Trump Threatens Military Action if Iran Talks Collapse and 99 Days to Midterms

The credibility gap, when it comes to the war with Iran, it is real. 69% of Americans tell us they do not have a clear understanding of what's going on. And 67% tell us they want the war ended now. More on our new CBS News poll. They're being called the Fauci Diaries, the private notes Dr. Anthony Fauci took during COVID. Do they reveal more than he said at the time about its origins? A long-time critic, GOP Senator Ron Johnson, joins us. 99 days until the midterm reckoning for the Trump agenda and GOP control of Congress. We survey the landscape and the races to watch.

Hello everyone, I'm Major Garrett in Washington. Welcome to The Takeout. Before we get started, a quick thank you to Caitlin Huey-Burns and Natalie Key for filling in for me while I was out for a couple of days. Now, let's get started. It's all very friendly. That's what President Trump said today about US talks with Iran about reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which we should note was not the cause of the war, but is now quite obviously its principal irritant, economically and strategically. Trump also denied today the US is running low on munitions and militarily useful targets in the battle with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz.

This despite extensive reporting that both of those are the cause of the current pause in hostilities. No wonder then that 69% of those surveyed by CBS News say uh they are not getting a clear understanding. That's a direct quote. of the war or the future of the Strait. Also, 67% said the war should end now. 33% said it should continue until Iran gives up more. Overall, 61% said they disapprove of Trump's very decision to go to war in the first place. And 60% told us that when Trump describes what's happening in the war, he makes things sound, \{quote\} better than they really are, \{unquote\}.

Add it all up, you get 65% telling us they disapprove of Trump's handling of the war. And that number matches exactly Trump's disapproval rating on his handling of the economy. As for Trump's handling of inflation, well, it's even worse. 71% disapprove. Even immigration. Immigration is a downer for Trump. 58% currently disapprove of his handling. This sour national mood has one more expression. 38% of those surveyed said things in America today are going very badly. 28% said, somewhat badly. Add it up, that's 66% exactly two-thirds of those surveyed who believe things are not well in America.

Not well at all. This then is the political trap backdrop, the political backdrop, the mood music, if you will, of the coming midterms. And it's why Trump, as you see there, was in Michigan today telling people there at his rally that the economy is booming, inflation is down, and all is not only well, but better than ever. If voters decide this cheery economic messaging is infected with the same better than they really are defect as Trump's war commentary, it will be a very difficult GOP midterm indeed because the issue at the crux of all this may not be affordability. It may well be credibility.

Joining us with more on the war with the Iran and Trump's economic revving of the rhetorical engines, we turn to Weijia Jiang in the North Lawn of the White House. Weijia, a lot going on in the region today, not necessarily because of US air strikes, but other things happening. Well, Major, you're right in that those strikes were finally halted after 13 consecutive days of back and forth between the US and Iran. And now the president says that he is making space for diplomatic talks to resume. He says that there will both be indirect and direct talks with Iran to try to sort out a peace deal and to come to some sort of agreement about the Strait of Hormuz. Although Iran, Major, today says

something different. They said that there are no negotiations ongoing with the US at this time and that they are just talking to Oman about the Strait. And so perhaps that is one reason why Americans may be confused because there does seem to be a consistent disconnect between what the president says and what Iran says. But again, he and his advisers insist that this is another chance for diplomacy and quote, "We'll see what happens as these talks resume, Major." And there was also reporting over the weekend that the president was advised two things. One, that the United States, if it was going to strike targets along the Strait of Hormuz, was essentially running out of useful targets anymore. And that there

were some concerns about availability now and the near future of US munitions. On Air Force One today, the president batted both of those away. That's right, Major. Publicly, he is trying to reassure the public that's not the case, that he is in fact still in the driver's seat when it comes to military action, and that it has nothing to do with supply. But also at the same time, his administration is asking for tens of billions of dollars for the war in Iran and in part to restock those munitions because uh the president himself talks at length about how much damage he has done to Iran's military capability. Well, that doesn't just happen with no weapons. Obviously, there's been a lot of stockpiles that

have been used, and our reporting also um is that there is some concern about replenishing those. But, the president right now is not only trying to contain this conflict in Iran. He is trying to uh score points in the war of public messaging, Major. And as our new poll shows, it's not going that well for him, because it is muddled with other facts um that, you know, whether that has to do with munitions or facts about how Americans are feeling about the economy and when they spend money versus what the president is saying. Weija Jiang, North Lawn of the White House, thank you so very much.

Matthew Kroenig joins me now. He's a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He served in the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community during the George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump administrations. Matthew, always great to have you here. Great to be back. You have a piece uh in The Wall Street Journal about the recently announced nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. It has many great paragraphs in it, but this one caught my eye. Providing Saudi Arabia pathway to build a capacity the US Air Force is raising in Iran gives hypocrisy a bad name. It not only would make it more difficult to get Iran to restrict its own program, but also set a poor example and

encourage other nuclear suppliers to misbehave. What else is wrong with it? Well, I think the important thing to know is there's a big difference between having a truly peaceful nuclear energy program, uh operating reactors to produce energy, big difference between that and making fuel for nuclear reactors, because once you can make the fuel for reactors, you can also make fuel for nuclear weapons. So, US policy really going back to Eisenhower has been to say, "If you want reactors, no problem. We'll help you, but you can't make the fuel." That's been a good policy that works. Uh this recent Saudi deal, however, says that the United States may decide to help Saudi Arabia

build a fuel-making capability, which I think would be a bad mistake and essentially give Saudi Arabia the ability to produce nuclear weapons. In your piece, you also mention the effect this could have in Egypt and Turkey. Explain to my audience what why that's important. Yes. Well, the Middle East is a dangerous region, as your audience uh knows. We know that Iran has been pursuing what I think is a nuclear weapons capability for many years. And other countries in the region have recently started their own uh peaceful nuclear programs. But if you see Iran building a nuclear fuel-making capability, Saudi Arabia developing a nuclear fuel-making capability, then other countries in the region might want

to do the same thing, and you could be on your way to a nuclear arms race in the world's most dangerous region. And Egypt and Turkey are serious countries with real capacity. That's right. And uh you know, this is 80-year-old technology right now. I think we often think of it as cutting-edge technology, uh but we've seen Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, not the most advanced countries uh develop uh these capabilities. So, I think it's certainly within the capability of those that we have an understanding with the United Arab Emirates not to do this, but they can now if happens in Saudi Arabia, they can renegotiate that and get some of their own.

Yes, 2009, uh as the Bush administration was going out, negotiated maybe the best nuclear agreement ever with UAE, the so-called gold standard, where the UAE promised they would never make nuclear fuel. Uh And so, we wanted that to be the standard for new agreements. But it says that if we give a better deal to their neighbors, they can renegotiate. Um so, now with this uh Saudi deal, it's possible that UAE is going to say, "Hey, let's take another look at this agreement. We might want to make nuclear fuel as well." This uh is a super important topic, and you say at the end that Trump could stick with this deal, give it to Congress, and let it Congress sort it out. Because Congress has to approve this.

What should happen in Congress to make this deal better or is it a deal that has so many defects we ought not to rely on Congress to make it better? I think there are a couple ways we can make it better. One, we know that Trump loves to negotiate and renegotiate. He's expressed some skepticism about this deal in recent days. Right after it was announced and signed actually. That's right. A truth social post casting some doubt on it. So he could renegotiate it or Congress could condition its implementation. You know, doing this will require the allocation

of funds. Congress of course has the power of the purse. So they could say we're only going to pay for this if certain conditions are met including this enrichment part is cancelled. So script writers love to talk about magical thinking and black boxes. Not funny in this context. Yes, so um to try to sell the deal the Department of Energy has said this fuel making capability might be provided but it will be in a black box um suggesting I guess that Saudi Arabia wouldn't be able to access it but they haven't explained what this means and in practice if you have a big nuclear fuel making plant in Saudi Arabia you're going to have technicians, engineers. I think Saudi Arabia is going to learn the technology or it's in their territory.

And as we've learned from Iran you cannot unlearn that. That's right. Once they know how to do it they could kick the Americans out, do it themselves. It's in if it's in Saudi territory. magical thinking is you can contain it once you start it. Yeah, I think it's unrealistic to say this technology would really be put in a black box as the Energy Department says. Great piece. Wonderful stuff. Matthew Kroenig I appreciate the time. As always. very much. Thank you. We're going to turn to Seattle now where authorities are still searching for a second suspect in a deadly shooting at a food festival. The other suspect a

15-year-old is in custody. Police say the suspects exchanged gunfire and it and the crossfire three people were killed and four injured including a toddler. It's a really crazy story. Anna Shaker joins me now. Anna, piece together what we know. Well, we know it was an absolutely chaotic evening when probably more than 100,000 people had gathered for this food festival. Tons of young kids you see from the terrifying video, cell phone video from witnesses, people pushing strollers. It was stroller after stroller, crush of people, so crowded. So, the terrifying moments, but I want to widen the aperture because we're also learning about a gun violence issue that Seattle is wrestling with that a police

official talked about at a press conference today. You've got very young people with weapons and having disputes between groups of people. They fell short of calling it gang violence, but that's sure what it sounded like to me. So, this 15-year-old is now going through the juvenile justice system and there is another person who is out there. Now, if that 15-year-old was talking, was helping investigators, they would certainly have an idea as to who that other person is and it seemed from that press conference they still do not know the identity of the other shooter. Anna, did this dispute that led to the gunfire start at the food festival or were they just in the neighborhood or how did it all go down?

It was right there under that iconic tower in Seattle that you know, that picture like the postcard of Seattle where everybody was gathered. There were hundreds of food trucks and everyone was having a great time. It was around 6:00 p.m. last night, dinner time. People were buying food, eating, enjoy There was music and then people hear pop. They thought it was fireworks. And then as soon as people realized that it was gunfire, it was total chaos. People running, ducking for cover, jumping behind trees and we know three people died, four injured, and now at that press conference we learned of another person who was hit, and it's unclear that police declined to say if that person was also involved in

the shooting. So, just so many questions, Major. Anna Schecter, thank you very, very much. I appreciate it. We are learning more about the deceased 21-year-old man accused of plowing his vehicle through Berlin's Pride celebration Saturday night. One person in that incident was killed, 29 at least were injured. The suspect had previously received a suspended sentence for charges related to him attempting to join ISIS, and he was evaluated twice by a deradicalization program where the staff of that program noted there were things possibly to be worried about in the future. CBS News foreign correspondent Chris Livesay is following these developments from Berlin and joins us now. Chris, what's the latest?

That's right, Major. Well, you know, the people behind me at this vigil at the Brandenburg Gate are wondering how somebody like this who was under close observation by police could have been able to carry out this attack. So, last year, for instance, he traveled to Lebanon because he was trying to join ISIS in neighboring Syria. That is a according to German authorities. When he came back to Germany, authorities here convicted him for planning violent attacks and for disseminating ISIS propaganda. However, that sentence was suspended. Now, part of his sentence, however, included these deradicalization courses, as you mentioned. He was being screened leading up to the attacks that took place. We spoke to the spokeswoman

for this deradicalization group. She told me that they were just about to reject him from the deradicalization program altogether because he exhibited too many warning signs. She said that he was too deeply radicalized and was basically telling the evaluators what they wanted to hear. She even said that perhaps he should have still been in prison. And of course, if he were in prison, then he would not have been able to carry out these attacks. Her exact words were that he was lying about or rather that he was trying to withhold that he had radical beliefs and that he quote might have belonged in prison and that he was showing fake cooperation.

All of these things she said were red flags that she would have used to refer him back into the system. Again, perhaps he should have been in jail, but that was a decision not for her or for her deradicalization group to make, but for authorities. Authorities who are now undergoing lots of questions as to how they could have let somebody like him slip through their fingers, Major. And what, to the degree you can assess it for us, Chris, has been the public reaction to this? Because it sounds like not only were things missed, but a tragedy happened that could have been prevented.

Indeed. I mean, that is the reaction that we've been hearing from eyewitnesses, from survivors, from people turning out at vigils that have popped up both at the scene of the attack and here at the Brandenburg Gate. People are just simply wondering why weren't authorities monitoring him more closely. Indeed, why wasn't he in prison to begin with? That was the question from the deradicalization group that we spoke to. They argued that their own work, for instance, could have been carried out better if he were already behind bars. Whereas, when he was outside of police custody, he was capable of carrying out this attack, Major.

Chris Livesay in Berlin, Brandenburg Gate behind him. Thank you very, very much. Still to come, Democrats and Republicans have less than 100 days until the midterms. We're tracking where the most important races stand and where, importantly, they might be heading. Also, the son of Kansas City Chiefs offensive coordinator Eric Bieniemy charged in the shooting of his mother. What we've learned from law enforcement about this very disturbing case. Plus, hundreds of thousands of Haitians are losing their temporary protected status today. Immigrations Customs and Enforcement is planning to wrap up operations to deport these Haitian immigrants. Take our returns in 90 seconds.

Welcome back to Ticket. As we mentioned at the top of the show, 99 days till the midterms. Quick math, 435 House seats up for grabs, 35 seats in the Senate. As you know, lots of twists and turns this primary season. Texas, yes, for sure, set off a redistricting sort of bonfire that spread across the country. Progressives have risen in the Democratic Party in conspicuous ways, and the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act and struck down some campaign finance limits. All that being poured into the cauldron of the midterm elections. Going to talk about this a lot more with details and data, as always. See Best News executive director of elections and surveys Anthony

Salvanto and See Best News contributor Kyle Kondik. He's also the managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. All right, Anthony, starting with you. The big aperture, what's at stake? I'm going to make that math even simpler for everybody, Major. There are very few competitive House races on the board right now. Now, maybe that changes over the next 99 days, but everybody needs to understand just how narrow the playing field is. You just mentioned redistricting. That's one reason for it. People's partisanship is another. But the bottom line is right now, I think Kyle sees about the same thing. Got about 15 really toss-up House districts

out of that 435 you mentioned. A handful leaning one side or the other to Republicans or to Democrats. What that means is that as folks watch this unfold, yes, we can talk about generic ballots. Yes, we can talk about presidential approval ratings. But all of that is going to be sort of forced through a very narrow field such that it's not necessarily going to be reflective of large national swings if they occur. Bottom line is, watch the competitive races and very few of them also, frankly, in the Senate out of that 35 that you mentioned as well. I'll probably let Kyle unpack those a little bit. But the bottom line there is the Democrats will need to flip a number of Republican-held Senate seats in order to

take control of the Senate, too. And that looks like a maybe doable, but probably somewhat of a harder hill than the House is. Well, Anthony has set us up quite easily, Kyle. So, pick up the ball on the Senate side. Yeah, um the way that we look at it, um we have 49 races leaning to the Republicans, 47 leaning to the Democrats, and four toss-ups at our Crystal Ball ratings. The way it works is that because 50/50 is still a Republican Senate cuz the Vice President is breaking the ties, Democrats would have to win all four of the toss-ups in order to win the Senate. So, like it's

there, and we know what those races are, but I think Republicans are still favored in the Senate. Right. So, let's go down the four and rank them in whichever order you prefer. Strongest Republican advantage or strongest Democratic advantage. strongest Democratic advantage is probably Michigan still, but we've got this really hot primary that's not really guaranteed to produce a great Democratic candidate next week, so we're going to see how that shakes out. But, you know, But Michigan isn't a pick-up. Michigan is a hold. That's right. That's the one toss-up that's a defensive assignment for Democrats. And then you're looking at North Carolina where

we have Democrats favored. Roy Cooper, the Democratic nominee That's right. Running ahead Yeah, and of Michael Whatley, the former GOP chairman. Right, and then uh Maine, which the Democrats just swapped out their candidate there. Troy Jackson just this Saturday officially became the nominee. Yeah, and that I think is a true toss-up. And then you got Ohio and Alaska where Sherrod Brown, former Democratic senator, is From Ohio. And then Mary Peltola, former Democratic House member from Alaska, trying to run for the Senate. You know,

we have those as toss-ups. I think ultimately in red states you'd probably still rather be the Republican, but those are, you know, I think the most attractive targets for Democrats. Anthony, let's talk about independents cuz I've seen a slew of recent surveys, ours, Fox, and you uh and others saying that independents on a wide array of issues, but particularly those dealing with the economy and the war, have deeply soured on President Trump. And when they did so, meaning independents, on Joe Biden, that created massive political complications for not just Joe Biden, but Democrats writ large. Is that a storyline we should be paying attention to? And could that enlarge from 15 to

maybe 20 or 25 some House races? Honestly, I don't think it's the most important thing. Uh Got it. I think I and I'll tell you why. I think the most important voter, one of them here, is going to be the person who came out to vote for Donald Trump, the Republican or the Republican leaner, who decides whether or not to vote in a midterm. Now, folks might recall presidential election turnout versus midterm turnout. The midterms are always a little bit lower, maybe about 20 points lower. So, who are those people that don't vote in the midterm, but do vote in the presidential? I wonder if, and we're going to follow it closely, Republicans who support the president, but don't necessarily carry that support

over to the Republican Party. I look at things like a more than 20-point gap among Republicans between how they see the president handling immigration, where they're really, really strong on him, and how they see him handling inflation, where they're 20 to 22 points lower. So, what is this election about? I think that's determinative in that turnout sense for Republicans on the other side, if they can motivate those folks to turn out again, replicate that coalition from '24, they got a much better shot. So, Kyle, Anthony tells me, and I heed his advice always, independents interesting, but not as relevant as base turnout on the GOP side. Agree or disagree?

Uh I think that's I think Anthony's done a good job of talking about the turnout dynamic. I think there is also a persuasion dynamic. One of the things we've seen in polls is that, and this was true in 2022, when Republicans really didn't do quite as well as maybe they could or should have done in that election, is that there are people who just somewhat disapproved of President Biden and also disapprove of President Trump. Uh and in that, in the last election, you know, they split kind of 50/50 in the actual, you know, the House and Senate races. And so, Trump is at really weak approval, but in the polls, if you look at it, and you look at those, you know, not the strong disapprovers, but the somewhat

disapprovers, Republicans are still holding up okay with those folks. How do those people vote? Do they even show up? Do they stick with Republicans even though they disapprove of Trump? That could help limit the damage for Republicans, or this election could turn out in a, you know, into a Democratic mega wave if those somewhat disapprovers move to the Democrats. Anthony Salvanto, Kyle Kondik, very good stuff, as always. I thank you both. Thank you so much. Thank you. Senator Mitch McConnell offers a health update of a sort and a new photo from a rehabilitation facility. We'll tell you

what we know and what we don't know when we come back. You're watching The Takeout. Welcome back to The Takeout. Thanks so much for hanging out with us. Here is a look at what else we, and now you, are watching this evening. The wife of Kansas City Chiefs offensive coordinator Eric Bieniemy was shot in her home last night in Ashburn, Virginia. The couple's son was arrested in that shooting. 27-year-old Elijah Zion Bieniemy has been charged with malicious wounding, use of a firearm in commission of a felony, and discharge of a firearm inside a dwelling. He's being held without bond. Authorities have not yet shared a motive.

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell's doctor say he's been in physical therapy to rebuild his strength. He's not, yet they said, medically cleared to return to work in the Senate. McConnell also shared this photo of him and his wife, that's Elaine. He was hospitalized in June after he said he took a fall at home, which left him unconscious. McConnell's 84 years old and is set to retire at the end of his term in January. Still not clear when, if ever, he will return to work at the Senate. Though he says that is his mission. Sources tell CBS News ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is ramping up operations to arrest and deport Haitian migrants and to terminate their legal

status in our country. The operation could begin as early as this week and may be centered in Ohio, which, as you might remember from the 2024 campaign, has a large Haitian community. CBS News immigration correspondent Camilo Montoya Galvez is in the community where that is most identifiable, Springfield, Ohio. Catch us up on what we know, Camilo. Well, Major, we are told by sources inside of ICE that the agency has been preparing for weeks for a ramp-up in operations targeting specifically Haitian immigrants who are set to lose their temporary protected or TPS status after that Supreme Court ruling allowed the Trump administration to terminate that Biden era policy. We have to underscore, of course, Major, that this

city in Ohio is home to thousands of Haitian immigrants, and many of them have been living and working here legally, lawfully, with the government's permission under that TPS policy. They are now bracing for that potential mass deportation operation to begin as soon as this week. And that operation, that plan, is garnering criticism not just from Democrats, but also some elected Republicans here in the state, including Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. Let's take a listen to what he told us. Well, it's a mistake. Uh it's not good for the United States and it's not good for the state of Ohio.

Um these are people who have helped uh Springfield really come back. Springfield has been making a real comeback. Um the Haitians who are living there and employed there, uh they came there to work. And I would be remiss, Major, if I did not mention that this city of about 58,000 residents was placed in the middle, at the center of a political firestorm back in the presidential campaign of 2024 when President Trump, then candidate Trump at the time, falsely accused Haitian immigrants here of eating cats and dogs. So, very quickly, Camilo, what happened for them to lose this temporary protected status categorization?

Well, the Trump administration, Major, argues that TPS has been unnecessarily extended by Democratic administrations, that it attracts illegal immigration, and that it poses national security risk. That has been the argument. The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to end the TPS program for Haitians, but also for Syrians, and that is paving the way for this planned ICE operation that again, we are told, could start as soon as this week. And one of the plans actually involves arresting people here in Ohio and deporting them directly to crisis-stricken Haiti. Camilo Montoya Galvez coming to us from Springfield, Ohio. Very much appreciate it, sir. Thank you.

Anthony Fauci is set to testify before the Senate Homeland Security Committee Wednesday. Next I'm joined by a committee member, Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson. He's going to have some questions. You can count on that. We'll get a preview when we come back. This is The Takeout. Welcome back to The Takeout. Wednesday, Anthony Fauci will testify before Senate panel on how the federal government responded in its many different ways to the COVID pandemic. Ahead of this, Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul, who has clashed with Fauci on numerous occasions, released more than a thousand diary entries from the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In one entry, Dr.

Fauci wrote, quote, "Apparently, the White House is very upset that I'm being profiled, and it looks like I'm putting down the POTUS, meaning the President of the United States, and becoming a star that outshines him. The press is playing into this, as is the tweet storm. Very stressful." Double exclamation mark. Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson joins me now. He serves on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which Fauci will be testifying before. Senator Johnson, I don't want to spend a lot of time on Anthony Fauci's ramblings about how the star he became during COVID. I'm much more concerned, as I think you are, about what he said privately about the COVID origin lab leak theory, and what he said publicly. Do you

believe there is a fundamental disconnect there, and in that disconnect, the American people were deceived? Yes or no? Well, absolutely, the American people were deceived by Anthony Fauci. Uh this has been obvious for quite some time. As as soon as we got access to those email exchanges and the phone calls that were occurring in the end of January, early February of 2020, when a lot of these individuals that Anthony Fauci had been funding the research for years, and then funded the research after they changed their tune from saying that this look a man-made, you got that fear and cleavage site. So, all of a sudden Anthony Fauci arranges these phone calls with the you know, eight or nine

individuals. And all these people who are who are looking this thing as I looked at is this is man fit man-made, okay? You just start having fear and cleavage site here. A lot of other, you know, computational biologists make the same conclusion. All of a sudden, within a couple days, oh, that's a conspiracy theory. This had to spring from nature, although they've never ever been able to track that down. Uh by the way, he also lied then to Congress when he said, I wasn't involved in the intelligence community's assessment at all. Those very same individuals that he corralled in that in those January, February phone calls uh that changed their

opinion from man-made to spring from nature, those are the exact same people he salted the intelligence committee the committee with to come up with their assessment as well. So, no, he's dirty in this thing. He's been lying to the American public. He directed a miserably failed response to COVID. Uh I don't know what else I can say. He's a very bad guy. All right. So, let's put the response in one category, Senator, and let's put the origin story in another category. Which is more important in our look back understanding of what went wrong or what went right with COVID? Is

it the origin that we got wrong or the response? Which is more important? Well, I would say they're equally important because it cost millions of people their lives, okay? I mean, the fact that he funded gain of function research before the moratorium, continued to fund it, denied it, uh was fully aware of Ralph Baric, Peter Daszak, the folks in China. Again, I think it's pretty obvious that uh if it wasn't a direct result, he certainly funded the kind of research that produced this man-made virus that created the pandemic. Now, fast forward to sabotaging early treatment with effective generic drugs so he get emergency authorization on the gene therapy experimental gene therapy injection that then they denied the safety signals

that were screaming at them with, you know, the VAERS being deluged with reports. Um because they denied them, more and more people were either mandated course or convinced to take this experimental injection. Some of them died. Some of them were permanently injured. Again, so I don't know how to weigh that. You fund research that create a pandemic and then the countermeasure kills and injures untold numbers of people. We still know that they're still not acknowledging it. So, those people who were injured by the injection, they can't get treatment. So, again, I'm just across the board. I think Anthony Fauci has all kinds of things to be held accountable for. Unfortunately, the media crowned him saying, "Fauci, he

says he's the science." And he's not been held accountable. Of course, now he has the pardon, which I'm sure he needed from President Biden. Imagine I'm a constituent of yours, Senator Johnson, and I ask you this question. Shouldn't we be more concerned about China than Anthony Fauci? Don't they have blood on their hands that is as more apparent than Anthony Fauci or anyone who funded any gain-of-function research? I'm not holding China harmless here. But again, it's it's Anthony Fauci that covered this. And if we don't hold these people accountable, they'll do it again.

You can see them trying to do it with what's monkeypox or this hantavirus, whether it's another bird flu, whether it's Ebola. They create fear so that they can force these countermeasures on us. And by the way, the whole issue of creating countermeasures, you know, this you know, bio weaponry countermeasures. It's to me it's a smoke screen to do bio weapon research itself, which were you know, prohibited from doing based on agreement. So, again, this entire thing is a ruse and it's it's a ruse that I think created pandemic that ended up killing millions of people. Here's why I ask about China because as you know, Senator, as well if not better than I do, the Wuhan Institute of Virology advertised itself as a grade

four, it was a grade two at best lab, which mean it was prone to leaks, it had bad security. Things got out, they arrested people who talked about it. And they suppressed, meaning the Chinese government, all available information and anyone in China who knew anything about that. Isn't that as big a part of story as gain of function research dollars? It is, but again, why in the world would we fund gain of function research here in America and then allow those people doing the research to transfer the technology to China?

I mean, we know that the you know, Chinese their military is in total control of those laboratories. So, again, this is dangerous research. They all know it. It's why President Obama put a moratorium on it, which they circumvented, but at a minimum, if you're going to do it, if you're going to circumvent the gain of function moratorium, do it in safe bio labs here in America. Don't share the humanized mice with the lab in China. Don't share the technology with the somebody like the bat lady so they can continue on the research in China that you know the PLA is going to have access to.

What do you want Anthony Fauci to tell you Wednesday? I don't expect him to tell me anything that is has any value to hold him accountable. He's he's going to be pretty slippery. So, again, I think the most we can expect is, you know, and what I intend to do is to just lay out the facts, ask him pretty concise questions that only require a concise answer. I don't want him filibustering. I don't want him trying to explain things away. But again, he's he's very practiced at this. He We know he's willing to lie. He's lying to Congress repeatedly. I think we've got him dead to rights on from that standpoint. But again, I don't expect any bombshells from this because we've known a lot of this. It

just hasn't been covered by the legacy media. Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin. I appreciate the time. Have a good day. DNC chair Ken Martin is short on cash and according to the New York Times, well, he's got kind of a hot temper. Maybe throws things, who knows. Our political panel reacts to what was in the New York Times about a phone that was thrown. And more. Here on The Takeout. Welcome back. You know I love it, political panel time. Joining me now, CBS News political contributor Democratic strategist Joel Payne and Jesse armchair vice president for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Great

to have you both here. So, whenever there's a human resources department complaint filed at the DNC, we have to take note. New York Times Shane Goldmacher and Reed Epstein, both excellent reporters, talking about Ken Martin. Let me quote directly, "Mr. Martin's fraying nerves are showing." In a peak, that's a very New York Times word. Peak of frustration in early July, he threw his phone at the desk of a junior aid while upgrading the person. Another New York Times word, upgrading. The phone tossing incident, probably memorialized as such now at the DNC headquarters, resulted in a formal complaint to the DNC's human resources department. Ken Martin's problems extend beyond his temper, clearly.

There are financial issues. The DNC is basically fundamentally broke. Although it's been dispersing money rapidly, that's its argument. Doesn't matter how much we have on hand, it's how much we disperse. Joel. I don't want to underplay the HR issue. That's significant. Nobody should do that. No, he shouldn't. That's That's a workplace thing you don't do. You just don't do it. say that the bigger challenge for him is that resources issue that you talked about. Look, party chairs, I would say there are three things you want: resources, infrastructure, political judgment. I think that the visibility, cuz he's basically invisible.

I'll I'll add that as well. open invitation to be on the show. Out of those four, I don't think Ken Martin has really it you know, really distinguished himself with any of those buckets. Maybe you can talk about infrastructure. They claim that they're in debt because they're investing early as they have it done in previous cycles. But, if you can't do those things, it's very hard to make a case why you should be the chair of the party. Um I think depending on what happens with Democrats this November, they have some hard questions to answer um about the chairmanship. And what I would add is in 2016, I worked on the Hillary campaign when the DNC was also in tumult, when Debbie Wasserman Schultz got sidelined

for Donna Brazile mid-cycle. That's not a good place for a party to be. Your thoughts? I agree. Like, look, Joel gets it right. That's $129 million cash on hand that Republicans have right now. The RNC? Yeah. The DNC has 2 million in the red. That's unheard of for a party committee at this stage in a midterm election cycle. Especially when the atmospherics are favorable. Absolutely. And it's not just that like a good party chair can get on the phone in an afternoon and erase that deficit. But, Ken Martin I feel bad for him at some level. His party is clearly

undergoing some kind of civil war right now. Uh the establishment side doesn't really have an affirmative message for what it's for. The ascendant faction is not where the donors are in any sense of the word. Except where the progressive donors are. They want to fund it. candidates will plug in the gap. Um the James Talerico's, the big Democratic candidates around the country are raising lots of money where the party apparatus is not. And I think that's what's helping Democrats this year. And by the way, progressive groups that have pushed the envelope ideologically, that aren't exclusively focused on winning elections have changed the donation calculation here. There are big

groups on the American left, more so than on the American right, that do act as a kind of hub for these dollars that get dolled out to campaigns. That's an important component of this. It's part of why the Democratic Party is moving further and further to the left. So, I want to talk to you about something that a political poll uncovered asking about tax and spending laws under President Trump. Do they benefit or offer breaks to working-class Americans? 26% of Trump voters say yes, 14% of voters overall. The White House knows there is a messaging gap here that they need to get this message out. The president was in

Michigan today trying to hammer that home as effectively as possible. One-day rallies do not change national perceptions, but there's some work to do here. Yeah, I don't think it's time to hit a five-alarm panic button quite yet. Three and a half? Republicans are actually doing fairly well given what the fundamentals are of this cycle. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, which just came out today, has uh Republicans with a only two points down to Democrats in the generic congressional ballot. Uh given the fundamentals of this cycle, that's not a terrible situation to Meaning the fundamentals, meaning where Trump is on overall approval, economy,

inflation, the war? Biggest gap I'm looking at is motivation. Every poll you look at, giant motivation gap between Democrats who are fired up to show up and Republicans who are not fired up even a GOP Super PAC memo about that talking about low enthusiasm on the general Another thing I would add, um I understand that we're talking about this as if it's something that the White House needs to fix. I think the best thing going for the White House is that people don't know about this crap piece of legislation that nobody likes. I'm just going to be honest with you. I mean, the least popular thing Donald Trump did in his first term, what was it? The TCJA, the Tax and Jobs Cuts Act.

I don't agree that the most people aren't Hey, why is the most people aren't too big fans of January 6th? For example, there were other things that happened with the Tax and Jobs Act. and what I would say to you is I think it is helpful to Donald Trump that most people don't know what's in that legislation. Good luck to Democrats running against tax cuts in the midterms. I think once this message crystallizes Peggy Flanagan the far left Democratic Senate candidate in Wisconsin who's got a dog fight ahead of her for the offer was Minnesota pardon me is one example of a candidate who just said on a radio show yesterday that she would be for rolling back a number of these tax

cuts. Look, if Democrats want to go into the midterms saying that no tax on tips and all of these different tax cuts that the one big beautiful bill act introduced. have the confidence of Jesse. Keep going. It sounds like we're going to agree. It agree. He's going to say Democrats should run against tax cuts. I'm going to say Republicans should run on them and we'll see how things bear out in November. Inshallah. And very quickly we have 30 seconds. Maine now has a Democratic Senate nominee Troy Jackson. Fundamentals of that race change?

He's got a big cash disadvantage but the fact that he is competitive with Susan Collins who has high name ID lots of resources advantage. I'd be worried if I was a Republican and I actually think the grand plan of stuff is closer to being in the distance for Democrats than I would have assumed at this point. Joel Payne you get the last word. Jesse Arnett you hope you come back. It was great stuff. Thank you very much. Happy Monday everyone. This is the takeout. Quick reminder we are relentlessly curious reliably civil occasionally clever. The Daily Report coming up next.