Briefing on Sept. 2 boat strikes expected

Yeah, for sure. And tellingly, even with these new details, as you point out, Nancy, the criticism has been bipartisan from both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to not just this strike, but the legality of the strikes overall. Nancy Cordes reporting from the White House for us. Nancy, my friend, appreciate you as always. Thank you. You got it.

All right, let's turn now to congressional reporter Taurean Small, who's joining me from the Hill. So, Taurean, Navy Admiral Frank Bradley will be on the Hill today to answer questions about those boat strikes. What are lawmakers saying in anticipation of those meetings? Yeah, Vlad, he's here now. He's headed to the SCIF, the secure area of the House and Senate, to talk with lawmakers about what exactly went down. We're told by quite a few members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that this is a fact-finding mission. They're looking to see exactly what were the order of events that happened, a timeline, considering the Trump administration came out with their statement pretty much resolving or absolving from any blame Secretary of War, as they call him, Pete Hegseth, saying that it was squarely at the feet of Admiral Bradley that made this call. This is what a few lawmakers told us yesterday about what they're expecting to happen today. We're going to essentially ask, in detail, what happened, who gave what orders, what were the orders. If that is true that there were deliberate attacks upon individuals in the water, that would certainly constitute a war crime. At the end of the day, the policy of stopping ships with poison coming in to kill Americans is a good policy. I think it's been a little bit mismanaged in the messaging. Now, leading up to this meeting with the Admiral today, quite a few Democrats said that this could amount to a war crime based on the initial reporting that came out of this. Republicans have-- most of them, I should say, have scoffed at that idea, Vlad. We know, of course, Taurean, that the President of the United States is standing by Pete Hegseth for now. But what about members of the president's own party? I know, for example, Senator Rand Paul has been critical. Has the narrative changed, given some of the new information that is coming out? Yeah. I mean, it's the most vocal ones who tend to be the ones out of favor with the president and his inner circle. Rand Paul, as you mentioned, has had notable spats with the president before on a multitude of issues. He said that he doesn't think that this was handled correctly. We also heard from Senator Thom Tillis, who's up for a pretty hotly contested reelection campaign. He said that, quote, "Whoever is responsible," quote, "needs to get the hell out of Washington." Those are two Republicans, and it's quite instructive that they're speaking out, but it's certainly not in line with the rest of the conference. Senate Leader John Thune said that he's kind of letting the Senate Armed Services Committee handle this. He's also looking just to get information. So there hasn't been too much forceful language out of Republicans outside of those two that we mentioned. But, of course, there's, again, Democrats who are saying that this just underscores a history of missteps by the Secretary of Defense. And I believe it was the words of Senator Blumenthal who said that Hegseth is standing behind Admiral Bradley just enough to push him under the bus.

All right. And, of course, we should point out that Senator Richard Blumenthal is a Democrat. Taurean, reporting from Capitol Hill for us, thank you, my friend.