9/10: The Takeout with Major Garrett

Breaking it down brilliantly, as always, Ed O'Keefe. My appreciation to you, sir. Thank you. I want to turn now to the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Joe Gruters. Mr. Chairman, good to have you with us. The president, as you know, last night asked Americans to pretend that he's on the midterm ballot. In your experience, are voters good at pretending things? Listen, that's exactly what we need. We need the president to be on the ballot. You can see, even from the crowds, what happens when the president comes and speaks. This place is on complete fire. He does such a great job. He's delivered low-propensity voters three times. He's going to do it again. That's why we did this convention. We know that this is a turnout race. We have to be unified. The president is the best person to do that. He's the best messenger we ever had in the Republican Party. We're moving forward. We're going to defy history. And we're going to win.

You've often described the president as America's best political showman. What do you mean by that? Well, exactly what I mean. If you look at him taking the stage, people love it. Ever since he took that escalator down the stairs in New York City, when he went to announce he was going to run for president, people have been captivated by him. He is loved by the base. He can motivate people to get out there and vote. And like I said, he's already proved that he can do it three times. And we're putting him on the ballot basically so we can do it a fourth time. That's why we're going out and doing 35 rallies, 100 tele-town halls. We're going to take his message directly to the American people, because I think he goes to bat for the American worker. And he wants everybody to achieve that American dream. And I think that message resonates with the average American out there.

Mr. Chairman, do you believe any Republican who tries to distance himself or herself from the president or his agenda is foolish this election cycle? I think everybody who embraces the president, embraces the president's agenda, is going to be a winner. I think we have the candidates. And listen, look at the candidates across the country. This president has endorsed early in a lot of these races. And as a result, we have a huge advantage because we have common-sense candidates. And on the left, where they've been picked by Bernie Sanders and Mamdani and Chuck Schumer and Pelosi, they have these left-wing radicals that are too extreme for the American public. We're going to win because we have better candidates, we have better messaging, we have a lot more money, and we're going to bring the message and show that contrast directly to the American voters.

I want to read to you something that the Kentucky Democratic governor, Andy Beshear, said today. I'll quote him directly. "If Donald Trump wants to hold a convention saying this election is about him, I fully support his decision to hold a convention saying this election is fully about him. He's telling people to pretend that he's on the ballot. I want people to pretend that he's on the ballot. If you are for tariffs, vote for Donald Trump, the Republican candidate. If you are for gas being higher, vote for Donald Trump, the Republican candidate. Otherwise, vote for the Democrat." How do you respond to Andy Beshear, the governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky? Listen, thanks, Andy, but no thanks, because the Democrats have told you what they want. They want open borders. They want amnesty for illegals, including the murderers and rapists they let in under Biden. They want to return to the disastrous Biden economic policies that created 9% inflation, that created huge, massive gas prices, and everything else. We don't want that. People want somebody who's going to fight for the average American worker. This president did it with the working family tax cuts, no tax on tips, overtime, Social Security, these trade deals. America has been taken advantage of for five decades because DC elitists and people like Andy Beshear are willing to trade American jobs for cheap goods. This president understands what this country needs, what we need to do. And we need fair trade deals. We need to put Americans back to work. That's what this guy is doing. $19 trillion worth of investments coming in-- I'll put that on the line versus what Andy Beshear wants to do any day of the week.

The president, as you know, Mr. Chairman, often describes this as the Golden Age of America, specifically economically. If it is such a golden age, Mr. Chairman, why does it need to be gilded with $5,000 checks for every American adult? Well, listen, I think that he's trying to return taxpayer dollars to the people who deserve it the most, the individual people who pay those taxes. And listen, I fully embrace the president, his message, his willingness to go to bat for the American worker. He's tried to do it since day one. And I think that's just one new policy that he could use to help people when they need it the most. But like I said, we fought for two years to increase that nose, to lift that nose from the disaster years of the Biden economics. He's doing it. We just need more time.

How much more time do you need, Mr. Chairman? We need to win these elections with these candidates that we have in place. If we do that, we'll be successful. We've already seen egg prices go down. We've seen gas prices go down. We've seen all these prices across the board go down, inflation go down from the highs that we saw in Biden's era. But we're going to continue to work on it. We're going to continue to do well. But this president has the American worker in mind. He's going to bat for him every single day. He's going to continue to do all he can to make sure that everybody can achieve the American dream, no matter what your background is and no matter who you are.

Wait a minute. Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure I heard what you just said. Did you just say gas prices are down? Because gas prices, quite evidently, are not down. And the president said yesterday that they're going to remain high until after the midterms. They're lower than what they were under the highs under Joe Biden. Under Joe Biden, they were over $5, and people forget that. Think about this. We're in the middle of a conflict as we're trying to protect our national security overseas, trying to make sure Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. And they're still lower than what they were under Biden's high. This president understands gas prices. He understands grocery prices. He has empathy for the average person out there. We're trying to do better. That's why he proposes this $5,000 direct benefit to Americans across the country. We know that people need relief. He's going to bat for them. We're trying to deliver it.

Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters. Mr. Chairman, appreciate the time. Thank you. Well, New Hampshire Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen is not seeking reelection. Her daughter is hoping she can win a seat in Congress and pave her own way in national politics. Stefany Shaheen prevailed in the Democratic primary for New Hampshire's first congressional district. She will face Republican businessman Anthony DiLorenzo. This seat has been held by a Democrat since 2017. And Stefany Shaheen joins me now fresh off her primary victory. Stefany, it's a pleasure to have you on the program. Congratulations. I looked at the results. You won with a plurality, 36.9%. It's always problematic for me to do math on live television, but that is not nearly a majority. You've got some coalition building to do now to bring the Democratic Party together. How hard is that going to be? Well, thank you for having me, Major Garrett. The fact is, we are going to unite against the policies you just heard articulated from the chairman of the National Republican Committee. The idea that he can stand and defend gas prices-- I don't know why he thinks the case should be we need more time. Look, time is up on the Trump administration. Democrats know that. We're going to be United against the policies of this administration. And I've got a rubber stamp for Donald Trump in my Republican opponent, Anthony DiLorenzo. And it's very clear. I've been hearing from people all across this district for the last 16 months. Gas prices set a record high on Labor Day here. And people are hurting. The tariffs are crushing our small businesses. People are losing their health care. And we're going to fight back against that. And we will be united in full force. And I don't know if you saw these numbers, too, but our turnout for Democrats up and down this district was much higher than Republicans. And I think that speaks to our energy and our motivation.

The Republican National Committee chairman also made it clear he is all in on the president's trade policies, which includes his recently intensified trade war with Canada. Canada is a very large trading partner with New Hampshire. Do you believe that will be a pivotal issue, the tariffs and the Canadian trade war, in your district race? Absolutely. The tariffs have been a disaster for New Hampshire. Canada is our largest trading partner. We rely on the Canadians to support our hospitality industry here. And 90% of our businesses here are small business. These tariffs are killing our small businesses. They are driving up the costs for the day-to-day operation of these small businesses and for consumers across the board. And we've got to do everything we can to pull them back and to resume a more stable playing field for our small businesses and our consumers and working families. You mentioned your Republican opponent, Anthony DiLorenzo. He wrote on social media, Stefany Shaheen-- and I quote him here-- "has embraced ideas like government-controlled health care, eliminating immigration enforcement, higher taxes, and the end of capitalism." Do you support all those ideas? Well, first of all, that's an absurd characterization on the part of my opponent to try to scare people with the same kind of rhetoric that you're hearing from the Trump administration, because he wants to distract people from the fact that this president put in place tax breaks for billionaires, while the American people can't afford health care and housing, while they can't afford groceries and gas prices. That's what's going to determine this race. If you want more tariffs, then you should vote for my opponent. If you want to continue this war and see record-high gas prices, then you should vote for my opponent. But we're going to be fighting to do things like deliver on health care for New Hampshire families. And that's what people need. I just was with a child care provider in Brentwood, New Hampshire, who has a boot on her foot that she's been wearing for nearly a year, while she has to care for toddlers and chase them around playgrounds because she can't get to the orthopedic doctor because she doesn't have health care, and she can't afford to go, even though she's working full-time and has for years. That's what's at stake in this election. And so, my opponent is not going to distract and scare people with the dangerous rhetoric that we're seeing from the right, when what really matters is whether people can afford housing and health care and gas prices. And they want to see an end to this war. I've traveled extensively in New Hampshire. I remember the president's campaign in 2016 and 2020, though there wasn't one then. But in 2024, immigration was a big issue. Would you vote for ICE funding if you were in Congress, or would you vote to abolish ICE? We need to radically dismantle the nature of the way Homeland Security is conducting ICE activities and the ICE agents here in New Hampshire. We are seeing unprecedented fear across our communities with agents terrorizing families. I talked to somebody not long ago who was hiding in a Burger King for 13 hours because ICE agents had taken her husband, who they had no business taking into custody, and she was terrified. They're unleashing terrible fear in people. And they've just spent $20 million of taxpayer money on gloves that shock people. I was a police commissioner in my community when George Floyd was killed. We worked tirelessly to build trust between our law enforcement officers in our community. And we did it with things like de-escalation training and body cameras and mental health supports for our officers. These ICE agents haven't had adequate training. We're spending three times the amount on Homeland Security than we were, again, just two years ago. And we're not making our communities any safer. Stefany Shaheen, Democratic nominee, first congressional district of New Hampshire, it's been a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. [THEME MUSIC]

Still to come, Ohio Republican Senator Jon Husted joins the program. He assesses the state of his campaign against former senator Sherrod Brown. Also, the retired FBI agent who spent years trying to capture and eventually questioned the 9/11 mastermind-- that's his words-- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed-- Frank Pellegrino is his name-- he discusses his efforts, alongside family members of victims of 9/11, to hold him accountable. Plus, the Supreme Court rejects Missouri's effort to use a new Republican-friendly congressional map-- a look at the Supreme Court's decision. The Takeoutreturns in 90 seconds. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back to The Takeout. Ohio Republican Senator Jon Husted chose to address the GOP's midterm convention in Dallas, unlike some other Republicans who are in competitive races who chose to stay in their home states or their home districts. Husted is facing off against former Democratic senator Sherrod Brown. The Cook Political Report rates that race as a toss-up. And Senator Husted joins me now. And I want to let our audience know there's a bit of a delay, so there's going to be about three seconds between when I stop talking and when the senator starts talking. That's just what we're dealing with technologically. Senator, I'm glad you're with us. This convention appears to be an effort to manufacture momentum and enthusiasm among base Republican voters. Practically speaking, do you believe you can manufacture momentum and enthusiasm? Well, I think it's an opportunity for us to explain what we've been doing to try to help make life more affordable for the working families of our country. That's why I talked about the working family tax cut plan last night-- no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, cutting taxes on Social Security, child tax credits for working families, putting more money in their pockets, rather than sending it off to Washington. That's what we did. That's what American families need, to keep more money in their pockets, to spend and save on their priorities. It was an opportunity for me to explain that. And I believe that when you talk about those things, you can put the clear contrast that we have with Democrats, who are looking, again, to send more money and more power to Washington, rather than giving more money to people to spend and save on their priorities.

As someone involved in politics, you understand polling data, and you often have to take seriously what voters are explaining when they're surveyed. How do you account for the gap between what you just described, which is real money in real Americans' pockets-- I don't dispute that-- and yet, poll after poll shows people are still dissatisfied or they don't believe that was enough to help them get by? They're still menaced by affordability problems. Look, there's always work to do. We started it by letting people keep more of what they earn. We're also trying to help get more investment in America to increase their salaries. Look, we have the lowest unemployment rate we've had since 1967, in my state of Ohio. We have the most jobs and the lowest unemployment rate we've had in the history of the state. But still, the prices that went up under Joe Biden have not come down far enough. And we need to continue to work on that. That's why, when I get back to Washington, I'm going to fight for things like permitting reform, so that we can take the cost out of building things in America, because all those costs get passed on to people. So every single day, I am fighting to make life more affordable for them. I'm listening. I don't need to see poll numbers. I go out and talk to people every day about these things in my home state and county fairs and places like that. They tell me what's on their mind. I tell them what I'm doing. And I'm getting a good response. Senator, I want to talk to you about data centers, because the president is, quite evidently, all in on them. You are more cautious about them. The National Republican Senatorial Committee wrote a memo about your very race in Ohio, saying it was a point of vulnerability. What is your attitude about data centers? And how different are you from the president on how they should be used and their future? Well, it's pretty simple. This should be a local decision. Local elected officials, local citizens should decide whether they want a data center or not. No one in Washington should be telling them that they need one, or they can't have one. Where I am is that I just want to make sure that none of the costs are passed along to the citizens. I want the data centers to build their own power, to build our own infrastructure. And I want benefits to actually accrue to local people by giving them reduced property taxes, more money for their schools, actual checks that can go to them to pay down their energy prices. So the data center, the companies have the responsibility to do right by local people, or the local people should tell them no.

And when the president says, as he recently did on social media, that anyone who raises these questions is going to impoverish their community or impoverish their states, and that data should reign, do you agree with that? That's not my position. My position is it should be up to local folks. Some folks want them. Some folks love the jobs that they create. Some folks love the increased revenue that they create for their local schools and the new infrastructure that they build. Other people don't want them to affect the quality of their life, maybe the farmland in their community. And that's a local choice. And that's how I believe Ohioans think about the issue as well.

As you know, Senator, today marks the one-year anniversary, if we want to call it that-- probably not-- but the one-year commemoration of Charlie Kirk's assassination in Utah. Over the weekend, Amy Acton, the Democratic nominee for governor, was aggressively confronted at a campaign event. How are you thinking about this midterm election cycle, the risk of political violence, and the role that rhetoric plays within it? So we have a way of settling our political differences, and that's through elections. We should vigorously debate the issues, and the voters should settle those issues at the polls, but not violence. We don't need violence. Two years ago, Donald Trump was shot before the Republican convention, where he was nominated. We had the assassination of Charlie Kirk. We don't need political violence. It's uncalled for. It should never be tolerated. America, we have a way to settle our disagreements. Those are through elections. That's how we should settle those differences.

Before I let you go, Senator, Ohio's largest trading market is Canada, I believe. Last year, some $17.5 billion worth of trade with Canada. Are you for or against the escalating trade war that President Trump has launched with Canada? Well, I would like to see a trade deal get done between the United States and Canada that's mutually beneficial for both countries. They need to stop, as does Mexico, from letting China backdoor products in through their particular countries to undermine American businesses and consumers. But we need to get a trade deal done. That would be beneficial for both countries. We need to be able to onshore or nearshore our supply chain, so that we don't have to depend on China. And getting a good deal done with Canada would be a very helpful thing for all of us.

Do you believe that the tariffs that are now in place and the escalating trade war is a political risk for you in this re-election campaign? I'm hopeful that it's going to get settled soon. I believe that both countries can find a way through this. And I'm optimistic that it'll get settled very soon.

Ohio Republican Senator Jon Husted, I appreciate your time, sir. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, the retired FBI agent who was working with family members of 9/11 victims to try to bring justice to the alleged-- and he says he is-- mastermind of that terrorist attacks on 9/11. He talks about the upcoming documentary about those efforts, when we return. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back to The Takeout. Asyou well know, this nation will mark a quarter-century tomorrow since the September 9/11 attacks. The person the United States government has accused of being the central planner of those murderous attacks all these years later has yet to face trial. A new documentary that will air on CBS tomorrow follows two women who lost their fathers on 9/11 and who have, for years, been demanding that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be held accountable judicially. Their journey led them to retired FBI Special Agent Frank Pellegrino, who spent more than a decade hunting KSM, as he came to be known, and eventually questioned him in Guantanamo Bay. Here is a preview of that documentary, Daughters of 9/11.

9/11 isn't over. The 9/11 case is not over. There is a man who is responsible sitting in Guantanamo Bay. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed-- He admitted it, and still, not one single person has been tried and convicted for 9/11.

Another plane has just hit. We spent 25 years of our lives without-- Our dads. My relationship with KSM starts from 1993 and continues till today. If Frank Pellegrino had picked up Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 9/11 probably never have happened.

The reason we still don't have one single verdict is because of the torture program.

It's not the way the FBI would have done it, and it's not the way I would have done it.

Frank Pellegrino joins me now. Frank, I'm indebted to you for appearing on the program. Help my audience understand why your pursuit of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed began in 1993. Well, in 1993, we discovered that a man named Khalid from Doha had sent $660 to one of Ramzi Yousef's associates. At that point, we didn't know much about Khalid from Doha, but it was obviously something we were looking into. We later determined that it was a relative of Ramzi Yousef who then really came on our radar after Ramzi Yousef was picked up in the Philippines. And we found out that KSM was heavily involved in what we call the Bojinka plot, which was a plot to blow up airliners flying from Southeast Asia to the United States.

How close did you ever come to getting KSM? Well, it's tough looking for somebody around the world. And to do that, you need a lot of cooperation. We came close once in Doha, Qatar. We knew he was there. We had set up a rendition team to capture him. He was already indicted for the Bojinka plot. Unfortunately, while we were there, in trying to work out a plan to grab him, he was somehow advised that we were there, and he was able to flee. And that was the biggest missed opportunity that we had. We were kind of on some ideas after that, which I think, if they could have been pursued a little bit more intently, that maybe we would have gotten lucky. But there were a couple of shots that were unsuccessful.

Frank, if the US government had been collectively more aggressive about the fear and the threat that KSM posed, might you have gotten him? Well, that's interesting because everybody likes to think like that, looking through glasses that have already seen 9/11. I try to look at it, because I was there at the time, prior to 9/11. And there was a lot going on. We had the embassy bombings. We had 20 fugitives or so from the embassy bombings. We had the Cole bombing. There was a lot going on. So of course, I wish that there was more help. But I understand that there are limited resources, and only so much can be done. Now, obviously, after 9/11, when it was discovered in April of 2002 that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind, well, then, every aspect of the US government got involved in trying to locate him. But there were missed opportunities before. And you always have to wonder what else could have been done to possibly have picked him up. And if we had picked him up, I can't imagine that an event like 9/11 would have happened.

Let's fast forward, Frank, to 2007. You're in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. You have an interrogation with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. What does he tell you? Well, without getting into specifics, he voluntarily, in my view, came out and was very happy to tell us what he was involved in and tried to explain to us every aspect of the 9/11 plot and what happened and who was behind it and how it was done. He told us about other plots as well. And it was an interesting conversation. We went back to talk about some of his relatives and Ramzi Yousef. And we spoke a lot of history with him. And but the main point of the interview was to get him to talk about the events of 9/11, which he voluntarily and cooperatively did. So, Frank, I know this has not been released publicly, but it's been reported by The New York Timesand others and defense attorneys who are part of this process at Guantanamo. The military tribunal have said this is true. The military judge has ruled that, quote unquote, "confession" or that interrogation is inadmissible in the case that's due to go to trial in 2028. Do you believe that is true? And if it is true, what is your reaction? Well, it's true. I know that the judge did hand down a ruling. And in the ruling, he said that the statement we took from him, what we called a clean confession, was inadmissible. I disagree with his reasoning behind it. He based it all on the fact, it seemed to me, that we were unable to separate our interview with what was done to him prior to our interview.

The harsh interrogation tactics after he was captured, 2003 and 2006. Exactly. There have been some court rulings saying if you separate time, place, questioners, and other issues, that those clean confessions could be admissible. I just thought some of the pieces that the judge picked out to indicate that what we had done wasn't sufficient, I thought, were not accurate. But you have to live with the holdings. It looks like, from what I understand, it's not going to be appealed. So the government's going to have to go forward with the evidence that we have and exclude the confession.

Do you believe he will be brought to justice, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? This is a death penalty case, after all, quite obviously. It's been a long time. It's been 25 years, a lot of ups and downs. I think we all want justice. I hope it comes to a trial. We have a trial date. I hope we get to it. I believe that even without the confession, these prosecutors are very capable, and they'll be able to present the evidence needed to have him convicted. But at this point, after all these years, it's hard for me to be confident about anything. I certainly hope it happens. I think the American people and the victims' families, most of all, including the families of Liz Miller and Jess Trant, that they need to have some closure on this. And I think the best way to do that is to have a trial, let everybody see what we have. And this way, we can show the American people that we don't just arrest people and put them in jail. That we arrest people, and then we show the evidence that we have, so that we can convict them and then send them to jail. Frank Pellegrino, I appreciate your time and your service very much, sir. Thank you.

You can watch Daughters of 9/11tomorrow night, 9:00 PM Eastern, on CBS. First sitting governor to lose a primary in eight years-- next, Dan McKee's defeat in Rhode Island. You're watching The Takeout. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back. Here's a look at what else we, and now you, are watching this evening. Supreme Court today blocked Missouri's attempt to use a newly drawn congressional map that would have benefited Republicans, doing so for the second time. This ruling puts on hold a federal district judge's decision that the new map must be used for the upcoming midterms. It would have likely eliminated one of the state's two Democratically-held seats. 30-year mortgage rates have topped 7% for the first time since May of 2025. They hit 7.7% today. Rates have risen since the beginning of the Iran war. They stood at just 6% the day before that conflict began. Rhode Island Democratic Governor Dan McKee became the first sitting governor to lose a primary in eight years. He was easily defeated by former CVS executive Helena Foulkes. McKee has been plagued by poor polling numbers-- say that many times twice, three times-- because of a closure of a critical bridge that connected Providence to its eastern suburbs. McKee has been criticized for the cost overruns and the slow pace of those repairs. Remember, all politics is local. Still to come, momentum on Capitol Hill growing for AI regulation. Our political panel talks about that, and a lot more. You're watching The Takeout. [THEME MUSIC] [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back to The Takeout. Exciting times. Why? Political panel time. Joining me now, Democratic strategist Emily Cherniack and Marc Short, Republican strategist and, as you all remember-- fondly, I hope-- former Chief of Staff to Vice President Mike Pence. All right. We talked about AI a lot yesterday. Jacob Coxon, who used to work for OpenAI-- then he went to Anthropic-- resigned on the cusp of Anthropic's initial public offering, which would have brought him a windfall. So you can't look at this guy and say he's part of a marketing stunt. He's leaving money on the table, raising warnings about the future of AI. He was on CNN. Let's listen.

These people are also completely genuine when they are begging to be regulated. They find themselves in this scenario where they're compelled to race towards building a deadly technology. And they would love for some sort of international body to allow them to approach it at a reasonable pace. They just don't trust that the people around them are going to get there in a safe way. So they feel like they have to race there, too. So two things are going on. Jon Husted was on this program a little earlier. He's cautious about data centers, not on board with what President Trump is. And now you have these safety concerns about AI. This is a real thing. And there's now more and more people in Congress saying, we've got to step in and do something. Marc, how do you evaluate?

I think Americans are fearful. And that's typically when Congress wants to act. But at the same time, I think that there's nothing that the communist Chinese like more than the central planners here in Washington, DC, decide they're the ones to regulate an industry.

So we do nothing? I think the reality is, you look at the data centers. And much of the misinformation that's being spread about data centers is often on TikTok, social media outlets that are owned by-- Which President Trump allows. Well, he shouldn't. I mean-- He did. His first defiance of the law. In total defiance of the law, and his first administration unilaterally recommended that it should be banned. So I agree with his position on data centers.

But he said it-- But he should be not allowing TikTok to spread the misinformation. Emily, your thoughts on this. I think that the fact that it took an employee of Anthropic to resign and tell us humanity is going to be over for elected leaders to move on this is bananas. So yeah, I think we should--

Way too late. Yeah, we should have been talking about this two years ago. And I guess--

He's not the only voice. Lots of others have expressed fears and anxieties before this.

And the ones that the regulations are going to help the most are the ones who are already there. It keeps crowds out, competition. So I certainly am opposed to that.

I know, but Emily, do you believe this is a cutting issue in this midterm?

I think it's a crucible moment. It requires political leadership. And I think our elected leaders have to really think about accountability and what it means to regulate this industry and how to really think about making sure we're not extinct as a human race-- and globally. He didn't just say Americans are going to be extinct. He said the world-- human extinction. So yeah. Do you think there's any possibility-- it's not going to happen before the midterms. Do you think there's anything in the AI regulation space that gets done in the lame duck?

No. No? Neither one? Also, I'm always someone who doesn't think much will ever happen in lame duck. Because if the Democrats have a really good election night, what's their incentive to want to compromise with--

To cut a deal, exactly. Speaking of the midterms and the convention in Dallas, which we did at the beginning of the show, the president surprised lots of people with a $5,000 dividend offer. I made clear that it sounds very much like the DOGE checks that never arrived and the tariff checks that never arrived. Nevertheless, maybe it's a gimmick. Maybe it's a bribe. What is it, Marc Short? Look, I mean, it's a little bit much to say it's a bribe. I mean, was the media calling Obamacare a bribe when he promised the free health care? But at the same time, Major, I feel like--

The promise was access to health care, not that it would be free. [LAUGHS] I think there were a lot of promises made, Major. But look, my concern is that I think there's a legitimate rise of Democrat socialists on the left that pose a significant threat. But if you look at the policies we're pushing right now, Republicans--

Republican policies. Yes, are pushing state-owned enterprises, pushing price controls, pushing credit card caps. And they were pushing new entitlement expansion just last weekend for child welfare, and now, free money of $5,000 a check per person when you have a $40 trillion deficit. It's like, we're actually blurring the distinction that we should be having with the radical left.

Emily?

Well, I think, too, the juxtaposition of James Talarico doing a food drive during the convention--

In Dallas. Yeah, and putting literally food in people's homes-- I think the Republican Party is the party of lip service, and the Democrats are becoming the party of service and action. However, I think the Democrats better take Trump seriously when he says, I'm going to give you $5,000, because voters are going to believe that. He has-- What's the Democratic response? What should it be? Well, it should be this is not true. This is not going to happen. Because if they laugh it off and think it's just a crazy thing that the president said, I think they're underestimating how desperate people are, how much they need money and resources. And they better get out in front of it. And how much money cut well to the Republican event. We're never going to outbid the Democrats on giving away free money. Marc Short, as frequently happens on this program, you get the last word. Emily Cherniack, Marc Short, it's been a pleasure. Please come back. Thank you. Thank you. Happy Thursday, everyone. You know what this is. Quick reminder-- The Takeout,you know who we are. Quick reminder-- relentlessly curious, reliably civil-- even though that's going out of fashion-- occasionally clever. That never goes out of fashion, The Daily Report coming your way next. [THEME MUSIC]