Source: No Warning Sirens Ahead Of Strike That Killed 6 U.S. Troops

26:38birthplace, a government-issued photo ID card showing a U.S. birthplace, or paired with a birth certificate, an adoption decree, report of birth abroad, naturalization certificate, or American Indian card. I understand this bill includes a lot more than just the documentation requirements. But a lot of Americans might hear that list and think that's a lot of options and wonder, do Democrats have an issue with voter ID in general or just this specific voter ID bill? Yeah, well, I think just the sheer description of this bill as a voter ID bill is a bait and switch. Because, look, as you've laid out, most people's common ID isn't enough to be able to vote under the language of this bill.

27:23Most people have as an identification, maybe a driver's license or a state ID, not a real ID. That's why the Trump administration is charging you$45 to travel if you want to board a plane without a real ID, because a lot of people haven't taken the step of getting a real ID. Half of Americans don't have a current valid passport. And so the effect would be them not being able to access the polls and cast their ballot. And really, who has their original birth certificate readily at hand? to find your birth certificate. Most people have to crawl through the attic or the basement or the garage or maybe call their parents hoping somebody knows where it is.

27:59So it's very problematic. And it's not insignificant that, aside from the ID provisions of the bill, it would eliminate most voter registration opportunities as we know it. No online voter registration, no registration drives in communities, on colleges, even the ability to register to vote when you go to the DMV, which Congress on a bipartisan basis called for in 1993 would be eliminated. And last but not least, Jake, for DHS to acquire not just voter rolls, but the personal information of every voter in America. Why? To supercharge their voter purge agenda. It's not theoretical. It's happening in a demonstration cases already with 12 states that have succumbed to Trump MAGA pressure.

28:46Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California, Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it. Coming up, what the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, said today about popping up at that FBI raid on an elections office in Atlanta, Georgia, and how that testimony contradicts the president. That's next.

29:08Some things are just better in person. High fives, hugging your dog and shopping for Crocs. If you've never been to a Crocs store, you're missing out. Sure, you can find us online, but when you step inside our shop, you'll get it. And your feet will feel fantastic with a fresh pair of classic cloths or cozy slippers or beach-ready sandals or even sneakers. Everything's ridiculously comfy and you can even pick out gibbets charms to personalize your new pair. Go check out your nearest Croc store. You deserve that in-person moment.

29:40I did not participate in a law enforcement activity, nor would I, because that does not exist within my authorities. You were present on the scene. Are the photos of you on the scene? I was at Fulton County, sir, at the request of the president and to work with the FBI to observe this action. So in our politics lead, that is the director of national intelligence, former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, saying that she was at the FBI raid on a Fulton County election office in Georgia at the request of President Trump. It doesn't exactly square with why President Trump has said she was there. Here now is our panel.

30:17So take a listen, guys, to what the president said last month at the prayer breakfast about Tulsi Gabbard being in Atlanta at that time. She took a lot of heat because she went in at Pam's insistence. She went in and she looked at votes that want to be checked out from Georgia. They say, why is she doing it? Right, Pam? Why is she doing it? Because Pam wanted her to do it. So did Pam Bondi want her to do it or did President Trump want her to do it? At least I think it's pretty clear President Trump wanted her to do it. That's just, it is what it is. But yeah, listen, he clearly can't get over 2020.

30:58He clearly, you know, sees Fulton County has some issues. He's going to continue to invest resources and time. The same with Arizona. I wish the president would focus on the economy more, especially that that's what voters care about. But this is a bone he can't let go of. Yeah. Let's turn to day 33 now of the partial government shutdown. Democrats filed a petition today to fund TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard and other non-immigration DHS agencies. Here's House Democratic leader, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. It's time for Republicans to stop holding the American people hostage to their extreme immigration agenda and to put the American people first.

31:42It's time to pay TSA agents and it's time to pay them now. So Democrats in the House would need four Republican signatures to force this onto the floor for a vote. So earlier this month, we should note the House did pass a bill to fund the entire department, including the parts that Democrats don't want funded until there are changes in immigration policy. Do you think any of the Republicans are going to sign on, especially in those swing districts? I mean, if they're looking at polling right now and they're looking and they're worried about reelection in any of those swing districts, they should.

32:16Right. Because this makes sense. People want to see ICE reform. People don't want the entire Department of Homeland Security shut down. Democrats have put forward a plan that would allow the TSA, FEMA, other DHS agencies to move forward while they work to reform ICE. It's pretty simple math. If they can't get four Republicans to sign on to that, that tells us a whole lot about where that center of gravity is in the Republican Party. The issue is really in the Senate, not the House. And DHS, the full funding bill has passed the House. And the Democrats won't allow a vote on it in the Senate until these changes are made.

33:03Congressman Don Beyer of Virginia, a House Democrat, starting to question his party strategy on this. He told Axios, quote, it's not forcing any change, meaning this partial shutdown. In the meantime, we're making people hurt. The long lines, that can't make us more popular. We're on the right side on ice, but not on the rest. I mean, listen, elections are about change. You know, what the Democrats are trying to do is they're trying to circumvent an election and try to enforce a government shutdown to change policies that were decided on elections. You know, this is the typical approach. They want to stop deportations.

33:34They've given the opportunity to go back to open borders. So we should be very clear what the Democrats want with their policy changes. They want open borders and they want no deportation and they want sanctuary cities all over America. Trump and his side is saying no. And they're going to fight for that. And they asked a policy to change without an election. It's just unprecedented and it will come back to bite them. I have a hard time believing that this ICE policy, that what people saw on the streets of Minneapolis is what they voted for on Election Day. They voted to shut the border, but they did not vote for that kind of militarized interior action that resulted in the death of American citizens.

34:16And so that's what the Democrats are trying to force. They're trying to force simple reforms that would make ICE more accountable, not to abolish it, to make it more accountable. I think that's going to resonate with me. Listen, ICE should absolutely be more accountable. Customs and borders should be accountable, too. But let's be clear what the Democrats are trying to do. They're trying to stop deportation policy. That's what they're trying to do. And yes, some of the process was chaotic. We had some very tragic steps. Those things happen. Those things get changed. But what shouldn't happen is you shouldn't have a Democratic Party say, hey, we're going to ignore the last election and say, no, we need to keep these illegals here.

34:53We need to expand that voter base. This is the debate we should be having right now in Washington. So I ask Republicans, open up the rest of DHS, as Democrats have suggested, so we can have that conversation. There's no need to anchor down the rest of it because of this disagreement. Let's turn to another issue, because today Vice President J.D. Vance went to Michigan to rally Republicans at a manufacturing plant outside Detroit. Here's what the vice president said about rising gas prices. The president said this, and I certainly agree with it. This is a temporary blip. OK, what happened under the Biden administration is the gas prices were high for four years.

35:32Gas prices are higher right now. And frankly, they're not even as high as they were during certain parts of the Biden administration because of what's going on in the Middle East. It's not going to last forever. We've got we've got a rough road ahead of us for the next few weeks, but it's temporary. Gas prices are now the highest on average since September 2023. How much patience do you think Americans have? And do you think it really is just a blip? You're in the economic world. You know, listen, I think ultimately it will be a blip, but I also think Americans don't have any patience when it comes to gas.

36:01We're coming, you know, I this morning, you know, I spent$5.25 a gallon to fill up my car. Two weeks ago it was$3.75. I think that will have a dramatic impact, you know, two weeks, a month out. And I don't think it's a temporary, I do think it's a temporary blip. But once we find a fix to the war, once we find an exit plan, I do think prices will eventually return. Mo, 10 seconds. We need a plan before we can have an exit plan. And look, we've seen the secondary, the Fed refusing to cut interest rates, this costing billions and billions of dollars to the Treasury. I don't think Americans have very much patience at all.

36:36Thanks to both of you. There were other contradicting testimony moments from D.N.I. Gabbard, including her apparent evolving views on what constitutes an imminent threat. That and more next.

36:53Feeding the fam isn't easy, but we got you with Denny's Slam and Meal Deals starting at$5.99. Full meals for everyone, like a Grand Slam Burrito for Grandpa and a Super Slam for Super Mom. Get to Denny's now. Ballot at participating locations for dine-in or denny's.com. Limited time offer. Additional restrictions may apply at some locations. Our health lead now. We're paging Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Dr. Gupta, to answer your questions on high cholesterol and why some of our younger viewers might want to start paying attention to their cholesterol. Sanjay, our first question comes from Juan in Palmetto, Florida.

37:24He asks you, quote, will doctors begin to incorporate testing LPA levels for their patients? I'm so glad we're getting questions about LPA. A lot of people asking about this. LPA lipoprotein A or LP little a get to know this term because I think this is going to become just as important as just talking about cholesterol overall. So this is another type of cholesterol particle, Jake. But a couple of interesting things about it. It's largely genetic, meaning that it's going to be pretty stable over someone's lifetime. It doesn't really respond to lifestyle changes like diet or exercise. It's not going to go up or down in response to diet or exercise.

38:05And about 20 % of the population has elevated levels of this. So you only need to get it checked once. But if it's high, Jake, that means potentially you have to, if you're sort of borderline high on your cholesterol and you have a high LPA, that's going to tip the scales more likely in terms of taking statin drugs. So get it checked once. I think that's going to be the advice. Sanjay, Ryan from Diamond Bar, California wants to know, quote, how common do each of the side effects from statins occur? Yeah, another really important question. First of all, I just want to say broadly speaking, Jake, as we've talked about these guideline changes, pretty big deal.

38:47But if you think about it, you might have millions more people starting to take these medications earlier in life. And for many of them, they may be taking it for decades, if not the rest of their life. I think that's probably the biggest concern overall. That's going to be a lot more medications in society overall. And I think, you know, that makes some people obviously nervous. But in terms of specific side effects, I don't know if you can see this wheel, Jake. You don't have to pay attention to the words or anything there, but this is how you sort of scientists look at side effects. 66 different potential side effects were reported with statins.

39:19They go and they explore each one. Which of these are directly related to statins, which are not, and they find that there are four that are most common. Muscle aches and pains, about 5 to 10 % of the population, sometimes severe enough that people stop taking the statin medications. Liver abnormalities, you typically get a blood test checking your liver function tests before you start taking statins, and then again a few months into it. And then there are things like elevating your blood sugars as well. So things like that they pay attention to, but pretty low side effect profile overall. Yeah, I take a statin.

39:53I haven't seen any side effects. Sanjay Takbir takes a statin. He wants to know, will I need to use it for life or until bringing the cholesterol to lower limits? You know, most people are going to be on these medications for a long time if not for life. I think you separate it really into two categories. People who are taking it for primary prevention, people who are taking it for secondary prevention. Primary prevention means you haven't had any kind of heart problem. You're taking it to prevent that from happening. Those people may be able to get off statins, still pretty unlikely, but more likely than if you're taking it for secondary prevention, meaning you've had some sort of heart problem.

40:31Now you're on the statin. You're trying to prevent a secondary problem. But you know, Now, one, according to the studies I read last night, one in 77 people roughly come off of statins. The vast majority, once you start taking it, you're probably going to be on it for the rest of your life. All right, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, thanks so much. Got it. Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, was there or was there not an imminent threat from Iran when the U.S. carried out military strikes? the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, dodged on this question today, claiming it's the president's job, not hers, to make that call.

41:11But shouldn't the nation's top intelligence chief be able to answer that? Plus, right now, top officials at the Justice Department are briefing Congress about their investigation into dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his sex trafficking network. But how much are they revealing to lawmakers? The Democrat inside that hearing will step out to our cameras and give us an update ahead. Also, veterans advocates are sounding the alarm about a new federal agreement and what it could mean for veterans' abilities to make their own health care decisions. The Trump administration says this actually is a way to ensure more veterans receive timely care.

41:46So what does this new agreement truly mean for those who have served our country? And now that the votes are counted, what did the results from Tuesday's primaries tell us about the upcoming midterms? And did a big victory in Illinois boost to potential 2028 White House contender. Our panel is here to weigh in.

42:09The lead tonight, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, says the Iranian regime, quote, appears to be intact, but largely degraded. The ICSS is that if a hostile regime survives, it will likely seek to begin a years long effort to rebuild its military missiles and UAV forces. Earlier today, Gabbard, along with other top Trump officials, testified publicly on Capitol Hill for the first time since the Iran war began on February 28th. And the hearing largely contradicted, or at least failed to back up, some of the claims we heard justifying the war, including the president's claim that Iran posed an imminent threat, one of the, if not the biggest reason, that warranted the U.S.

42:53going to war. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that, as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no? Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment. You won't answer the question. It is the nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume of information and intelligence that he has. he is provided with. You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.

43:30Exactly what I'm doing. No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House. Surely the intelligence community is responsible for determining all the worldwide threats posed against the United States, right? The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president. It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat. I mean, imminent is a word that actually has a meaning, right? It means it's about to happen. But now only the president can declare an imminent threat?

44:12You see, it's weird because back in 2020, when the first Trump administration carried out a strike on Iran and then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declined to present evidence that it constituted an imminent threat, Gabbard, who was in Congress at the time, said, quote, Pompeo, the attack was imminent, but we didn't know when and we didn't know where. Well, if you don't know when and if you don't know where, that is not imminent. Hashtag stand with Tulsi. Hashtag no war with Iran. In today's hearing, Gabbard also dodged questions on whether she briefed Trump that Iran would respond to being attacked by going after U.S.

44:56Gulf allies in the Strait of Hormuz. Moves President Trump said earlier this week, quote, nobody expected that. We were shocked. I'm not aware of those remarks. And I think those of us here at the table can point to the fact that historically the Iranians have always threatened to leverage their control. Why would the president say he was amazed? I'm not aware of those. What about the comments the president made that thought that he was surprised again reports that Iran struck the adjacent Gulf states? Again, I'm not aware of those remarks. Okay. CNN's Nick Robertson's on the ground in Saudi Arabia with the latest of what's happening in the region.

45:35But first, let's start with CNN's Kylie Atwood and more on today's Senate hearing. Kylie, tell us more about Gabbard. Well, there was a really interesting moment, which actually included Senator Warner and Tulsi Gabbard as well, where he pointed out that in her prepared testimony that she had provided to the committee, she planned to say something that she didn't actually include when she delivered the remarks before the committee. And I want to read to you that element that she had planned to say that she omitted from what she actually delivered. And it said, quote, as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated.

46:16There has been no effort since then to try and rebuild their enrichment capability. The entrances to the underground facilities that were bombed have been buried and shuttered with cement. We continue to monitor for any early indicators on what position the current or any new leadership in Iran will make with regard to authorizing a nuclear weapons program. Now, Senator Warner asked why she had left this out. She said that her testimony was running long. But this remark that she did not include in what she delivered does undercut what we had heard from Trump administration officials about there being that imminent threat posed by Iran, but also specific things that they had said.

46:56So Steve Wyckoff, President Trump's special envoy, had at one point before the strikes said that Iran was a week away from having enough nuclear weapons, bomb-grade material. Well, how could they have been a week away if it is Tulsi Gabbard's remarks that the intelligence community had assessed that they hadn't actually sought out further enrichment of their nuclear fissile material? They would have needed that further enrichment in order to get to bomb-level material. We also heard from President Trump just the same day that the U.S. carried out these strikes, saying that Iran had rejected the opportunity to engage, to get rid of its nuclear program, and instead that they had attempted to rebuild their nuclear program.

47:46But the director of national intelligence here was telling lawmakers that there was no indication that they had made efforts to actually rebuild their enrichment program, which is a critical piece of that nuclear program. Jake? Yeah, that's a lot of contradictions there. Nick, meanwhile, the war in Iran continues to escalate throughout the Middle East, including where you are in Saudi Arabia. Yeah, right now, Jake, you have in this building the foreign ministers of the GCC countries plus some others, Turkey, Jordan, Azerbaijan, foreign minister, Egyptian foreign minister, All here, first time these foreign ministers have been able to meet face-to-face since the war began.

48:25And they've come together to figure out how they can have a unified, joined-up approach to dealing with Iran's war, which is absolutely wrapping them up with its missiles and drones. At the same time, those foreign ministers were gathering here in Riyadh. Again, I cannot stress enough, it's the first time these leaders have gotten together face-to-face, have had video calls. But at the same time, they were coming into Riyadh and coming into this building. Ballistic missiles were being intercepted over the skies of Riyadh. Now, I think our viewers have become really used to seeing missiles intercepted in Dubai and Qatar and Bahrain and Kuwait.

49:05But this hasn't happened in Riyadh before. There were two rounds of four ballistic missiles. Four civilians have been injured. Some parts of the ballistic missiles were impacting an oil facility in the south of Riyadh. It is, appears to be, a significant uptick in Iran's targeting of the capital, just as these foreign ministers are gathering to decide how their countries should respond to Iran. Iran seems to be turning up the heat on them. It's not clear the conclusions that these foreign ministers will come to tonight. We're waiting, and they're sort of into their third hour of meeting. It's after one o 'clock in the morning.

49:44We're waiting for a press conference we're expecting from the Saudi foreign minister, which will be, let us say, the most significant diplomatic output from this group that we've seen so far collectively. Jake? All right, Nick Robertson in Saudi Arabia, Kylie Atwood. Thank you so much. Let's discuss further with CNN global affairs analyst Brett McGurk, who served in any number of administrations of both parties in this space. What do you make of Tulsi Gabbard's testimony today? Her refusal to say that the threat was imminent, even though she has felt free to define the word imminence in the not-too-recent past, not reading the part about how imminent the threat was, whether or not they could reconstitute nuclear weapons, et cetera?

50:31I come at this a couple ways. I think first it's very, it's troubling if an intel official is not simply stating exactly what she knows as the facts from the intel community. And doesn't the intel community, can't they say if something is imminent or not? Well, that's actually a very interesting question. Coming at this as a former consumer of intelligence, if you're a senior White House official or senior official, you never get an assessment there will be an attack tomorrow at 3 o 'clock or there's a ticking bomb and you have three hours. You'll get more probabilistic assessments. So Osama bin Laden declared war in the U.S.

51:02in 1998. Was that an imminent threat? But Iran's missiles, they continue to increase in capability. The probabilistic, say you wait two years, Mr. President, you might not actually not be able to degrade them because they'll have so many missiles they can overwhelm any air defense system. You get those kind of assessments. So there's something too, at the end of the day, is for policymakers to determine what crosses the line for something in which we have to act upon. And you can act in many ways, sanctions, military action, whatever. But now, if it's not a ticking bomb scenario tomorrow or you have a probabilistic, if you don't act now, a year from now, 18 months from now, Mr.

51:39President, you might actually have a serious situation, you then have a long runway. And that gets into where the work that was not done heading into this. You can build a coalition. You can do the preconditioning for what you might be deciding to do. So that's a long answer, Jake. But you know, intel assessments are very complicated. That's why we have here. And even on, is the regime still intact? I think what you usually get from an intel briefer, we have low confidence or we have moderate confidence or we have high confidence. And you have different assessments. And then policymakers have to kind of weigh the intelligence of other things.

52:11It's an art. It's not a science. So she said, as you noted, that the regime, Iranian regime, appears to be intact but largely degraded. As of right now, the U.S. is still saying no boots on the ground, although it's unclear what might happen on that one island where there's a lot of fuel. But can the regime be toppled and replaced with a more pro-democratic, pro-human rights organization without boots on the ground? And please understand, I am not calling for boots on the ground when I ask that. But is it possible for that even to happen? You could have a sudden unraveling of the system, but then I think you just have a vacuum.

52:48I have always been extremely skeptical, based on my 20 years of experience spending a year in Iraq early on, of any regime change type objective. using the military instrument of power for that objective. I think the unintended consequences are always apparent, and the ability to do that from the air is almost impossible. And even to do it from the ground, we've seen what that looks like. So that's one thing that's troubling here. I think the Israelis are pursuing a regime change type operation, whereas we, if you listen to Admiral Cooper, the commander of CENTCOM, or you listen to General Cain, our military objectives are focused on the military industrial base of Iran, the missiles, the drones, the nuclear, the command and control, the Navy.

53:29And we're kind of going after that now systematically. And we've now added in the Strait of Hormuz. So just to answer your question, I do not think using a military power to try to achieve that type of political outcome, that really opens up a Pandora's box in my experience. Let's talk about Iran more holistically and taking a step back. In September 2015, President Obama got this Iran deal, and Senate Democrats blocked a Republican resolution that expressed formal disapproval of the Iran deal. So it was never brought to a vote. Now Secretary of State, then Senator Marco Rubio, went to the Senate floor.

54:07He criticized the deal, and he made a number of predictions. This is 11 years ago about what Iran would do next. Let me play some of that. They're going to build anti-access capabilities. these rockets capable of destroying our aircraft carriers and ships, continue to build these swift boats that are able to come on us, these fast boats that are able to swarm our naval assets. And they'll make it harder and harder for U.S. troops to be in the region. They'll also work with other terrorist groups in the region to target American servicemen and women. They'll also continue to build long-range missiles, missiles capable of reaching the United States.

54:40And then at some point in the near future, when the time is right, they will build a nuclear weapon. And they will do so because at that point they will know that they have become immune, that we will no longer be able to strike their nuclear program because the price of doing so will be too high. So I want to be recorded for history's purposes, if nothing else, to say that those of us who opposed this deal understood where it would lead. And we are making a terrible mistake. So obviously they never actually got to build the nuclear weapon, although they certainly were trying. But how much of what Senator Rubio predicted would happen did happen?

55:12I mean, I have to say, the JCPOA did get at the nuclear problem, which was the priority, the nuclear deal. The missiles, I mean, in 2015, when he's speaking, the missile program was a conventional missile. They were like scuds. You could launch them. You don't really know where they're going to land. The missile program in the 10 years hence became what you call an anti-access aerial denial system. They got way more accurate from hundreds of meters to a kilometer to within tens of meters. Their payloads doubled. They were able to go greater distances and the and the arsenal expanded with Russian and Chinese support.

55:48And then they started this drone program. And you could look at that a few years ago and say, well, you know, a lot of countries have missile programs. We can contain it. But I lived through the Houthis in Yemen firing these Iranian missiles, anti-ship missiles at U.S. Navy ships going Mach 4. Yeah. Incredible technology. And so the Iranian missile program advanced to such a degree. It's a major, major problem, Jake. It's under UN Chapter 7 sanctions. We tried sanctions. We tried interdictions. We tried almost every tool and you really couldn't get at it. And it became a strategic kind of needle mover because they proliferated the technology to Russia, which Russia's using in Ukraine.

56:25And we saw the attacks against us with missiles and of course the attacks against Israel in 2014. Right. They also worked with other terrorist groups in the region to target American servicemen and women. That happened. Build long-range missiles, missiles capable of reaching the United States. That happened. the swift boats you're talking about. I think right now, Jake, in this debate, everybody can kind of say they're right. Those who said any military operation in Iraq is going to open all sorts of unintended consequences and you might get yourself into something you don't fully anticipate, I think there's a strong case for that.

56:52Those who say Iran was a very serious threat, in particular the missile program, which was getting to a point, had it just gone on for another year or two on the trajectory, they make about 50 to 100 a month or so by open accounts, it would be able to overwhelm any air defense system. And then they would have that umbrella beneath which they could do terrorism and reconstitute nuclear program. Would I say that's imminent? I might not say it's imminent, but it is a serious threat. And if you wait too long to take it on, you don't have that option to take it on. Right. Because it becomes so. So what he said there is very accurate.

57:26At the same time, the nuclear deal did get at the nuclear issue, which was the main priority. Because an Iran with a nuclear weapon, I think we can all agree, is the one thing we must avoid. Brett McGurk, thank you so much. Complicated stuff. Director Gabbard was not the only one facing tough questions on Capitol Hill today. Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, Republican of Oklahoma. Trump's picked to take over the Department of Homeland Security. He got into a heated equation. The different Republican lawmaker, could his nomination be in jeopardy? Stick with us.

57:59Our politics lead now. The Senate Homeland Security Committee is set to vote tomorrow morning on whether Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, Republican of Oklahoma, should become Secretary Mullen, leading the Department of Homeland Security. The chairman of the committee, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, he made it clear he is not going to vote for Mullen. The two sparred over what Mullen said after Paul had been violently attacked by a neighbor in 2017. Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken, and a damaged lung. Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it.

58:37And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I didn't know they exceeded your damage. I haven't heard I misspoke and it was heated and I made a mistake. Actually, it wasn't heated and I'm not apologizing for pointing out your character. Good, good. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez closely followed today's hearing. Priscilla? Well, coming into this hearing, what the senator had to do was distinguish himself, differentiate himself from Secretary Noem. Because the reason that we're here today is because the president ultimately fired the secretary from her position because of the controversy and the scrutiny.

59:16And so we were seeing in real time how the senator was trying to distinguish himself on a variety of issues. One of those, for example, was on Alex Preddy. After he, one of the U.S. citizens, killed in Minneapolis by a federal agent, Mullen called him a, quote, deranged individual. And Senator Peters asked him whether he would retract that statement. And this is what he had to say. Those words probably should have been retracted. I shouldn't have said that and as a secretary I wouldn't. The investigation is ongoing and there is, like I said, there's sometimes going to make mistake and I'll own it.

59:53That one, I went out there too fast. I was responding immediately without the facts. That's my fault. That won't happen as a secretary. So you regret that statement? I already said that, yes sir. Would you want to apologize to the family of Alex Preddy? Well, sir, I just said I regret those statements. Is that the same as an apology? I haven't seen the investigation. We'll let the investigation go through. And if I'm proven wrong, then I will absolutely. So that stood in stark contrast from even just a few weeks ago when Secretary Noem was before senators and was similarly asked whether she would retract her statement calling Freddie a domestic terrorist.

1:00:29Now, there were other issues that came up, of course, administrative warrants being one of them, whether they allowed people to go on private property. He said no, that he would reserve that to judicial warrants. He was asked about contracts. The secretary, Secretary Noem, has a policy in place where she has to approve anything over$100 ,000. He said that would no longer be the case if he were to be confirmed. He was also asked about quotas, immigration quotas of 3 ,000 daily immigration arrests that were imposed by the White House. And he said on that front that he was going to follow the president's policies.

1:00:58So I think the substance here is that the aggressive immigration crackdown stands. Of course, Mullen is a staunch Trump supporter. However, his approach to how he does it is what he was trying to convey to senators is going to look different and the communication with lawmakers will look different. And we got a preview of that even with White House Borders, our Tom Homan, later in the afternoon after this hearing where he said on Fox that he talks regularly with Mullen, including several times a day. Why does that matter? Because Homan does not talk to Noem and hasn't talked to Noem in months.

1:01:29So we still have a process that needs to play out here to have him confirmed. Secretary Noem is out the door on March 31st, where she will take on another task for the White House that has to do with the Western Hemisphere. But ultimately, Jake, we're talking here about a department of 260 ,000 employees, much of it focused on immigration under this Trump administration, but certainly a lot that would fall on his lap if he were to be confirmed. Priscilla Alvarez, thank you so much. And our national lead, the six U.S. service members killed in that refueling aircraft crash in Iraq last week have been brought home.

1:02:00Technical Sergeant Ashley Pruitt, 34. Captain Ariana Savino, 31. Major John Klinner, 33. Technical Sergeant Tyler Simmons, 28. Captain Curtis Angst, 30. And Captain Seth Koval, 38. They were watched over by loved ones and Trump administration officials upon their return to Dover Air Force Base this afternoon in Delaware. The ceremony was not recorded at the request of the families. The Pentagon has not yet provided an explanation for the crash, but has stated that it was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire. To the friends and families of these fallen heroes, we are sending you our love and our prayers.

1:02:39May their memories be a blessing. I do want to note that earlier in this broadcast, when speaking about the legacies of other service members killed, we made a mistake. We misidentified Major Jeffrey O 'Brien, who you see here in the middle of your screen. Major O 'Brien was one of the service members with ties to Iowa who have died in service to their country. We regret the error and we honor his service. Coming up next, the urgent search for an American college student who disappeared during a spring break trip. What family members are saying about his last known locations.

1:03:13In our national lead, veterans advocates are raising concerns that a new federal agreement could take away veterans' autonomy over their own health care decisions and could even stop them from getting care. This could particularly affect veterans facing homelessness. CNN's Brian Todd is here with more. Brian, tell us about this agreement and what it would mean. Well, Jake, this is a very controversial move by the VA and the Justice Department together because it would affect some of the nation's most vulnerable veterans. The two departments recently announced an agreement between them that would authorize VA lawyers to initiate and take part in guardianship proceedings in state courts.

1:03:48for veterans who cannot make their own health care decisions and who don't have family or legal representation. That includes hundreds of veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The VA has made it clear that the VA itself would not assume that guardianship of those veterans, but advocates are concerned any time that people will essentially be giving up a lot of their rights, which we know is what guardianship does. Now, in the cases where the state court approves guardianship, the VA says a third-party guardian who is not a VA employee would assume the guardianship. The VA says this is aimed at about 700 veterans across the U.S.

1:04:20who are currently sitting in VA facilities and are unable to make their own health care decisions and don't have representation. The VA says about half of those are actually homeless veterans. Now, trying to help those in this situation does make a lot of sense, but homeless advocates worry that this move will take away these veterans' autonomy over their own health care, and they have other concerns. We spoke to Jennifer Mathis. She is the deputy director at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. She told us her concern is that it, quote, may be a way to discharge veterans experiencing homelessness who are sitting in hospitals to settings that they may not choose.

1:04:53She also said, quote, if people are sitting in a VA hospital and not being discharged, it's very likely because there aren't enough services or housing, not because they don't have guardianship. The VA insists again that this is not aimed at homeless veterans specifically. Here is what Dr. Thomas O'Toole, a senior VA official, told the House Veterans Affairs Committee earlier today. These are patients, sir, who are profoundly demented with advanced Alzheimer's, who do not have a next of kin. And because they do not have a next of kin for decision making, are forced to stay in an acute care bed for their safety.

1:05:32Also, VA Press Secretary Peter Casport said of those who would be affected, quote, quote, these veterans remain in VA hospitals, which may not be the most appropriate setting for them, with no way of transitioning to more appropriate care. Some are homeless or at risk of homelessness, but the key characteristic is not homelessness, it is the lack of capacity to make their own medical decisions. So, Jake, we're going to have to see how this plays out. When people think of guardianship, they often think of Britney Spears and everything that happened with her. This is different from that, but it still raises a lot of similar concerns.

1:06:03It's a tough issue. All right, Brian Todd, thanks so much. In our world, lead an urgent search for a missing American. 20-year-old James or Jimmy Gracie is a junior at the University of Alabama. He was on a spring break trip visiting friends in Spain. His family said he went to Barcelona and to a nightclub there Monday night into Tuesday morning, but he never returned to his rental home. Gracie's mother says police have his phone. It was stolen and somehow recovered. CNN reached out to the U.S. State Department to learn how they're working with authorities on the search, and we'll bring more on that to you soon.

1:06:32We're less than six months away from the midterm elections. What should Democrats take away from last night's primary results if they want to flip the House or the Senate or win the White House in 2028? Our panel is here next.

1:06:49Some fired up members of the Democratic on the House Oversight Committee are speaking now after listening to Attorney General Bondi talking about the Epstein files. Let's listen in. to our lawful subpoena in a deposition. So instead I asked Chairman Comer if he would compel her to come to our deposition. If she did not come, would he force her to, or if he would move for contempt hearings as he did for other people who did not respond to our subpoena. Instead of answering, as an adult he said that I was bitching, which is, again, something that would not be allowed if we were operating under the rules of this committee because engaging in personalities is actually something that we are not able to do.

1:07:28If C-SPAN and the public were there, I'd imagine that he would not act that way. Neither here nor there, we expected A.G. Bondi to be adversarial. We expected her to be confrontational. And we expected her to not offer us much information. But that's why I introduce impeachment articles, because she has already been obstructing justice. She has already weaponized the DOJ. She has already ended investigations into Trump and his allies. she has used this role essentially as one to help the president. She does not answer to the president. The DOJ does not have the right or the privilege of withholding information from an active investigation, ignoring the laws of our land, which the Epstein Transparency Act is, with our subpoena from last July is.

1:08:15And the oversight Dems will continue to press for accountability. We'll continue to press for justice for survivors while also keeping them centered in this. So at the end of the day, we are still here seeking answers for women, for girls, and for the American public who has demanded justice, who have demanded answers to this. And whether or not they will pretend that the documents that they've given us is enough, we already know that they have not complied. And we are asking other people to make sure that we do not let them off the hook right now. So we look forward to her on the record deposition with our committee in response to our lawful subpoena.

1:08:52I'll say a few more things, and I'm going to open up for questions, and if anyone wants to answer the questions. So just as a review, because I think it's very important, this fake hearing, we found out about it yesterday with no time to prepare, with no format given to us. We had no idea what the even format was going to be until just an hour or two before the actual, this kind of fake hearing that was set up. And it was clear from the minute it started that the Attorney General is trying to evade and not attend the mandated subpoena that is put in place. We asked her that question. Multiple members asked her the question.

1:09:26She would not respond. She said she'll continue to follow the law. That is not a response. She has a subpoena in place by Chairman Comer. If there's any questions, I'll take those now. Sir, aside from the questions about the deposition, what else have you guys been asking her about? What else is the conversation in the room about? Because I know you all said you had a lot of I'm going to let Congressman Lynch. Yeah. And I support everything that's been said by my colleagues. Remember, our desire to get the Attorney General and Todd Blanch under oath is because we've been faced with lies from the very beginning.

1:10:02Go back to February 21st, 2025. Pam Bondi told us and told the public that the files, the Epstein file client list was on her desk. But then we found out that was a lie. Then she told us that on July 25, 2025, she said there's no need for any more disclosure on any of these Epstein files. Then we found out later there's six million documents. They give us three million of those. And now we find that we can't get access to a lot of that information because it's so heavily redacted. And then finally, with much pressure from the court. We're going to take a quick break from covering that press conference to bring in Democratic Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, who serves on the House Oversight Committee.

1:10:53So, Congresswoman, your fellow Democrats seem pretty fired up. What happened behind closed doors? Yeah, well, I just walked out of the briefing room, and what is absolutely clear is that Pam Bondi has no intention of complying with the law and the subpoena that we have issued for her to be deposed under oath in front of the committee. In fact, what appears to have happened is that she and Todd Blanche volunteered to come brief the committee, and so we walked in today ready to hear information that they would provide to us about what's going on with the Epstein File Transparency Act. And basically they said, we've released what we're going to release, and now you can ask me questions.

1:11:32And there was no oath. There were no cameras. The American public were locked out of the room, and it was clear that they were not prepared to answer questions about compliance with the law. And so ultimately, after Chairman Comer insulted Summer Lee, who is the lead in many ways on the subpoena, both of Pam Bondi and the subpoena, the Epstein files, and basically was extraordinarily disrespectful towards her, the Democrats walked out of the room because we're not going to play their games. So just to be clear, the Transparency Act about the Epstein files that required all of the files to be released by, I think it was in December.

1:12:13And there's something like six million of them. About three million have been released. Three million have not. Of the three million that were released, the only thing that was supposed to be redacted was the names and identifying information of survivors. But it is clear that a lot of stuff that was redacted that wasn't pertaining to the survivors was pertaining to the potential perpetrators. And survivor information was actually accidentally included. So they are not in compliance with the law, according to, as I understand the law. Is that right? Absolutely. And not only are they not in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, they are not in compliance with a subpoena of the Epstein Files.

1:12:52In fact, it's important to remember that going all the way back to August 5th, we subpoenaed the full unredacted Epstein files. And the administration has not even attempted to comply with that subpoena. And part of why we launched a bipartisan effort to change the law to force them through the Epstein File Transparency Act to comply with our subpoena is because they were not complying to begin with. Then they missed the deadline, the over-redacted. And Todd Blanche himself said today that basically they've released everything they're going to release. Well, that is not compliance with the law.

1:13:27In addition to that, I think what we were all shocked by today is that Pam Bondi was asked multiple times by my colleagues if she would comply with the subpoena for her own deposition under oath, and she refused to answer yes. So I think we can say very squarely that the cover-up continues. So, Congresswoman, I believe we're here today because I think it was four or five Republicans on the Oversight Committee joined with all the Democrats to force Pam Bondi to come before the committee. Are there do the Republicans on the committee who joined you for that? Are they with you in terms of the outrage you're obviously feeling about the fact that Bondi is not.

1:14:12Sitting for a deposition and also the fact that the administration is not complying with the Epstein Transparency Act. Well, I'll note that the subpoena for Pambandi to appear under oath was actually issued by Nancy Mace, who is a Republican from South Carolina. I did not see her in the room this afternoon. I don't know why, but I think it was clear that our colleagues across the aisle were running interference for Pambandi and Todd Blanche, asking them leading questions. And like I said, it was set up like a sham hearing, not a briefing. They did not come in with any new information. They did not provide any sworn statements.

1:14:50And it appeared that our colleagues were basically trying to say, hey, look, they showed up. And we are not going to accept that as compliance with the law because the law is clear. We have subpoenaed them. We have subpoenaed the files. And we have passed a bipartisan Transparency Act, which the president signed himself, and they have not complied with the law. How do you reconcile that before you go? How do you reconcile the fact that Republicans overwhelmingly voted for the Transparency Act? The Senate voted for it, I think, on a voice vote, meaning everybody voted for it. Everybody agreed. And the president signed it into law.

1:15:25They all made this public display of supporting this transparency. But they're not doing it. How do you reconcile that? Right. Well, I mean, my question is, how do they reconcile their own beliefs, their own values, their own morals and their own politics with what the American people are demanding, including their oaths of office, which is that they follow the law themselves? So I think it's very clear the American people overwhelmingly are demanding justice for the survivors. They want accountability. They want perpetrators to be held accountable. And they can't run from that. And neither can the president.

1:16:03In fact, the questions are not going to end, whether it's questions about his own accusers, which have been covered up in the files, or it's the handling of this case. The American people are not going to let this go. And I think that my colleagues understand that. And that's why they have joined us on occasion to hold them accountable. But it is very clear that the Trump administration is doing everything that they can to run from this. And we are going to hold them accountable. Representative Melanie Stansbury, Democrat of New Mexico. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Aren't Illinois Democrats trying to send the party a message ahead of the midterm elections?

1:16:37Our panel's here next to talk about the election results.

1:16:50Always, always, always show up for the people you love. Are you ready to send a fighter to Washington for Illinois?

1:17:02Illinois Democratic Governor J.B. Peritzker celebrating and flexing some political muscle last night. His handpicked Senate candidate, the woman he handpicked to be his lieutenant governor, Julianna Stratton beat out fairly respected and respectable Congress members, Raja Krishnamoorthy and Robin Kelly in the Democratic primary to succeed current Senator Dick Durbin, who is retiring. It's pretty much a blue state, so she's probably going to be the next senator, Senator Julianna Stratton, although we don't know, but probably. My panel's here with me. So Stratton won by 40.1 percent. Krishnamoorthy got 33.2 percent.

1:17:40Kelly got 18.1 percent of the vote. That's, I mean, in a three-way primary, that's a trouncing to win by that much, seven points over your next competitor. President Trump likes to take credit for when his candidates win. Does Governor Pritzker do the same here? Oh, 100 percent. He put his political reputation, his machine at stake. And in Illinois and Chicago, they have machines. And we saw that as a huge win for the for the governor's organization. I don't know that if it's enough to capitulate him or to elevate him to the Democratic primary. But he showed that that Illinois is a Pitzker state.

1:18:17Yeah. Although there is some resentment. New York Congresswoman Yvette Clark, who's the chair of the Congressional Black Harkas, which backed Congresswoman Kelly over Lieutenant Governor Stroud. And she said this about Pritzker's involvement, quote, a sitting governor shouldn't be heavy handing the race. Quite frankly, his behavior in the race won't soon be forgotten by any of us. I mean, the CBC did endorse a different candidate, and we should note that Lieutenant Governor Stratton is also African-American. Do you agree? Is there something wrong with Pritzker getting involved the way he did? He was very involved.

1:18:47I mean, this is how the game is played. Like, why would he not get involved? To your point, he's got a lot. He's got more at stake than anyone else does in this particular race. Not only is he trying to prove that he does have the political muscle, as you described it, But also he wants to elevate a black woman as he heads into the presidential can presidential cycle. Like, why would he not? So I mean, I would not disagree with the chairwoman. With all due respect, she can hold her position. But this is how the game is played. And he played it masterfully. Here's the other thing that I think we should be mindful of as a party is that outside that we saw in this particular race, the limitations of money from outside parties, the PACs, from APAC to the crypto agency association, putting a lot of money into this race.

1:19:31It did not work. The other thing we saw is what actually does work, building broad coalitions and having a tight ground operation. We saw that also play out in the Texas primary as well. So these are, to me, what are the biggest lessons coming out of it? It is that outside money doesn't have a big impact any longer. And you've got to have a tremendous ground operation if you're trying to win and build a broad coalition, even in a blue state. Let's turn to your home state, California. Okay. It's got a prominent Democratic governor also eyeing a White House run. The front page of the LA Times says two Republican hopefuls are ahead in the race for governor.

1:20:10Now, just to be clear here, California has a jungle primary, meaning whoever, you know, 15 candidates, whoever the top two, they win that primary. It doesn't matter what party they are. And then they go on to face each other. We've seen this before when two Democrats, when I think Kamala Harris beat a Democratic congresswoman in the election. But here you have two Republicans. Is that really going to happen? The odds are getting higher every day. About 10 days ago, it was a 9 % probability that you'd have a runoff between two Republicans. In California. Just to underline it, this is California.

1:20:44But I would say, Jake, you know, little known fact to the audience is I actually wrote the top two primary that this law that takes place. And this was the whole intent. The whole intent was to have a broad coalition of people come in and regardless of political affiliation, capture the moment that matters. And in California, the more of the moment that matters is the fact that California has become such a failed state. That's why Democrats will struggle. You have homelessness on the rise. You have an employment on the rise. They're going to lose three congressional districts. I'm curious. Affordability is an issue.

1:21:13I'm curious to see what Governor Newsom's platform is, because it can't be, I'm going to do the country to what I did to California, because California, I know this is cable, but it's in the shitter today. Yeah. And it's interesting if I could add something to that. What you're also seeing is the Democratic candidates creating distance between them and Gavin Newsom, saying that Newsom failed us. We need to take a different approach. So I find that incredibly interesting and speaks volumes about where Democratic voters are on Democratic governance right now. It is about, for them, the failures around homelessness, the failures around the wildfires.

1:21:46I mean, how Democrats have been managing this state, it appears to me, based on my conversations in the state, that the status quo is no longer sufficient. Speaking of Democrat on Democrat violence, yesterday, talking about the primary race of a Democratic race in Maine to take on incumbent Republican Susan Collins. We played an attack ad by Governor Janet Mills going after opponents' controversial statements about gender-related issues. It's an ad that features an actor reading quotes that he had written on, like Reddit and other websites, whatever. Today, Grant Plattner, that Democrat who was attacked by the Governor Mills in that ad, is responding with this ad.

1:22:23Take a listen. If I saw these ads, I'd have questions. These are words and statements I abhor from a time in my life when I was struggling deeply after returning from war. These words are not who I am. So, Maine, I'm asking you not to judge me for the worst thing I said on the Internet on my worst day 14 years ago. What do you think? I think we should judge him what he said on the Internet 14 years ago. I think candidates are always judged on their past behavior, and his behavior is actually worse than most. I mean, him glorifying Nazi symbols is not what we want here. I've heard the left say for the past 10 years that glorifying these things is bad.

1:23:02How can we have a Democratic candidate who's going to win the primary, be one that glorifies it on his body? All right, Brian Lanza and Ashley Etienne, thank you so much. In our pop culture lead today, maybe you've got a kid at home or more than one who's a little fearful of new places, new foods, new experiences. Or maybe that even sounds a little bit like you, mom and dad. But never fear, I've got a book right here that can help, and the author is joining me now. Phil Rosenthal is here. You might know him as the creator of Everybody Loves Raymond, or the creator and host of Somebody Feed Phil.

1:23:35He and his daughter Lily are now out with their new book, Just Try It Someplace New. Phil, this is your second Phil and Lil book. And in this story, Lil is a bit reluctant to go with her dad, Phil, to spend the night at her grandma's house for the first time. There's going to be new foods, an unfamiliar room. Is this based on a real experience? We wanted to, you know, with the first book, it was all about trying new foods. And then when that was somewhat successful, we got a deal to make more books. And we thought, let's keep the Just Try It theme going because we all have this fear of the unknown, especially children.

1:24:14So what's the first place that they would travel to? It might be grandma's house. So even though Lily was a little better than the girl in the book, this is something that's a big fear for kids and maybe grownups, too. They don't like going. I meet a lot of grownups, don't you, who don't want to go anywhere? Yeah, it might even be related to a few of them. What do you hope that parents and kids reading this book take away from it? That they should keep an open mind in life. You know, we all fear what we don't know. And most of the time it works out better than we could have imagined. I think the hallmark of a good kids book is that it transcends just being for the kids.

1:24:58And the parents in reading the book to their children get a little bit of a message too. Did you ever see Mary Poppins? Of course you did. When you're a kid and you watch Mary Poppins, you think it's about the kids who get a magical nanny. Yeah. And then when you're older, I'm sure you had this experience. when you showed Mary Poppins to your children, you realized, oh my God, the movie's about the dad. Mary comes to fix the dad. So I love that. You know what this reminds me a little bit of is Shonda Rhimes, the executive producer of all these fantastic shows, Bridgerton, Scandal, et cetera, Grayson Henry, she had a book about 10 years ago, I think, called My Year of Yes, I think it's called.

1:25:40And she did a new version of it because it's about how she didn't want to try new things and like she demanded of herself to say yes. You and Lily worked together before on that first book. What was it like working together on this one? She's in college, right? She's a college age person. She's 28, Jake. She just got married. Wait a second. How long have I known you? A long time. She's 20? Now you're feeling old. Yes. Oh my God. Yes, yes. All right. But now you're dealing with a 28 year old. Yeah. But when did you, the first one was a few years ago. That's right. Was there a big change? Probably not.

1:26:1425 to 28 or whatever. No, she's just more in charge now. I do what she says. And then last question for you. You announced yesterday your culinary travel show, Somebody Feed Phil, is moving from Netflix to YouTube. Congratulations. Tell me about that. Thank you. What I love is that, you know, when doing Raymond, for instance, I realized that one of the beautiful things about doing network TV is that it's free for everyone. And so YouTube is like old school. It has the biggest audience in the world. And my little message that I think the world would be better if we all could experience a little bit of other people's experiences will hit more people than ever.

1:26:56So it's very, very nice for me. All right. Phil and Lily Rosenthal, just try it someplace new. It's out now. Phil, thank you so much. Congratulations again. Always good to see you. Love seeing you, my friend. Aaron Burnett, Out Front, starts now. See you tomorrow.

1:27:18Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, All There Is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. You'll hear deeply moving and honest discussions with people who have faced and are living with life-altering losses. My conversations with Robert Irwin. Robert grew up in the public eye. His dad, Steve Irwin, was known around the world as the crocodile hunter. but one of the greatest gifts in my life is the fact that my entire existence and my childhood growing up with dad was all captured on camera i mean it is all there and you watch dad for two seconds and you get a pretty good picture of the sort of passionate individual that he was talking grief building community that's what the podcast is all about this is all there is listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts I'm Dr.

1:28:08Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. Dr. Majid Fatu, he is a neurologist, a neuroscientist. He is author of a new book. It's called The Invincible Brain. What you're suggesting is that you can improve your brain throughout your life. Our brain has a repair kit in place just in case something happens. Tap into that repair mechanism and improve your brain in the absence of trauma or stroke. When you exercise, you increase the amount of BDNF. When you learn something new, you increase the number of synapses. When you eat a healthy diet, you reduce inflammation, and you can then increase the size of hippocampus.

1:28:49In other words, the improvements in the brain are not subtle. They're so prominent, they're so profound, that you can see it on MRIs before and after. Listen to Chasing Life. Streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.