President Donald Trump accused Democrats on Thursday of disclosing intelligence about the U.S. strike over the weekend, claiming the bombings on Iranian nuclear facilities did not fully destroy the sites after he declared they were “obliterated.” In a post on Truth Social, Trump went so far as to suggest the culprits should face prosecution, although he did not name anyone in particular. “The Democrats are the ones who leaked the information on the PERFECT FLIGHT to the Nuclear Sites in Iran. They should be prosecuted!” Trump said. A probe is already underway after CNN, as well as The New York Times, reported on early intelligence claiming the bombings did not completely destroy the sites and set back Tehran’s nuclear program only by a few months. “We’re doing a leak investigation with the FBI right now, because this information is for internal purposes, battle-damage assessments,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Wednesday. “And CNN and others are trying to spin it to make the president look bad when this is an overwhelming success.” The CIA and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard contend that further analysis indicates the facilities were in fact destroyed by the strike, which the Trump administration says was necessary to keep Iran from achieving nuclear weapons. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) claimed after a briefing on the Iran strike that it was clear the Trump administration lacked a “coherent strategy” and “no plan” for keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He also pushed for a war powers vote and more answers. Earlier in the day, Trump assailed the journalists from CNN and The New York Times who reported on the early intelligence, relying on unnamed sources. “FAKE NEWS REPORTERS FROM CNN & THE NEW YORK TIMES SHOULD BE FIRED, IMMEDIATELY!!! BAD PEOPLE WITH EVIL INTENTIONS!!!” he exclaimed in all capital letters on Truth Social. Trump also threatened a defamation lawsuit against the news outlets, demanding they retract the stories and offer apologies for them, but CNN and The New York Times are defending their reporting. “No retraction is needed. No apology will be forthcoming. We told the truth to the best of our ability. We will continue to do so,” said New York Times lead newsroom attorney David McCraw. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt shot down another CNN report over the weekend that claimed the Trump administration did not provide advanced notice of the strike to Democrat leaders in Congress, which led to a correction.

'His reward is full vindication'

Justin Tucker has been hit with a 10-week suspension

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. We’re now in the aftermath of the Saturday night, June 21st American strike to take out the three enrichment plants that were necessary for Iran’s acquisition of a bomb. And we’ve had now four or five days of reaction to it. And it’s kind of been mixed. And I’d like to review, very quickly, the validity of the criticisms of the strike and what the strike was really about. There’s a lot of people on the American Left, in the media—there was a leak from the Pentagon as well—saying that this strike really didn’t achieve its aim of destroying, entirely, these three enrichment facilities. But of course, we don’t know that. We wouldn’t trust the Iranians, who say that it didn’t harm them. Of course, they’re gonna say that. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency that watches this says that it was very successful. I agree with it. The military says it was very successful. And the point being is it doesn’t really matter to what degree—it’s 90% destroyed, 80% destroyed, 100% destroyed—it’s been severely damaged. And it doesn’t really matter for this reason: Iran will have to rebuild them. There’s been all sorts of rebuilding costs out there in the public domain: $100 billion, $200 billion, $400 billion, $500 billion, to go down 500 feet, 300 feet, 200 feet in a new mountain cavern. And remember, they would be reacting to a B-2 strike. And they would look at the damage and they said, “We’d have to go even lower, which means we’re gonna have to spend more money.” But here’s the interesting equation. Add the money that Iran, still subject to oil embargoes, with an economy that its gross domestic product has collapsed by 45% over the last two or three years, is going to come up with a wherewithal and make that argument to the people: “Hey, everybody, you’re going to miss now not just one paycheck, but two paychecks every three months because we have to rebuild the nuclear facilities that were completely demolished. And we have to spend more money.” The Iranian in the street would say: “And then what? They’re gonna be destroyed again. How can you stop them? You have no air defenses. The Russians don’t want to give us air defenses. The Chinese will not give us air defenses. Why would they want to give us air defenses? They go up in smoke. They only humiliate their own equipment. It’s you—you, the military; you, the theocracy—that’s the problem.” And so, if you boil that down, ask yourself, in a cost-to-benefit analysis, is it more—is it cheaper for Iran to go back and start from scratch and build these mountainous subterranean facilities or is it cheaper for the United States to send another seven or 10 or 12 B-2 bombers and send them into airspace for about 35 minutes and take them out? That’s what they can do. But there is a caveat. There is a warning here. There’s only one limit on our ability to take out the next generation, should it appear, of uranium enrichment. And that problem is not in Iran. It’s not in Hezbollah. It’s not with Hamas. It’s with Washington and Tel Aviv. Will the United States government have the courage and have the competency and understand the geostrategic complications and implications and dangers of Iran having another bomb? And what I mean by that is, if you have another Obama administration or if you have another Biden administration, will they act when they see another uranium facility being developed? Will you have another Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel? So, what am I getting at? The only worry that we all have in the West is that Iran, at some future date, will look at the political composition in Washington and Tel Aviv and say, “We’ve seen this bunch before. So, pedal to the metal. Let’s hurry up and enrich because they will not stop it.” But even then it will take a huge investment, a huge investment that has to be sold to a population that has been deprived of trillions of dollars of internal development, that has been diverted to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, the Assads that are all up in smoke, and then they will have to hear an argument to re-arm all of those people for terrorist deterrence, and then rebuild everything for nuclear deterrence, and hope there’s somebody not like Netanyahu and President Donald Trump in Washington. And for now, those are pretty good odds that the strike is successful and will be in the near future. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post It Doesn’t Matter If Iran Can Build a Bomb. It Matters If America Has the Guts to Bomb It, Again. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Saturday, the U.S. Senate parliamentarian cleared a proposed measure discouraging states from placing safeguards on artificial intelligence and Big Tech for the next decade. It could be included in the reconciliation package which the Senate is expected to consider as early as this week.  To overcome the Senate’s arcane rules, the Commerce Committee rewrote a House-passed version of the measure to condition $500 million for AI projects on states’ compliance with the moratorium.   But the measure goes further by creating triggers that would enable the Department of Commerce to “deobligate” additional broadband dollars already promised to states if they don’t stand-down.   Branded a 10-year “temporary pause” on state AI rules, this approach remains deeply flawed. Not only would it fail to rein-in California’s woke AI overreach and jeopardize broadband funds for conservative states and rural communities—it also poses concerns for state sovereignty.  Once a state is subject to the moratorium, they risk losing the ability to enforce laws related to everything from kids’ online safety and data privacy to safeguards on mental health chatbots.   Under the measure, if even one dollar of Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment—or BEAD—funding is “obligated” to a state or locality on or after enactment, it becomes subject to the moratorium per subsection (q).   Here’s the kicker. Once a state triggers subsection (q), it cannot enforce any law that even arguably violates the moratorium without running the risk of losing all BEAD funding—much of the $42.5 billion provisionally approved.   That’s because Commerce can claw back BEAD funding previously obligated under subsection (g)(3)(B)(iii) of the measure, which authorizes them to “deobligate grant funds awarded to an eligible entity that” is not in compliance with subsection (q).   According to researchers at the Institute for Law and AI, “[t]his deobligation provision clearly and unambiguously applies to all $42.45 billion in previously obligated BEAD funding, in addition to the new $500 million.”  Proponents stress that the conditions only apply if states opt to draw from the new $500 million dollar pool.   But it’s more complicated.   As the Institute for Law and AI points out, Commerce could deobligate previously obligated funds for reasons such as “an insufficient level of performance, or wasteful or fraudulent spending.” But then “re-obligation of the clawed-back funds would require compliance with the moratorium.”  Since Commerce changed the Biden-era guidance for BEAD grantees and is prompting states to request amendments to their award agreements, it seems at least conceivable that much of the $42.5 billion could technically be re-obligated.   At that point, states have a choice. Risk potentially forfeiting BEAD dollars already promised, or stop enforcing laws on AI and Big Tech.  Smaller conservative states with limited budgets and large rural populations need these funds. But wealthy progressive states like California and New York can afford to take a pass and just keep enforcing their tech laws.  That’s a fatal flaw.  Proponents of the moratorium have largely staked their case on preventing California and New York from imposing European-style AI regulation on the rest of the country. That’s a laudable goal, but this measure almost certainly wouldn’t achieve it.  Relative to their budgets and economic footprint, the BEAD awards allocated to those two states are fairly minor.  California’s BEAD award is $1.9 billion and New York’s is only $664.6 million. By contrast, California’s annual budget is around $327 billion, and New York’s is roughly $254 billion. Both states can easily afford to simply pass on the BEAD funds altogether and ignore the moratorium.   Even if every other state took the BEAD funds and did away with enforcement—California and New York could eat the costs and move forward with enforcing European-style tech laws with ripple effects for the whole country.   Worse still, linking BEAD funding to the moratorium risks discouraging innovative states like Utah, Florida, and Tennessee from checking the woke policies of California and New York.   Rather than unleashing “permissionless innovation,” the moratorium could instead lead to rule-by-Sacramento and Albany—a scenario that should put fear in the heart of even the most ardent techno-libertarian.   BEAD has already been plagued by delays and red tape. This just adds one more layer of uncertainty.   It also leaves California and New York unimpeded while holding broadband funds for small conservative states and rural communities hostage.  Stepping back to consider the matter in broader terms, the proposed moratorium takes a profoundly wrongheaded attitude towards American federalism. Proponents of the moratorium see state regulations purely as impediments to heroic innovation.   But the advent of AI technologies presents a situation that as much as any calls to mind Justice Louis Brandeis’ dictum that the states are the laboratories of American democracy. New technologies, along with their benefits, have always created serious, destabilizing consequences.    Why not allow states to experiment with different means of addressing or mitigating the collateral costs that innovators would impose on society? Must we wait 10 years while these evils manifest before administering a remedy?   State regulation can be a necessary spur to innovators, forcing them to consider values outside of technical functionality and profitability. Some state regulations will be bad both in terms of their efficacy and in terms of the values they encode. Still, states should not be precluded from acting on behalf of their citizens, especially when Congress has no plan of its own.    Moreover, what Congress proposes to do by jeopardizing funding that states have received and relied on poses questions about the lawfulness of the moratorium. As the Supreme Court said just today, spending legislation like this takes the form of a “contract” with the states, not a “command.”    Federally funded programs like BEAD are agreements “between two sovereignties,” and when Congress offers states these or any other federal funds, what it is purchasing is a portion of the states’ sovereignty. Thus, the terms on which the money is offered must be clear, and the state’s consent truly voluntary.    If Congress is allowing funds to be de-obligated at the discretion of the Commerce Department and then subjecting their release to new, onerous terms, one might question whether the states’ consent to the new moratorium is truly voluntary.        At bottom, the moratorium would fail to achieve its primary goal of freeing AI from the clutches of large progressive states while also posing legal and constitutional challenges.  It’s time for Congress to see the light.  The post Senate’s Rebranded AI Moratorium is Fatally Flawed appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On June 23, 2016, citizens of the United Kingdom voted to exit the European Union. Nine years and two days later, New York Democrats voted to emulate the Soviet Union.  Watching the Brexit argument unfold from across the pond nine years ago, I was stunned that almost every argument I saw from the Remain movement was regarding the economic harm that might befall the island if it became, well, an island again.   Such issues were certainly fair to debate, as no one knew exactly what the economic fallout of leaving the EU would be. But man is more than homo economicus and there were many more issues at stake, from immigration to culture to national sovereignty, all of which continue to dominate their politics. I think the Brits made the right choice that day, even if their feeble follow through has been mystifying.   New Yorkers, on the other hand, are rushing headlong into the abyss by handing a democratic socialist—I don’t know why they even bother with the adjective—Zohran Mamdani a mayoral primary victory and, odds are, the keys to City Hall in November.   A century or more ago, the socialist siren song may have been somewhat alluring, at least among people who’ve never read a book. Today it’s just plain grating. The 2020 COVID pandemic, aided and abetted by the policies of then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo (ironically Mamdani’s primary challenger), is nothing compared to the virulent side effects Trump Derangement Syndrome is causing throughout our nation’s foremost city.   Which is why I say, “Go for it, New York.”  If Mamdani gets his way, his policies will significantly expand the number of minimum wage earners—minimum wage always and everywhere being $0—run off millionaires and billionaires with punitive taxes, cause an unprecedented exodus of jobs and corporate headquarters, bankrupt the bus and subway systems, exacerbate the housing shortage, pour gasoline on the city’s crime problem, roll out the red carpet to illegal immigrants, fund gender dysphoria-affirming child mutilation, put Christians in the legal crosshairs, and further globalize the intifada, among other things.   Oh, and let’s not forget his plans for government grocery stores, taking on the existing fat cats with their outrageous 1% margins. Some of us are old enough to remember the images of communist Eastern European grocery stores and their shelves full of … shelving.  So why would someone like me encourage New Yorkers to embrace such dystopia?  Because, as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louie Brandeis said, “States are the laboratories of democracy.” He believed that states, and by implication cities, should be free to innovate. Or as they say in Silicon Valley, fail fast.  What better way for 49 states to see if a given public policy works than by letting one state take the risk of implementing it? What better way for America’s 20,000 cities, towns, and villages to avoid the fallout of foolish policies than by letting one suffer the consequences of them? Sure, I feel bad for the people of New York, but let’s face it: They got themselves into this position and if Mamdani wins in November, they will have asked for it.   This is an important moment in our nation’s history, as too many of our young people have been taught nothing about the evils of Marxism and are falling prey to its lies—with an assist from the soon-to-be-extinct federal Department of Education. If New York takes a big bite out of that poison apple now, perhaps its rapid and very visible decline will be a wake-up call to us all. As magnificent a city that it is, it can recover quickly once New Yorkers regain their senses.   So go for it, Mamdani, and good luck. I’d send you a contribution, but I have a feeling your campaign is already bought and paid for.   We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post The Case for Mayor Mamdani appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Read the original post "Lemon Poppy Seed Muffins" on A Modern Homestead. These soft and fluffy lemon poppy seed muffins are the perfect balance of sweet and tart. Topped with a lemon glaze, they are ready to eat in about 35 minutes! Make these for a sweet treat, a delightful breakfast, or bring them to your next brunch date! Use einkorn flour or any all-purpose wheat! I... Read More The post "Lemon Poppy Seed Muffins" appeared first on A Modern Homestead.

Read the original post "Hidden Veggie Mac & Cheese" on A Modern Homestead. This Hidden Veggie Mac and Cheese is about to become your new secret weapon for the whole family. It’s creamy, cheesy, and comforting—just like classic mac and cheese—but with pureed veggies blended right into the sauce. No one will ever guess there are carrots, cauliflower, bell peppers, and butternut squash hiding in there! Just like... Read More The post "Hidden Veggie Mac & Cheese" appeared first on A Modern Homestead.

At DogingtonPost, we know that capturing the perfect photo of your furry friend can be a challenge. That’s why we’ve compiled expert dog photography tips to help you take stunning shots of your canine companion. From essential equipment to mastering techniques and best practices, this guide will elevate your dog photography skills. What Equipment Do You Need for Dog Photography? Choosing the Right Camera Great dog photography starts with the right equipment. While skill and technique matter, proper tools can significantly enhance your ability to capture stunning shots of your furry friends. For beginners, a good quality smartphone camera will suffice. The latest iPhone and Samsung Galaxy models offer impressive capabilities for pet photography. If you want to step up your game, entry-level DSLRs like the Canon Rebel series or Nikon D3500 provide excellent image quality and more control over your shots. For those serious about dog photography, we recommend a mid-range to professional DSLR or mirrorless camera. The Sony A7 III, Canon EOS R6, or Nikon Z6 II are fantastic options that offer fast autofocus systems and high frame rates (perfect for capturing those quick canine movements). Lenses for Dog Photography The lens you choose can make or break your dog photos. A versatile zoom lens, like a 24-70mm f/2.8, is a great all-rounder for various shooting situations. For close-up portraits that showcase your dog’s personality, a 50mm or 85mm prime lens with a wide aperture (f/1.8 or wider) will give you that beautiful blurred background effect. If you’re into action shots, a telephoto lens in the 70-200mm range allows you to capture dogs in motion from a distance without disturbing their play. The key is to choose lenses that allow you to work quickly and adapt to your dog’s unpredictable movements. Props and Accessories Don’t underestimate the power of props in dog photography. Treats are essential – they’re not just rewards, but tools to direct your dog’s attention. High-value treats like small pieces of chicken or cheese work wonders for maintaining focus. Toys are equally important. A squeaky toy can elicit those adorable head tilts, while a favorite ball can capture your dog’s playful spirit. Keep a variety of toys on hand during photo sessions to cater to different dogs’ preferences. Fluff & Tuff, Ruffwear, K9 H2O Katie’s Bumpers, and Cycle Dog are just a handful of toys you’ll find at Healthy Pet Products. Lastly, consider investing in a reflector to bounce light and fill in shadows, especially when shooting outdoors. A simple white foam board can work wonders in brightening up your dog’s features and adding that extra sparkle to their eyes. While having the right equipment is important, it’s your creativity and connection with the dog that truly brings a photo to life. Practice with what you have, and upgrade your gear as you develop your skills and style in dog photography. Now that we’ve covered the essential equipment, let’s move on to mastering dog photography techniques. How to Master Dog Photography Techniques Harness Natural Light Natural light enhances dog photography. The golden hour (early morning or late afternoon) provides warm, soft illumination that flatters dogs of all colors. Position your dog so the light falls on them from the side or slightly behind to create a beautiful rim light effect, highlighting their fur and features. Overcast days work well for darker-coated dogs. The soft, diffused light minimizes harsh shadows and helps capture details in their fur. For indoor shoots, position your dog near a large window. The indirect light creates soft, even illumination perfect for portraits. Compose Eye-Catching Portraits The rule of thirds improves composition. Imagine your frame divided into a 3×3 grid. Place your dog’s eyes along one of the intersecting lines for a visually appealing shot. This off-center composition creates a more dynamic and interesting image than centering your subject. Shoot from your dog’s eye level for engaging portraits. This perspective captures their expression and personality more effectively. It also creates a more intimate connection between the viewer and the subject. Fill the frame with your dog’s face for powerful close-ups. Showcase their eyes, nose, or unique features. Use a wide aperture (low f-number) to create a shallow depth of field, blurring the background and making your dog stand out. Capture Dogs in Motion Action shots require quick reflexes and the right camera settings. Use a fast shutter speed (1/1000 and above) to freeze motion. If your camera has a burst mode, use it to capture a series of shots in quick succession. This increases your chances of getting that perfect mid-air leap or playful run. Anticipation plays a key role in action photography. If you photograph a dog catching a frisbee, focus on the spot where you expect the dog to catch it, rather than trying to follow the dog with your camera. For running shots, try panning. Set a slightly slower shutter speed (around 1/60th to 1/125th of a second) and move your camera to follow the dog’s motion. This technique keeps your subject sharp while blurring the background, creating a sense of speed and movement. Experiment with Different Angles Unique angles add interest to your dog photos. Try shooting from above to capture your dog’s full body or from below to make them appear larger than life. Get creative with your perspective – lie on the ground, climb a tree, or use a step ladder to find new and exciting viewpoints. Don’t limit yourself to eye-level shots. Experiment with different heights and angles to discover fresh ways to portray your furry subject. (This approach can lead to some truly unexpected and delightful results!) Use Props and Environments Incorporate props and environments to add context and personality to your dog photos. A favorite toy, a cozy bed, or a scenic outdoor location can enhance the story your image tells. (Props can also help keep your dog engaged and interested during the photo session.) Try to match the props and environment to your dog’s personality. A playful pup might look great with a colorful ball, while a more dignified dog could shine in a classic indoor setting. As you practice these techniques, you’ll develop your own style and preferences. The next section will guide you through best practices for dog photo sessions, helping you create a positive experience for both you and your canine subject. How to Prepare for a Successful Dog Photo Session Choose the Right Location When setting up the shooting location, consider your dog’s preferences and personality. If your dog loves the outdoors, choose a park or a beach. These spots offer natural backdrops and interesting elements for your shots. (Plus, they provide ample room for your furry friend to move and play!) Indoor settings work well for controlled portraits. A room with large windows provides soft, flattering light for your canine subject. Home environments often yield the best results as dogs feel more at ease in familiar surroundings. Prepare Your Dog for the Spotlight Before the photo session, groom your dog thoroughly. Remove any tangles or loose fur with a good brushing. For long-haired breeds, consider a professional grooming appointment a day or two before the shoot. Exercise your dog prior to the session to help them burn off excess energy. A tired dog often cooperates better and focuses more during the shoot. However, avoid overexertion – you want your pup alert and responsive. GVP Studios specifically advises bringing your pup’s favorite treats and toys, and this is a universally endorsed tip among pet photographers. Manage Challenging Scenarios When photographing multiple dogs, enlist an assistant. This person can manage the dogs not currently in front of the camera and help grab their attention when needed. Start with individual shots before attempting group photos. Shy or anxious dogs require patience. Begin the session in a quiet, familiar area and introduce new elements gradually. Keep sessions short, around 15-20 minutes, to prevent overwhelming them. Use positive reinforcement, offering treats and praise for good behavior. Energetic dogs need a different strategy. Incorporate their favorite toys or games into the shoot to channel their enthusiasm productively. Action shots of running or jumping can result in dynamic, engaging photos that showcase their spirited personality. Use Props and Treats Effectively Props add personality to your dog photos. Bring along your dog’s favorite toys, blankets, or even a stylish bandana. These items can help keep your dog engaged and add visual interest to your shots. (Just make sure the props don’t overshadow your furry star!) Treats serve as excellent motivators during the photo session. Use small, high-value treats to reward good behavior and maintain your dog’s focus. Position treats near the camera lens to encourage your dog to look directly at the camera for those perfect eye-contact shots. Final Thoughts Our dog photography tips will help you capture stunning images of your furry friends. Technical skill, creativity, and understanding your canine subject combine to create memorable photographs. Practice regularly, experiment with different approaches, and enjoy the process to develop your unique style. Dog photography strengthens the bond between dogs and their owners. These precious moments preserve the joy, love, and companionship our canine friends bring to our lives. Each image tells a story and becomes a cherished memory (whether it’s a playful action shot or a heartwarming portrait). Grab your camera, gather your props, and start your dog photography adventure. With practice and persistence, you’ll create stunning images that celebrate your four-legged family members’ unique spirit. Visit DogingtonPost for more tips on capturing your dog’s best moments.

On her show Thursday morning, MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera made her opinions obnoxiously clear through her biased leading questions. While holding a group discussion on President Trump’s disagreement with a leaked early intelligence report of the damages to Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, Cabrera asked her guests about what Trump’s denial of the report meant, never once asking whether the report was accurate or not. It was already known that this leaked report was nothing more than a preliminary, low-confidence report, but that was not important to Cabrera as she asked one of her guests, New York Times  correspondent Peter Baker, “Is this an administration that will accept any intel that suggests otherwise? Can the American people have confidence in the info this White House is sharing?”     Naturally, Baker, along with the rest of the guests in that segment, played into Cabrera’s narrative. Baker made it clear what he thought Trump’s rejection of the report meant: The signal the president has sent is that he wants the intelligence to fit his preconceived outcomes, what he wants the outcome to be. Now, it may be that he did achieve the outcome that he is describing. We don't know that, these intelligence reports are preliminary. They are still gathering information. More information will be, you know, assessed by professionals who know what they're talking about. But no question that the pressure and the signal from the White House is that the intelligence ought to suit what the president wants it to say. Even while acknowledging the preliminary nature of the reports, Baker still made Trump out as untrustworthy for not taking the report on its face.  It’s a good thing the president didn’t blindly accept the report considering the intel leak left out most of the information, putting aside countless other reports of significant damage to highlight one low-confidence statement.  Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth acknowledged the leak’s inaccuracies that morning, but MSNBC, as per usual, ignored his comments, showing only the statements that matched their story. They only quoted Hegseth as denying the information with a 27-second spliced clip from a 42-minute press conference so Cabrera could ask, “How concerning is this – the discussion and the way that the administration currently is framing it?” Retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges responded: The worst thing here is that people are going to lose confidence in our great intelligence professionals because they'll begin to perceive that the intelligence that does get out, exactly as Peter was describing, is – it's something that was contorted to meet the narrative needs of the White House, or it was leaked because somebody disagreed with what was out there. Moving on to the president's war powers, Cabrera continued to escalate her narrative, going so far as to ask Baker, “Do checks and balances still exist in Washington?” At this point, even Baker wasn’t buying into Cabrera’s story. He instead acknowledged that this was a bipartisan pattern seen across many presidencies, and that Trump’s strikes reflected a shift in politics rather than a shift in power. Cabrera’s reporting of the leaked Fordow damage assessment demonstrated a clear bias through her lines of questioning. Her focus was clearly not on the truth, as she blatantly misrepresented it to push her own version of the facts, one that painted the White House in a bad light while praising the shoddy, inaccurate leak. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read. MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera Reports June 26, 2025 11: a.m. EST (...) ANA CABRERA: Peter, the White House has, from day one, before any intel assessment happened, has been saying that Iran's nuclear facilities were obliterated. Is this an administration that will accept any intel that suggests otherwise? Can the American people have confidence on the info this White House is sharing? PETER BAKER: Well, the signal the president has sent is that he wants the intelligence to fit his preconceived outcomes, what he wants the outcome to be. Now, it may be that he did achieve the outcome that he is describing. We don't know that, these intelligence reports are preliminary. They are still gathering information. More information will be, you know, assessed by professionals who know what they're talking about. But no question that the pressure and the signal from the White House is that the intelligence ought to suit what the president wants it to say.  That's not the first time that's happened in our history, but it's obviously problematic in a lot of ways. You know what, policymakers need accurate, dispassionate, detached intelligence to make reasoned choices, not intelligence that suits what they already want to believe. Now, you know, instead of, of course, quarreling with the intelligence, in some ways, the president prefers to quarrel with reporters. It's an easy thing to do. Shoot the messenger has a long-standing tradition in our capital, in a lot of capitals. These reporters, though, who have accurately reported what the Defense Intelligence Agency preliminary intelligence showed. That intelligence may not be complete, that intelligence may be supplanted by other intelligence. But it's obviously not the reporter's fault for reporting accurately on what they have learned. That's now something of great public interest. Now, the president wants this to be true, wants it to be true that these facilities were obliterated because he wants to basically declare an end to the operation, right? If there's intelligence suggesting that it didn't quite get everything, then he might come under pressure to have another operation, which I think he doesn't really want to do. CABRERA: General, this morning, Defense Secretary Hegseth was asked about Iran's enriched uranium stockpile. Watch this. (Cuts to video) JENNIFER GRIFFIN: Do you have certainty that all the highly enriched uranium was inside the Fordow mountain, or some of it, because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance. Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved? PETE HEGSETH: Of course, we're watching every single aspect [Jump Cut] We're looking at all aspects of intelligence [Jump Cut]. I'm not aware of any intelligence that I've reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be, moved or otherwise. (Cuts to live) CABRERA: Then you have the president asserting on social media that this uranium stockpile wasn't moved ahead of the strikes and saying that, with some sense of certainty, although, General, we do know that the International Atomic Energy Agency had been notified by Iran as far back as June 13th that they were going to take specific measures to protect those stockpiles and to protect their nuclear capabilities. So how concerning is this – the discussion and the way that the administration currently is framing it? LIEUTENANT GENERAL BEN HODGES: Well, the worst thing here is that people are going to lose confidence in our great intelligence professionals because they'll begin to perceive that the intelligence that does get out, exactly as Peter was describing, is – it's something that was contorted to meet the narrative needs of the White House, or it was leaked because somebody disagreed with what was out there.  And this is not only bad for our decision makers in our leadership, but also our allies. We depend so much on other nations, their intelligence agencies working closely with ours, and this intelligence sharing is a two-way street. And this damages our intelligence capabilities, when people begin to lose confidence in our intelligence process. For me, this is the biggest danger here. I would be stunned if the Iranians had not moved or had not tried to move some of the materials out of there, because there's been so much talk in the last weeks about a possible strike. And certainly the Israelis had telegraphed this, so, I mean, nobody should be surprised if the Iranians actually were able to move some materials out of there. That's why the patience, you know, let the processes, and we've got the best in the world, let the processes work so that we know. CABRERA: Yeah, and I also wanted to mention that the International Atomic Energy Agency said just this morning that there are other nuclear facilities in Iran that were not hit. So they would maintain the capabilities that those places as well, you would think. Peter, I also wanted to ask you about what we're hearing from Speaker Johnson, who's arguing that the War Powers Act, which limits presidential power to wage war, is unconstitutional. Those words from the speaker, do checks and balances still exist in Washington? BAKER: Well, this is a bipartisan issue, actually going back over multiple presidents. Multiple presidents of both parties have basically quarreled with the War Powers Act or failed to abide by it because they said it didn't apply in this circumstance or that circumstance.  Basically, since the end of World War II, Congress has abrogated its responsibility as the body assigned by the Constitution to declare war, and the executive, in this case, President Trump, but other presidents as well, have taken it upon themselves to say, look, in my job as commander in chief, I have the responsibility and the right under the Constitution, to use military force in limited ways short of a full-on war.  The question is whether this operation would qualify as that. Is this the Iranian nuclear program posing a direct national security threat to the United States? Does this qualify as a war if it's a one-off military operation that, you know, destroys these facilities, given that there are no ground troops and no continuing operations? These are questions that have been raised on Capitol Hill. They're being raised by Democrats, but in the past they've been raised by Republicans. And I think that, you know, this is a sign of how our war policy, our war power policy, in effect, has evolved over the years, giving great latitude to presidents to use force without Congress participating. CABRERA: Peter Baker, Monica Alba, Melanie Zanona, and Lieutenant General Hodges, thank you all very much.