Okay, good

...

this was a case here in Maine some years ago where we had a, a volunteer fireman who was, uh, charged and convicted of arson.

He started fires because he wanted to be the guy to help put 'em out.

And in, in this case, Trump is trying to fix a problem he created.

The price of diesel b- on, you know, February 27th was, what, three something? 3.80, I think, and this entire increase is due to the Iran war, and now he's trying to be some kind of hero to fix it.

But what he's doing to fix it won't do anything about diesel prices, and it's only gonna help Putin.

This stuff has a practical, uh, use, and it, it keeps us out of other wars.

This would appear to be Musk doing the bidding, implicitly or explicitly, of President Trump and hurting Kyiv's chances.

Well, that's, th- that's certainly what it looks like.

And, uh, as you know, Elon Musk is the largest single contributor to Republicans in this, uh, in this, uh, midterm election.

He was also the largest contributor, I believe, to Donald Trump, uh, two years ago.

And, uh, if he's doing...

If, if this, if this comes out that he's doing this consciously and deliberately, and it, it was in collusion with the president, uh, it, uh, it's just unimaginable to, to, to do something like this.

The president keeps talking about Zelenskyy won't make a deal.

Ugh.

What do you understand actually transpired on the street of Biddeford, Maine on Monday?

Well, that's one of the problems.

We don't know.

You mentioned about video we've seen.

These guys didn't have body cameras on.

Millions and billions of dollars have been appropriated for ICE to have body cam- cameras, and they didn't have them.

And they didn't have them in Houston.

How can an agency like ICE, with its funding and the tens of millions of dollars that were spent on these body cameras, how can that be the case, so far as you know?

So for people just waking up to this story, Senator, can you kind of walk us through what you know at this hour?

Well, number one, it's a real tragedy.

This was a young man who was married, had a three-year-old daughter, was working, uh, and wasn't the target of the investigation.

They, uh, they were going after the wrong person.

And, uh, we don't have much in the way of facts except that this fellow was killed, uh, driving a car.

And there's a lot of law about law enforcement officers shooting into cars.

You're not supposed to shoot into a car unless there's imminent threat to yourself or to others.

Yeah

What do you understand actually transpired on the street of Biddeford, Maine on Monday?

Well, that's one of the problems.

We don't know.

You mentioned about video we've seen.

These guys didn't have body cameras on.

Millions and billions of dollars have been appropriated for ICE to have body cam- cameras, and they didn't have them, and they didn't have them in Houston.

And I don't know where the body cameras are going, but they don't seem to be going to the front line ICE agents who are endangering, uh, many of our citizens, as what happened in Biddeford.

How can an agency like ICE, with its funding and the tens of millions of dollars that were spent on these body cameras, how can that be the case, so far as you know?

What do you understand actually transpired on the street of Biddeford, Maine on Monday?

Well, that's one of the problems.

We don't know.

You mentioned about video we've seen.

These guys didn't have body cameras on.

Millions and billions of dollars have been appropriated for ICE to have body cam- cameras, and they didn't have them, and they didn't have them in Houston.

And I don't know where the body cameras are going, but they don't seem to be going to the frontline ICE agents who are endangering, uh, many of our citizens, as what happened in Biddeford.

How can an agency like ICE, with its funding and the tens of millions of dollars that were spent on these body cameras, how can that be the case, so far as you know?

What do you understand actually transpired on the street of Biddeford, Maine, on Monday?

Well, that's one of the problems.

We don't know.

You mentioned about video we've seen.

These guys didn't have body cameras on.

Millions and billions of dollars have been appropriated for ICE to have body cam- cameras, and they didn't have them.

And they didn't have them in Houston.

How can an agency like ICE, with its funding and the tens of millions of dollars that were spent on these body cameras, how can that be the case, so far as you know?

So for people just waking up to this story, Senator, can you kind of walk us through what you know at this hour?

hour?Well, number one, it's a real tragedy.

This was a young man who was married, had a three-year-old daughter, was working, uh, and wasn't the target of the investigation.

They, uh, they were going after the wrong person.

And, uh, w- we don't have much in the way of facts except that this fella was killed, uh, driving a car.

And there's a lot of law about law enforcement officers shooting into cars.

You're not supposed to shoot into a car unless there's imminent threat to yourself or to others.

What needs to be done so people will stop getting gunned down in the streets of America by the federal government?

Are you getting that?

Well, I, well, I do have to say that w- when I called him this morning, he, number one, he took my call immediately, and number two, he talked to me about what, what he understood at the time.

And he said at the time on, when I, when I first talked to him this morning, that the f- fellow that was shot was the target of the investigation.

Uh, to give him some credit, he called me about three hours later and said, "I have now learned that he was not the target of the investigation." So, uh, there was in, there was some good faith there.

Uh, but he did use weaponization of the vehicle, and of course, that's what we saw with Rene Good in, in Minneapolis, and that's what really the investigation is all about.

What were the facts? Did this, did this young man actually try to run over an ICE agent, or was he in danger of running over other people in the street? Uh, and was there a reasonable expectation of, of, uh, of bodily harm, uh, or of deadly force, uh, to justify this shooting? The larger question, John, is why do we have these guys on our streets? Why are they in Biddeford, Maine? Uh, the whole premise of this project is false.

Uh, they've talked, you've heard over and over and over that it's all about the worst of the worst.

Why are we at the point where they're still not wearing body cams?

Tell me what motivates you and what makes you stand out.

Yes, sir.

It is a big field, and with real good people, I would want to make that point up front.

I feel the Democrats are actually very lucky here in Maine to have such good people running, but there are some real differences.

Here's why I'm running, is that fundamentally, we've got some serious challenges in Maine that feel like, to me, you've got to start working on in fundamentally different ways.

right, housing, heat, healthcare, schools, economic development, and frankly, our politics.

And I think there's a lot of work that we've gotta do, and what was being offered by kind of the same folks who'd been there for a very long time, again, my opponents have all been in state government for almost 20 plus years, and not to take anything away from that, but I think now is the time for a new perspective and a new approach.

So talk about how you bring that experience to addressing the housing shortage in Maine because it's everywhere.

Does Maine have any ability to stop this?

Well, I think we can be talking with DHS and talking with the president.

I'm trying to interact with DHS just to get some questions answered.

They tell me I have to submit my questions in writing and then they'll get back to me in writing maybe in a week or two.

I mean, you know, I represent the people of my state.

They shouldn't be, I shouldn't have to go through a lot of bureaucratic red tape to get some answers.

But this, here's the real problem, Margaret.

Is there a way forward here between states like Maine and the federal government when it comes to peacefully extracting, peacefully carrying out interior enforcement?

Senator, as you watch that piece, I just wonder what was going through your mind and what you think the U.S. should do.

Well, it's beyond shocking.

And I don't think there are any countries in the world where the gap between the people and the government is greater.

You've got a pretty educated, modernized, Western-leaning society in Iran and a 14th century theocratic government.

And this is a dramatic uprising, probably bigger than it has ever been before.

The challenge for us is to help.

Obviously, our hearts are with those protesters.

Is there a world where the U.S. ends up acquiring Greenland from Denmark?

So, I guess the first question I have for you is when did you find out about this? And what did that look like? What did that look like when you found out?

out?I didn't find out about it any sooner than anybody else, even though I'm on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.

Uh, I don't think there was much, if any, consultation, uh, with Congress, uh, at all before this happened.

Uh, mm- m- I- I- I have a- a couple of reactions.

Let me start with two- two stipulations.

One is Maduro is and was a bad guy, no question.

Uh, dr- involved with drugs, he was a dictator, he ignored the results of the election, uh, he- he was a bad guy all around.

Right, Maritza?

I just want to start with getting your reaction from what we just heard from Speaker Johnson.

Well, I'm a little I don't know what to make of being complimented by Speaker Johnson.

I don't know what that's going to do to my reputation, but I'll let that pass.

Here's where we are and where we were and what got me to the point where I'm saying, let's reopen.

The strategy at the beginning of the shutdown on behalf of the Democrats was twofold.

Stand up to Donald Trump and bring the Republicans to the table to negotiate an end to these drastic cuts to the ACA premiums or actually drastic increases to the ACA premiums.

The problem was after over 40 days, Neither of those goals was being accomplished.

So then what do you say to the Democrats who argue this deal is a terrible mistake, it's an empty promise or even a betrayal, especially after the recent election where you saw Democrats have big wins? Why exactly, in your view, are they wrong on that?

Right.

To compromise that, eh, any, any action that's just not accounta- that has no accountability is by definition dangerous.

People have to understand they're gonna be held accountable and, and they have to take that into consideration when they're making decisions.

There's no evidence whatsoever that I know of that that leak came from anywhere within Congress.

I, I, I've not heard that and nobody...

if they, if that's a, if that's something they're saying, that's a damn serious-... charge and they better, they should back it up.

I, I can... uh, I've... as I say, I've been on the Intelligence Committee for 13 years.

He's a Lewiston man, right? He's a Lewiston man.

And I guess the question is, is it conceivable that any member of the Senate would do that today? Any Republican members of the Senate?

Charlie, I'm, I'm afraid it's, um, it's unlikely that someone would stand up and go against their party in, to, to the extent that Margaret did.

It was an extraordinary speech.

And if you read it, it could've been written last week.

Uh, it talks about the techniques of McCarthy and how...

And, and she made the point that being opposed to communism wasn't a bad thing.

It was the way he was doing it.

Fear.

Why?

Well, you, you know the answer to that.

You guys know a lot about politics.

This is all about Republican primaries and, uh, my colleagues.

I think part of the problem, Al, is that, uh, people around here are looking on this as just politics as usual.

You know, this is the usual pushing and hauling between the administration, the president, and the Congress and, you know, we're, we're arguing about immigration and various issues that have been around for a long time.

The problem is they're ignoring the fact that there's something much deeper and more serious that's going on, which is, uh, this whole unitary executive idea, and the idea that the president basically has all the power.

Yeah.

Are there any specific issues, aside from the overarching issue that you described, that you're concerned about right now when we look at what's happening or the areas that may be

cut? I'm very worried about the way Doge is going about its business.

I have no problem with efficiency and even downsizing government.

I did it when I was governor of Maine.

But I did it with a task force that involved private sector people, legislators, and people from the administration, and it took nine months, not nine weeks.

What bothers me about what DOGE is doing, I think in some cases they literally don't know what they're doing.

In fact, you know, the first weekend they fired 350 nuclear safety people at the Department of Energy headquarters.

How could you apply some of that, if you can, to a realistic scenario that would do so on a federal level?

And this line on Angus King's syllabus simply read, Belichick and Parcells.

One of the points I tried to make in this course was that leadership isn't just a general on a white horse or a senator or a president.

In fact, when I first was approached by the president of Bowdoin to teach there, he said, well, of course, you'll be teaching political science, right? I said, no, I'd like to teach about leadership because I think it's so important.

I don't really fully understand it.

And I think teaching it may help me to understand it better.

And so Belichick and Parcells, I mean, the NFL is a perfect example.

of teams that win consistently, usually based on leadership and on some change in leadership.

As much as this administration is operating with a degree of ahistorical fraudulence, they are living in the most perfect time to do so in.

Can you just state as plainly as you can, as an independent, what you see the landscape being right now as I talk to you?

Pablo, this is a really, really dangerous moment.

And not, I mean, I don't like a lot of these policies, the deportations, the tariffs, all of that.

But there's a deeper... danger going on here, which is essentially the collapse of the constitutional structure.

The framers divided power on purpose.

They put power into the Congress, into the executive, into the judiciary, because they understood human nature.

And human nature is that if all power is in one set of hands, abuse is inevitable.

As much as this administration is operating with a degree of ahistorical fraudulence, they are living in the most perfect time to do so in.

Go ahead. I mean, he still works for Donald Trump, and Donald Trump, as you said, is now aligning the United States of America with Putin. And that, I mean, we could, we could use the whole rest of this hour to show you all of the things, um... Marco Rubio's called him a gangster and a murderer and a thug. And as f- as of 5/26, he still works for Donald Trump, who is aligning America with the person Marco Rubio described as a gangster.

Well, Marco's gonna have to make his own decisions. I'm not gonna a- advise him, but he's got to think hard about this, I think, based upon where he's been. Uh, you know, I voted for him. Uh, I think he got 100% of the votes in the Senate when he was being confirmed as secretary of state, so he's, he's gotta, he's gotta think hard about this, about what his responsibilities are to the administration, of course, but also, uh, to the Constitution and the people of this country. Let me expand on the comment that you played the clip that I said it was an enormous geopolitical mistake. There are two reasons, Nicolle. One is, uh, just as Marco suggested, it emboldens dictators. History fairly yells at us that if you, you can't appease a dictator who's territorially ambitious, and Vladimir Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire. And Maya Angelou once said, "If somebody tells you who they are, you should believe them." And so he's not gonna stop at Ukraine. Uh, a friend of mine had got into an argument on the f- on the street in Bath, Maine, a couple of weeks ago. The guy said, "Well, he's not gonna go any further than Ukraine." That's, he just, you know... Well, then why did the Finns and the Swedes suddenly decide to join NATO after 70 years? They know the threat that they're facing, and they know Putin and the Russians a lot better than we do, so... And then, of course, Xi Jinping is watching this like a hawk and wondering, "Well, if the Americans sort of pull out and leave the Ukraines to thems- the Ukrainians to themselves, that indicates to me that the Taiwanese can't really support on s- uh, count on solid support from the Americans. So that opens the door for me to try to do what I've been saying for years I want to do, which is bring Taiwan back, back under the control of the Chinese Communist Party." So emboldening dictators who are territorially ambitious, we know better than that. It never works. Appeasement doesn't work. I thought it was fascinating that a lot of this discussion two or three weeks ago about, uh, backing away from Ukraine took place in Munich. Does that ring any bells? Uh, in Munich. The other reason, Nicolle, that this is really bad is that it undermines our relationship with our allies. Our allies are our s- asymmetric advantage in the world. China has customers. We have allies. Russia has North Korea and, you know, one or two other vassal states, but we have allies all across the world, and this administration seems intent on poking the eyes of our allies, whether it's the Europeans, talking about a m- significant tariff tomorrow on Canada. Canada, wh- what, wh- what have they done? Uh, and they've been our staunchest ally. And, and so the, the two pieces put together, emboldening the, the dictators and alienating the allies, that's what I meant when I said this would be the biggest geopolitical mistake that this country could possibly make.

Do you regret your vote for Marco Rubio?

Uh, I gotta tell you, I'm rethinking it. I, I'm, I'm disappointed because I knew him fairly well. I worked with him for 10 or 12 years on the Intelligence Committee. He's a very smart guy. Uh, and, and I understand, when you join an administration, you follow the leadership of the president, but, uh, also, it seems to me, and I don't know what advice he's giving behind closed doors, but, uh, he knows better than what's going on here, and I hope that he'll, uh, he'll speak up in the, in the councils of the, of the administration, because this is, this is not gonna help, help them. I think there's already a negative reaction throughout the country, uh, and, and to, to, to the idea of pivoting from a democracy that's fighting for its own survival in favor of a dictator who's trying to crush a neighboring country. And by the way, the other thing that bothered me about that confrontation was, the president seemed to think that it, it was bad that Zelensky... and he used the word hatred toward Putin and, and, and the Russians. How do you expect him to feel? He's lost almost 100,000 of his people. People have been tortured, kidnapped. Children have been kidnapped. They're purposefully bombing civilian c- uh, uh, capacity in Ukraine. You, you expect him to just say, "Oh, well, th- that's okay, Vlad. Just keep it up, man"? Uh, no. He, he's got every right (laughs) uh, to be pretty damn mad.