4/14: The Takeout with Major Garrett

Right. The Saudis, it has been confirmed through CBS News reporting, want this to end, do not like the blockade at all, and are fearful about repercussions, economically and otherwise. Walk us through that. Well, that's right. The Saudis have a challenge in the Red Sea, where, if you remember a year ago, the Houthis had been making a lot of problems and shutting down shipping in the Red Sea. So the Saudis are not only up against the Strait of Hormuz and the economic pressure that's putting on them, but also up against their issues in the Red Sea. This is just indicative of the fact that this war is multidimensional. There's no quick fix here. There's no one button that you push and all the problems in the Middle East get solved. And that's what we're seeing.

And another part of this that is a point of concern, a point of contention, a point of military activity, not often focused on day to day, but it's super important, Israel and Lebanon and Hezbollah there. And there were talks in Washington today, overseen by the secretary of state, to try to bring that to some sort of resolution. That's a big part of this story. It's a huge part of the story, and it's one that sometimes as Americans we can lose sight of, is that this is a war we entered with our ally Israel. And from the Israeli point of view, the threat that comes from Hezbollah in Lebanon--

A proxy of Iran. A proxy of Iran.

In southern Lebanon. Right on their northern border-- is really existential. So as Americans, often we hear about the Iranian nuclear program, the focus is on Iran. If you're Israeli, a very big part of this war is solving the challenge that is Hezbollah in Lebanon. So again, it's multidimensional. And it was said today after the talks ended, this is a very small first step. No one expected anything to be resolved today. Absolutely. And so if we look on the home front, where many Americans are growing impatient with the war, are starting to feel the economic pressures, this is really going to be a challenge for the president and a challenge for Republicans. I want to ask you about the broader geopolitical context here. Nick Burns was on this program yesterday, talked about the China angle. I'd like you to give me your thoughts on what China is doing and maybe how it's playing both sides. I think, to zoom out for a second, the war in Iran has been great for China. It's great for China because we're not talking about the host of issues that exist between the United States and China. We're talking about a war of choice that the United States is engaged inside of Iran. Kind of going down more to the micro level, we're seeing that the Chinese have been the reports of them delivering surface-to-air missiles to the Iranian military while also trying to encourage peace talks. So very astutely playing both sides. But ultimately, for China, this war has been something that's advantageous to them. Even if supplies of oil that come from the strait and go to China are choked off? Couldn't that be a problem for China? It places economic stress on China, for sure. But I think, ultimately, the advantages probably outweigh the economic stress that China is feeling because of this oil.

Excellent. Great to have you here at the table. Thank you, Major.

Please come back. You're always welcome, Elliot Ackerman, thank you. CBS News Congressional Taurean Small joins me now from Capitol Hill, where Democratic lawmakers are looking to force another war powers vote on the war with Iran. But there is a lot of other things going on today, Taurean, specifically with some lawmakers commenting on Eric Swalwell, among them Ruben Gallego, Arizona Democratic Senator. Yeah, Major. And just to follow that conversation that you just had there, there's two trains running when it comes to these War Power Resolution efforts on Capitol Hill. We know that Representative Gregory Meeks is looking to push through the floor on the House side his version of a War Powers Resolution to rein in the Trump administration's handling of Iran, as well as Tammy Duckworth, the senator from Illinois. The problem is finding consensus with Republicans. I think the House has a little bit of a pathway to success in finding simple majority there, as there have been a handful of Republicans who have expressed disinterest or displeasure with how the president has handled this conflict. But on the Senate side, Democrats have to find four Republicans willing to buck with their party in order to send this statement over to the president's desk. It's likely that even if that happens, they'll still see that veto from the president. This would be a pretty notable rebuke, even if it didn't have teeth, for bipartisan effort to sell the president, that they're displeased with his handling of Iran. But we've heard from quite a few Republicans today who said that they believe this will be wrapped up within that 60-day window. We're around 45, 46 days so far. So we'll see what happens in the coming days. But these will be two pretty important test votes to hit the floors this week. And the War Powers Resolution calls for something to happen after 60 days if the president does not go to Congress. What's been the fallout from Tony González and Eric Swalwell announcing they intend to resign? Swalwell's was effective 2 o'clock Eastern. As I understand it, Tony Gonzales's resignation, effective 11:59 PM this evening. Yeah, those timelines came into focus as there was still quite a few members of Congress who were upset with how nebulous their statements were, saying that they were willing to resign but didn't exactly give a timeline. Representative Anna Paulina Luna threatened to still put out her resolution to force their expulsion if they didn't resign by 2:00 PM Eastern today. That ultimately happened. As we look forward, though, I want to mention that Ruben Gallego, the senator from Arizona, had this really interesting conflict that we saw play out in front of the press. He was really close friends with Eric Swalwell, and he had to essentially distance himself from him. He was the national chairman of his 2019 presidential campaign. So he looked to uncouple himself from him as these allegations and more allegations come forward. This is what he had to say to the press earlier today. We knew each other differently from everyone else. My family and his family were as close as it gets. Our kids were in baseball camp together. We had dinner together as a family.

How did you not know about the allegations, though, considering you chaired his presidential campaign? Wouldn't some of this have come up? Some of those allegations predated when he ran for office. Again, this man led a double life. He lied to us. He lied to his family. He lied to his constituents.

Will you release any text messages you had with Eric Swalwell to prove your innocence here? Anybody that asks or any legal proceedings that need it will get whatever they want. And what Swalwell and Gonzales out. That doesn't necessarily mean that lawmakers are satisfied with the rest of Congress. There are two Florida congresspeople currently under fire for allegations of misconduct and/or money laundering, and those two are likely to face those similar calls of expulsion later this week. Taurean Small on Capitol Hill. Thank you very, very much. Earlier, I spoke with New Mexico Democratic Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández, who had pushed for Congressman Swalwell and Gonzales to step down-- or actually be expelled from Congress. Here is that conversation. Congresswoman Eric Swalwell has resigned. Republican Congressman Tony Gonzales will resign, effective tonight. Had they not, would they have been expelled, in your opinion? I do think that we had the votes to expel them. And more importantly, I do not think they would have resigned if we had not intended to bring the resolutions to expel them. So today was a result of not just what Representative Luna and I were doing, but also the courageous activism and courage of the women who were willing to break the silence and describe what had happened to them. Do you believe there will be either, in the coming days, more resignations or continued efforts to seek expulsion of other members of Congress? I have been focused on the sexual harassment and abuse charges against representative Gonzales, who, as you know, admitted to the sexual transgression six weeks ago, and there had been no action taken, which is why I was motivated to bring the motion to expel. Because Speaker Johnson could not control that privilege motion, we could force a vote on it. I think Representative Luna was doing the same thing. And with regards to the other members, that process is ongoing. And I think there is going to be a Ethics Committee recommendation forthcoming. This afternoon, Representative Ro Khanna of California was giving a speech, and he talked to reporters afterwards. And he talked about what he described as an Epstein class. He said "elites who choose being part of a network instead of speaking up against the abuse of young girls." That's a broad statement about Jeffrey Epstein and those around him. But there's also been a conversation this week that within the corridors of the Capitol, there were rumors about Eric Swalwell and people that should've known or did know didn't say anything and left it to the victims to bring this to the public's attention. Do you have any comment on that? The reason why Americans are outraged with regards to what happened with the Epstein survivors and Epstein and his co-conspirators is we are sick and tired of the rich and powerful being able to get away with using and abusing women. We are sick and tired of the rich and powerful controlling our lives. And so I believe that the need to bring both Gonzales as well as Swalwell to the floor of the House represents our willingness to act in this moment, especially in that context. Remember, the reason we have the provision in the code of conduct is because of the MeToo movement. And I want to call out the former DWC chair, Representative Jackie Speier, because on a bipartisan basis, she pushed for us to include this in our code of conduct in 2018 after a spate of sexual abuse charges and resignations in 2017. And so Eric Swalwell, it now is clear, was acting in a potentially predatory fashion against staffers who worked for him. That would be an absolute violation of that code. And if people around the Capitol, acting in a sort of clubby and defensive way, didn't say anything about it, isn't that itself a problem? That is a problem if that is indeed the case. I hadn't heard of that and of the allegations against Eric Swalwell until now. But it is disturbing, when you look at the evidence that has been mounting, that there were those who thought he was too flirty or the things. And that's the problem, that we need to protect our women staffers. We need to protect all of our staffers. And if we hadn't taken swift action now, I think our staff would have felt we weren't protecting them. And that's why I brought my resolution, which I did file, but also was willing to support the expulsion of Eric Swalwell, is we need to act when we hear this information. I can only tell you what I did with the information I had. And I was so angry that Speaker Johnson had not taken any action against Representative Tony Gonzales. He admitted to that sexual transgression six weeks ago. And people knew about what he had done for a long time as well. So let's always make sure we include representative Tony González and the fact that the Republicans failed to call him on what he was doing. And there is a woman who is dead now. She committed suicide by setting herself aflame. And Speaker Johnson wouldn't take any action in the House of Representatives? I will say that once the allegations broke with regards to Swalwell, there was strong condemnation by Democrats in leadership roles and here in the House. New Mexico Democratic Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you so very much, Major.

Still to come on The Takeout, Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth joins me live to discuss the Iran War Powers Resolution she is putting forward. That's expected to be voted on as early as tomorrow. Also joining the show, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez. What is next for his case and litigation against Meta over child exploitation? Plus, the Trump administration eases economic sanctions on Venezuela. The Axios reporter who broke that story tells us about it. The Takeoutreturns in 90 seconds. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome back to The Takeout. Welcome to the conversation corner. Love hanging out here. According to a new report out today by Axios, Trump administration has eased important economic sanctions on Venezuela. In particular, lifting sanctions related to banking that were first put in place during Trump 1.0. Marc Caputo covers the White House for Axios. He broke the story, joins us. Friend of the show. Great to have you here. Thanks for being in the conversation corner. Thanks for hanging out. Thanks for having me. What happened and why? The karma happened. The Trump administration, Trump one, in 2019 put all of these sanctions on Venezuela to make sure that its banking sector was crushed. Many years later, Trump two takes out Nicolás Maduro, the dictator, installs Delcy Rodríguez as the vice president. Wants to prop her up-- or as the president. Wants to prop her up and have Venezuela as a functioning US ally and developing its oil. The problem is those sanctions are still in place. So the United States essentially controls Venezuela's oil and oil sales, has it in a special account. But Venezuela's national bank can't use most of that money because of those sanctions.

Because it's dollars. Right. And in order to participate in the global financial system, which is dominated by the United States, you need US permission to do it. And so there were economic problems. There were public sector workers in Venezuela who have been protesting in Caracas. And Delcy Rodríguez, the acting president, has been nervous about this, telling the United States, look, I've got a problem. If you don't let me use US dollars and participate in the banking system with the oil that you now control, I'm not going to be able to give people raises. They're going to keep protesting, or I'll have to print money and cause inflation. And that's a problem, too. Solution, ease the sanctions. They didn't eliminate them. They gave certain types of licenses. It's very complicated things. But, essentially, they can now use US dollars. And who did Delcy go through? Do we know? I don't specifically know, but her main-- This is the Treasury Department maneuver. So obviously it had to flow through the Treasury secretary. But I wonder if there's sort of an informal case officer or something where the administration has created a conduit for Delcy for as long as she's the favored political leader of Venezuela, from the White House's perspective, can go to. Generally speaking, she's dealing with the US embassy through the State Department. And Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, is her point of contact.

Got it. And so there had been discussion, which I didn't get into the piece but we can talk about here now, between the State Department and the Treasury Department of, how do we do this? And there was some sort of typical sort of bureaucratic discussion, but eventually it got done.

Right. Very quickly, do we have any sense of when there is going to be a transition or elections? No. Right. In the end, the Trump administration says it wants to have elections, but the reality is that the war in Iran has been, at least from the perspective of the Western Hemisphere, a distraction. And what's interesting, when you look at the problems that have occurred with the war in Iran and the relative lack of problems with the operation in Venezuela, the comparison between these two countries and how to do regime change, or regime change lite, is pretty stark. The Venezuela operation went off without a hitch. You can't say the same thing about Iran.

You cannot. And in Venezuela right now, it appears stability is preferred over transition at any time in the near future.

I would say so, yeah. Marc Caputo, great to have you here, man. Thank you. I appreciate you. Always welcome. Coming up, last month, a New Mexico jury found Meta liable for failing to protect children on its platform. The case isn't over yet. There's another round. And I'm joined by New Mexico's attorney general, who will tell us what New Mexico wants and what lies just ahead right here on The Takeout. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome back to the show. Still hanging out in the conversation corner. Don't I love it? In March, A nEW Mexico jury ordered Meta-- first time this has happened-- pay $375 million. First time there have been any damages. But $375 million for enabling, or at least being passively willing to accept, sexual exploitation on its platforms, including Facebook and Instagram. Now there's a second phase of this-- a bench trial set for May over whether the company will have to make precise changes as directed or influenced heavily by the state of New Mexico, which brought the suit in the first place. The person who did that work, Raúl Torrez, the attorney general of New Mexico, joins me now. It's great to have you here. Thank you for having me. What do you want from Meta in terms of this second bench trial, which is to, as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, not only add to the damages, which Meta has said it will appeal-- hasn't yet, but says it will-- but get them to change things? What do you want them to change? Well, we want them to change the way this product operates at a very fundamental level. We're looking for real age verification, changes to the algorithm so that they stop facilitating child exploitation. We are looking for a whole suite of changes that doesn't trap kids in this endless loop of grabbing their attention, keeping them hooked, and keeping them addicted. And it would mean that the platform itself would have to take proactive measures and not just rely on parents or children to figure this out. That's right. That's right. This is fundamentally a dangerous product that was purposely engineered to be addictive. They have made design choices over the years where they have chosen to prioritize profits over safety. And we are looking to have a judge order them to unwind those choices and fundamentally create a new experience for underage people. Because from your vantage point, and the jury backed you up on this, this is an intentionally defective product. That's right. This was essentially a product liability case. This was a case about a company that built and engineered a product using behavioral science, using technologists to try and hook kids, but also create elements that facilitated exploitation. And then they lied about it. They misled the public. And that's what the jury found. We had a six-week trial. We had a verdict in one day. Remind my audience of the sexual exploitation component part of your argument and what the jury discovered. So my background is as a career prosecutor. We actually used some of those same techniques in building our case against Meta. We created an undercover account where we were trying to replicate what the experience might be for a young person on the platform. People who thought they were communicating with a young girl were actually communicating with one of our special agents, and that account was flooded with sexually explicit materials, material requests for in-person meetings. And it was an explosive reaction. Here's the shocking part. When the growth went off the charts, rather than raise a red flag about why so many people were trying to contact this child, the company actually sent the account information about growing its user base and monetizing the following. I want to ask you about another topic that deals with exploitation. Here's a headline I came across. "Cadaver dogs and drones-- records show scope of search at Zorro Ranch carried out by the New Mexico government." What's happened? So we've reopened-- Why would you want and need cadaver dogs on the Zorro Ranch? Yes. So we've reopened the dormant criminal investigation--

Which is owned by Jeffrey Epstein. That's right. This is Zorro Ranch. It was a property that had been under investigation by my predecessor. And then he was asked to stand down by the Department of Justice back in 2019.

Which has been confirmed. And he did that. But all of the revelations that came out with the release of some of the files that came from the Department of Justice prompted us to reopen the investigation. And my commitment to the public is to put every available resource that we have at our disposal. I can't comment on the specifics about the investigative techniques that we've used. But I will say this. We are trying to get-- These are records that have been released. That's true. That's true. But what we are fundamentally focused on is trying to get victims and survivors to come forward, to understand that we need to hear from them and we want to talk to them [INDISTINCT]. Mr. Attorney General, that record revealing the use of cadaver dogs will lead those who watch this story closely to say, do you have any reason to believe there might be human remains on that ranch? Well, that was an allegation that was made, and part of what we try to do is take a broad lens when we open a criminal investigation so we don't rule anything out. And so that's why we utilize those resources. But again, our focus is on trying to connect with those victims and survivors and to hear from them and their story so we can have a complete understanding of exactly what happened at that property. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, thanks for coming in. I appreciate it very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Olivia Troye, Olivia, served in President Trump's first administration but has since become an outspoken critic of the president and those around him. Now she's running for Congress as a Democrat. Our political panel will discuss that and a whole lot more, coming your way on The Takeout. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome back to The Takeout. Olivia Troye departed the first Trump administration in 2020 and then became an outspoken critic of the president, those closest to him. Now she's switched parties and is going to seek office as a Democrat, running to represent one of the newly redrawn congressional districts in Virginia, newly redrawn, if those district lines hold. But that's another topic. I want to bring in our political panel-- Democratic strategist Kendra barkoff Lamy, who served as an advisor to then-Vice President Biden, and Republican strategist Marc Short, who you well remember-- I do, for sure-- served as former Vice President Mike Pence's chief of staff. Great to have you both with us. Major, thanks for having us. Marc, let me start off with you. What do you think? Olivia. Olivia is probably far more comfortable at Democrat Party. She-- Why? Well, she was a career staffer from DHS. I think present company excluded, a of journalists were pretty lazy and cited as a national security advisor to Pence. Pence is now security advisor with Keith Kellogg.

Yes. Keith hired Olivia as part of his team. Because typically on your national security staff, you take somebody from Homeland Security, somebody from the CIA, somebody from State Department. You have all the agencies represented.

Right. All of them repped. And she was the one he picked as a career employee. It'd be sort of like saying Vindman is a Trump national security advisor is a comparison. And so Olivia was a career employee for the federal government who was assigned to the vice president's staff. And she's expressed her disagreements with the president since leaving, and she's probably more comfortable with Democrat Party. And your underlying point is she wasn't a partisan and wasn't even nominally on board, as you could tell, to the Trump agenda. She was not a political appointee for our team. And look, I still think that the seventh district, who knows how the Democrats are going to redraw things in Virginia? But it sounds like Terry McAuliffe's wife is running in that seat, too. Yes. And so I think it will be a pretty competitive primary for her to pick off. Kendra, two questions about Olivia. Number one. And number two, Democrats are a little bit uneasy about how the vote, April 21, on redistricting. Because they have to approve it by the will of the people in Virginia and the Commonwealth. It's going to go-- most Democrats believe they're going to win, but it's a little closer than they thought it would be a couple three weeks ago. Well, look, I think we have to take a step back and remember where we started with all these redistricting, right?

Texas, Trump. Texas started it all.

You mean Spanberger promising she wouldn't do it when she ran? I seem to remember, if you go back in time, though, Texas started it long before her campaign kicked off. And so I do think you have to go back and look at where this started from to move forward. And we can all pontificate what's going to happen on the voting day. The voters are going to come out and decide what is or is not going to happen. But there's a lot of people that are getting in the race. That means that there's a lot of excitement in the Democratic Party. People want to run. They want change. They are seeing what's happening in Washington, DC, and have decided they're all going to throw their name in the ring. And so that's exciting. I want to ask-- go ahead. It's so disingenuous, though. To say you're going to-- this is going to be temporary-- I look forward to those Democrats who are elected saying, I was only a temporary member. I'm stepping aside in 2030 when we redraw these districts. It's all such a hoax. It is possible that after a census in 2030, these district lines could be going back to the bipartisan commission for the Commonwealth of Virginia has. It's possible. You believe that, Major? I'm just saying it's possible. You don't believe it? I certainly don't. You believe that Republicans who redraw midsession and Democrats who redraw midsession or midterm are going to keep those lines because--

They have incentive to want to hold on to their jobs. Right. You got it. OK. Because you worked for Vice President Mike Pence, I want you, if you can, Marc, give me your opinion on-- sometimes Washington and reporters here can get focused and fascinated and fixated on a story that actually isn't true. And there's a fixation about the relationship between Marco Rubio and JD Vance, perceived as rivals in 2028. And every little thing that happens, Vance is either being pushed, down or Rubio is being pushed up. Where do you think things are right now between the two of them and how their assignments are being apportioned by the president? Well, look, that's a long-- Yeah, it is.

Run. Run, with it. Run with it. Run with it, sir. Go ahead. I think there's a lot of questions about-- right now, people think JD's down, Marco's up, and yet all the polling of Republican primary voters continue to put JD at the top of the list. So there's a lot of intrigue that happens in DC that isn't necessarily the same out in most of America. I do think that the president, in his State of the Union, took time to compliment Marco as perhaps the greatest secretary of state ever and said, hey, JD, how about a task force on fraud? And so I think there's a lot that plays into that. But I think, also, you're going to continue to see the president play them both. And he'll play other characters, too, because he wants them all vying for his attention. Do you think there's anything, Marc, worth evaluating? Because lots of people in town are-- JD Vance gets sent to Islamabad to deal with the Iranians, knowing that's going to be a hard thing. And Marco Rubio gets Lebanon and Israel dealing with the Lebanese-Israeli question, which may have a higher percentage of success. Therefore, Rubio gets the easier assignment. Vance gets the harder one. I don't know about that. I think they both serve at the pleasure of the president. But I think, probably, I would guess that Marco would probably be less excited about trying to find some sort of settlement with Iran unless they give up all their nuclear weapons, not some 5- or 20-year, temporary ban, and probably is supportive of the military conflict in ways that JD hasn't. It sounds like JD was selected by Iran and Pakistan to be the participant there. So-- Kendra, you've been in the vice president's office. You know how these things go. How do you evaluate this? I think this is a Trump puppet game. I think he enjoys television. He enjoys the drama. He enjoys the theatrics. And look, I'm sure he-- And he knows all of us are going to sift these tea leaves endlessly. A thousand percent. And he sits back, and he watches this on TV. And he loves it. Because it brings attention to everything that he's doing. Because that's what he loves to do, is get attention. And so I think there's going to be this game for a little while. You're going to see up, you're going to see down the pollings. But at the end of the day, I think what really matters is what we're going to see in November, at the end of the day, with the election and how voters are going to go to the polls and vote in record numbers for Democrats. Because what they're doing in this administration is not taking prices down like they promised. And, Marc, you were with the vice president heading into what turned out to be a tough midterm in 2018. Do you sense the same atmospherics? Yeah, I was still actually working for the president at that point. OK, that's right. Legislative director. That's right. Yeah, I think the atmospherics are similar. I think that in this case, to Kendra's point, I think that the number one issue is affordability. And I think that right now, you still have inflation running at three-plus percent. And, yeah, I know that people say, look, under Biden it was nine, and now it's three. But the three is not measured at nine. The three is measured to last year. So it's still going up.

And to promises the president made that people remember. And I think in the midst of that, you still have higher and higher energy prices. So I don't think you've even seen the peak yet. And so, yeah, I think it's a very difficult cycle for Republicans to be running right now. And if you were to give advice, what would it be? How would you tell a Republican to try to deal with this right now? Just hope the president end this sooner rather than later? Well, look, I think there's been a lot of differences in economic policy between the first administration and the second, Major. I would encourage them to go back to the first administration policies. I think the first administration policies were deregulation, low taxes. This is now all of a sudden, hey, let's take Bernie Sanders' playbook and embrace state owned enterprises. Let's decide we're going to put caps on credit cards, and let's tariff the whole globe. And so the policies that are being pursued are, frankly, a lot more of the Democrat playbook than a Republican playbook right now. I'd encourage him to say, how about we get back to conservative free-market policies?

Kendra, you're just going to let this go on, aren't yo? I will, because it's really enjoyable. But look, when you have the president's own advisors in The New York Times saying, this is not what our MAGA base voted for in the election and you have warnings in The New York Times by some of his people, saying this war is not what we should be getting ourselves into, that is not a great sign for them. And they know that there's an inevitable election coming up. Gas prices are above $5 a gallon right now in some places. It's absurd, and that is not what voters want. Kendra Barkoff Lamy, you get the last word. Marc Short, you had many words. I put the pressure on you, put the heat on you. You held up well. Thank you, always. I appreciate it. Still to come on The Takeout, Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth has legislation, war powers legislation. We'll talk about that when we come back. Stay tuned. [MUSIC PLAYING] Welcome back to The Takeout. True fact, senators are busy people, especially those who are trying to use war powers to stop a war. So Tammy Duckworth has not logged on to her Zoom. Maybe she will. Maybe she won't. But quite helpfully, our political panel has decided to hang out with me against their better judgment. Kendra Barkoff Lamy, Marc Short. I want to play for you a soundbite from Ro Khanna, a California Democrat. Gave a speech today at the National Press Club, and he talked about many things, but among them, a sort of "Epstein class" of people in America. Please. Listen. When people see powerful men abusing and trafficking young girls without consequence, it shakes something fundamental. They have seen the callowness, immaturity, hedonism, venality, ruthlessness, and immorality of our governing class, people who chose being part of a network instead of speaking up against the abuse of young girls. And many are asking themselves, if these elite can get away with that, what can't they get away with? What can't they get away with, Kendra? Apparently, everything, right? Epstein went back to 2006, we know. There was a guilty plea where he got special favors. And he knew how to work the system really, really well, and it was very convenient. And so what happened is survivors were scared to come forward, especially after when they did, nothing happened. And so, yeah, there were some real problems with what happened in the federal government, what happened in the state government. And survivors right now deserve and want transparency. And, Marc, more broadly, politically, what the president-- I've been told I have to go to Tammy Duckworth because she has got onto her Zoom. So, Marc, please forgive me. Until next time. Until next time. Senator Duckworth, it's great to see you. Thanks for joining us. I appreciate it. We have a little bit of time, so I want you to catch my audience up on the status of the War Powers Resolution that you're going to introduce and if you think there will be any more Republican converts to that this time than there were last time. [AUDIO OUT] but we're getting there. We're having more and more conversations with Republicans, who really are becoming very upset with what is happening in the Gulf. From the very beginning, Donald Trump has proved that he never had a plan to get us out of this dangerous and costly quagmire. Gas prices are going through the roof. We now have a new Ayatollah, who is worse than the previous Ayatollah. Now we're blockading the Strait of Hormuz. And so we're just going to keep doing this. There's at least 10 of us Democrats who have filed the same motion, and we're going to bring this up every single week. And we're going to hold them accountable and force them to vote on-- they can choose whether they're going to vote for America and Americans, or they're going to vote for Donald Trump's really, really horrible choice of a war. Some Republicans have said they'd rather wait for the full 60 days to elapse before they decide whether or not to sign on to this. How do you evaluate that point of view? Well, that's a misreading of the statute, but we're going to be there and having another vote at the 60-day mark. So I look forward to having them join us at the 60-day mark if that's the case. But if they grow a conscience before, then, if they grow a backbone before then, they can join us tomorrow when my vote comes up. And let's say it passes, just theoretically, and it passes the House, the president vetoes it. So what happens? Well, we come right back at it again. But the key thing here is that we need to hold him accountable. And we're going to gum up the works with every tool we have at our disposal to have some accountability for this war. Listen, I talk to Illinoisans all the time. I talk to people all around this country, and they say the same thing. Gas prices are going through the roof. My life is not better. And why are we launching a war against Iran? And why are we talking about destroying entire civilizations when I can't pay my heating bill and the president has proposed to zero out the LIHEAP, the low-income heating program? So they want him to be the president for America first, which is what he promised to do. And instead, he's launched all of these military actions around the world that's not making America better. When the president says, as he did today to The New York Post, there may be another round of negotiations sometime later this week in Islamabad between the United States and Iran, does that in any way change your point of view? It does not. It does not change my point of view. Because, again, he's a terrible negotiator. He calls himself the guy with the art of the deal, but, frankly, he's a horrible negotiator. One of the things that I'm concerned with is that we're going to end these negotiations with Iran being able to charge ships going through the Straits of Hormuz, a million dollars a ship, which was not something that they were able to do in the first place. So he launches a war of his choice against Iran, and now we're negotiating with Iran? This is absolutely ludicrous. I cannot believe we have such an incompetent commander in chief who-- and, by the way, we've lost 13 American lives, and over 300 Americans are wounded. I think that number is now closer to 400 wounded. And gas prices, again, are going through the roof. This is not making America's lives any better. And he needs to end this war. He needs to be held accountable, and that's what we're doing with these war power resolutions. Every week, we're going to bring this up for a vote. Illinois Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth, appreciate it. Thanks so much. Happy Tuesday, everyone. This is The Takeout. You know what we are. Quick reminder-- relentlessly curious, reliably civil, occasionally clever. The Daily Report coming your way next.