Thank you very much.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, Carlos.

Thank you for your words.

Thank you for running a small business, Restaurant Clevo, in Baltimore and putting people to work with good jobs.

So we want to thank you very much.

And it's great to be with all of you today with my friend and colleague, Ben Ray Lujan.

Mid, mid-flight

... yeah, it, no, it's, it's pretty amazing.

And then Prime Minister Netanyahu, of course, is in a big, you know, election, uh, campaign, works to associate himself with the heroes who helped save the passengers, and try to associate him with them at a time when he is under attack for leaving Israel vulnerable.

Because as you've just reported, we have many credible reports now that Prime Minister Netanyahu was warned about impending Hamas attacks, the attacks that of course materialized in such an awful way on October 7th.

So here you have, um, Prime Minister, you know, Netanyahu, who may well be guilty of gross negligence, trying to embrace the heroes who really did put their lives on the line, uh, today.

As to the larger questions about intelligence, I, I do think this merits a review of it, and well, as well as do the reports that, you know, Prime Minister Netanyahu was warned about what was gonna happen on October 7th.

Um, w- w- what, were you encouraged by that vote?

Well, of course, I would have liked to see the Senate pass the legislation requiring the US government to do a human rights report, uh, on the conduct of the Netanyahu government where because of settler violence on the West Bank and because of Israeli security forces, we've seen nine Americans killed, uh, in just over four years, Chris, with no accountability and no justice.

And voters seem to know where who took that money from them.

They do, Lawrence.

As you say, the big stores like Walmart, they're getting their money back that was illegally taken from them.

You know, I believe and many of us are pushing legislation to demand that Donald Trump pay American families back because they're the ones that are being squeezed.

Walmart's not being squeezed here.

And on top of those tariff taxes.

They're being squeezed by these higher prices from his illegal, senseless war.

What is your latest understanding or estimate of just how much the United States Treasury is spending directly on this war through the Defense Department?

What are the implications of the welcome that Xi received, considering the reports around how the Chinese are assisting the Iranians as Americans confront and fight a war against Iran?

Well, we've seen a pattern, Casey, from Donald Trump about cozying up to authoritarian leaders around the world, thinking somehow by, you know, giving them the red carpet treatment, Donald Trump's going to get his way.

And it never works that way, right? We saw Putin's continued to use aggression against Ukraine, even after Donald Trump wined and dined him.

We've also seen President Xi do exactly what you said, continue to support Iran.

Now look, Donald Trump, what he should do with respect to Iran is get us out of the senseless illegal war he started.

But the fact that he thinks, he, Donald Trump, thinks that he can somehow sweet talk himself into persuading foreign leaders to do his bidding has been proven wrong.

Donald Trump is not the world's best negotiator.

What kind of implications does that have for this election?

But now that we have it, we should do X, Y and Z.

Yes, I think there are.

And, you know, I've said to Republican members of the Senate now, be careful what you ask for or be careful what you sort of cheer on from the sidelines, because you A future president, a Democratic president who you disagree with may well want to use that powers.

And I would urge a Democratic president to use some of those powers to pursue a Democratic agenda.

Remember that Supreme Court decision that we talked about earlier, the slaughter case that gives presidents more power to fire the leaders of independent agencies? Senator Chris Van Hollen says now that Trump gets that power, a Democratic president in the future should use it too.

My view as a Democratic president, when it comes to things like the NLRB or the FTC or the FCC, should now use that authority.

I mean, why would we say Donald Trump gets to use that authority and then sort of handcuff ourselves when it comes to important things like antitrust, for example? So I think a Democratic president should use these expanded authorities when it comes to, for example, independent agencies.

Otherwise, you're sort of giving Republican presidents a blank check and handcuffing Democrats.

What do you, what do you make of this reporting, Senator?

Well, Chris, this was all foreseeable.

What's coming to light now is not only was it foreseeable, but it was predicted by US intelligence.

So Donald Trump knew from the outset that these were all foreseeable risks, likely risks, and yet he decided to, to go for it anyway.

And, and here we are.

This is the war that Donald Trump said we had won five months ago, the war that he said would be over in four or five weeks.

Turned out he was wrong.

How does that feel to you?

Mm-hmm

... uh, that's more focused on what the Democratic Party needs to stand for in 2028.

And I don't think this is left versus right.

I think this is the top 1% that is rigging the economy in their favor at the expense of everybody else, so these are economic populists.

And the debate within the Democratic Party is going to be healthy going forward.

In this midterm, it's a referendum on Donald Trump.

I listened to Senator Scott.

Do you want the job?

know

beating up police officers on capitol hill he said yeah it's possible they could get that from the slush fund But then on the Epstein files, you know, we've been in touch regularly with the survivors of Epstein's crimes.

And they've been trying to meet with Todd Blanch.

And so at this hearing, I asked Todd Blanch if he would commit to meeting with these survivors if I connected them.

This was Senator Patty Murray and I did this.

And he said yes.

And then he refused to meet with them for a very long time, not until he was up for confirmation to be Attorney General and one of the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee said that they would not support him unless he met with these survivors.

Let

You don't have to have your degree of expertise or Lindsey Graham's degree of expertise on China and Taiwan to understand that that's actually a major, major foreign policy issue for the United States.

Yeah, Ali, I think it was a perfectly, uh, fair question for both of the candidates.

I'm gonna leave it to the voters, the Republican voters in South Carolina, uh, to decide what to make of it.

I can say that the Democrats have a terrific, uh, Senate candidate, uh, Dr. Annie Andrews.

Uh, she's a pediatrician.

She's been horrified at RFK's attack on the public health.

Um, so we'll let the voters decide this.

He started that post, by the way, by saying, "No one has given the Islamic Republic of Iran a greater opportunity to make a deal than me." Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, Senator, someone gave them a better opportunity than he did back in 2015, and they took the opportunity, and they signed the deal, and the deal worked until 2018, until this president ripped it up.

How do you deal with this back and forth? How much may it actually affect and how much of it is real? And how do you deal with all the national media coverage, which certainly loves to cover on tension between Democrats, whether it's real or not?

Well, they do, Matt.

You're exactly right.

They like to cover it.

You know, my view is the Democratic Party is and should be a big tent party.

There's room for a healthy debate.

on all different positions.

How do you prevent this issue in particular from splitting the party in the fall elections? Because, again, any hint of this is certainly going to get picked up by the political press of the U.S.

What should the U.S. do to try to curtail, if not stop, the illegal settlement activity on the West Bank?

Well, you're right.

We haven't begun to use our leverage.

You have to go way back in history to the early 1990s to get that example.

I will say that the second Bush administration, George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, did exercise some leverage to prevent the expansion of certain settlements, E1 being one that, as you probably know, would cut off, it would sever the West Bank and make a continuous Palestinian state impossible.

So, look, what should we do? I mean, we should condition any arms transfers on Israel's compliance with international law, which means ending the occupation.

I made it clear that we should condition those offensive weapon transfers.

It seems the two-state solution of the Oslo years is dead and buried and some fresh ideas are in order.

Um, why are we seeing so many primaries, do you think, pitting progressives against establishment Democrats, particularly in this moment?

Because, Jacob, I, I think there's a real hunger among Democrats to have representatives in Washington who are not only going to take on a lawless Trump administration, all of us should be doing that, but also to shake up a, a broken status quo in Washington and in our politics.

And what we're seeing in Minnesota is Peggy Flanagan is the candidate that's generated a lot of excitement at the grassroots level.

Uh, her opponent in the primary is raking in lots of money from outside special interest groups, including some of those that we witnessed in, in Michigan just last week-

Mm-hmm.

And I wanna really salute all the parties, uh, all the candidates who were part of that election, and the national Democratic parties come together quickly.

That was even more of a divisive primary than the one we're seeing in Minnesota.

So I, I, I do believe Democrats recognizes, recognize that the differences among us are much smaller than the differences we have between different Democratic candidates and Republicans who are running, who are guaranteed to be another rubber stamp for Donald Trump.

Should more moderates embrace the idea of progressives in the Senate? And what are your thoughts on fears of a Democratic divide come November?

Well, Reverend Al, first of all, I want to salute Haley Stevens for very quickly embracing Abdul El-Sayed in that race and for all the Democrats in Michigan for coming together in a united front.

As they all said, the differences among them pale in comparison to their differences with Republicans, with Mike Rogers, who's just a tool of Donald Trump.

You're right.

This coming Tuesday, we're going to see a primary with similar ingredients in Minnesota.

Peggy Flanagan is the progressive candidate.

And we're seeing outside special interest groups like the crypto industry and APAC also coming in and trying to defeat Peggy Flanagan, supporting her opponent, Angie Craig.

Would you like to tell us here on Politics Nation, Senator, how do those tires look tonight?

Mm-hmm

... have their own history of sucking up to powerful special interests and then delivering, not for the people of Michigan, but for those special interests.

In, in Michael Rogers' case, you just heard he took all this money from the pharmaceutical industry, from the opioid industry, and they did well while Michiganders really got socked, uh, when it came to prescription drug prices.

And we're witnessing this around the country right now.

While the President of the United States is raking in profits, others are hurting.

And Republican candidates are going to have to live with their, the, with the consequences of that.

Mm-hmm

... to powerful special interests and doing their bidding at the expense of his constituents.

What's your take on these?

Well, Walter, I believe we've had enough commissions.

We know all the options, and we should just make a decision to shore up Social Security, and that's why I proposed a number of measures, but all of them essentially would lift the current cap on the Social Security FICA taxes.

And there are two proposals out there, one that I've teamed up with Senator Whitehouse on, and that would kick in those taxes at a 400,000 income level.

I think Senator Sanders has one at 250,000.

But the bottom line is we need to take action because if we don't, if Congress refuses to act, then as you say, in 2032, people will see about a 23% cut in their benefits, and that would be really harmful, of course.

So that's why we should not do another study, not do another commission.

Yeah.

What do you say to that?

Uh, John, I think that's dead wrong.

I think in this case, Abdul El-Sayed has been the populist candidate among the Democrats, the anti-status quo candidate among the Democrats, and he understands that this is not so much left versus right as it is folks at the very top, the top 1%, rigging the economy and the rules of the game in a way that benefits them and hurts workers and everybody else.

And he gets that.

This is why he was endorsed by the UAW.

He understands our healthcare system's broken.

He supports Medicare for All.

What do you think the prospects are in the full Senate?

And I think my main question to you, sir, is, are you confident that Abdul El-Sayed could win enough Haley Stevens voters in a general election, if he were to pull off the primary, to keep this seat in Democratic hands?

Casey, it's great to be with you.

And the short answer is yes.

I actually think Abdul El-Sayed is the stronger candidate in the election, in the general election, because I think he is going to be able to pull people together over that very clear message.

And Bernie Sanders outlined it as well, which is that we not only need to take on a lawless Trump administration, but Washington, D.C. does need shaking up.

And what Abdul recognizes is it's not so much left versus right.

It is the folks at the very, very top, the top 1% who have rigged the economy in their favor at the expense of everybody else and are now using about $60 million in super PAC money to oppose El-Sayed because he does want to shake up the status quo and they want to protect the status quo.

And my question for you, as someone who's been taking a progressive lead in your party, what role should the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, have with the Democratic Party?

So you think he's basically willing to, to lose his permanent attorney general status, uh, for his nominee over, over the IRS audit immunity pro- protection and the anti-weaponization fund?

I do.

I think what he thinks is ultimately these senators are going to blink and accept some kind of language or some kind of commitment that actually is not ultimately binding, that doesn't ultimately, you know, codify the, the end, uh, put a s- you know, stake through the heart of the slush fund, and doesn't ultimately undo the, the tax sweetheart deal the president got.

I think that's what Trump's counting on, and time will tell.

Uh, but I do think he may be willing to wait until next January and, and roll the dice, uh, because those are the things, Kaitlan, that are most important to the president.

He wants his slush fund ultimately, and he definitely wants the get out of jail free, you know, tax sweetheart deal, uh, that was cut for himself and members of his family.

That is his top priority over having a confirmed attorney general.

What do those numbers tell you about what Democratic voters want your party to look like?

What do you know about those munitions?

Well, that's exactly right.

We have depleted our interceptors, which are the, the, the weapons we use to intercept incoming Iranian attacks, uh, which are obviously necessary to protect American troops.

And so we are depleting these every day, uh, despite the fact that we could face other potential conflicts around the world.

You know, as you said in the lead-in, uh, Martha, Donald Trump said, "We won this war.

We won." Those were his words back in March.

And so the question is, now we're in July, why are Americans still getting killed? Why is the Strait of Hormuz still closed? Why are oil and gas prices going back through the roof again?

Uh, and then President Trump, even after it was signed, said, "Wait a minute, the, they ha- the Saudis first have to normalize relations with Israel." So what happened there, and what do you think of that going forward?

What do you know about those munitions?

Well, that's exactly right.

We have depleted our interceptors, which are the, the m- weapons we use to intercept incoming Iranian attacks, uh, which are obviously necessary to protect American troops.

And so we are depleting these every day, uh, despite the fact that we could face other potential conflicts around the world.

You know, as you said in the lead-in, uh, Martha, Donald Trump said, "We won this war.

We won." Those were his words back in March.

And so the question is, now we're in July, why are Americans still getting killed? Why is the Strait of Hormuz still closed? Why are oil and gas prices going back through the roof again?

Uh, and then President Trump, even after it was signed, said, "Wait a minute, the, they ha- the Saudis first have to normalize relations with Israel." So what happened there, and what do you think of that going forward?

What would the CLARITY Act do to interfere with that kind of scamming?

Well first of all I'm really glad you're shining a light on this because I call this bill one of the bottom crawlers that could rise up and strike at any point in time.

And I, I do wanna clarify something, no, no pun intended.

Uh, I would support a CLARITY Act that actually had adequate, uh, conflict of interest rules and got at the ethics issues and one that also dealt with a number of other important issues to sort of close the ability to use crypto for illicit finance.

The current CLARITY bill in its current form does not do that.

I am the sponsor of the proposed amendment to the bill to deal with the ethics issues, to deal with the conflict of iss- uh, interest issues.

'Cause as you said, we have the most corrupt White House in American history, and a lot of that corruption relates to crypto.

Um, and I think that begs the question for Democrats, do you believe that if Bibi Netanyahu, who is a war criminal for the ICC, comes to the United States, he should be arrested?

Senator, I wonder if you were convinced by the case the Secretary of Defense made today.

Well, Chris, I went into that hearing very worried about the future course of this war and our country, and I came out even more worried because it's very clear the Secretary of Defense and the Trump administration have no idea what they're doing.

And this is a very dangerous moment for the country because they've never decided what their true objective is.

It changes by the day.

As I said at the hearing, you know, Donald Trump told the country back in March that we'd won.

When I asked the secretary about that, he said, "Well, what the president really meant was we were able to hit their military really hard." Well, there was never a question about whether the United States military could do a lot of damage to Iran, but that is a long way from winning, and this Secretary of Defense keeps saying we're gonna win, but he won't tell us what his real objective is.

At the very end, he said it was about ending Iran's nuclear program, and I pointed out, Chris, uh, that he had told the country just last year, and this is almost an exact quote, that we had obliterated Iran's ability to produce any nuclear weapons, which clearly, um, would m- mean that their whole purpose here, uh, would be meaningless.

I mean, for the first time today, it seemed that they did enforce essentially a blockade for the other route by which Saudi oil, um, might, might get off of the peninsula there?

Are you getting any information from the Pentagon, from the White House? Uh, you may not like it, you may not agree with it, but are they giving you information? At least explaining what they're trying to do?

Uh, John, as you know, information has been very sparse.

Um, it took weeks and weeks into the war for this Republican-controlled Senate to even hold a hearing on the war.

I will say that tomorrow, I serve on the Appropriations Committee, uh, we will have the Secretary of Defense, uh, Pete Hegseth.

He'll be f- in front of the committee, and you can be sure he'll be getting ki- the kind of questions that we're talking about, uh, right now.

What is the purpose of this war, and w- how are you going to end it? Uh, again, they got us into this terrible mess.

We've got to get out of it.

What are your conversations with our allies in the r- region, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and elsewhere, who obviously are bearing the brunt of this?

Help us understand, for those of us who don't live in the world that you live in, how something this dramatic could be happening.

So, Peter, I will say that Congress has lived for a very long time in a bubble, kind of divorced from the feeling of many people around the country.

But I think those issues bubbled up, of course, in response to what happened in Gaza.

And Congress still remained in a bubble for a very long time and only now is beginning to awaken to what so many folks at the grassroots level already understand, which is that if we want to ensure security and human rights and justice and dignity, for both Israelis and Palestinians, that the United States government has got to get much more engaged and focused on these issues.

And so you're absolutely right.

The votes show that change.

I remember just last year, Peter, in the Senate.

Isn't Senator Schumer one of those senior Democratic decision makers who whitewashed the truth and refused to accept their complicity?

What's your read?

Well, Chris, I think you're right, uh, on all the votes that you just went through, starting with the Blanche, uh, hearing and vote in judiciary, and then some of the war powers resolutions on the floor of the Senate.

But I- I would like to go back to the point you made in your monologue, 'cause I thought it was a [laughs] really important point about Lindsey Graham, who essentially decided to go all in with Donald Trump.

Donald Trump, of course, ran in the last election saying, "No wars." And we are now in a big war with Iran.

And Lindsey Graham is a very big part of that story, along with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

And as you know, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Lindsey Graham are very close.

Uh, Prime Minister Netanyahu, you know, praised Lindsey Graham's great work just upon his passing.

Um, and, and, and now you have been notified per the War Powers Act that, that basically it's a new war and the clock starts ticking." What, what do you think about that?