.

We wanna speak directly to members of the military

and the intelligence community.

Those who take risks each day.

To keep Americans safe.

Like us, you all swore an oath.

To protect and defend this constitution.

Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming from abroad,

but from right here at home.

Our laws are clear.

You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders.

This video seems to have touched a nerve with President Donald Trump, who said in response that these lawmakers had committed, quote, seditious behavior, punishable by death. He's calling for sitting members of Congress to be executed for saying that U.S. service members must refuse illegal orders, which in fact is a true thing about U.S. military, U.S. service members under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Today the Pentagon said it is

investigating U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, a decorated retired Navy captain, for his part in this video. The Pentagon is saying they are reviewing, quote, serious allegations of misconduct against Senator Kelly and that he could be recalled to active duty for court-martial proceedings. Joining us now for his first TV interview since that Pentagon threat is Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, retired Navy captain, and of course, NASA astronaut.

Senator Kelly, it's an honor to have you here tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you for having me on, Rachel.

Let me first just get your response to this threat from the Defense Department, saying that they are investigating you, they may potentially recall you to active duty to face a court-martial.

Well, Rachel, I said something that was pretty simple and non-controversial, and that was that members of the military should follow the law. And in response to that, Donald Trump said I should be executed, I should be hanged, I should be prosecuted. He even went on and said something about go get them. I guess sending a mob to round me and the other folks up. So this is, I think it says a lot more about him than it says about me.

He doesn't want accountability. But, Rachel, I'm not going to be silenced. I'm not going be silenced. I'm not gonna be intimidated.

When you and your colleagues made that video, were there specific potentially illegal orders that you were thinking about that were the sort of precipitating cause for you guys to get together and do that?

Here's the thing, Rachel. You don't wanna wait for your kid to get hit by a car before you tell him to look both ways. It's pretty simple. And if you go back to 2016, Donald Trump on a debate stage talking about, you know, some action that he was going to take.

He was reminded by the moderator that that would be illegal, that the military wouldn't be able to follow those orders. And his response, Donald Trump's response was the military would not refuse my orders. And then as president, he talked about shooting people, citizens of this country in the legs, protesters. Now, thankfully, Mark Esper, Mark Milley,

explained to him that that would not be a good idea. Now he's talking about the Insurrection Act, sending troops to more cities, using U.S. cities as training grounds and U.S. citizens for training of the United States military. So, Rachel, we wanted to do something pretty simple here. We wanted to just remind folks that they need to comply with the law and be reminded and also explain to members of the military that we have their backs, that we know what's going on as part of our job, accountability over the federal government.

And this is the response we get. He told the world that we should be hanged.

I wanted to ask you about that pledge, that we have your backs. It's sort of the apex of that piece, that video that you made with your colleagues. What does that mean in practical terms? If I'm an enlisted service member somewhere, maybe I'm serving in Southern Command, maybe I'm asked to do something that I believe is illegal or that I have received advice might be illegal. If those service members are thinking about you right now as being on their side, as having

their back, what does that mean in practical terms about what that service member can do when faced with a potentially illegal order from the commander in chief and from the chain of command?

Well, Rachel, I spent 25 years in the United States Navy. I flew 39 combat missions over Iraq and Kuwait. Let me start by saying I never questioned any order. And you're required to follow all legal orders. You're also require not to follow illegal ones. And I think most people can figure out, you know, just take some common sense in what would be an illegal order. But I think it's important for people to know that they need to be able to stand up and

and speak out. And I wanted them to know that members of Congress understand that this president doesn't seem to care about the Constitution, the rule of law. And I have to say, I don't think there's anything more patriotic than standing up for the Constitution. And right here, right now, this week, the president clearly is not doing that.

Of the six Democratic lawmakers who made these statements, which have so upset the president, he's coming after you. At least he's coming after you first.

Do you have any opinion as to why he may have singled you out in this way?

I don't know. We would have to ask him that question. Could be him, could be Pete Hegseth, I don't know. You know, and I would have been really shocked if any other president, you know, did this. But when I saw that tweet today, it kind of sort of made sense. I mean, these two guys, they informed me of this in a, in a tweet, because this is not

about the law. This is about the media cycle and it's about intimidation. And it's almost the whole thing's almost comical. Like how does reciting the UCMJ, how is that, which is the uniform code of military justice. We basically repeated the uniform code of military justice. And they're saying that's in violation of the uniform code of military justice. It's absurd.

I hear you when you say that it is absurd and that it is almost comical, but also that it is intended to be intimidating. I do just have to ask you at a human level, Senator, you and your family have dealt with more than your fair share of sacrifice for this country and trial and tribulation. I just have to ask, even though I hear you when you say you're not intimidated, this must be a source of stress for you and your family.

I just have to ask the kind of impact that it's having on you and your loved ones.

Rachel, I've had a missile blow up next to my airplane. I've been shot down, nearly shot down multiple times. I've flown a rocket ship into space four times, built by the lowest bidder. And my wife, Gabby Giffords, meeting with her constituents, shot in the head.

Six people killed around her. A horrific thing. She spent six months in the hospital. We know what political violence is, and we know what causes it too. You know, the statements that Donald Trump made

is insightful, incites others. He's got millions of supporters. People listen to what he says, more so than anybody else in the country. And he should be careful with his words. But I'm not gonna be silenced here.

Is it stressful? I've been stressed by, you know, things more important than Donald Trump trying to intimidate me into shutting my mouth and not doing my job. He didn't like what I said. I'm going to show up for work every day, support the Constitution, do my job, hold this administration accountable, hold this president accountable when he when when he is out of line, that's the responsibility of every U.S. Senator and every

member of Congress. He's not going to silence us.

Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, sir, thank you so much for your time and for being here tonight to give us that response. I really appreciate it, sir.

Thank you, Rachel.

I do not want my sweet district to have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me by the president that we all fought for only to fight and win my election while Republicans will likely lose the midterms and in turn be expected to defend the president against

impeachment after he hatefully dumped tens of millions of dollars against me and tried to destroy me. It's all so absurd and completely unserious.

Hi again everybody it's 5 o'clock in New York. We have now officially entered the MAGA Eat MAGA part of the Trump saga and the biggest casualty so far in MAGA's increasingly public civil war is a figure created entirely by MAGA's nativist and conspiracy-addicted impulses, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's all of a sudden making a whole lot of sense. That brutal indictment she offers in that video of Donald Trump came after threats made

against her and her family in the wake of her very public breakup with Donald Trump, a source telling our team on Capitol Hill that the threats were, quote, the straw that broke the camel's back, end quote, and that she is deeply frustrated by the effort to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files.

Facing threats after crossing Donald Trump, feeling like you're swimming upstream against a Trump tide in Congress. I know we've seen this movie before. Plenty of Republicans who have crossed Donald Trump have resigned from office or have been driven

out of the Republican Party. The last 10 years are littered with examples. Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, we could go on and on. But Marjorie Taylor Greene is decidedly different. She was never a part of the old John McCain Republican Party.

She was never remotely skeptical of Trump or uncomfortable with his crassness, his grab him in the you know what, his January 6th insurrection. Her entire life in politics was born of and nurtured by Trump and MAGA.

One of her very first votes in Congress was to dispute the indisputable, the undeniable, the results of the 2020 presidential election. She was stripped of her committee assignments weeks later for promoting conspiracy theories around September 11th and QAnon,

and for posts that seemed to endorse violence against Democratic elected officials. But where the exit of other Republicans showed the strength of Trump's grip on the party, Marjorie Taylor Greene's stepping back from Congress might illustrate the opposite.

A poll out Sunday shows once again that Donald Trump's political standing is at a low point. 60% of all Americans disapprove of Donald Trump's performance as president. And Marjorie Taylor Greene's departure from Congress comes at a moment when Republicans suddenly seem divided,

not just over the Epstein files. As the New York Times is reporting, the battle cry in her announcement, arguing that the Republican Party under Trump has lost its way, is a public sign now of how some conservatives are slowly starting

to publicly grapple with and imagine a future where Trump's priorities, whims, and vendettas, and bizarre utterances no longer steer their movement. Marjorie Taylor Greene's resignation from Congress as a possible potential harbinger of Trump's power waning over his own movement

and his own party is where we start the hour. Some of our favorite reporters and friends, host of the Bullwark podcast, political analyst Tim Miller's here. With me at the table, the host of Fast Politics, New York Times contributing opinion writer,

political analyst Molly Jong Fast is here, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution's senior political reporter with us at the table, Eric Bustien's here, we start with you. We're so happy to have you here. Glad to be here. Marjorie Taylor Greene is so different from any other Republican, different from the Georgia Republicans, from Kemp and Raffensperger and the Republicans who seem to have some

Normie instincts. She is totally a creature of this MAGA movement, and she is not just leaving, but describing it as certain that they'll lose, certain that she'll be asked to defend Trump from impeachment.

Yeah, we see her as the living, breathing embodiment of MAGA in Georgia, because she rose to power at the height of the MAGA movement, right? She wins election in 2020, running on Donald Trump's imprimatur, his very brand, and then when she gets to office, she runs as,

she competes as his biggest defender, the most loyal that MAGA can be. Even when she veered away from some of his stances, she cast it as, oh, he's just getting bad advice. It's not he did anything wrong, he's just getting bad advice from the wrong people around him. And yet, the last year we've seen this break one after another. They really heightened, not just doing the shutdown showdown,

but also, of course, over the Epstein files. And now the question that we're asking in Georgia, and I know it's being asked around the country, is what does she do next as well?

What does her district think of the position she staked out on the economy, on health care, and on Epstein?

Yeah, I was there yesterday and interviewing voters in the kind of the rural heartland of her district. And I couldn't find many who criticized her. Most of those voters that is anecdotal, but most of the voters I talked to were standing by her. Most of the party activists I've talked to

are standing by her. The fine critics, really deep critics of her, you have to kind of go outside the district since MAGA Republicans. That doesn't mean she would have had an easy road to re-election, but I do think had she

decided to run for another term, she would have been the odds-on favorite.

And what do you understand about the threats that she and her family faced?

Well, you can't underscore those, right? You cannot underplay that impact of, you know, she said publicly that she was facing threats, but the amount of threats that she's holding back, that she's keeping private, must have had a big, big factor in her decision because we see it with rank and file Republicans and Democrats all the time.

Just imagine someone as high profile as Marjorie Taylor Greene and the threats she faced and her family faced. I mean, unfortunately, this is all too familiar in Georgia where we saw the Republicans who stood up to Donald Trump in 2022 face dire threats to their own lives.

Yeah, I mean, we ended the last hour with Senator Mark Kelly talking about the threats he faced. Melissa Slotkin said security rushed to her right after Trump started calling the six members who put out a video simply telling people to only follow legal orders to protect their lives. Tim Miller, your thoughts on this moment

for Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Sure, look, you laid out nicely in the beginning how this is similar to how some have, you know, in the Republican Party have spoken out against Trump and then retired in the past. And we're seeing that trend continue, which at some level shows that he still,

you know, has a hold over the party. I think the element that's different that is most interesting is the language that she used and stepping aside. And, you know, I'll leave it to Greg for his reporting and to psychologists

to like determine what is happening in her brain and how serious she is about this and what exactly motivating it. But it just taking the language at face value. She is basically saying that I wanted to do work on behalf of the MAGA base that Donald Trump had promised he was going to work for.

And I couldn't do it because Congress was never in session and because the elites within the party, you know, have succumbed to, you know, the influence game of Washington, to the deep state, to the tech elites, right? Like, that's essentially her argument. You know, you always heard from the populace, from the mega-populace, one common critique was

that there was this uniparty in Washington. Democrats or Republicans might disagree on certain issues, but at the end, they were on the side of the rich, they were on the side of the, you know, military and the security state, and they were on the side of corporations. They weren't on the side of you. Well, now Marjorie Taylor Greene is saying, that's Donald Trump.

You know, he had promised you that he was going to be an outsider that was going to go after those institutions, but he's been co-opted by them and he likes partying with them. So she didn't use him by name, but in the statement, it's very clear what she's talking about. And that is powerful. And that is very different from the other people that have separated from Donald Trump in the past, because she's coming at him from the place of his core base of support and

his core base of support and his core strength. And if even 5% of the Mac base agree with her, if more do, you know, even better, but like if even 5% or 10% agree with her, that is crippling to Donald Trump's power. That is the first time that he would actually lose the people that powered his rise. And so in that sense, I think it was a powerful

resignation statement. I think probably was a powerful resignation statement. I think probably would have been more powerful if she was making that argument from within the halls of Congress. But the interesting thing to watch will be if other people start to echo that message.

Tim, are we burying the lead here? She speaks about it as a foregone conclusion that Democrats take over the House and that Trump is impeached?

Well, the impeachment would end up being, I think, a political judgment by the Democrats, but we probably are bearing the lead as far as a lot of Republicans on the Hill have already basically conceded the midterms. And there's super interesting reporting today from Punchbowl DC,

which is kind of a Capitol Hill insider outlet. And basically a number of Republicans were calling them after Marjorie Taylor Greene's letter came out saying, essentially, I might not agree with her on all the particulars, and she might have these various unique issues.

But like the core of her argument is correct. Like we are doing nothing, we are not serving people, we are about to be in the minority, and I'm annoyed too. And essentially that was the message. There were a lot of, that there will be maybe more Republican retirements coming

because Republicans on the Hill see the writing on the wall that the Democrats are gonna win next year. And, you know, it's worth it to stay in Congress even if you're in the minority, if you feel like you're fighting for something, if you feel like you're doing something. And I think that a lot of Republicans on the Hill don't feel like they're doing anything. They're just ornamentation

to Donald Trump's authoritarian takeover. And if it's going to be another one-year slog to their own defeat, well, then maybe others will follow her to the exit. That was what Punchbowl was reporting, and that, I think, seems like a reasonable assessment

of where we are. Things could change, obviously, but I think that things are looking very bad, politically, for the Republicans on the Hill.

Here's that Punchbowl reporting, Molly. Quote, more explosive early resignations are coming. It's a tinderbox. Morale has never been lower. Mike Johnson will be stripped of his gavel and they will lose the majority before this term is out.

Yeah, you know, what I think is so interesting about this is like House Republicans gave up their power. You know, they said, oh, they let Donald Trump do what he wanted to do with the pocket rescissions. They let Russ Vaughn take away the power of the purse. Like, they went along with all of this. The acquiesced again and again and again,

and now they're salty because he did what they let him do.

You know what they're like? They're like those prisoners who, when they go in to rescue them, the rescuers are like, the door wasn't locked.

Yeah.

Like, they could get out of their political prison today.

At any time. And that's what I don't understand.

They're so lame.

It is.

And Mike Johnson, by the way, Donald Trump installed Mike Johnson because he was willing to just go along with anything. And now they're like, well, he's not so good at politics because, you know, they're passing

all of these.

It's not even Mike Johnson isn't so good at having a spine.

We are now just 343 days away from the midterms. And today, Donald Trump's retribution agenda hit a big old roadblock. A judge dismissed the federal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The ruling found that the US attorney

for the Eastern District of Virginia, we've been talking about her a lot lately, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed. No surprise, the White House says they're gonna push back.

This judge took an unprecedented action to throw these cases out to shield James Comey and Letitia James from accountability based on a technical ruling. And the administration disagrees with that technical ruling. We believe the attorney in this case, Lindsay Halligan, is not only extremely qualified for this position, but she was in fact legally appointed. And I know the Department of Justice will be appealing this in very short order.

The indictments were both thrown out without prejudice, which means that another prosecutor could bring them again. But an attorney for Comey released a statement pointing out that the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment. Comey reacted to the decision earlier today with the following post.

The message has to be sent that the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies. I don't care what your politics are. You have to see that as fundamentally un-American and a threat to the rule of law that keeps all of us free. I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again,

and my attitude is going to be the same. I'm innocent. I am not afraid. And I believe in an independent federal judiciary.

James released her own statement, writing that she remains, quote, fearless in the face of these baseless charges And at the same time the administration is not done going after its enemies. The Pentagon is now Investigating Arizona Senator Mark Kelly for alleged misconduct after he appeared alongside five other Democrats in a video Urging service members to refuse illegal orders all six lawmakers served in the military or the intelligence community.

But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Kelly is the only member who is retired and is still subject to military justice, which includes a court-martial. The senator responded earlier tonight with my colleague Rachel Maddow, and no surprise, he did not hold back.

Watch this.

I'm not going to be silenced here. Is it is it stressful? I've been stressed by, you know, things more important than Donald Trump trying to intimidate me into shutting my mouth and not doing my job. He didn't like what I said. I'm going to show up for work every day, support the Constitution, do my job, hold this administration accountable.

We've got a lot to cover tonight. Let's get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel. Peter Baker joins us, Chief White House Correspondent for The New York Times. Susan Glasser, staff writer for The New Yorker and former New York prosecutor and civil rights attorney Charles Coleman Jr. Charles, you are our legal beagle, so let's start with you.

Comey and James dismissals. What's your takeaways here?

Very big deal. Even though baseball season is over, Stephanie, this is a prime example of an unforced error by the United States government. You another another another one, right? And this is particularly important because you're talking about the Department of Justice, a sort of bastion of jurisprudence that is not really known for these types of flubs. This is a really big

embarrassment on behalf of the attorneys who represent the United States government. I mean, there's no other way to put it. The other side to it is it's super embarrassing to consider that this was dismissed on a threshold issue, not even to say that we didn't even look at the merits as far as this or as far as a dismissal is concerned. So even though the judge dismissed it without prejudice, when they come back on the tissue, James, which they likely will, there are a number of other grounds upon which I expect her

attorneys to fight this and it could possibly be dismissed again. Okay, so you do think they're coming back after Tish James, but what about the Comey's

team arguing statute of limitations ran out?

Well, that's different for him than it is for her.

But has his?

Yes, I believe that his has, and I don't think that we're going to see that. What they are likely to do in that instance, Stephanie, is to file an appeal because they can't refile with Comey. The only way that they get a second bite at the apple is if they appeal the ruling in this order and somehow that gives the case new life. But other than that, this indictment, as far as James Comey is concerned, is dead in the water.

Susan, by declaring Lindsey Halligan's appointment invalid, what does this do to Trump's entire

sort of retribution campaign? Well, I mean, look, first of all, if the president of the United States is ordering up indictment via social media posting, you know, we've really lost the script. So I don't want to predict what's possible in the Pam Bondi run Justice Department because we're in a whole different territory here from any normal analysis. I would point out that the reason that Lindsey Halligan was the one putting forward this case against Comey is because no one else in her office was willing to do so.

So that raises the interesting question of if for some reason the Justice Department decided to try to refile the case and make the argument that the statute of limitations had not expired, would there even be any prosecutor in that office who would be willing to bring forward the case against James Comey? So that's one thing. But look, will Donald Trump find more targets for his campaign of revenge and retribution? I think we know the answer to that.

The question, of course, is how far will he get in our legal system if it's not this technicality? At a certain point, you may find a jury and a judge actually having to weigh a case that has originated with Donald Trump's campaign of vengeance. And that will be a really big test for the system.

Peter, poll after poll shows that voters say affordability is their top concern.

Do you think they're paying attention to any of this?

Probably not. Not a lot. I think you're right that people are looking at their pocketbook issues, especially this week as we're heading into Thanksgiving, people are going to the store, they're buying food for their table, they're noticing the prices, you know, especially as they as they try to feed, you know, guests and so forth. I think that's probably more top of mind.

Having said that, of course, you know, they're watching a president who is, you know, pursuing his own personal, you know, anger and grievance and and desire for retribution. And I and the question that people are going to ask is, is he focusing on my issues, on my problems, on the issues that we, the voters who put him in there in the first place want him to focus on. Certainly that's the argument you're gonna hear,

I think, from his opponents, that he's so consumed by going after people like Tish James and Jim Comey that he doesn't really focus on the people

who actually put in there. Charles, let's talk about this Mark Kelly thing, because the Pentagon is now saying he may have broken military law, okay? I'm not a lawyer. But I cannot imagine these six lawmakers that made a scripted video,

I cannot imagine they did this without getting serious legal advice.

Stephanie, you're absolutely right.

And that's how you get invited back here.. And that's how you get invited back here.

I've been doing pretty well for the last couple of years. That's absolutely, but that's absolutely not the point. The point is that the punishment is the process. It does not matter whether...

Oh, okay.

The punishment for someone like Mark Kelly to have to go through being indicted, to have to go and have a lawyer and publicly defend your name is the actual process. That process is his punishment. It doesn't really matter the outcome. It's the fact that I have now besmirched your character in such a way that has made your life difficult. And if I get the conviction, which I'm pretty sure I won't it doesn't matter the fact that you're under investigation. I now have a way

to have a foothold in the narrative around who you are when you try to speak against me and is a very very interesting irony here. Mark Kelly is the guy that peak Pete Hexer wants to be. The guy that's the actual hero, he's the guy who's actually flown the planes and been

in the combat where the heat was high and the decisions had to be made. And so that's what I find so ironic about this situation is that you're prosecuting or investigating the guy that all of you all wish that you were.

All right let's talk about a different ironic situation. Peter, new topic. MSNBC is now reporting that the president has delayed his unofficial health care framework, which remember, we were going to see a framework for the new plan. I feel like we're going to see the framework for months, if not years, still not going to see it after it is being reworked because some congressional Republicans pushed back on this new framework,

embracing the expiring Obamacare subsidies. What does that tell you?

Yeah, concepts of a plan, right? We've been hearing concepts of a plan now for quite a long time. He promised in his first campaign in 2016, he was going to repeal and replace Obamacare. Never came up with the alternative that anybody felt was satisfying even his own party. Remember, it was John McCain's famous thumbs down moment in the middle of the night that rejected Trump in his first term. Now he's in a similar position.

We're trying to find a way to thread that needle after the shutdown went on for 40 some days over the question of these Obamacare subs. A lot of Republicans, including in the White House, are worried about the political impact of them expiring and the Democrats making hay over that and getting some traction in the coming midterm year. At the same time, there are quite a lot of Republicans who still reject the idea of these

Obamacare subsidies. They said they were never meant to be permanent. They were only meant to be temporary during the pandemic. And so you have a party right now that's in divide on this. And what's fascinating is that they're willing to stand up to the president and say, no, we don't agree with you anymore. One more example, as we've seen in the last few weeks, where you're starting to see at

least a little bit more independent voices among Republicans saying, we're not just going to simply go along with whatever you say.

Susan, let's move on. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced that she is resigning. And Punchbowl News is reporting that, I want to make sure I have the quote, another Republican told them that, quote, more explosive early resignations are coming. It is a tinderbox. Morale has never been lower. How much danger is the speaker in and the Republican majority if what Punchbowl is reporting is true, that Marjorie Taylor Greene is the first of possibly many?

Well, it is fascinating stuff, because I think in all the attention for how much Donald Trump has sort of owned congressional Republicans in his first nine months back in office, sometimes has gotten lost that it was a remarkable display of unity up until now, given how narrow the Republican majority in the House of Representatives has been. Her resignation, along with that very striking comment to Punchbowl this morning, a reminder that it's just a few seats that actually is keeping Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House. And, you know, the sort of jailbreak, it's been years in coming. We haven't seen it happen.

You know, and so, in a way, it's foolish to expect Republicans to break away from Trump at this moment in time. But I think the numbers are so few, and if they expect that they're going to lose the House next fall, that's where you could really see them saying, well, what's the point? What's, you know, what difference does it make?

And right now, I do think that has hardened into a view among Democrats and Republicans here in Washington is this idea that Democrats are very, very likely to win back the House of Representatives next fall.

The question I have is how much of a meaningful curb, if at all, would that still provide to Donald Trump, who's proceeded in this presidency as if there's no possible constraint that could stop him from doing exactly what he wants.

And now, with Donald Trump being judged a failure in every poll of his presidential job performance, the Trump retreat is underway. And the Department of Government Efficiency we discovered today, we discovered this morning, no longer exists. That doesn't exist. Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Cooper told Reuters when asked about the Department of Government Efficiency status. Reuters

reported that today at 837 AM. And so Elon Musk's indefensible plaything which produced no government efficiency but did deliver the worst cruelty the United States has ever visited upon people outside of war, is no more. In its heyday, the Elon and Donald show lit up the Oval Office, the room filled with reporters and cameras, and Elon Musk never faced a question from those reporters about what he was doing to the 400,000 children who were dying because of his playing

with government, because of what he did to the United States Agency for International Development. Not one question from the White House press corps to Elon Musk about that. There is no more vivid image of the decline and fall of Donald Trump

Than the image that was created on Friday

with Donald Trump slumped in the Oval Office at the desk in defeat offering a political surrender to the man who stood beside him in the Elon Musk position, a man 20 years younger than Elon Musk and immeasurably smarter, a man who took over that room as no one before him has ever taken over that room with Donald Trump in it.

Donald Trump went from calling the man a communist lunatic to glad-handing him publicly like one of Donald Trump's beloved dictators. What we saw on Friday was Donald Trump offering an unconditional surrender. Donald Trump has not completed his first year

in the second term of his presidency, and he knows he is losing so badly now that he desperately has to do something and he has no idea what to do. And after calling for the death penalty for members of Congress who simply publicly stated

military law, saying that members of the military must not follow illegal orders, even Donald Trump could figure out how insane that comment was. And so Donald Trump desperately needed to do something to change the tone.

And the next person in the door was the person he called a communist lunatic. The day before election day in New York City, Donald Trump said, if communist candidate Zoran Mamdani wins the election for mayor of New York City, it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing federal funds.

On Friday, Donald Trump said he was going to try to help the new mayor as much as he possibly could with federal funds. A complete reversal, a complete surrender by Donald Trump. The kind of reversal a politician offers only in defeat, only in surrender.

In that statement, the day before the election in New York City, Donald Trump said, as a communist, this once great city has zero chance of success or even survival. And with the man he called a communist standing beside him, Donald Trump said he thinks the city

is gonna do very well with the new mayor. Donald Trump said he would be happy to live in New York City with the new mayor in office. Donald Trump said he would feel safe living in New York City with the new mayor in charge. That is the same Donald Trump who said

a day before the election in a social media post to all of his followers, it is my strong conviction that New York City will be a complete and total economic and social disaster should Mamdani win." That was Donald Trump's strong conviction. Donald Trump told all of his followers all over the country that a communist was trying to take over New York City, and it was Donald Trump's strong

conviction that that should not happen. And if it does happen, it'll be a complete and total economic and social disaster. That was Donald Trump's strong conviction on November 3rd. A strong conviction. And 18 days later, Donald Trump on television looking completely defeated and surrendering tells all of his followers all over the country

that he was lying about his strong conviction 18 days ago. And he now thinks the mayor-elect is a great guy who's gonna do a great job, and that the city's gonna be great, and Donald Trump's gonna help the great new mayor. And Donald Trump said all of that,

not because he liked the guy, not because he was charmed by him, not because he was charmed by his smile. Donald Trump said all that because Donald Trump is losing and Donald Trump knows it. Donald Trump said that because he's losing support

all over the country. Donald Trump said that because he's losing support all over the country. Donald Trump said that because 64% say that he is doing a terrible job on economic issues and Donald Trump, who days ago said he doesn't want to hear the word affordability, sat slumped beside the young, vibrant affordability candidate and tried to use him as a political sign that he, Donald Trump, gets it. Donald Trump understands that the issue he, Donald Trump, gets it.

Donald Trump understands that the issue now is affordability, but it's a word Donald Trump can't quite say. And because Donald Trump cannot put his positions in the English language, he thought that the symbol of the new young mayor-elect and Donald Trump getting along, the symbol of Donald Trump getting along with the affordability guy would work for Donald Trump. It, the symbol of Donald Trump getting along with the affordability guy would work for Donald Trump.

It was pure, pathetic, losing political calculation by a loser, by a president who presided over a party that just had its worst election day imaginable all over the country, from New York to New Jersey to Pennsylvania to Virginia to Georgia to California. Everywhere there was an election, Donald Trump lost everywhere. And Donald Trump knows it.

And Donald Trump proved once again on Friday that his words mean nothing. Donald Trump proved that every word he said against candidate Mamdani meant nothing. And that means that every word Donald Trump says in his defense about the Epstein files means nothing.

It means every word Donald Trump says about everything means nothing, and Donald Trump is proving, and proving that, that his words mean nothing, proving that now in ways that even his least alert followers can understand. They saw Donald Trump welcome the man he called a communist lunatic and embrace him in the Oval Office.

And so Trump followers now see Donald Trump lose not only what they thought were Donald Trump's superpowers, but actually losing in a confrontation with a 34-year-old politician running in his first important election. Donald Trump tried to destroy Zoran Mandani and the young man beat the old man. And the old man formally surrendered to the young man and did it on TV. That image captures

the decline and fall of Donald Trump as no other image has yet captured. Friday was the day that Donald Trump's previously devoted follower Republican Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene announced that she would not run for re-election after Donald Trump's relentless attacks on her because she believed the Epstein files should be released.

In announcing that she would not run for re-election next year and would resign from Congress on January 5th, Marjorie Taylor Greene said, standing up for American women who were raped at 14, trafficked and used by rich, powerful men should not result in me being called a traitor and threatened by the President of the United States. But it did. That is exactly the way it happened. Donald Trump loved Marjorie Taylor Greene

until she said the Epstein files should be released. And then Donald Trump considered her a traitor. So yes, Donald Trump considers Marjorie Taylor Greene a traitor because, as she put it, she stood up for women Who were trafficked and raped at 14 you do that and Donald Trump thinks you're a traitor

She stood up for women who were used by rich and powerful men Including the man who was Donald Trump's closest friend for 10 years And if you do that Donald Trump calls you a traitor Jeffrey Epstein said he was Donald Trump's closest friend for 10 years. Donald Trump said Jeffrey Epstein was a terrific guy at the height of that friendship. 5.38 a.m. is no time for anyone to be tweeting,

but 79-year-old Donald Trump has never slept well, and now in his agony of defeat, with the Epstein files closing in on him, with his attempts to prosecute the people he hates failing, and with the unanimous vote of a Republican Congress against him last week,

Donald Trump took to social media at 5.38 a.m. this morning, and posted the stupidest thing ever said by a president or anyone in the federal government in history on tariffs and no news organization bothered to pick it up. There's no story in the New York Times today about the president of the United States saying

that his tariffs are, quote, being charged to other countries. At 5.38 a.m. this morning, a totally deranged Donald Trump tweeted about, quote, the massive amount of money being made by the United States of America, hundreds of billions of dollars, as a direct result of tariffs being charged to other countries. I repeat, no tariff issued by the United States has ever been charged to another country.

No one in the history of the federal government has ever believed that that was possible. No one in the American news media has ever believed that that was possible, except at Fox, of course. It would be like the President of the United States

saying the Atlantic Ocean was on the West Coast of the United States, and for that comment to pass without remark by nearly all of the national news media, an utterly insane, demented statement indicating the complete collapse of neurological function an utterly insane, demented statement indicating the complete collapse of neurological function

in a president of the United States.