Latest / The Chuck ToddCast / Full Episode - The Susan Collins Story Is An Indictment Of The System + All The Wrong Moves That Led To Trump

Transcript

Full Episode - The Susan Collins Story Is An Indictment Of The System + All The Wrong Moves That Led To Trump · The Chuck ToddCast

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Todd cast is brought to
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: you by Chapter. Now, almost everything you hear about Medicare
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: is somebody quietly trying to steer you somewhere. And you're
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: skeptical of that, as you should be. I get it.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: I mean, there's a federal lawsuit going on right now
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: over exactly this. Companies that branded themselves as unbiased while
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: allegedly pointing people toward whatever would pay them the most
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: as some sort of broker. So if your default is
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: to distrust everyone in this space, honestly, I get it.
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: I'm a bit distrustful these days myself. That's the whole
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: reason I want to tell you about Chapter. They're independent
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Medicare advisors whose entire model is that their advisors are
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: not paid to push any one plan. They're just trying
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: to help. Yes, there's compensation that goes with it. but
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: it's across the board is what they're trying to do.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: At the end of the day, they're advocating for you.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: They're not the insurance companies themselves. They're an actual person
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: who actually goes through your doctors, your prescriptions, your needs,
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: and then compares them to every single plan available to
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: find the best one that will work for you and
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: hopefully save you a couple dollars too. And here's the
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: part that sets chapter apart. They don't disappear once you've
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: been in They will keep advocating for you. They're kind
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: of like almost like a concierge service. You're just there.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: I need help. You're like customer service. You know, the plan,
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: you know, help me navigate this again. So you ever
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: get hit with a wrongful medical bill, they'll help you
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: fight it. They want to stay an advocate for you
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: even after you've done this. So look, I get it.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: I think there's all sorts of space. You see a
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: lot of people are throwing themselves in this healthcare space.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: What I like about these chapter folks, I've spent time
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: with them. This is a very transparent organization. It is
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: Medicare and all of its affiliated stuff can be very confusing.
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: The whole point of this is to make this easier
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: and less confusing. OK, so look, take the skepticism you
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: already have in all of this, point it at your
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: own plan for 20 minutes. It's free. There's no pressure.
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: And then call chapter today at 980-734-4200. Hello there and
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: welcome to the Wednesday edition of the Chuck Todd cast
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: where I try to present politics for the rest of us.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: And in fact, today's episode has a top five list
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: that actually is aimed just at you, that voter that
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: sort of isn't is sort of tired of being hijacked
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: by the extremes. It's the five top Worst things you
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: could be for if you're running for Congress, according to
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: some recent polling. And when you hear the set of
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: five issues, like the five issues you should not be for,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: essentially just flip the script, if you will. Right. It
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: really is where the normies are, where most of us live.
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: It's the ultimate. You know, when I hear the words populism,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: how about majoritarianism? as a form of populism, because this
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: would be the ultimate in majoritarianism. So anyway, I wanted
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: to rant and rave about politics for the rest of
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: us a little bit and connected with there. So it's
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: a great top five list. I highly recommend it as well.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: My interview is actually part two of an interview that
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: you have heard. It's with Anthony Scaramucci. He has a
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: new book out and we embargoed one part of the
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: interview that was about the book till it came out.
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: It came out this week. And so now I'm going
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: to release the second part of the interview. And it
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: really is about his book. And it's about, you know,
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: his book is called All the Wrong Moves. And the
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: idea is sort of what led to Trump. And he
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: goes back to the WTO decision on China. He goes
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: back to the Iraq war. He goes back to the
• 3:51
  Speaker 1: financial crisis, trade in general, NAFTA. And it's sort of
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: basically It's a theory that's out there with a lot
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: of people that essentially we blew it. The post-Cold War
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: world we tried to build actually helped create the conditions
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: that gave us Donald Trump. And which means that both
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: parties have dirty hands on this one, right? WTO, NAFTA,
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: Iraq war, you name it. And it's an interesting case.
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: We also spend a little bit of time in this
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: portion of the interview where I get I get Scaramucci's
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: take on how he thinks Trump will handle losing control
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: of both houses of Congress. How will he behave? What
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: will that presidency, that last two years of the presidency
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: look like? And we're getting a taste, I think, of
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: what happens when Trump doesn't have control. He's going to
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: grasp onto anything he thinks he can control. So anyway,
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: I think you will enjoy that part of the conversation.
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: But I want to kick off Look, with a story,
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: and it's a, look, this is a, it's the Susan
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: Collins ProPublica story. And look, I will, this is not,
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: the point of this is not the Susan Collins part
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: of the story that I'm going to get to. Although
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: I will tell you, this is it. I think if
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: you are looking for a time of death on this
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: political career, we may say it's September 22nd, 2026, when
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: this story begins. went public and went live because what
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: it paints Susan Collins as in the best light you
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: can come up with is she's gone Washington, right? She's,
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: and that's the worst thing I think you can be
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: for this cycle in particular, but particularly in Maine, like
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: the one thing she had gone for with people that
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: didn't agree with her was she seems to not always,
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: you know, kowtow to the MAGA right in one way
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: or the other. I don't think anybody thought she was
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: a corrupt individual. The one thing Susan Collins, I don't
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: think people thought, the general sense was, you may disagree
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: with Susan Collins, you may think she doesn't have a
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: thick enough spine to go after Trump, that she rings
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: her hand too much, but she didn't think she was corrupt.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: And this story paints her as corrupt. But I'll accept
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: the premise that she's not here in a few minutes,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: and we'll get to that. But it's that this is,
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: when you're a When you've been in office since 1996, right,
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: this becomes an easy story. I mean, this is just
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: an easy story to say, hey, she's gone to Washington.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: She's now caring about what defense contractors in Hawaii think
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: rather than what you hear in Maine thinking. In fact,
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: she's using the status that she has earned in her
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: seniority not to help the state of Maine, but to
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: line her own campaign's pockets and to help out defense contractors.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: That is just a devastating story. And that's the thing.
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: The the the parts of this story you can't deny,
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: even if you make the claim you did nothing illegal.
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: Is a terror. It's an impossible story to spin out
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: of if you're a four term, you know, if you've
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: been in, like I said, if you've been an incumbent
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: member of the Senate for as long as she has,
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: it just reinforces that story on that front. So I
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: do think this is this is. You know, I know
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: she's been counted out before, but this one feels like
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: this one feels like the nail, if you will, the
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: proverbial nail. But it gets to a larger issue that
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: I've been talking about quite a bit on this podcast.
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: I brought it up before. I think one of the
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: most underrated issues in this election, and I do think
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: it's an issue that could be very decisive among independent voters,
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: is how corrupt Washington, Trump's Washington has become. Right. And
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: here's the thing. Like, this is an electorate that already
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: believes Washington was corrupt before Donald Trump got there. But
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: Trump is in some ways supercharged. Right. He didn't drain
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: the swamp. He monetized it in ways people didn't think
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: was possible anymore. So and that's why it's it's this
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: is what I mean by the larger issue of corruption.
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: I don't mean it in a narrow sense, in a
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: criminal sense. I'm talking about convincing voters that the party
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: currently in power has become corrupted by that power. That
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: they're serving themselves, serving their donors, serving the industries and
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: interests that finance politics and not serving you. And this
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: is why this story was such a gift for Democrats
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: who are looking to make that argument. Because here's ProPublica
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: publishing a story in this extraordinary investigation into Susan Collins
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: that the FBI was conducting and then suddenly was called off.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: But even if everything about it is not criminal, it
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: paints this larger corruption story that I've been talking about.
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: So what the story's about is Susan Collins in a
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: relationship with a defense contractor called Navitek. And there's a
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: lot in this story, millions of dollars in government contracts,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: campaign contributions, lobbyists serving as intermediaries, a super PAC, a
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: shell company, a convicted defense contractor who eventually began talking
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: to the FBI, and an FBI public corruption investigation that
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: agents wanted to expand think abscam here a little bit,
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: before the Trump administration completely dismantled much of the public
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: corruption apparatus that had been investigating these kinds of cases. Remember,
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump does not believe that you can commit crimes politically, right?
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: That a donation is not a crime, right? He just
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: doesn't see it that way. This is why he, if
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: you notice, all of his pardons always fit underneath the
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: guys that he believes all's fair in anything you're doing
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: for politics and campaign. So therefore, nothing is illegal. And
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: that's why he's willing to just pardon any official Democrat
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: or Republican who claims, hey, I was prosecuted for practicing politics.
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump has the larger he believes in what Roy
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: Cohn essentially taught him, right? Which is it's all corrupt.
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: So you're just getting yours. But I will tell you,
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: this story, I think, like I said, lands pretty hard
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: on Susan Collins. And there's a reason why it went
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: so viral over a 24-hour period. Democrats are excited about
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: this story. But I do think Democrats need to be
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: careful about getting too excited. Because there's another story that
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: sits underneath this Susan Collins story. And it's actually the
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: much bigger story that Washington hasn't addressed. It's how normal
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: so much of this is. So let me conduct a
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: thought experiment. Let's assume Susan Collins, let's take her at
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: her word that she didn't break the law. Whatever the
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: law is, you wouldn't believe what's legal in this town, right?
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: But let me stipulate it. Let's assume she didn't break
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: the law. Let's accept the premise. And in fact, Collins
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: vigorously denies the bribery and pay to play charges that
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: are implied in this story. Now, nobody working for Collins
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: was charged. Her office says they cooperated with the FBI,
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: an acknowledgement that they knew the FBI was investigating. The
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: FBI says an earlier investigation found nothing implicating Collins or
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: her campaign. And Martin Kao, who is the defense contractor
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: at the center of the story, who's making many of
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: these allegations, is a convicted felon. And he had plenty
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: of incentive to cooperate with federal prosecutors, right? So again,
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: let's assume Susan Collins committed no crime. And in some ways,
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: if that's true, I think this story becomes more interesting
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: and actually more impactful. Because look at what apparently is legal.
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: Because that may be the real corruption story here in Washington,
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: is what's allowed. A company wants federal money. It hires
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: lobbyists who know which members of Congress control the money.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: It identifies states where powerful appropriators might be helpful. It
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: establishes a presence in those states. Maybe they start a
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: nonprofit of some sort. Its executives become political donors, maybe
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: not directly to their own super PAC, but maybe to
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: this nonprofit. The politicians help bring federal dollars back home.
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: The company keeps giving political money. The lobbyists keep lobbying
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: for making sure that the descriptions that would qualify them
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: for a government contract make it into the legislation word
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: for word. so that there is no other entity that
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: could win government, because it's technically illegal to specifically guarantee
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: a government contract. But what you do is you come
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: up with these incredibly specific definitions where only one company
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: bidding is even qualified to meet the specific language that
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: the member of Congress puts into the legislation to help
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: said defense contract, right? And everybody understands the incentives. Somewhere
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: in there, of course, is a legal line. If somebody says,
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: here's $ 150, 000, now give me my government contract, you've actually
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: made life considerably easier for a federal prosecutor to claim bribery.
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: But that's not generally how Washington works, right? Most people
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: understand the letter of the law. Nobody in Washington follows
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: the spirit of a single campaign finance law, but there's
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: plenty of lawyers who get paid to follow the letter
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: of the law. This is why we have a distinction
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: between letter and spirit. The violation of spirit of the
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: law in the campaign finance world has been happening the
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: second the laws were written down on paper. So now
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: you don't need to say the quiet part out loud.
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: And over the years between the courts, Congress, and the
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: campaign finance system itself, we have constructed a political influence
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: system in which an awful lot can happen without anybody
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: crossing that very specific criminal line. And the incentives do
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: the work. There's one amazing detail in the ProPublica story
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: that I think captures the whole culture perfectly. So Martin Cowell,
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: the defense contractor, wanted to give $ 150, 000 to the super
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: PAC that was supporting Collins. But Navitek was a government
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: contractor and federal contractors aren't allowed to make federal political contributions.
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: Federal law also prohibits making a contribution in somebody else's name.
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: So what did Cowell do? He created an LLC, with
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: this wonderfully benign sounding name, the Society of Young Women
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: Scientists and Engineers. And he misspelled the word scientist. He
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: left off an S. The $ 150, 000 was laundered through that LLC. Now,
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: eventually somebody noticed. The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint.
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: A reporter in Hawaii connected this supposedly independent organization back
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: to Cal and Navitek, the defense contractor. So now everybody
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: has a problem. But ProPublica has this delicious detail. Enter
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: Cleta Mitchell. Now, who's Cleta Mitchell? Cleta Mitchell was somebody
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: who got involved with Trump's crazy 2020 was stolen election scheme.
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: She has been, I've known her 30 years. She has
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: been an elections lawyer and she is, some would say,
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: gone off the deep end in different ways. But she
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: is somebody who many an organization hires to make sure
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: they're following the letter of the law. And Cleta Mitchell
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: was a lawyer for the Collins super PAC. It's amazing
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: to me that Susan Collins, who's not an election denier,
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: still kept an election denier as part of her super PAC.
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: That's something the story to put out. But it's just
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: sort of keep that in mind. I mean, this is
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: not painting a pretty picture here of Susan Collins for anybody.
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: It makes me wonder if Joe Manchin is going to
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: rethink his endorsement of her when you read this story.
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: But that's another story. According to emails that were obtained
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: by ProPublica, Cleta Mitchell suggested that this organization better start
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: doing some actual charitable work so that it doesn't just
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: look like what it actually is, a dummy LLC trying
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: to get around campaign finance laws for federal contractors. So
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: Cleta Mitchell suggested giving out a scholarship or two, recognize
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: a couple of women in engineering, and preferably do some
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: of it in the actual state of Maine. She actually
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: wrote this in an email. I want to be sure
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: that the LLC proceeds with the ideas we discussed, giving
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: scholarships and recognition to women in engineering, et cetera. And
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: then she adds, that would help both of us, I think.
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: That's legal speak for, it's a way you can say
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: you followed the letter of the law, even though clearly
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: we are breaking the spirit of the law here. Now
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: think about what we're talking about. The contribution has already
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: been made. People have started asking whether this supposedly independent
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: organization is actually what it says it is. And the
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: response is essentially, well, let's make it look more like
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: what it says it is. Let's hurry up. Let's give
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: some scholarships. Let's create some activity like this LLC is
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: not some bony front. Let's build ourselves a record that
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: we can hand over the Department of Justice so they
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: don't pursue criminal charges. Welcome to how Washington works in 2026, America.
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: It is legalized corruption. Because there's an entire industry in
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: this town whose job is figuring out how to accomplish
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: what somebody wants to accomplish while staying technically on the
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: legal side of the line. What does the statute technically allow?
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: What kind of entity should we create? Which part of
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: the tax code works in this situation? What specific paperwork
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: do we need to file? And sometimes you can file
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: it after the fact and everybody looks the other way.
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: What language should we use? How do we satisfy the
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: letter of the law? The spirit of the law, that's
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: somebody else's problem. That's why I'm increasingly less interested in
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: the question, is this politician corrupt? I'm more interested in
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: the question is, has the system become corrupt? And that's
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: what we have here. We have a broken and corrupt
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: system because we've essentially created an enormous influence marketplace in Washington,
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: and then drawn a very narrow legal box around the
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: tiny portion of it we're willing to call bribery. Everybody
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: learns where that box lives and where it exists. And
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: then everybody learns how to operate around it. I'm not
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: trying to make an excuse for Susan Collins, not at all.
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: I'm saying she's become a swamp creature and she's got
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: a whole bunch of advisors and she's hired lawyers to
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: let her follow the letter of the law, but not
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: the spirit. These allegations are very serious. Voters should read
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: the story and make their own judgment. And again, let's
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: assume it's all legal. Is it right? Is it ethical?
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: That's a question you need to ask yourself. Hey, this
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: episode of the Chuck Todd cast is brought to you
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: by Ethos. Look, let me tell you about life insurance.
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: As you know, Ethos... is an incredible portal for helping
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: you find the right life insurance policy. I'm a huge
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: believer in life insurance. I wouldn't have gotten to college
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: in Washington DC without life insurance. My father had a
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: policy buried somewhere that we discovered and it wasn't a
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: lot of money, but it was an important bucket of
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: money at a time that my mother, newly widowed, single mom, me,
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: I'm 16. It was of enormous, enormous help at that time.
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: This is why I believe in life insurance. You don't
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: know what could happen to you on any given day.
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: This is literally an insurance policy. for that. So let
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: me tell you a little bit about Ethos. Ethos makes
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: getting life insurance fast and easy. It's 100% online. You
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: get a quote in seconds, you apply in minutes, and
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: you can get coverage the same day you begin this process.
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: There's no medical exam. You just answer a few simple
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: health questions. You can get up to $ 3 million in coverage.
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: Some policies are as low as $ 30 a month. and
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: you'll get your lowest rate from their network of trusted carriers.
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: Ethos has gotten 4.9 out of 5 stars on Trustpilot
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: with over 5,500 reviews. So, take 10 minutes to get
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: covered today, life insurance through Ethos. Get your free quote
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: at ethos.com slash chuck. That is E-T-H-O-S dot com slash chuck.
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: Application times may vary. The rates may vary. That Trustpilot
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: rating was as of August of 2026. The Democrats shouldn't
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: kid themselves that the Washington ecosystem described in this story
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: is somehow unique to Susan Collins. It isn't. As I
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: keep saying, this is how Washington works in 2026. This
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: is Donald Trump's Washington. Industries need things from Washington. Politicians
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: need money to stay in Washington. And we've created an
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: enormous professional class of lobbyists, fundraisers, lawyers, consultants, and political operatives,
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: both sides of the aisle, mind you, whose job is
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: it to make sure those two groups find each other.
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: And everybody rationalizes it. This is how I have to
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: raise enough money to win. I have to keep up.
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: This is how I protect my seat. This is how
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: I bring jobs back to the state or the district.
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: This is how I get heard. I have no choice.
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: The system's corrupt. I can't tie one arm behind my back.
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: How am I supposed to compete? And eventually, you arrive
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: at the most powerful rationalization of them all. If I
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: don't do it, somebody else will. And I'm, you know,
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: at least I'm more honest than the average person might be.
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: And if you think the Collins story is some artifact
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: of Washington politics from 2019, take a look at what
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: just happened over the last couple of weeks in Washington.
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: The crypto industry wanted the Clarity Act. Didn't get it.
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: And now its biggest political operation, Fair Shake, is putting
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: $ 30 million extra dollars into the Ohio Senate race against
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: Sherrod Brown. $ 30 million. Does somebody from the crypto industry
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: now need to walk into another senator's office and say,
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: vote our way next time or we'll spend $ 30 million
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: trying to defeat you? It's a mighty fine Senate campaign
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: you have there. Be ashamed if something happened to it.
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: Of course not. Everybody sees it. It's in plain sight.
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: The money makes the threat. And now we're hearing something
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: similar around artificial intelligence. This was an unbelievable story. Democratic
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: consultants are privately right now warning candidates in competitive races
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: to be careful how they talk about regulating AI at
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: the moment because they're worried that taking the wrong position
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: could provoke enormous spending by the tech industry. Think about
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: that incentive. And Democrats cannot respond to this by saying, okay,
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: let's not talk too much about crypto. Let's be careful
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: about AI. Let's not make Silicon Valley mad. Because if
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: the possibility that an industry might spend $ 20 to $ 30
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: million against you prevents you from dealing honestly with how
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: that industry should be regulated, the money's already done its job.
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: Nobody had to bribe you. Nobody had to threaten you.
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: You basically accepted the threat without even challenging it. They
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: didn't even have to spend the money in some cases.
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: You anticipated the threat and changed your behavior yourself. That's
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: what Chuck Schumer has done with crypto. That's what so
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: many in the leadership have. It's called political capture. So
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: here's the question Democrats ought to have to answer if
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: they're going to campaign on corruption. So I think it's viable.
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: It sits out there. What are you going to do
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: about this? Because the we're going to elect better people
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: isn't an answer. Human beings are going to, money finds
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: a way. Our incentives are broken. Politicians are human beings
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: and human beings are ambitious and insecure and They want
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: to keep their jobs and they want power and they
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: want approval. And they'll decide, well, you're good money and
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: I'll deal with you. You're a good donor. You and
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: I share the right values. So the things you're looking
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: for in a government contract, you must be a good person.
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: Be careful here. When confronted with enough political pressure, just
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: about every single elected official I've come across gets turned
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: into weak jellyfish if enough money is at stake. What
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: we have to do You stop designing a political system
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: that depends upon finding heroic politicians. They don't really exist.
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: And even when one or two do, they don't have enough.
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: They can't do it themselves. The system has to change.
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: We can't design a system for saints. We actually have
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: to design it for the weak, spineless jellyfish that are
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: going to get elected to Congress. So we have to
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: change the incentives. And maybe that means we need to
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: turn our entire approach to campaign finance upside down. We've
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: spent decades trying to regulate the amount of money people
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: can give. And all that's happened is that it's moved
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: to other places. And I mean, it's monstrous amount. Somehow
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: we keep trying to limit money in politics and all
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: we do is increase the amount of money in politics.
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: We've created an endless series of structures that make it
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: easier to obscure the source of political money. It's so anonymous.
• 25:25
  Speaker 1: So maybe we've got it all backwards. Maybe the answer
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: is give whatever you want, but you don't get to hide.
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: You don't get to make it an LLC. You have
• 25:36
  Speaker 1: speech rights. Corporations have speech rights. Fine. That's what you
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: want to decide. You want to spend a fortune trying
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: to elect somebody to help you with regulation in Washington? Speak.
• 25:47
  Speaker 1: But you don't get to hide it behind some obscure
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: LLC that claims to be giving women in engineering scholarships.
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: When you decide to spend millions of dollars trying to
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: determine who holds public power, the public gets to know
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: who's paying for that speech. That should be the trade,
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: pure and simple. You get to speak, fine. Money is
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: speech rights. I have the right to know who's speaking.
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: We get to know it, who it is. And you
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: need to make it immediate, not six months later, not
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: nine months later. We could ban anything with an LLC
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: after it. No nonprofit. You can come up with all
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: sorts of ways to just force it all. You can
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: give an unlimited amount of money if you say who
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: you are. The minute you put it into an LLC
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: or a nonprofit, boom. Then there are limitations. You want
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: to give a candidate $ 10 million? Fine, but you wear it.
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: And the candidate wears you. NASCAR rules, baby. Everybody gets
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: to see your sponsors. You're the senator for defense contractors
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: in the state of Maine? Fine, then let's see Lockheed Martin.
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: Let's see it all upfront, Navitek upfront and center. It's
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: not our current system. For the 2025-26 cycle, an individual
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: supposedly can only give a federal candidate $ 3, 500 per election.
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: So it's $ 7, 000 if it's both primary and general. But
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: a super PAC can give an unlimited contribution can accept
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: unlimited contributions and can give unlimited contributions. Unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions,
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: other PACs, provided it spends its money independent of the candidate.
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: So think about the incentive we've created. We tell the
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: wealthy donor, no, you can't give the candidate an enormous
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: check directly, but you can give an enormous check to
• 27:45
  Speaker 1: this outside organization and you could do so through a nonprofit.
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: So nobody even knows you are giving the money. That's
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: going to end up spending millions trying to elect the candidate. Why?
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: Why are we so committed to maintaining this anonymity and fiction?
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: I've heard this. Donors have a right to privacy. Fuck you.
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: I can't stand that argument. You choose to spend an
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: enormous amount of money influencing our democracy. Everybody gets to
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: know who you are. I apologize for that effort. I
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: know it probably struck somebody. But man, the arrogance of
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: wealthy people to think that they get to anonymously influence
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: politics because they have so much money. Good grief. Your
• 28:34
  Speaker 1: vote is no better or worse than anybody else's. And
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: you get to have extra influence and you get to
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: hide that? No. You could spend all the money you want.
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: It's a free country. But it needs to be above board.
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: I'd rather know exactly who is financing every campaign. And
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: I'd rather the candidate have to own it. You took
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: $ 10 million from this person, fine. Now I know. And
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: anybody that gives you more than a certain amount of money,
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: you have to name them in your ads. I'd go
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: that far. Maybe that'll be a harder one to get
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: these spineless jellyfish to pass. That's accountability. I promise you.
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: The irony here is that I think many of these
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: big donors and corporations would probably prefer to save their money.
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: But we've created this engine that can only be fueled
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: with this influential money. This idea of anonymous sourced political
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: money is absolutely corrosive to American politics. You don't know
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: if it's foreign influence money. You don't know if it's
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: coming from a foreign entity. You don't know if it's
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: coming from a convicted felon. You just don't know where
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: it's coming. There is no way this should ever be
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: legal in our democracy. Innocuous sounding organizations where you can't
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: determine who supplied the money, We shouldn't have Russian nesting
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: dolls as a way to try to figure out where
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: this money comes from, to figure out who's financing ads
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: in Ohio or anywhere else. If you're financing efforts to
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: elect or defeat somebody, your identity travels with your money, period.
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: You don't get to wash your identity out of a
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: political contribution. If you don't want the heat, then get
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: out of politics. Get out of it. or be more honest.
• 30:33
  Speaker 1: Everybody has speech rights, but anonymous speech, no, not with money.
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: American law recognizes circumstances where disclosure can threaten legitimate associational
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: rights and those protections matter, but it's very different from
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: building an entire politically financed architecture whose practical effect can
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: be to make it very difficult for voters to find
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: out who is the source of all these millions of
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: dollars running a campaign on a specific issue and an
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: influence operation. And we've had this transparency revolution once before.
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: It was called Watergate. Post-Watergate reforms were intended to strengthen
• 31:16
  Speaker 1: contribution limits, disclosure requirements, and create an enforcement structure surrounding
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: federal campaigns. The theory wasn't particularly complicated. It was simply sunlight.
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: We just need to see it. Everybody needs to be identified.
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: Voters ought to know where the money's coming from, pure
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: and simple. But then look what happened. We spent the
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: next 50 years building ways around the structure. New organizations,
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: new legal theories, new tax code vehicles. We used to
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: call it 547s, 501c3s, 501c4s, all this garbage. Independent expenditure campaigns,
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: super PACs, lawyers fingering out precisely what each entity could
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: do without technically becoming something else. The system was an
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: arms race between regulation and circumvention. And the circumvention won
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: every single time. So maybe let's simplify the whole darn thing.
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: Either you need a constitutional amendment that allows Congress to
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: construct an entirely different campaign finance system with massive limitations
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: in it, spending caps and all of those things. OK,
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: this version of our courts won't allow Congress to do that.
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: They say it's a violation of First Amendment rights. All right,
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: if you accept that premise, then let's do radical transparency.
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: Citizens United did not prevent the ability of Congress to
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: go as far as they wanted to go on transparency.
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: We know money is going to be in politics, accept
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: the premise, but let's make the money visible, period. Every
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: single dollar, every single donor, as close to real time
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: as technology allows, and make the original source of money,
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: follow the money all the way to the voter. I
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: call it my NASCAR approach, put the sponsors on the car.
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: And that's another reason why I think this matters politically
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: beyond Susan Collins. Remember one of Donald Trump's most effective
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: promises in 2016? And it kind of worked because of
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: who he was running against, right? The Clinton last name
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: was just synonymous with being involved with politics for a
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: long time. Certainly Bill Clinton had his share of money
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: in politics issues. And he came up with drain the swamp.
• 33:23
  Speaker 1: He understood that the idea that Washington was corrupt would
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: resonate with voters. You know, he already knew that people
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: believed the place was for sale. And he knew the
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: public already believed politicians served donors and lobbyists more than
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: they would serve the average voter. And they also already
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: believed that powerful people had figured out ways to play
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: by a different set of rules. Trump told them, I'm
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: going to break that system. Well, whatever one whatever judgment
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: you want to make about Trump's record, the system of
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: large donors, super PACs, corporate interests, and political access didn't
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: disappear in the Trump era. It's been supercharged. It's been
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: weaponized and monetized. And the fact is there's a whole
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: bunch of, if you can't beat them, join them mindsets
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: that have taken place. That's why Democrats need to be
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: careful with this story. They need to be the, if
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: they want, They want credibility on this story of Susan Collins.
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: They need to be the party that wants to fix
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: this system and end it, not be the party that
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: hides because they're afraid of certain money people or tries
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: to kowtow to certain groups to appease big money donors.
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: Look at what is already acceptable in our political system.
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: Look at what we've decided is legal and ask yourself
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: whether legal and healthly are remotely the same thing. Because
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: change who's in power and sometimes you just change the donors.
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: Sometimes you don't even change the donors. The incentives are
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: going to remain in place. And this also explains something
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: Washington never seems to understand about the public. So why
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: do voters keep throwing out these people here in Washington?
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: One party wins by promising to clean up the mess
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: created by the other guys. Then they get power. The
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: lobbyists arrive. bipartisan. Some of the political consultants that help
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: these folks win are also lobbyists on the side or
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: become lobbyists after they succeed. And then they connect the
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: donors with the folks in power to get what they want.
• 35:30
  Speaker 1: And then the cycle starts all over again. And pretty soon,
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: voters will decide these guys have been captured by the system.
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: Time to throw them out. We'll try the other guys again.
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: While Washington looks at this and says, boy, voters are angry.
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: Voters are irrational. Voters hate everybody. Maybe voters are onto
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: something and they're noticing something. Maybe they're watching a system
• 35:53
  Speaker 1: that repeatedly tells them behavior is perfectly legal when to them,
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: this looks an awful lot like legalized influence peddling. Let's
• 36:02
  Speaker 1: bring it back to Susan Collins. Assume she broke no law.
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: Then ask yourself this harder question. Are you comfortable with
• 36:11
  Speaker 1: what doesn't break the law? Because if your defense of
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: the political system is, don't worry, everything you just read
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: is legal, I'm not sure that's much of a defense.
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: Maybe what we've made legal is the problem. Maybe that's
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: the scandal. And maybe draining the swamp was never about
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: finding better people to put in it. We're not going
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: to find better people. We're all humans. We're all flawed.
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: We're weak. We're ambitious. We're scared of losing. We're susceptible
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: to pressure. We're jellyfish. So build a system for jellyfish.
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: Build incentives that make transparency easier than concealment. Make politicians
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: wear the donors. Trust me, they might be embarrassed to
• 36:53
  Speaker 1: have certain donors. Make donors wear their spending. You have
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: the right to speak. You have the right to participate.
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: But when you're spending millions of dollars trying to decide
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: who governs the rest of us, we have the right
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: to know who you are. Period. So yeah, I think
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: this is a Campaign death blow to Collins. Because the
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: defense is a terrible answer. To basically say, well, there
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: was no wrongdoing proven. Go ahead. Put that on a
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: bumper sticker. Never convicted. Try it. This episode of the
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: Chuck Todd cast is brought to you by soul. So
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: if you love that end of the day unwind, but
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: hate the hangover souls out of office is for you.
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: These sparkling THC drinks and gummies give you the same
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without the calories and
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: without the crash. Soul is a wellness brand that believes
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: feeling good should be fun and easy. Soul specializes in
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: delicious hemp derived THC and CBD products designed to boost
• 38:02
  Speaker 1: your mood and help you unwind. Their best-selling out-of-office gummies
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: were designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood,
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: can tailor the dose to fit your vibe. So also
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: has a variety of products specifically designed to help you
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: get a better night's rest, including their top-selling Sleepy Gummies,
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: a fan favorite for deep, restless sleep. Look, I have
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: made no secret. I am a believer in this stuff,
• 38:30
  Speaker 1: in cannabis and hemp-derived. I do not partake in alcohol
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: for the most part. I think this stuff is a
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: lot safer than alcohol, a lot less addictive than alcohol.
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: And yes, I have to say, I love these drinks.
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: It is the glass of wine. And you know, after work,
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: that's what this is. So no hangover and no excess
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: calories like this. I'm a big fan. So bring on
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: the good vibes and treat yourself to soul today. Right now,
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: soul is offering my audience 30% off your entire order.
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: Go to get soul.com and use the word Todd cast.
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: That's get soul.com promo code Todd cast for 30% off.
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: And yes, I too am a customer.
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 39:12
  Speaker 1: I've got a whole bunch of a few items. I
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: want to fly through here that happened in the last,
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: I'd say 24 to 48 hours. that I just think
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: you shouldn't have in case you missed it. And I
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: thought I'd give you, you know, call them, I don't
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: want to say they're hot takes. I'm going to say they're, well,
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: some of them will be sizzling, of course. But what
• 39:39
  Speaker 1: I mean by it is, I think it's more of
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: just where my head is at these stories without going
• 39:45
  Speaker 1: down various rabbit holes and making myself digress too much,
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: since I know that's a favorite phrase of some of
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: you that I say quite a bit. I'm going to
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: have a lot more to say about Trump's speech to
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: the UN in my next episode, because I think what
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: his rationalization on Venezuela is probably the most destructive thing
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: a president's ever said, the United Nations. But I think
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: this Susan Collins corruption story deserved more of my time.
• 40:11
  Speaker 1: But he did say something else. It was interesting, his
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: take on the Iranians. I want to quote Trump directly.
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: He says, they're waiting to see how I do in
• 40:18
  Speaker 1: the midterm election. What they don't realize is that I'm
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: not running. The Republican Party is running and I'll be
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: helping them, but I'm not running. It's very interesting. Trump is, remember,
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: he was pretending I'm on the ballot and now he's
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: trying to send a message to the Iranians.
• 40:32
  Speaker 2: No, no, no, no.
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: Whatever you think, I'm not going to change. And what's
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: funny is he says the quiet stuff out loud, right?
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: This is what makes Trump one of the, he's a
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: conundrum sometimes, right? We say, you know, he never wants
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: to tell the truth and yet he sometimes tells you
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: everything he's thinking. It's clear the Iranians are waiting to
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: see if the Iran war is basically an anvil around
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: Republicans and they figure that a weakened, that Trump will
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: be in a weakened position. He's trying to say, hey,
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: that's not going to matter. But the fact that he
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: said it out loud only reinforces to the Iranians That
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: this strategy of, well, let's wait till after the midterms
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: to sit down and talk. We're not going to agree
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: to anything until we see how painful politically this is
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: for the Republican Party. So it's just amusing to me
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: that he actually decided to say this out loud, which again,
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: he literally has signaled to the Iranians, your strategy is right,
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: even though I'm trying to tell you that it's not.
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: Speaking of Trump, I got to give a shout out
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: to my friends at Playbook and Politico. They had a
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: terrific lead this morning. And it was this. Six weeks
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: before an election, Republicans portray as a referendum on socialism
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: and communism. Donald Trump started the week praising a socialist
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: and will end it fetting a communist. I brought this
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: up to you in the last episode. Of all things
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: to do with the campaign scene, hold a state dinner
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: and toast Xi? less than six weeks before the election.
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: And then of course, and you've seen, right, Laura Loomer
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: lost her, you know what, over this, but Trump, who just,
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: you know, he's like the influencer is just hoping to
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: get the, to somehow that slightly up close to Mamdani
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: will give him a piece of the Mamdani glow at
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: the moment, or maybe he gets to share in some
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: of his influencers or whatever it is that he thought,
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: but Trump was, practically gushing over Mamdani, who, of course,
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: Republicans are trying at the moment to villainize in all
• 42:47
  Speaker 1: these ads and trying to use Mamdani as somehow a
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: way to paint another Democrat in Kansas or Iowa as
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: some sort of extremist. And what's Donald Trump doing? Man,
• 42:57
  Speaker 1: you can be a star. You're going to be a star.
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: So that's one. And then if China is such a boogeyman,
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: why is he kowtowing to China, which he will be
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: doing at the end of this week? Because China, I mean,
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: this has been the, they've got a lot of problems
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: with their own economy. And if we had stronger leadership
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: in the United States, China would be in big trouble.
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: But instead we've had this incredibly weak leadership and China
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: is having an amazing run internationally. They are seen as
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: the stable superpower while we are seen as the unreliable
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: and unstable superpower. But again, Less than six weeks before
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: the election, Donald Trump starts the week praising a socialist
• 43:45
  Speaker 1: and he'll end it celebrating a communist. Way to help
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: Republican Party messaging quite a bit. A new Pew poll
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: came out about data centers. And look, you don't need,
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: I know you won't be shocked to see how unpopular
• 44:05
  Speaker 1: they are. But what's amazing is just how much this
• 44:10
  Speaker 1: has changed since January of 2026. You know, in January
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: of 2026, Americans were still showing some concern about this,
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: but it wasn't nearly at the level. So, for instance,
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: since January, Americans have now become more likely to say
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: that data centers will have a negative impact on the environment.
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: It goes from 39 percent In January, 2026, thought this,
• 44:37
  Speaker 1: now it's 54%. On home energy costs, it was 38%
• 44:41
  Speaker 1: in January. It's now 50%. You think this. People's quality
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: of life nearby, right? This is such a local issue, 30%, 49%
• 44:51
  Speaker 1: now have that as concern. Local jobs, that it will
• 44:54
  Speaker 1: negatively impact local jobs. That was a 15% concern. Now
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: it's a 24% concern. And then local tax revenue disappearing, 12%
• 45:01
  Speaker 1: before now 21%. It's just, and Pew points out, the
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: growing negativity is in both parties with Democrats more likely
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: than Republicans to view the impacts of data centers negatively,
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: but Republican views on this have turned more negative as well. 42%
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: of Republicans now say data centers are mostly bad for
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: the quality of people near them, not good. So it
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: is this Democratic, this The data center campaign has worked
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: and it is benefiting Democrats more than Republicans. Look at
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: Greg Abbott. First, he flip-flopped a couple of weeks ago
• 45:41
  Speaker 1: in data centers. Now he's using, it's so funny, he's
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: suddenly pro-environment. He's using an environmental regulation to essentially extend
• 45:49
  Speaker 1: a moratorium on data centers. The 180 by Abbott is
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: quite striking. And I think it tells you just how
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: much this has turned everywhere in the country, but especially
• 46:03
  Speaker 1: in the state of Texas and why the Texas governor's
• 46:05
  Speaker 1: race might qualify to be more toss-up than even lean
• 46:09
  Speaker 1: Republican at this point. It is right on the edge
• 46:13
  Speaker 1: of that. It was interesting that they, how about the fact,
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: so George W. Bush and John Cornyn headlined a fundraiser
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: in Dallas earlier this week, and it was for an
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: independent entity helping Republicans called Maintain the Majority. And the money,
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: listen to the states that maintain the majority is targeted for.
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: So what it is, this is a way to, frankly,
• 46:40
  Speaker 1: double dip or triple dip. I mean, it's yet another
• 46:45
  Speaker 1: way to find more money into the system, even though
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: there's supposed to be a limit in how much money
• 46:50
  Speaker 1: any individual can give to a campaign. But it's interesting
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: which Senate races that Bush and Cornyn were raising money
• 46:59
  Speaker 1: for and which they weren't. This entity called maintain the
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: majority splits money specifically to Republican Senate nominees in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota,
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: New Hampshire, and Ohio. So Alaska, Iowa, Maine, and Ohio
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: are defenses. New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Michigan are on offenses.
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: What's the biggest omission? The state of Texas, right? There
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: was no way Cornyn or Bush were willing to raise
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: money in Texas on It's something called maintain the majority
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: to help Ken Paxton. If you're wondering why I am
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: pretty bearish now on Paxton's ability to win this race,
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: it's just more of this. You see it everywhere. And
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: I promise you, I think by October 1, you will
• 47:48
  Speaker 1: actually see a pullback of resources, of money going into Texas.
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: It is a huge... If anybody gets extra money, it's
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: going to be Abbott. I don't know if he needs it.
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: He's got a ton of money, but he's got to spend...
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: This is one where the Abbott war chest, he had
• 48:04
  Speaker 1: been sort of building and building. He never had to
• 48:06
  Speaker 1: spend it down. He's going to have to spend it down,
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: spend it down this time. By the way, if you're
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: somebody that's hoping that we're going to break the duopoly
• 48:19
  Speaker 1: of the two parties, it's interesting this year how many
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: high profile cross party endorsements we're seeing in different ways.
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: So Joe Manchin is going up to, support Susan Collins.
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: Jared Golden decided to support Mike Lawler. Karl Rove is
• 48:36
  Speaker 1: supporting the Democrat in the Railroad Commission race. And the
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: outgoing Republican Secretary of State in South Dakota is supporting
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: the Democrat because the Republican wants to hand count ballots.
• 48:46
  Speaker 1: So I don't know whether this is a quirky phenomenon
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: or really a response to sort of how far to
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: the right or left certain people in both parties think
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: things have gone. and they wanna try to prop up
• 49:00
  Speaker 1: the moderate versions on the other side, right? Both punish
• 49:04
  Speaker 1: the extremes in their own party and try to change
• 49:11
  Speaker 1: who's got power in the other party and hope that
• 49:14
  Speaker 1: the moderates do. Now, I don't know if this is
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: just a one-time Trump era phenomenon, or if we'll start
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: to see more and more of this. It really depends
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: on how far, how much the bases are perceived to
• 49:26
  Speaker 1: have control of both parties. But, you know, we had
• 49:29
  Speaker 1: a rule. There always was this, you know, sort of
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: unofficial rule in journalism, right? One is interesting. Two is,
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: could be a coincidence. Three is a trend.
• 49:38
  Speaker 2: Well, this is four.
• 49:40
  Speaker 1: So it's more than a trend at this point. So
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: I tell it to you today, the New York Times
• 49:44
  Speaker 1: will write this story in a couple of days, maybe
• 49:46
  Speaker 1: another week. AOC, what are we supposed to read into that?
• 49:55
  Speaker 1: Once again, AOC is not hiding any of her ambition.
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: And I think it's interesting when the quote she said
• 50:04
  Speaker 1: about whether she runs for Senate, runs for president, runs
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: for reelection, And she said, oftentimes in politics, you do
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: only get one shot. Life doesn't wait for you to
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: be ready for things. That sounds like somebody who's thinking
• 50:18
  Speaker 1: about running for president, who realizes that even if you
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: look and say, boy, I don't know if a woman
• 50:26
  Speaker 1: can win the presidency given what's happened to Hillary Clinton
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: and Kamala Harris. Your time is your time. And if
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: Abdul El-Sayed wins this Michigan Senate race, There may not
• 50:38
  Speaker 1: be more openness for a progressive than at that moment
• 50:42
  Speaker 1: in time, right? So the fact that she said it
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: out loud, what many others have thought about her situation,
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: which is one of the great lessons of politics, and
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: for me, I learned it early on in 92, when
• 50:57
  Speaker 1: a whole bunch of people in the spring of 91
• 51:01
  Speaker 1: looked at George H.W. Bush's approval rating and said, Oh,
• 51:04
  Speaker 1: he's guaranteed reelection. I'm going to wait to run for
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: president until 96. Well, Bill Clinton didn't wait, and he
• 51:10
  Speaker 1: ended up, and a whole bunch of people lost their
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: shot at the presidency, right? The people that were in
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: that boat who chose not to run in 92 because
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: they misread the tea leaves about the American voter, Al Gore,
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: Bill Bradley, Dick Gephardt, Jay Rockefeller, Sam Nunn. There was,
• 51:31
  Speaker 1: at that time, I think even Chuck Robb was considered
• 51:34
  Speaker 1: presidential material at that time. But there's just a laundry
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: list of candidates who all thought about running and chose
• 51:42
  Speaker 1: not to, thinking Bush wasn't going to be the incumbent
• 51:44
  Speaker 1: to beat and decided to bide their time. You know,
• 51:48
  Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton, I think I've always said, I think her
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: best window to win the presidency was 04. And she
• 51:53
  Speaker 1: chose not to run it. She wanted to wait for
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: an open seat in 08 when 04 might have been
• 51:58
  Speaker 1: her best chance. I think Gavin Newsom blew his best opportunity.
• 52:01
  Speaker 1: I think his best opportunity was primary Biden. I really do.
• 52:05
  Speaker 1: And he might be president today because of it. The
• 52:08
  Speaker 1: point being is it may not be the best, you know,
• 52:11
  Speaker 1: a Democrat might win in 28, but he might not
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: be best positioned to win in 28.
• 52:15
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 52:16
  Speaker 1: Your time is your time. And, you know, one thing
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: that you, uh, you, if, if it isn't clear now,
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: it should be, she's really thinking about it. She's dead
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: serious as AOC. Um, And she's done her homework. She's
• 52:32
  Speaker 1: done her history homework on this. She sees what we see,
• 52:39
  Speaker 1: is that if she's ever going to, you know, this
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: moment may not be there in 2032, may not be
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: there in 2036. She may be young enough to wait,
• 52:50
  Speaker 1: but the moment that the electorate is waiting for her,
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: ready for her, may be sooner. And the fact that
• 52:56
  Speaker 1: that's how she's saying that out loud, as part of
• 53:00
  Speaker 1: her calculation makes me, you know, I go back and forth, right?
• 53:08
  Speaker 1: She has spent the fall to me behaving as someone
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: running statewide in New York in 2028. She's been spending
• 53:15
  Speaker 1: her political capital in New York. She's been campaigning in
• 53:18
  Speaker 1: New York. She's been traveling the state. But I could
• 53:24
  Speaker 1: make the case that if you're traveling outside the city,
• 53:26
  Speaker 1: but you're staying in New York, you are visiting Ohio.
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: I mean, that's always been the joke. Outside of New
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: York City, the rest of New York is Ohio, meaning
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: it's kind of swing slash Republican leaning. So you could,
• 53:41
  Speaker 1: in theory, argue that she's learning how to talk to
• 53:43
  Speaker 1: the swing voters in the industrial Midwest by campaigning upstate
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: as well. And then finally, I want to close with
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: the enormous amount of money and the folks at Punchbowl
• 54:03
  Speaker 1: put together just the giant spending advantages at the moment,
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: eight of the nine biggest Senate races where Republicans have
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: the spending advantage. This is, I've said it to you before, right?
• 54:15
  Speaker 1: This period will determine whether any, how impactful will this
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: money be? If they can't stop the bleeding now, if
• 54:22
  Speaker 1: they can't turn their poll numbers around after all of this,
• 54:27
  Speaker 1: you know, it may be then we, we, the, there
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: is something bigger than just a blue wave forming. It
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: could be turning into something bigger than that. But right now,
• 54:36
  Speaker 1: here is the gaps. In Ohio, Republicans have a $ 70
• 54:41
  Speaker 1: million spending advantage. This assumes reservations. They could pull back.
• 54:45
  Speaker 1: In Texas, it's a $ 65 million advantage. These are just
• 54:49
  Speaker 1: Senate races. In Michigan, $ 33 million advantage. In Maine, $ 24
• 54:51
  Speaker 1: million advantage. In Iowa, 21. Alaska, 15. Even in North Carolina, eight.
• 55:01
  Speaker 1: In New Hampshire, six. Georgia's the lone exception where Democrats
• 55:04
  Speaker 1: are outspending Republicans. Democrats have a $ 17 million advantage. Combined,
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: the Republican advantage in those eight Senate states is nearly
• 55:13
  Speaker 1: a quarter of a billion dollars. Ohio alone has $ 307
• 55:19
  Speaker 1: million in total ad spending and reservations, according to Punchbowl. Now,
• 55:23
  Speaker 1: we know a dollar isn't the same as a dollar.
• 55:25
  Speaker 1: Candidate advertising gets the lowest rates. Super PAC advertising goes,
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: you know, so it isn't. It isn't necessarily, you know,
• 55:35
  Speaker 1: it isn't each, it isn't quite dollar for dollar, but
• 55:39
  Speaker 1: just the amount of excess spending here. It's having, it's,
• 55:44
  Speaker 1: if it, like I said, if this doesn't have an impact,
• 55:48
  Speaker 1: then this cake was baked a while ago. And it
• 55:50
  Speaker 1: may be baked because of diesel fuel. We know now, right,
• 55:53
  Speaker 1: Chuck Grassley over the weekend was begging for this, you know,
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: a version of a gas tax holiday for diesel fuel
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: is to, uh, create an export embargo, which of course
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: will do really nothing. It might have a short-term impact
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: in slowing down the rise of the cost of diesel,
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: but it actually has, it does damage to the industry.
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: They end up, you know, there's less investment, less money
• 56:16
  Speaker 1: to be made. So, but there's so much political pressure
• 56:20
  Speaker 1: on Trump to do this now. Now he's in favor
• 56:22
  Speaker 1: of it, but pretty much any Republican in a tough
• 56:26
  Speaker 1: race has come out for this export embargo. Because they
• 56:29
  Speaker 1: just want to look like they're calling for something. And
• 56:32
  Speaker 1: a gas tax holiday doesn't really have any credibility with
• 56:38
  Speaker 1: them at all. And then one final thing about the Paramount.
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: I had one point I wanted to make about the
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: Paramount settlement with the California Attorney General and this so-called
• 56:52
  Speaker 1: Independence Board. Look, I'm not crazy about– We've seen publicly
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: traded companies being in charge of news organizations isn't going well.
• 57:09
  Speaker 1: And if you've got business before the government, you're not
• 57:13
  Speaker 1: going to be a very good steward of a news
• 57:16
  Speaker 1: organization who wants to say that they'll report on anything
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: without fear or favor. But when you start to talk,
• 57:26
  Speaker 1: when the government says, well, we want to make you
• 57:29
  Speaker 1: create this independence board and all of this, well, who's
• 57:34
  Speaker 1: on this board? Who decides? What's government's role? What's not?
• 57:39
  Speaker 1: I fear this makes it sound like it's independence. The
• 57:44
  Speaker 1: board itself doesn't look like it's much of an independence thing.
• 57:48
  Speaker 1: And when you're putting in rules for journalism, you're immediately
• 57:54
  Speaker 1: like this. You're immediately getting really close to violating the
• 57:58
  Speaker 1: First Amendment. And And I think you're bordering on censorship
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: if you're not careful. It's sort of like fear of
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: an entity going too far. It doesn't mean that sort
• 58:12
  Speaker 1: of trying to create your own board to decide what's
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: independent and what isn't. I mean, that's all subjective too.
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: So look, I don't love the system we're in. But
• 58:27
  Speaker 1: I don't want any other entity saying you're in, you're out.
• 58:30
  Speaker 1: I mean, that also, I think, is a slippery slope.
• 58:37
  Speaker 1: And if the board is appointed by the corporation whose
• 58:41
  Speaker 1: management of the journalists they may be fighting with, I
• 58:43
  Speaker 1: don't even see how the board's even independent. And the
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: fact that government agreed to it or demanded it makes
• 58:50
  Speaker 1: it seem as if government's a part. Anyway, I understand
• 58:54
  Speaker 1: the good intention, I think. What came out of it
• 59:01
  Speaker 1: is something that A, isn't going to work, and B,
• 59:05
  Speaker 1: sort of gives credibility where none has been earned in
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: this case. um so but look the larger point i'm
• 59:15
  Speaker 1: making is about incentives anyway right and we've just we've
• 59:18
  Speaker 1: we've we've kind of blown that up all right i'm
• 59:21
  Speaker 1: gonna pause here sneak in a break and when we
• 59:24
  Speaker 1: come back the rest of my conversation with anthony anthony
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: scaramucci and specifically about his new book, All the Wrong Moves.
• 59:41
  Speaker 1: So joining me now is somebody I've known quite a
• 59:43
  Speaker 1: long time and somebody that the more we get to
• 59:46
  Speaker 1: know each other, the more we might actually describe each
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: other as friends. It's Anthony Scaramucci. You know, in the
• 59:53
  Speaker 1: political world, he's known for his famous 11 days in
• 59:56
  Speaker 1: the Trump administration. But in the finance world, I view
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: him as somebody who's one of the few guys in
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 1: finance who hasn't lost his mind and who's at least grounded.
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 1: And I think that it is a fascinating detour. that
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 1: the world's financial elite have taken. And I want to,
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 1: there's so much to talk about these days. He's got
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 1: a new book coming out. And at some point, we're
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 1: going to talk about that, All the Wrong Moves, it
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: is called. It will be coming out in September. Let
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: me pivot to your book here. It's called All the
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 1: Wrong Moves, Three Catastrophic Decisions That Led to the Rise
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 1: of Trump. So I'm going to guess one of them
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: has to do with the financial crisis in a way.
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 1: Is that right or wrong?
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 2: Yes. So I'll be brief. I mean, first of all,
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 2: this book is a three and a half decade, 35-year observation.
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 2: It is a political observation, but it's also an economic observation.
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: So I tried to thread my middle class background with
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 2: my education, my time on Wall Street, and my failed
• 1:01:04
  Speaker 2: White House career. But remember, I was also a three-decade
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 2: political fundraiser for the Republican Party at the presidential level.
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 2: So I've tried to synthesize what I've observed. And basically
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 2: what's going on right now in terms of the economic tribalism,
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 2: in my opinion, is a direct result of money. And
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 2: I put something in the book called The Money Point
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 2: of View of History. If you follow the money in
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 2: the country, you can see where things are going. And
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 2: so the three quick catastrophic decisions, we let China into
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: the World Trade Organization unchecked. So they came in with
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 2: emerging market privileges like the Dominican Republic. But when they
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 2: got to the scale of Germany, we never cut them
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: back or never treated them like a Western European nation,
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 2: a result of which they had sky-high growth. And they
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 2: became now an economic superpower. And they took advantage of
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 2: that system and the laxity of Western leaders to check
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 2: them at the door, something Trump is right about. The
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 2: second thing is that we went to war in Iraq
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 2: and Afghanistan without a tax increase. First time in our
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 2: history to take on two major wars.
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 1: Not only without the tax increase, Anthony, we cut taxes. Yeah,
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 1: we did.
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 2: We cut taxes back here after 9-11. We cut taxes twice.
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 2: We cut them in March. And then we cut them
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 2: again in 2003. So Bush cut taxes twice while prosecuting
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 2: two wars. And this created that deficit spread that we're
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 2: still dealing with today. Said differently, George Washington to George
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 2: Walker Bush, $ 7 trillion. the last couple of presidents, $ 33 trillion.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 2: It's gone out of control. Decision one, WTO. Decision two
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 2: is fiscal irresponsibility going into two-decade wars. Then the third
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 2: one is what you brought up, which is the global
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 2: financial crisis. When we funded the banks, And we gave
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 2: a trillion dollars, which is approximately $ 1. 7 trillion of today's money.
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 2: And we gave that money to the banks and left
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 2: nothing for the middle class or the working poor. No
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 2: debt relief, no mortgage relief, no rental relief, no credit
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 2: card interest payment relief. But here's the money for Goldman
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 2: Sachs and others to pay their bonuses that year. It
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 2: created a hotbed of anger in the country. You remember
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 2: Occupy Wall Street. You remember the Tea Party movement. These
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 2: guys got married and they made a baby. They named
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: the baby MAGA. And so this is not a book
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 2: about Donald Trump. This is a precursor story about what
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 2: led to the economic anxiety and led to the economic
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 2: anger-based populism that we're dealing with right now. And as
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 2: I point out in the book, it's left and right.
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 2: There's a horseshoe. You know this. I know this.
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 1: By the way, let's say John McCain defeats Barack Obama
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 1: in 08. Instead of Donald Trump winning in 16, it's
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders that wins in 16. And the Tea Party
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 1: is just an Occupy Wall Street is more of a
• 1:04:07
  Speaker 1: left wing phenomenon than it is a right wing phenomenon.
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, I think that is such a brilliant observation.
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 2: And I always tell people, you see this horseshoe that
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 2: we're talking about? It's an uncompleted triangle. It's not a horseshoe.
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 2: It's a lot closer to a triangle than people want
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 2: to admit.
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 1: You work in, you understand this world of finance as
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 1: well as anybody that can also translate it into American,
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 1: as I like to say, not English, American. So I've
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 1: been obsessed with the Mark Walter story in part because
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 1: obviously I'm a huge sports fan. I actually helped start
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 1: a sports business publication back in the early 90s. So
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 1: I come at it both from my professional interest and
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 1: personal interest. And the more you dig into it, This
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 1: idea that life insurance companies have become the new banks
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 1: of private credit strikes me as a risk in our
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 1: financial system that we don't know how to price in.
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 1: Make me feel better about this. Am I overly concerned?
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 1: Is Mark Walter an outlier, if you will, in this?
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 1: Or is this use of life insurance companies basically as
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 1: a permanent source of money to finance other purchases and
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 1: things like this. How risky is this?
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 2: Well, first of all, I think there are itinerant risks
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 2: to taking the direct lending away from the banks. And
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 2: so the banks blew up in 2008. And a result
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 2: of which, we heavily regulated the banks through Dodd-Frank and
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 2: all these other things that we did. And then we
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 2: had this too-big-to-fail test with the banks. And so a
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 2: lot of the lending went to private equity guys and
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 2: to life insurance companies. And so in one way, we've
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 2: made the banks safer so there won't be a systemic crash.
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 2: But in another way, all of this sort of risky
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 2: lending happened. went into the direct buckets, which I would
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 2: say is less systemically risky. Okay. But in the situation
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 2: of life insurance companies, and again, I'm not saying that
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 2: he did anything wrong. I want to stipulate on your show.
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 1: A hundred percent. I know we don't have any proof
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 1: of anything. I actually look at it as, I'm glad
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: he's getting scrutiny. It means the regulators, we can say
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 1: they were, for the financial crisis, they were asleep. I
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 1: don't think they were asleep on this one. My concern
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 1: is that state regulators don't see the whole picture, and
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: there is no national regulator that looks at the insurance industry.
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 2: I want to explain to people, if you don't mind,
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 2: in American. I love the definitions. I'm going to explain
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 2: in American what the allegation is so people can understand
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 2: it and then how we can potentially correct for it.
• 1:06:59
  Speaker 2: The life insurance companies are collecting premiums on your life
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 2: or my life. Let's say I have a life insurance policy.
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 2: I'm writing them a check. That goes well. Then the
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 2: owner can legally lend the money. to his other companies. Okay.
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 2: So now I can put it into the Dodgers or
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 2: I can put it into my football team, or I
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 2: could put it into a affiliated entity, but it has
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 2: to be disclosed. Okay. And what's at issue here is
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 2: there could have been affiliated exposure, which is by the way,
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 2: regulatorily capped, which could have gone over the cap. OK,
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 2: which means which means that there was a little there's
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 2: a potential. And again, it's an allegation that there was
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 2: self-dealing involved. But, you know, as you know, where there's smoke,
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 2: there's fire. He went to go sell Lakers and he's
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 2: done some other things to try to get himself back
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 2: in into.
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 1: Do you think he's an outlier?
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 2: I guess is the question. Is he an outlier? So
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 2: that is the best question of the day. I don't
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 2: know if he's an outlier. I'm going to say that
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 2: he is not an outlier. And I'm going to say
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 2: that everybody is Jose Canseco and Mark McGuire. And so
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 2: just hear me out, okay? Juice.
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 1: Right, exactly where you're going.
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 2: Everybody's Jose Canseco. What they're doing is they're using performance
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 2: enhancement off the books and records in hope of not
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 2: getting detectives. The banks did it in 2008. They were
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 2: Jose and they were Mark. They juiced their leverage. They
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 2: took the leverage 35 to 1. It was unsustainable. They
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 2: had a hiccup. They blew up the system. These guys
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 2: are in a competition with each other as to see
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 2: who can get richer. And they want to game the system.
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 2: And again, I'm not accusing Mark of doing anything. But
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 2: if you're telling me that there's a panaceality, that there
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 2: are executives in that space who that have overtipped themselves
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 2: and have breached what I would call the regulation, I
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 2: think that that's likely- And I think the good news
• 1:09:01
  Speaker 2: is that exposure to this may rein that in before
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 2: it becomes too big of a problem. That's my hope.
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 2: But if you're telling me, You didn't ask me this question,
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 2: but I'm going to answer it. You said to me,
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 2: will there be another looming financial crisis? The answer to
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 2: that question is unequivocally yes. What it will be, I
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 2: don't know. But I'm telling you, probably in my lifetime,
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 2: because we're 18 years out from the global financial crisis,
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 2: there will likely be another crisis. Maybe it'll be spawned
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 2: by direct lending, or it'll be spawned by overinvestment in
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 2: AI infrastructure, or it might be spawned by this sort
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 2: of stuff that's going on off balance sheet at a
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 2: lot of companies. But I submit to you because of
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 2: human nature being what it is, we will likely have
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 2: another crash and we have to prepare ourselves for it.
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 1: Let me get you out of here on this. Democrats
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 1: win both the House and the Senate. How does Trump
• 1:09:58
  Speaker 1: handle this? And do you expect, because I've always said
• 1:10:02
  Speaker 1: Trump really doesn't care about the future of the Republican Party.
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 1: Trump always cares about Donald Trump.
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 2: Doesn't care.
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: First, second, third, fourth.
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 1: What is your expectation of the relationship he tries to
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 1: have with congressional Democrats? You know, I because I don't
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 1: think it's going to be I think there's a chance.
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 1: In his own way, and because he doesn't want to
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 1: be impeached a third time, right, that he actually tries
• 1:10:31
  Speaker 1: to find ways to work with Democrats. Maybe I'm smoking
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 1: opium this morning, but I don't know. Yeah, I mean.
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 2: He's going to get impeached. You know, I mean, if
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 2: they win the House because of.
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 1: Blanchard, Hegseth get impeached before him.
• 1:10:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they're going to come after those guys, too. And
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 2: I think he's I think he's conviction proof, meaning you're
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 2: not going to get to the two thirds required to
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 2: remove him from office. It's not possible given his stronghold
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 2: on the Republican Party. But I I think I think
• 1:11:01
  Speaker 2: something different.
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 1: OK.
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 2: Burien analysis, where you and I agree, he does not
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 2: care about the Republican Party. In fact, if anything, he
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 2: wants Gavin Newsom to replace him.
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: Oh, he would love that a Republican couldn't win whose
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 1: last name wasn't Trump. He would love that. Exactly.
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 2: He wants to be able to say, you were nothing
• 1:11:20
  Speaker 2: before I got here, and you're nothing now that I'm gone.
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 2: And so that's Trump. To not understand that and think
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 2: he actually wants Vance or Rubio to replace him, you
• 1:11:29
  Speaker 2: really don't understand the beast that is Donald Trump. So
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 2: that's number one. So you and I are in agreement
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 2: with that. Where I diverge from you is he's impeachment likely,
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 2: but he's conviction unlikely. In fact, I would say they'll
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 2: never be able to convince conviction proof.
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 1: Democrats would have to win the Idaho Senate race this
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 1: cycle with that independent. For Republicans to get, oh, wow,
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 1: maybe we ought to stop and think about this. And
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 1: as much as I think the independent is going to
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 1: get into the 40s in Idaho, I really do. I
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 1: don't think that Mr. Todd Achilles is going to win.
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 2: Same thing with Tallarico. I mean, Tallarico is campaigning well.
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 2: He's a well-spoken young man. But he'll probably lose because
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 2: of the Republican machinery in that state. But I'm just
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 2: saying to you for Trump, Trump's thing is the grift
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 2: is going to get worse. Trump's thing is, hey, I'm
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 2: going out in a blaze of glory. And so I'll
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 2: try to destroy the Western alliance on the way out
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 2: for some reason, because I have self-hatred about myself and
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 2: I want to hurt the country and I want to
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 2: hurt the little guy. I'm going to go out in
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 2: a blaze of glory, try to make myself $ 20 to
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 2: $ 40 billion. to the extent that I can. I will
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 2: pardon myself and my family members. And Joe Biden opened
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 2: the door for that by pardoning Hunter. And so I'm
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 2: just certainly going to do that. And those guys were
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 2: working on peanuts selling $ 50, 000 paintings. We're going to grift
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 2: $ 40 billion for ourselves off this thing to the extent
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 2: that we can. Good luck. trying to catch us because
• 1:13:02
  Speaker 2: we're going to run faster than you guys. I'll be
• 1:13:06
  Speaker 2: 82 years old or 83 years old, and I will
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 2: be sitting on a pile of money for myself and
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 2: my family laughing at how successful politics was for me
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 2: versus my corporate or my business career. That's Donald Trump.
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 2: To think otherwise, he's not there to serve the public.
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 2: He's not there to help the Republican Party. He's there
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 2: to get your mind share and your attention and to
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 2: make money for himself. Those are the only two things
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 2: he cares about. And if you think he cares about
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 2: something differently, either you don't know him or you're living
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 2: in your own reality distortion field. So those are the
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 2: things that are going to happen. And it's sad for
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 2: me to watch because that level of corruption is hurting
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 2: the nine-year-old version of me. Because whatever I thought of
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 2: Richard Nixon... I was 10 years old when he resigned.
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 2: I was like, all right, I did something wrong. But
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 2: the general processes of the meritocracy lived in the country.
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 2: When you have this level of transparent, full-throated corruption, the
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 2: little guy looks up at that and says, OK, there's
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 2: no room for me at the top.
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 1: Well, not only that, but is there even a rule
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 1: of law, right? Exactly.
• 1:14:16
  Speaker 2: There's no rule of law. There's no fairness. You once
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 2: took blue collar aspirational people and you turned them into
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 2: blue collar economically desperational people. And that to me sucks
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 2: because I grew up like that, Chuck. And I would
• 1:14:32
  Speaker 2: want people that grew up today in the 2026s to
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 2: have the same opportunity.
• 1:14:38
  Speaker 1: When was the last time you read your Victor Hugo?
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 1: I feel like we're getting ready for the French Revolution.
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 1: At times.
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 2: Well, remember something, you know, remember something. You don't take
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 2: care of the people. They come after you with a
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 2: tiki torch and a pitchfork. You know, I think it's smart.
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 1: You know, it's funny. My wife points this out all
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 1: the time. She thinks it's she goes, you know, with
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 1: the with Kushner, with Jared looking for a place to
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 1: live in Albania or she goes, yeah. Yeah. anybody related
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: to Trump's going to have to find a place overseas
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 1: because nobody is going to welcome them in America in
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: 10 years.
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 2: Well, I think that are both going to want that
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 2: tax haven for themselves. They really don't care. And I
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 2: also think, look what he's doing with Hakeem Jeffries. He's
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 2: trying to meet with Hakeem Jeffries.
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 1: Is that about Jared or is it about Trump?
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 2: Yeah. The message is get the gun on Trump. I'm
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 2: leaving the country. You know, that's the message.
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 1: I get it.
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 2: I know what these guys are about. Yes, you do.
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 2: It sucks, to be honest. I wish they weren't about that.
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 2: But we got to them because of all the wrong moves.
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 1: No, that's right.
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 2: I think it's very important. I'm tying it back to
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 2: the book for a reason. Read the book. You look
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 2: at the book and say, okay, he threaded things together
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 2: that are not normally threaded. And this is a briefing
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 2: book for somebody. If you want to know how we
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 2: got to Trump and Mondani, read this, and you'll see
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 2: the mistakes. And we made good-hearted, well-intended people on both sides, Chuck.
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 2: Believe me, I've made a whole book of mistakes.
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 1: Look, I could make the argument this basically goes back
• 1:16:07
  Speaker 1: to the, we didn't know how to win. We didn't
• 1:16:09
  Speaker 1: know how to, we won the Cold War and didn't
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 1: know what to do next.
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 2: We won the Cold War, but we also got to
• 1:16:17
  Speaker 2: know what happens when you're getting things right. you get
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 2: a little arrogant. I got something right when I was
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 2: 27 in biotech. I thought I was a biotech guru,
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 2: and I blew my doors off my own personal account
• 1:16:29
  Speaker 2: by thinking that. So we get a little arrogant. I
• 1:16:32
  Speaker 2: think that's the message of the whole thing.
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 1: Hey, man, if you gamble, you know that all the time.
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 2: Mr.
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: Scaramucci, it's always a pleasure, sir. Congrats on the book,
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 1: my friend.
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 2: Thank you. I really, really appreciate you inviting me on. Thanks, Chuck.
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 2: All right, my top five list this week.
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 1: I'm borrowing from the NBC News poll because I thought
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 1: this was a terrific exercise. And it's a simple exercise.
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 1: What are the five worst things to be for this
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 1: year when running for office? The five most unpopular issues.
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 1: to be associated with in this year's campaign season. And
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: I'm going to count down five to one on this one. Now,
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 1: those of you that might think, I think I heard
• 1:17:30
  Speaker 1: a version of this on Monday. Yeah, maybe you did.
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 1: But this is the cleaner way to do it. Top five,
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 1: and we'll start with number five. The fifth worst thing
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 1: to be for, according to the NBC News poll, is
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 1: to be a candidate endorsed by Donald Trump. 52% said
• 1:17:50
  Speaker 1: that would make them less likely to support a candidate
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 1: who bragged about being endorsed by Donald Trump. Number four,
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 1: being a candidate who wants to abolish ICE, the Immigration
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: and Customs Enforcement Agency. So I throw this in there.
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 1: This was a 53% said that would be less likely
• 1:18:13
  Speaker 1: to support a candidate who simply wants to abolish ICE.
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 1: This is a reminder that there is nuance to this immigration.
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 1: A majority didn't like the chaos at the border, and
• 1:18:23
  Speaker 1: a majority doesn't like the chaos that ISIS is creating.
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 1: That doesn't mean a majority doesn't believe we should have
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 1: some form of enforcement and border security. Number three on
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 1: the list of the worst things you can be for.
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 1: A candidate who supports providing funding and weapons to Israel, 55%,
• 1:18:41
  Speaker 1: said that would make them less likely to support any
• 1:18:45
  Speaker 1: candidate for office this year that was advocating more funding
• 1:18:48
  Speaker 1: and weapons to Israel. Number two on the list is
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 1: to be a candidate that supports the war in Iran. 57%, 57%
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 1: said they would be less likely for any candidate supports
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 1: the war in Iran. And you wonder why so many
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 1: Republicans are trying to move away from this war. And
• 1:19:11
  Speaker 1: number one, and with a bullet on this one, a
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 1: candidate who supports building a data center in your community, 64%
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 1: of voters told NBC that would make them less likely
• 1:19:23
  Speaker 1: to support. So basically, let's flip the script here, right?
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 1: The five best things to be If you wanna be
• 1:19:32
  Speaker 1: a majoritarian in Congress, the five best things are to
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 1: be against data centers in your community, against the Iran war,
• 1:19:40
  Speaker 1: against sending money and weapons to Israel, against abolishing ICE,
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 1: and against being supported by Donald Trump. It's a pretty
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 1: simple premise. Democrats feel really good about four of those
• 1:19:55
  Speaker 1: five issues. It's the fifth issue. abolishing ICE, that might
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 1: be some trouble there. But you can see here, this
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 1: is why it is, if Democrats can get out of
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 1: being trapped by their base and by what people on
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 1: the farthest left side of the spectrum believe, most of
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 1: their candidates in these, whether you're Josh Turek or James Tallarico,
• 1:20:24
  Speaker 1: they're all sitting in that space right there. And what
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 1: the NBC poll is saying, This ain't rocket science, folks.
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 1: Don't be for data centers. Don't be for the Iran war.
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 1: Don't be for sending more weapons to Israel. Don't be
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 1: for abolishing ICE. And don't be for Donald Trump. That
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 1: is like, how do you run for office in 2026?
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 1: There you go, America. Right there. All right. I thought
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 1: I'd make it a nice, clean, and easy top five list.
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 1: Let's get to your questions. Ask Chuck. All right, let's
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 1: do a few questions. We got a little Ask Chuck here.
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 1: We're going to start with Eric R., Minnesota's fourth congressional district.
• 1:21:08
  Speaker 1: And he writes, hey, I'm looking for a little inside
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 1: baseball and political interviewing. Watching Kristen Welker press Mike Johnson
• 1:21:13
  Speaker 1: on AR regulation recently, I found myself yelling at the
• 1:21:16
  Speaker 1: TV for her to pivot and challenge the premise of
• 1:21:18
  Speaker 1: his answer rather than keep trying to get a direct
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 1: response to the original question. From your time in that chair,
• 1:21:23
  Speaker 1: what prevents an interviewer from changing directions in the moment?
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 1: Is it the show's structure, producer guidance, time constraints, specific
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 1: journalistic objective? Or does it simply look much easier from
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 1: my recliner than it is in real time? All of
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 1: those things are true. Okay. And they all can matter
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: at any moment in time. And what I, you know,
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 1: I'm always hesitant of, this is why I hate the
• 1:21:44
  Speaker 1: short interviews because you have time constraints. That's the biggest thing.
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 1: And it's sort of like, I totally get what you
• 1:21:51
  Speaker 1: want to do. And suddenly that's an extra five minutes.
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 1: And if the structure of the show is suddenly at risk,
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 1: You know, you screw up a whole bunch of other things.
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 1: Now I used to be like, ah, screw it. We'll
• 1:22:04
  Speaker 1: apologize to the guests and go. Yeah, that works once
• 1:22:07
  Speaker 1: or twice, but you really can do harm to your
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 1: ability to book and things like this. You'll have issues
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 1: with your commercial breaks, which actually hurt the ad sales
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 1: team and all this stuff. So there is a lot
• 1:22:22
  Speaker 1: that goes into that per se. And I totally, this
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 1: is why, I'm so frustrated by the format itself. And
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 1: it's not, this is not about any individual's format. It's,
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 1: it's sort of how it's evolved into these shorter segments,
• 1:22:38
  Speaker 1: because then it sort of forces to be yes or no. When,
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 1: when really what we want are these 30, right, right.
• 1:22:48
  Speaker 1: You know, these 15 to 20 to 25 minute conversations
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: that allow, you know, for nuanced answers. And I think
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 1: that we have just not made room for them. And
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 1: this is why I'm here. It's why I'm in a,
• 1:23:00
  Speaker 1: in a podcast space where I think you have a
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 1: bit more time for this to get, to get it saying, okay,
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 1: you're saying this, but let me go over here.
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 1: And, and again, there's plenty of times I know Kristen
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 1: wants to do that, but there are, you have structure,
• 1:23:18
  Speaker 1: show structure constraints, time constraints. And I, you know, I don't,
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 1: I know the interview you're talking about, but I don't
• 1:23:24
  Speaker 1: know where it fell in the show and all of
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: that stuff as well. But it is everything. I mean,
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 1: I got to give you credit, Eric. You sort of
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: came up with all the different potential explanations and you
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 1: hit versions of all of them. And I promise you,
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 1: she has somebody in her ear going, no, no, you
• 1:23:40
  Speaker 1: got to move. And maybe there was some other question
• 1:23:43
  Speaker 1: that they really wanted to make sure to get them
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 1: on the record on. And this is, like I said,
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 1: the tyranny of the short interview. And And what you
• 1:23:52
  Speaker 1: what I hate is I think the interviewee sort of
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 1: knows that time is on their side and they can
• 1:23:57
  Speaker 1: kind of filibuster until you sort of have to keep moving.
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 1: And this is again, this is why I fought. I
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 1: used to fight so hard against three guest shows in particular.
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 1: I really, you know, one and two guest shows. And look,
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 1: I understand we live in a little shorter attention span,
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 1: attention economy. And is what I wanted didn't always wouldn't
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 1: always rate as well. The longer episodes, although it was
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 1: always they always made more news and they always. Didn't
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 1: they always aged better, the longer interviews, but usually the
• 1:24:36
  Speaker 1: viewer tolerance for longer interviews was reserved for about two
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 1: or three, two or three guests a year. And usually
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 1: they were people that either had the words president in
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 1: front of them or maybe secretary of defense or something
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 1: like that. Um, but, um, it's, you know, this is
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 1: where I, I'm frustrated by how the incentives of television
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 1: and the incentives of the audience have sort of screwed,
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 1: screwed this whole thing up a little bit. All right.
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 1: Kevin O writes, I was in the lithotripsy business years
• 1:25:10
  Speaker 1: ago and an old World War II Navy guy once
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 1: told me they had sailors jump rope to help move
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 1: kidney stones along. Yeah, I know this trick. Check with
• 1:25:18
  Speaker 1: your doc first, of course, based on the survey you
• 1:25:20
  Speaker 1: cited on today's show, maybe It's all in the name.
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 1: Instead of calling it socialized medicine, why not just call
• 1:25:25
  Speaker 1: it Medicare for all? Easy peasy, Kevin O. That's interesting
• 1:25:30
  Speaker 1: on that. Yes, I take your point on the earlier
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 1: poll question. But yes, jumping is definitely, you know, it's
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 1: interesting with a kidney stone. All the advice that expected
• 1:25:41
  Speaker 1: mothers who go into labor are given breathing exercises, walking
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 1: around a room, right? It's the same advice you get
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 1: for dealing with a kidney stone that you're trying to
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 1: get to move along. And let's just say all of
• 1:25:54
  Speaker 1: the breathing exercises that I learned with Mrs. Todd back
• 1:25:59
  Speaker 1: when we were we were expected parents have come in, sadly,
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: quite handy for my for the attempt I've had to
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 1: birth these kidney stones. But, Kevin, I appreciate the concern
• 1:26:11
  Speaker 1: and the advice. Matthew in Evanston, Illinois, the fighting ninth
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: congressional district. Oh, we know this one quite well. We
• 1:26:17
  Speaker 1: had a lot of fun with it. Second timer here.
• 1:26:19
  Speaker 1: And he says, what do you make of the circumstances
• 1:26:21
  Speaker 1: making Kansas competitive into the 2026 midterm? Is it the
• 1:26:24
  Speaker 1: growth of the Kansas City suburbs, younger people seeking cheaper housing,
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 1: the long running division within the state Republican Party or
• 1:26:30
  Speaker 1: economic factors like fuel prices and challenges in the ag sector?
• 1:26:33
  Speaker 1: I follow politics closely since 0406 and Kansas feels like
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 1: one of those states where if it's politics do shift,
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 1: we may look back and say, yeah, it was pretty obvious.
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 1: Love your insight and analysis, Matthew Nevinson. Buddy, I've been
• 1:26:47
  Speaker 1: sort of waiting for this move for a while. It
• 1:26:51
  Speaker 1: reminds me of Colorado in the 90s, where you were like,
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 1: Democrats should do better in these national elections, and they don't.
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 1: But you sort of saw a lot of Californians were
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 1: moving there. Something's happening here. I think it's two things
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 1: that have turned Kansas from red to reddish purple, right?
• 1:27:14
  Speaker 1: It's still red-leaning. And what I find interesting is, is
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 1: when I first got into politics, Missouri was considered the
• 1:27:21
  Speaker 1: swingiest of swing states. It had one of the longest
• 1:27:23
  Speaker 1: streaks of, of voting with the winning presidential candidate going back.
• 1:27:27
  Speaker 1: I think, I think they went with Adlai Stevenson once
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 1: and that kept its streak. And then after that, it was,
• 1:27:33
  Speaker 1: it was, uh, the winner every time, uh, until 2000 when, um,
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 1: the caveat of, well, not with the popular vote, but
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 1: with the electoral college winner. And then 04, I think
• 1:27:47
  Speaker 1: was the first time, or excuse me, 08, when Obama
• 1:27:52
  Speaker 1: came up short was the first time Missouri Street got broken.
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 1: But you've seen this sort of transition from Missouri to Kansas.
• 1:27:59
  Speaker 1: So your list of things, there's a lot there. The
• 1:28:03
  Speaker 1: biggest thing is the explosion of the Kansas City suburbs,
• 1:28:05
  Speaker 1: because it's been the third congressional district up there that
• 1:28:08
  Speaker 1: we've seen the biggest shift been moving over time And
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 1: it all started in the 90s, the suburban shift from
• 1:28:18
  Speaker 1: red to purple, and now in the Trump era, from
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 1: purple to blue, right? The Kansas City suburbs are now,
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 1: it's now the base of the Democratic vote, right? And
• 1:28:28
  Speaker 1: it was the swing area, and it's moved from swing
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 1: to almost base Democratic vote at this point. So it's
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 1: the explosion of the Kansas City, Kansas side of the suburbs.
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 1: It's the conservative shift in Missouri that has chased some
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 1: people in Kansas City, Missouri to move to Kansas City, Kansas.
• 1:28:49
  Speaker 1: The Kansas side schools have always been considered better than
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 1: the Kansas City, Missouri side of schools. So there's that aspect.
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 1: So I think there's sort of Domestic migration is an
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 1: explanation here from the Missouri side to the Kansas side.
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 1: You've had this divide inside the Republican Party that's similar
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 1: to what we're seeing in Texas, where you have sort
• 1:29:13
  Speaker 1: of the moderate Republicans splitting from the cultural conservative Republicans.
• 1:29:19
  Speaker 1: I would say there was definitely always a pretty strong
• 1:29:23
  Speaker 1: religious conservative base in Kansas that has pushed the party
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 1: forward And the legislature has pushed the perception of the
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 1: party much further to the right than when it was
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 1: Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum sort of representing Kansas for
• 1:29:37
  Speaker 1: what seemed like a couple of decades in the United
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 1: States Senate. And so I think it was a hard
• 1:29:44
  Speaker 1: right shift, right? And it was the Sam Brown back,
• 1:29:48
  Speaker 1: sort of the pullback from there. The relative success of
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: these Democratic governors, right? After they had their Kathleen Sebelius
• 1:29:57
  Speaker 1: for two terms, They got it. And then and then
• 1:30:00
  Speaker 1: that was rejected. So it is I think it's the
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 1: it's it's. And then this year, I think you have
• 1:30:09
  Speaker 1: the added aspect of the current trade war with Canada.
• 1:30:14
  Speaker 1: That's Bombardier, which is an airplane manufacturer, a Canadian owned company.
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 1: But they have a huge manufacturing plant in Kansas that
• 1:30:25
  Speaker 1: so the trade war. there, throw in what's happening in
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 1: the ag space. You know, these tariffs have been terrible
• 1:30:33
  Speaker 1: for the Kansas economy, right? They, you know, ag exports
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 1: are a huge part of the Kansas economy. So that's hurt.
• 1:30:42
  Speaker 1: So you throw all that in there. And then I
• 1:30:44
  Speaker 1: think the added ingredient is that Roger Marshall's not very
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 1: good as a candidate, as I've expressed before. So Do
• 1:30:54
  Speaker 1: I think this means Kansas is going to be a
• 1:30:56
  Speaker 1: swing state in 2028? Probably we're still another cycle or
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 1: two away from that. But I think a victory in
• 1:31:06
  Speaker 1: the Senate race here for Democrats, if Hamilton gets over 50,
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 1: you might see. This is why I thought Democrats should
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 1: have made Kansas their first Midwestern state. I think if
• 1:31:18
  Speaker 1: they spent more time in Kansas organizing the place. Because
• 1:31:22
  Speaker 1: that's the other thing, you know, When we've watched red
• 1:31:26
  Speaker 1: states move to blue, having multiple college towns matters. They
• 1:31:31
  Speaker 1: have multiple college towns. Having three urban markets matters. Well, Wichita, Topeka,
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 1: and Kansas City. So Kansas has a lot of the
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 1: ingredients for the modern, for what's helped move states from
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 1: red to blue in the 21st century, right? The big
• 1:31:55
  Speaker 1: movements have been Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, Colorado are probably the
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 1: biggest four shifts that we've seen from red to blue.
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 1: You know, just like the biggest shifts we've seen from
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 1: blue to red were states that had a large union populations,
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 1: lower college education scores. Kansas has a high education rate.
• 1:32:16
  Speaker 1: Kansas also has a sneaky high Latino population. And I
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: don't underestimate that flip either and the immigration issue playing
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 1: negatively in Kansas as well, especially in the ag sector.
• 1:32:31
  Speaker 1: So that would be my explanation. And yes, if Kansas
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 1: does flip to me, it's not like, oh, where did
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 1: that come from? It's been a very slow, gradual move
• 1:32:43
  Speaker 1: where the Kansas Republicans had to sort of make some
• 1:32:46
  Speaker 1: errors to accelerate it in certain places. I don't think
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 1: Jerry Moran would lose in this environment, but I think
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 1: Roger Marshall is just a bad candidate and, and not
• 1:32:58
  Speaker 1: very good at this. So that that's probably, if he
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 1: ends up losing, I do think you can't, you gotta,
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 1: you gotta pay a little bit more attention to the
• 1:33:09
  Speaker 1: candidate quality as well. All right. Next question comes from
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 1: Max W right here in, the Virginia's eighth congressional district. Obie,
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 1: Chuck Kenobi. I appreciate it. Since you liked my last
• 1:33:23
  Speaker 1: Star Wars reference, here's another. If you could use the
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 1: Jedi mind trick to get President Trump to answer one
• 1:33:28
  Speaker 1: question completely honestly, what would you ask? Something about the war,
• 1:33:31
  Speaker 1: his real feelings about J.D. Vance, why he trolls online
• 1:33:34
  Speaker 1: so often, or something else entirely. I'll hang up and listen. Max,
• 1:33:38
  Speaker 1: I'll tell you the question, and I'm still waiting for
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 1: somebody to ask this question. Why'd you choke on January 6th?
• 1:33:45
  Speaker 1: Why didn't you go through with it? Why didn't you
• 1:33:47
  Speaker 1: fire the attorney general? He had all the power in
• 1:33:51
  Speaker 1: the world to keep pushing, and he didn't. He choked.
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 1: He's never been asked that direct question. He chose not
• 1:34:01
  Speaker 1: to fire the acting attorney general and replace him with
• 1:34:05
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Clark. He backed down after the threat of wholesale
• 1:34:12
  Speaker 1: resignations in the Justice Department. If he was so convinced
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 1: he was right, why'd he choke? Why didn't he do it?
• 1:34:20
  Speaker 1: We've never heard his explanation. And you could see why
• 1:34:26
  Speaker 1: I want to ask it that way. Why'd you choke?
• 1:34:29
  Speaker 1: You didn't do it. You didn't go. Your people went.
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 1: You didn't. Why? I think sometimes, I will tell you
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 1: this about interviewing Trump. The best way to interview him
• 1:34:44
  Speaker 1: is to give him rope. It's not to try to
• 1:34:46
  Speaker 1: fact check him. I've made the mistake of playing fact checker.
• 1:34:51
  Speaker 1: And I've done the give him rope. And my best
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 1: interviews with him have been the ones where you hand
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 1: him more rope. So that's what I would do. I
• 1:35:03
  Speaker 1: have given, just so you know, anybody that has had
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 1: Trump as an interview and has asked me, I've said,
• 1:35:13
  Speaker 1: here's a question. It'll make a bunch of news. It's
• 1:35:16
  Speaker 1: amazing to me how many people I've given this question
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 1: to won't do it. but I'd love to see that
• 1:35:22
  Speaker 1: question asked. All right, last question for this episode from
• 1:35:28
  Speaker 1: Rhode Island's 1st Congressional District. Hey, Chuck, I continue to
• 1:35:33
  Speaker 1: loyally enjoy your perspectives since the MTP days, probably because
• 1:35:37
  Speaker 1: we're the same age with similar outlooks. Given the legal
• 1:35:39
  Speaker 1: protections available to presidents and the possibility of pardons for
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 1: administration officials, could a future Congress instead pursue financial penalties
• 1:35:47
  Speaker 1: or taxes aimed at money earned while serving in an
• 1:35:50
  Speaker 1: administration position? Could something like that realistically become part of
• 1:35:54
  Speaker 1: a future Democratic campaign platform? Cheers, Judd in Montreal, but
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 1: voting in Rhode Island's first congressional district. Judd, what a brilliant,
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 1: unique idea. Again, it goes to, do you try to
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 1: eradicate a practice or do you try to change incentive structures?
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 1: Whatever money, you get double taxed, you serve in Washington,
• 1:36:19
  Speaker 1: any money you earn is double taxed. That's an interesting idea. Essentially,
• 1:36:31
  Speaker 1: nobody's saying you can't earn money on the side, but
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 1: if you earn money with the government, then any outside
• 1:36:40
  Speaker 1: income is taxed at a 50% rate or something like that.
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 1: Because you know what that would mean. you would have
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 1: a bunch of people who would choose not to serve
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 1: rather than have to pay that extra tax on money
• 1:36:57
  Speaker 1: that they earn on that. I want to simmer on
• 1:37:04
  Speaker 1: this idea, but I think you're in the place that
• 1:37:07
  Speaker 1: I'd like to, where I think Congress needs to get
• 1:37:10
  Speaker 1: when it comes to this money issue and do essentially,
• 1:37:13
  Speaker 1: how do we stop the grift, right? How do we
• 1:37:16
  Speaker 1: stop the incentive for the grip? So can you create
• 1:37:20
  Speaker 1: incentives that just make it too expensive, right? Shame isn't
• 1:37:24
  Speaker 1: going to work. You hit people where it counts. Money
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 1: and freedom, right, would be prison terms and money. Well,
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 1: the money stuff's an interesting way to go. I say
• 1:37:38
  Speaker 1: I love this. I'm lingering on it because I hope
• 1:37:41
  Speaker 1: some of my friends who are in Congress who listen
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 1: ponder this idea. This is a fascinating idea. And one
• 1:37:52
  Speaker 1: I'd love to see my reform friends stew on and
• 1:37:56
  Speaker 1: think about. Hey, before I go, I need to give
• 1:38:02
  Speaker 1: a shout out to my Washington Nationals. I've been whiny
• 1:38:05
  Speaker 1: and moany about the fact that I thought all of
• 1:38:08
  Speaker 1: a sudden after what started off so promising that, you know,
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 1: what if we didn't have a better record than we
• 1:38:12
  Speaker 1: had the last two years? Well, the Nats have surpassed
• 1:38:16
  Speaker 1: 71 wins. We are We're gonna have fewer than 90 losses.
• 1:38:20
  Speaker 1: That's progress. It's gonna be the best record the Nats
• 1:38:23
  Speaker 1: have had since winning the World Series in 2019. And
• 1:38:28
  Speaker 1: now the question is, what's going to happen? What's going
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 1: to happen with the lockout? How badly is that going
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 1: to go? How united will the players stay? How emphatic
• 1:38:45
  Speaker 1: are the owners here about a salary cap? Does the
• 1:38:49
  Speaker 1: financial problems of the owner of the Dodgers change the
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 1: calculus of all this suddenly? That's something that I don't
• 1:38:58
  Speaker 1: know what the impact is, but whatever we've got in
• 1:39:01
  Speaker 1: store for the offseason, and I'm nervous about it. And
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 1: by the way, I'll have more to say about the
• 1:39:05
  Speaker 1: baseball playoffs, but I'm just going to give you a
• 1:39:06
  Speaker 1: hint now. It is the White Sox will be the
• 1:39:15
  Speaker 1: Chuck Todd cast team, but I'm afraid of saying it
• 1:39:17
  Speaker 1: too much out loud because It's not guaranteed that they're
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 1: going to get that either division or last wildcard spot,
• 1:39:22
  Speaker 1: but it's looking like they're going to be. But we
• 1:39:24
  Speaker 1: are going to be my mom's side of the family,
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 1: her brother, huge White Sox fan. They're all Southsiders. So
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 1: we will be, it'll be us and the Pope pulling
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 1: for the White Sox. And this will be the first
• 1:39:37
  Speaker 1: time the White Sox are in the playoffs with the
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 1: help of the Pope, right? This could, we don't know
• 1:39:42
  Speaker 1: what this is going to be for the chances of
• 1:39:45
  Speaker 1: the White Sox getting out of the, at least getting
• 1:39:47
  Speaker 1: out of the wildcard round, right? But, but who knows
• 1:39:52
  Speaker 1: what happens, but here's what I hope Nat's ownership thinks about,
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 1: which is let's go get some pitching. Let's actually invest
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 1: and let's try to make the playoffs next year. This,
• 1:40:04
  Speaker 1: you know, we weren't, it isn't that, we're not that
• 1:40:07
  Speaker 1: far from being a playoff team. Make the effort. You know,
• 1:40:12
  Speaker 1: don't make me go seven straight years of handing you
• 1:40:15
  Speaker 1: a bunch of money for for season tickets. And I've
• 1:40:19
  Speaker 1: already signed back up because you guys are real quick
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 1: to make sure you don't know when the deadline is.
• 1:40:26
  Speaker 1: But that's all right. I was always going to keep
• 1:40:28
  Speaker 1: my tickets this year. I feel like enough of an
• 1:40:32
  Speaker 1: effort was made. But please, either spend some money to
• 1:40:36
  Speaker 1: win or sell the team. That's all we fans are asking.
• 1:40:41
  Speaker 1: Do one or the other. But don't give us another
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 1: year where you won't spend money.
• 1:40:48
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 1:40:49
  Speaker 1: With that, I will see you in 24 hours for
• 1:40:51
  Speaker 1: the Thursday episode. In the meantime, thanks for liking. Thanks
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 1: for subscribing. And thanks for listening.