'Congress Is Not Asleep'

Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on podcast Why Is This Happening, GeoTolentino, staff writer of The New Yorker, on what this new cycle combined with social media together are doing to our brains. The things that are fake look extremely real, the things that are real are almost unbelievable. And then the result is this slurry in our mind that causes this permission structure to detach from the material reality of the world. That's this week on Why Is This Happening. Social Why Is This Happening? We're ever listening right now and follow. Good evening folks and welcome to the weeknight. I'm Michael Still with Simone Sanders, Towson and Alicia Menendez. Breaking right now, too little, too late. Congress is finally getting briefed by Trump officials who thought it's been as well a operation. In just a moment, we'll speak with one of the top Democrats in that briefing. Then is Donald Trump making foreign policy decisions based on personal grudges, stunning new reporting on his current mindset. And later former officers Michael Fanoen and Harry Dunner are going to join the conversation as we prepare to mark the anniversary of the Capitol insurrection and how that day laid the groundwork for what we're seeing unfold right now. We begin though with breaking news. Select members of Congress are still in that classified briefing with top Trump officials on the U.S. military raid. The captured Venezuelan president Nicolas Madoro and his wife just this weekend. The question lawmakers want answered more than any other. Why was in Congress notified before this raid? Just a moment when this briefing wraps, we're going to be speaking with the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But joining us now, Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, he's a member of the Senate foreign relations and judiciary committees. Welcome. Good to see you Senator. Just right off the top. Judiciary Committee, right? U.S. Senators. Why? Why weren't any of you also briefed and informed, not included in this briefing tonight? Well, one of the striking things about Marco Rubio and President Trump's comments after the strike on Venezuela was that they had been rehearsing for months. They had prepared a special forces strike team with months of preparation. Yet just a few weeks ago, they had told us directly in a briefing that they were not planning on regime change. They had no plans to overthrow Madoro or what would come after. That the strikes on boats in the Caribbean was a drug interdiction operation. So quite a few of us are bluntly angry that we were misled that they lied to us about what they had in mind and what they were planning. Now, Secretary Rubio has subsequently said publicly, this isn't the sort of thing you brief Congress about. But President Trump continues to threaten boots on the ground, further military action and just in the last day, action against Colombia and Cuba and Denmark. So bluntly, we must be briefed and consulted and President Trump should not be carrying out military strikes without congressional authorization. This is how we stumble into dangerous broad spectrum long-term wars is by threatening and not planning and then carrying out military strikes. I think all every American in this country should care about what the president is saying and what the America did in Venezuela over the weekend because if a president can act with reckless regard or no regard for rules or say that the rules don't apply to them or even worse that they make the rules abroad, they will absolutely do so domestically and I think kind of implications for all of us. I want to draw your attention, Senator, to Project 2025 because they told us about this too. This is from Project 2025, the mandate for leadership. This is Chapter 6 of the State Department. It reads this. Specific countries in the Americas, such as Venezuela, are either increasingly regional security threats in their own rights or are vulnerable to hostile extra continental powers. The U.S. has an opportunity to lead these democratic neighbors to fight against the external pressures of threats from abroad and address local regional security concerns. That is a long way of them saying we told you we were going to do something like this. Well, I'll disagree with you a little bit Simone. That says that they're going to try and pressure Venezuela and countries like Nicaragua and Cuba to reduce their dependency on Iran, on Russia or Venezuela on Cuba. But it doesn't say with the clarity that we deserve, the American people deserve, we're going to start a new war. We're going to use American military force to seize and extract the president of Venezuela. That's a really bold thing for them to have done. And I have two main concerns about what's happened that we haven't talked about yet. What's to stop mainland China, communist China, from declaring the president of Taiwan a criminal in their courts using their military to go and seize him and bring him back to the PRC to stand trial. And if they did so, what would our objection be? And President Trump has repeatedly threatened to take Greenland away from Denmark. Denmark is a democracy. Denmark is a NATO ally. Denmark's soldiers have served and fought alongside American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. They don't see the difference between Trump threatening Venezuela and threatening them and neither do I. And I'm worried that this plan 2025 you've referenced that was an important blueprint for some of the worst things that President Trump has done leads us to believe that he intends to use military force in wide spectrum and reckless ways that goes directly against the America first position he claimed to be taking. And instead it seems to be put oil companies in their interests first, even if it requires the use of the exquisite skills and capabilities of the U.S. military. Senator, I would layer on to your points about the rewriting of international law. The fact that this seems more like a regime decapitation than regime change. I think a lot of us have questions about why the administration has chosen to prop up the Venezuelan vice president who's now running the country, Delcy Rodriguez, a true believer, rather than throwing even a modicum of support behind Maria Corino Machado, the face of the opposition in Venezuela. There is this reporting I want to get your take on from the Wall Street Journal, which is about what the CIA concluded using their intel. The analysis by the Central Intelligence Agency was briefed to President Trump and shared with a small circle of senior administration officials according to two of the people. It was a factor in Trump's decision to back Maduro's vice president instead of opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corino Machado. Some of the people said, your thoughts on whether or not a regime loyalist can in fact bring change to Venezuela? It would be a stunning change for a hardliner like Maria Machado, who has been loyal to and supported Maduro throughout her time as vice president and oil minister for her to suddenly do an about face, expel the Cuban and Iranian and Russian advisors, cut off support to Cuba, release political prisoners, end support for narco trafficking and embrace the United States. That would be a stunning about face and I think frankly might well lead to a military coup against her. We haven't heard a word of support from President Trump either for Maria Machado who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her leadership of the Venezuelan opposition or for Eduardo Gonzalez who won the last election. Machado was prevented from running. Gonzalez stood for office and the Carter Center, the human rights organization started by our former president, Jimmy Carter, served as election observers. They concluded that Gonzalez on behalf of the opposition that Machado leads won the last election by two to one. So frankly, neither the Biden administration nor the Trump administration, nor the EU recognized Maduro as the legitimately elected president. We should be locking arms with our Democratic allies and urging support for Eduardo Gonzalez and Maria Machado and the Democratic opposition in Venezuela. It is legitimate to ask questions about who would operate and run the government in the meantime and how would that transition happen. But for President Trump, the night that he extracts Maduro to disrespect Machado and say, yes, you won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, she leads the opposition that won the last election, but she doesn't have enough support. In whose mind? I'll remind you that President Trump through Elon Musk's doge efforts fundamentally undermined our support for democracy, defunded, or shut down our work through things like the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, some of the key functions in the State Department and the Institute of Peace that promote democracy. Trump keeps making this mistake. In the contest between Russia and Ukraine, he keeps sucking up to Vladimir Putin, a brutal dictator and aggressor, rather than supporting Vladimir Zelensky, the democratically elected president of Ukraine who is standing firm against aggression. In the case of Venezuela, he seems to be siding with the Vice President now installed in Venezuela as the new president, who is a Chavista, someone who has long been a part of this brutal regime, rather than standing up for the duly elected either Gonzalez or the opposition leader, Machado. So, frankly, what is Trump doing? He is advancing the interests of American oil companies that are eager to get their hands on the sour crude from Venezuela that produces big profit margins for them, rather than fighting for democracy or producing regional stability by working with our allies. This is a stunning development and one that has echoes and consequences for us, not just in this region but around the world. Senator, you put your finger just down, Simone and I looked at each other. We were like, yes, yes, it's the oil, it's the oil. That's the point. It's the oil. This is not about anything other than that. And you ask the question about, well, why the Vice President versus Machado, why is because he's cutting his deal? He's cutting his deal with the Vice President. He's left virtually all the Maduro's people in place. Hello folks, understand what's happening here? The deals are being cut to divide this up. Isn't it? Don't we find it interesting, Senator, that the president meets with the head of oil companies here in the U.S. before briefing you? I mean, what do we understand, Franklin here? Michael, in 2024, the Washington Post published an article saying that Donald Trump as candidate met with the executives of the major oil companies in the United States and said, you raise a billion dollars for my presidential campaign and I'll make sure things go really well for you when I'm president. Taking over and getting access to the country with the world's largest oil reserves and making those accessible to American oil companies whose refineries were built decades ago specifically to take Venezuelan oil back when we had regular positive commerce with Venezuela. That's the kind of windfall profits that the oil executives are looking for. And it is stunning that he would brief them before briefing the members of Congress. And I bet you, I bet you when we look hard, there will be members of Congress and this administration who conducted stock trades on that knowledge before the rest of us had any idea what was happening. So I mean, what's in, I'm going to be honest, I'm just like the regular people that woke up Saturday morning like, we got Maduro. What is happening next? Because again, I say a president that will just ignore Congress abroad, make his own rules up abroad in his own justifications abroad for foreign policy. It's not going to all of a sudden start respecting those things here at home domestically. And I've heard from a lot of people that said, well dang, this is these are literal quotes. Is Congress asleep here? What is Congress going to do and I understand that Democrats are in the minority, but Senator, I think hearing from you specifically folks should understand that your Republican colleagues here are not necessarily trying to take up the banner for congressional oversight and control. And as a co-equal branch of government trying to knock on the door of the administration saying, hey, y'all need to pay attention to what we think here. And this is unacceptable. >> Simone, Congress is not asleep. Democrats in Congress are standing up, speaking out, demanding accountability. And we will have a vote this week in the Senate on a resolution put forward by Democratic Senator Tim Cain demanding that President Trump stop military action in Venezuela unless it is authorized. Who is asleep or obsequious or just going blah, blah, blah, blah. Is the Republicans in Congress who are not demanding accountability, who are not demanding that there be authorization from Congress before this sort of thing goes. And President Trump is telling us right now what's chapter two and what's chapter three and what's chapter four of this book. Columbia, Cuba, Denmark. Are we seriously going to sleepwalk into wars, wars across this whole region and wars that might risk the whole NATO alliance? If President Trump is serious about threatening Greenland, he is threatening the foundation of transatlantic security that has kept the United States safe and prosperous for decades. And for no clear reason, the Danes have welcomed us into Greenland. They would welcome us working with them to develop critical minerals to expand our military presence to protect against Russia and China. So Trump is making threats against American allies in ways that are outrageous and unfounded. And Republicans are saying nothing. I can understand you criticizing Cuba. I can understand criticizing Venezuela, but invading them, that's an incredibly risky undertaking. I just have one follow up. Do you think he is serious? I believe we should take the president at his word, but do you think he is serious into your colleagues on Capitol Hill believes the president is being serious? I think he's serious as a heart attack and he's going to keep pushing and pushing and pushing. Look, I never imagined that he would vocally, publicly disrespect Vladimir Zelensky in the Oval Office and say to him, you don't have the cards and you have to give up territory and you have to make peace with Putin and he did. I didn't think that he would send in the elite of the American Armed Forces, 150 planes, 200 soldiers to carry out a midnight raid to kidnap Maduro and bring him back to the United States, but he just did. So frankly, we should be clearied that until Congress puts limits until the American people put limits on what he can do, he's just going to keep going. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, thank you very much for your time tonight. Soon, folks, we will be speaking with the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Gregory Meeks, he is still in that briefing with top Trump officials about the Venezuelan operation. And later in the show, former CIA director John Brennan will join the conversation as the president looks at targeting other foreign nations. You just heard the Senator talk about it. We'll get into it. You're watching The Weeknight. To have the way, the president elect of the American Society of International Law tells the New Yorker quote, "Unfortunately, I don't think there is a legal basis for what we're seeing in Venezuela. There are certainly legal arguments that the administration is going to make, but all the arguments that I've heard so far don't hold water. None of them really justify what the president seems to have ordered to take place in Venezuela." Joining us now to discuss this retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and Jag, Rachel van Landingham, she is Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School in LA. We were just discussing in the break here, Professor, that there's all these debates today about interlational law versus domestic law. And Alicia noted in a half the way, did a very good job in that story, detailing why what we saw today or this weekend is done as certainly the same as things we've seen in history. >> No, they're flagrantly different. I mean, there's huge distinctions between this and what President Bush did, the first President Bush did regarding Noriega in Panama in 1989. For example, in Panama, the Panamanian Assembly, their Congress had actually declared war, passed a declaration of war against the United States. We had 35,000 U.S. citizens in Venezuela and the U.S. Service Member had already been killed by a member of the Panamanian military at the time that the United States went in and actually invaded Panama and did bring back a general Noriega to stand trial. So there's huge distinctions between that and earlier historical precedent. >> Talk about the legalities here. I mean, I think a lot of folks to be honest, which is kind of a washed-in-law. I mean, you know, from all the stuff that's been happening domestically from this administration, the law suits back and forth. And now we're venturing into the international space with clear violations of both domestic and international law. And international law is someone who's practiced in this area in the past. It's rather amorphous. It's driven by treaties and long-held agreements. And some you have to dust the, you know, dust the mites off of or whatever. Help people understand what this President did and why it's a problem for the country, our country. And how we need to start looking at the actions this administration is foreshadowing relative to Cuba and other countries. >> And Taiwan, thank you so much for that. There's quite a bit of international law that can seem ambiguous and fuzzy. This one isn't. We don't send our militaries, modern profession, modern democracies today, after World War II. Don't send our militaries into another country to take their heads of state. Period, boom. We condemned President Putin for invading Ukraine in 2022, because he violated the territorial integrity of another country. Period, right? That's what the UN Charter, which is the preeminent international law that governs here, that the US helped to write and establish and as part of US law, says, hey, look, you can use armed force countries, but only as a last resort. When you're facing an imminent threat of attack by another country, then you can go in an attack at that time, right? Or if you're already in an ongoing war. Otherwise, the use of forces last resort. But President Trump is making this first resort. So he's agreeing with the President Putin's other world that modern countries today can just use might as right, law the jungle. We're going to go in and make countries do what we want them to do. We're not going to respect sovereignty anymore. At the end of the end, why did we have the UN Charter? I say did because it's not being respected now. It was to prevent Michael World War III, right? It wasn't perfect. It's been violated in the past, but the United States at least paid lip service. The United States bent over backwards when it invaded Iraq in 2003, which in my opinion, was a violation of the UN Charter. But the United States bent over backwards to try to stay look. We had this imminent threat. What we thought was an imminent threat of nuclear biological chemical weapons. Plus, we already had UN Security Council resolutions authorizing all these different military operations in the region and against Iraq, emanating from the unlawful invasion of Kuwait that preceded the Iraq war. But today, you don't even have the administration trying to bend over backwards. There is no international law that allows the United States to commit an extraterritorial law enforcement action by using its military to invade another country. In the bottom line that we should be concerned about is how destabilizing is this? Is this a green like to China to go ahead and go into Taiwan? That's what it seems to be. Is this greenlighting what President Putin has done in Ukraine to the tune of thousands of Ukrainian civilians dead? And Taiwanese civilians will die if China invades. So we're facing some scary times. Well, and concurrently, this is playing out in our domestic legal system. I want to be clear, Nicolas Maduro plunged his country into chaos, created a migrant crisis like we have never seen, and honestly, the United States should have been even more interested and invested in before. Some of those asylum seekers started showing up on our shores. If we're going to think about this as a hemisphere, then we have to think about it as a hemisphere that we invest in. All that said, I'm going to share with you the, and our viewers, the plea that Nicolas Maduro entered today. And I share it only because I want you to help us understand how this is likely to play out in a legal court of law. He said, quote, "I am innocent. I'm not guilty. I am a decent man. I am the president of my country," said all of this in Spanish, formally entering a plea of not guilty to narcoterrorism and cocaine importation. This question of whether or not the United States had the legal grounding to go in and take him from Venezuela, is that likely to be sort of the first round of legal argument as this plays out in court? Yes, it is. And it's the easiest one to dispel because we have US Supreme Court case law that clearly states that the manner of capture, the manner of forcible abduction, even kidnapping, is irrelevant to an ongoing federal prosecution. So that will not at all undermine the indictment and the prosecution of Mr. Maduro and his wife. What will, that will pose greater challenges when this prosecution goes on, because it's going to take months and months and months for this case to wind its way through, will be the issues of head of state immunity, that the immunity of a head of state from the acts taken as a head of state and possibly official acts immunity, such as the official acts immunity, the Supreme Court handed as a huge gift to press the Trump a little over a year ago. So the argument just real quickly that they're going to make is that since 2020, they've had this indictment that the United States has not recognized him as a legitimate head of state. Does that get litigated in a court of law? Sure, it sure will. And to be honest, I think at the end of the day, the Department of Justice will win on that, like they did with Manuel Noriega, but Noriega had committed a coup and was a military dictator that, you know, I'd say it's had never recognized. And so Maduro's case is more complicated on that issue. I don't want it to get lost for folks which you said in response to Alicia's first question on this, because there have been many, if you just look at social media today and in people's non-political group chats, they're saying, oh my goodness, how is this legal? How is, how can Maduro stand trial if we just took Maduro? But your point is that the United States Supreme Court has essentially said, does my how you get here? Once you're here, you are going to stand trial. That's exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court has said. It's completely bifurcated. The method of obtaining what we call in person and personal jurisdiction over an accused and over an defendant now and their actual trial. But what can be done is Congress, right? Let's go back to the domestic law aspect of this. Of course, Mr. Maduro is a repressive, authoritarian leader who caused massive emigration from this country, the economic implosion of his own country besides brutalizing and jailing political opponents. But Congress is supposed to be, as the representative of the people, Congress is supposed to decide when we are going to go to war. And by using our armed forces to non-consensually invade another country to capture Mr. Maduro, that was war. That triggered what's called an international armed conflict. That was Congress's decision because we want to know that there's a plan for the day after. The regime, the Maduro regime isn't gone. It was decapitated at the very top, but his number two is still in charge. His hand-picked military leaders are still running the Venezuelan military. What comes next? That's why the founding fathers gave that authority for offensive military operations like this to go to to go to Congress. But if Congress continues to fund the military and to fund President Trump, they are agreeing with what he did. And that's disturbing. What comes next? That is the big question for Venezuelans and for us here in the United States, Lieutenant Colonel Rachel Menlandingham. We always appreciate your clarity, but tonight more than ever. Thank you. After a quick break, we're going to shift gears and discuss the upcoming anniversary of the January 6th insurrection with former officers Michael Fanon and Harry Dunn. And later, Jacob Soberoff joins the conversation as he sits down with Governor Gavin Newsom, was calling out JD Vance over a dangerous disinformation campaign. That's only on the weeknight. Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why is this happening? Geo Tolentino, staff writer of The New Yorker, on what this new cycle combined with social media together are doing to our brains. The things that our fake look extremely real, the things that are real, are almost unbelievable. We're releasing right now and follow. Tomorrow marks five years since the violent mob fueled by Donald Trump's lies stormed the United States Capitol in an attempt to block the certification of the 2020 election results. Democracy thankfully prevailed. But it came in a very heavy cost. A cost we are still coming to terms with today. As The New York Times editorial board notes in a powerful piece, quote, "That day was indeed a turning point, but not the one it first seemed to be. It was a turning point toward a version of Mr. Trump, who is even more lawless than the one who governed the country in his first term." Joining us now, Michael Fanon, former DC Metropolitan Police Officer, and Harry Dunn, former Capitol Police Officer, both defended the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. Thank you both so much for being here, Michael. Can you believe it's five years? I really don't take the time to reflect on these anniversaries. I still see, you know, this is a very active fight that began on January 6th, 2021. If you've ever been in a fight, I don't think it's you take the time to reflect on how that fight began. You just continue the fight until you've won. And we're a long way from from winning this battle. Harry, I'm wondering if you see it the same way because in the aftermath of the January 6th, I know we here at this table actively described it in all the anniversaries that we've been together. We've described it as understanding it was the beginning, not the end of something. And given what happened at the beginning of President Trump's first term where he pardoned, all of the defendants who were convicted of crimes on January 6th, I think that just bolstered the argument. Yeah, like I agree absolutely with what Michael said. We are still in the middle of this and we haven't stopped fighting literally and metaphorically since January 6th. January 7th, we've spoken out because we want accountability for what happened. Now, what does that look like? I don't know. Yes, it's easy for people to think, man, it's been five years. I cannot believe it's been five years. I think it's easy to lose grip of time when there's been no accountability. And I feel like if there was accountability, then yeah, we could have the time talk and we could talk about time being distorted. But the problem is history gets distorted when there is no accountability. So that's what we're seeing now with what's going on with this administration, whitewashing and let alone people just forgetting about what happened that day. Gentlemen, you both touch on various aspects of all of this that I think a lot of Americans still in many respects try to understand and contextualize and it often leads to the what happens next, where are we now, what's going on now. Michael, how should you share report touched on the where are they now aspect of this Jamie Raskins, wrote the forward to this report noting, quote, nothing captures the state of our disunion better than the divergent understandings of what happened on January 6th. For most Americans, it remains a day of shame, infamy and danger with convicted insurrectionists and coup plotters exposed as traitors to democracy and the brave bloody police officers and stalwarts of the Constitution standing in the breach as patriotic defenders of the republic. But for President Trump and his defenders, January 6th remains a kaleidoscope, kaleidoscopic projection of MAGA, political myths, fantasies and conspiracy theories. So very much to your point, Michael, as much as we try to move along in the fight to secure again the liberties of democracy and the freedoms and all of all that was stood at risk that day. You still have those who are engaged in the conspiracies, the lies, the BS, still perpetrated by the man in the Oval Office very much as it was then. What do you say to your fellow Americans as someone who stood in that breach, who was one of those brave bloody police officers who understood in the moment what was important. Help them understand that they still follow these conspiracies in those lies. Why the direction they're headed is not good for them or our country? Well, at first I would say that if I would ask anything in my fellow Americans, it would be to take the time in this fifth anniversary of January 6th to reflect on Jack Smith's sworn testimony before Congress in which he laid out the fact that the Department of Justice under his leadership and pursuing this investigation determined that with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Donald Trump orchestrated, funded and incited the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. And so, you know, without understanding, you know, we have a president who has assumed the office unlawfully in violation of our Constitution. He is someone who is engaged in insurrection. We watched that play out before our very eyes, but you know, Jack Smith's testimony only lends credence to that. But I would also caution, you know, my fellow Americans in that, you know, we talk about all these other distractions that are taking place right now in you, Venezuela and then all these different things. Donald Trump has replaced the rule of law, both in our foreign policy and our domestic policy, with the idea that the ends always justify the means. And that is an incredibly dangerous road to traverse down. And I hope that we're able to course correct before we start to see the results and the repercussions that we will inevitably reap as a result of pursuing that as a policy. Harry Michael referenced Jack Smith's testimony. Testimony he gave on December 17th of 2025. Testimony that House Judiciary Republicans chose not to release until New Year's Eve when most of America was a little busy doing other things. So in case anyone might have missed it, let's take a listen to what Michael just said there. This is Smith talking about the evidence making it clear that Donald Trump was the most culpable. The evidence here may clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol is part of this case, it does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefits. Harry, I don't know why would you not want all of America to hear that and have the opportunity to hear it on a day when they weren't distracted by so many other things. It questions their narrative. It absolutely humiliates the individual that they pledged undying fidelity to and that's Donald Trump. So that's why they released it. Like you just said on New Year's Eve when everybody's out on vacation or when a break, if you will. But to go back to the point, I want to address though, but what do you talk about the people that are still? I love you all to death. I love you three year-old hosts to death, but you don't need a pundit. You don't need me. You don't need Michael Fennone. You don't need a congressperson to tell you what you saw on January 6th. I think everybody can probably remember the outfit that they had on where they were on January 6th. Press mute and just press play and you tell me that we're okay with that with what happened as a country. Are we okay with that? And that's it seems like where we are right now. We have to determine if we are okay with what happened. And a lot of Republicans, in the beginning, they were very upset with it. They were upset with Donald Trump. They were upset with what happened that day and they were like, we're done with him. Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Grant, the list goes on and on. Every single Republican, we're done with him. But now power, they just crave that desire to have Donald Trump's support because it seems like as Americans, we had the opportunity to reject that in November and we did it. We had an opportunity to get all these institutions, the failed institutions, failure to convict them in the Senate, failure for the courts to hold him accountable. We had the opportunities, but the American people had the ultimate say so and we didn't live up to what I thought that we were capable of as Americans. So it's always important for us to continue to talk about this, especially why there's so much whitewashing going on. I said in my testimony when I testified before Congress, how can we move on from January 6th without correcting what happened? And there has been no accountability yet. And the little bit that we did have, he saw with the president pardon them, a criminal pardoning criminals. I will just know before we go that the two of you are heroes, the Metropolitan Police Department, the DC MPD, it is because they came to the aid of their brothers and sisters and the Capitol Police at the Capitol was not overrun that day. It is because the MPD officers held the line until the calvary came that the president refused to call for. And we should never forget that. We should also never forget, Michael, that this isn't just about what happened, Mr. Chairman, it's about what the president is saying and doing right now in advance of elections in 2026. Absolutely, and that's why we would like you two gentlemen to keep your voices in the conversation. Thank you for sharing your voices here, Michael Fano and Harry Dunn. Thank you both. And now, back to the day's top story is Donald Trump making foreign policy decisions based on personal feelings and grudges. We'll discuss some new reporting ahead on the weeknight. Donald Trump might have rejected opposition leader Maria Machado as the new president of Venezuela because he's a sore loser. Two people close to the White House. Tell the Washington Post that Trump's lack of interest in boosting Machado stemmed from her accepting the Nobel Peace Prize late last year, which of course Trump has long wanted. The source has described it as the "ultimate sin," one person adding quote. If she had turned it down and said, I can't accept it because it's Donald Trump's, she'd be the president of Venezuela today. Honestly, my head hurts because it's like, what WTF is that? But the fact that that was quoted in Washington Post, it's like that is a conversation that actually happened amongst people familiar, people closer to the president, folks in the know. And that is the level of petty grievance of which we are operating right now at our government, which will be laughable if our lives and our democracy weren't at stake. You've got that and you also just suppose that with the Wall Street Journal reporting, this coming out tonight about how there was apparently a briefing that the president received and a small number of administration, senior administration officials buy the CIA with information that it was an intelligence assessment that essentially said that the current vice president, the vice president of Venezuela, who is now the acting president of Venezuela, and folks within the regime would be best positioned to lead the country in Maduro's absence as opposed to someone else. Those two things are maybe would drove the president to this decision. We don't know because the president and his allies continue to not tell us the truth. We don't know that they're there because they're not explaining it to the American people. I know, I'm not this crazy. The intelligence briefing is catered to give Donald Trump the result he wants. There's no intelligence in the briefing. Well, now that's not fair, we don't know that's true. I'm just saying, if you know the man and you know what you put in front of them, then you know you're going to give him, you're going to massage it to give him what we've had reporting in the past about how this president likes to receive intelligence, how he likes to consume information. He doesn't want to be told he can't. He doesn't want to be told, sir, this is the law you can't. So everybody finds the workaround. So that's part one of this. The part two of this is the, I think, Alicia, the thread that sort of weaves it all together is what Machado represented. She represented something he is not, something better than him, something culturally, politically more respected and accepted than him. And so that's why in his little petty moment, he takes her down on an important day of his administration when he is violating the sovereignty of another nation. And so that's how Donald Trump shows who he is to all of us. And I think we just stop pretending we don't accept it. What I am most concerned with is the Venezuelan people who are deeply, some of them deeply hopeful, some of them cautiously hopeful about what this could mean for their country. And really it should be to them to choose who their leader is in a fair and free election. That is what democracy actually looks like. Stay with us. There's a lot more to come tonight at the top of the hour. We're going to be joined by former CIA director John Brennan on the legal and national security consequences of Trump's unprecedented moves in Venezuela. And later Jacob Sobrough's exclusive interview with California governor and potential 2028 contender Gavin Newsom, Janaco Anywhere. This is the weeknight. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with the MSNOW newsletter project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people. The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this. Sign up for the project 47 newsletter at ms.now/project47.