Latest / The Oath and The Office / Jack Smith Fights Back—and Why the Midterms Matter (with Rep. Ted Lieu)

Transcript

Jack Smith Fights Back—and Why the Midterms Matter (with Rep. Ted Lieu) · The Oath and The Office

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Today's episode is brought to you by Americans United for
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Separation of Church and State. Americans United has spent the
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: last 80 years defending your right to live as yourself
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: and believe as you choose.
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: As long as you don't harm others.
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: Most recently, this work has taken AU to the state
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: of Texas where they're defending the rights of freedom of
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: and from religion for more than a dozen families who
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: are fighting against the Ten Commandments being posted in their
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: children's classrooms. Learn more at au.org slash TENC.
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: That's au.org slash TENC.
• 0:52
  Speaker 3: Welcome to another episode of the Oath in the Office podcast.
• 0:55
  Speaker 3: I'm John Fugelsang, and I am so proud to welcome
• 0:58
  Speaker 3: the star of this show, the man, the myth, the Mac,
• 1:02
  Speaker 3: the only constitutional law professor to be kicked out of
• 1:05
  Speaker 3: Wu-Tang Clan for being too hardcore. People of Earth, I
• 1:07
  Speaker 3: give you the author of The Oath in the Office,
• 1:09
  Speaker 3: the star of our show, Professor Corey Brettschneider.
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: Hello, sir. Thanks, John.
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: If nothing else, I'm sure that this show about what's
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: happening in the news and thinking about the deeper legal
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: issues has the best introduction of And it never exists.
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: So I'm so happy to do it with you.
• 1:23
  Speaker 3: And I'm so happy to be here cheating off your
• 1:25
  Speaker 3: paper like I do every class, Corey, because today we
• 1:28
  Speaker 3: got to go deep on Jack Smith's fascinating testimony before
• 1:31
  Speaker 3: the House Judiciary Committee. And of course, control of the
• 1:34
  Speaker 3: House and Senate in this midterm could determine whether Congress
• 1:38
  Speaker 3: has any investigations, any subpoenas or any oversight over the
• 1:42
  Speaker 3: executive branch. And in Act 3, a very special guest,
• 1:46
  Speaker 3: one of our favorite members of Congress, Ted Lieu stops
• 1:48
  Speaker 3: by the podcast.
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: That's right.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: I mean, what really links everything that we're going to
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: talk about on this show is the importance of Congress,
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: because we have a Supreme Court that's abandoned its duty
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: to protect the Constitution. So where else is that going
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: to come from at this moment? Well, it's going to
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: come from the demand of the people, of citizens, but
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: it's going to really be enacted by what I hope
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: is a Congress that is finally devoted to holding this
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: president and his cronies and his cabinet to account. That's
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: not going to happen without at least a Democratic House
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: and hopefully a Democratic Senate. And one of the leaders
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: in thinking about not just how to win this election,
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: but what to do if Democrats do win this election
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: in the House, at least, and hopefully in the Senate,
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: is Representative Ted Lieu from California. And people are really
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: in for a treat in that interview because he doesn't just,
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: you know, talk talking points. One of the amazing things
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: about doing an independent podcast is we can go deep
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: on issues like impeachment, not just of the president, but
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: of Pete Hegseth and also on the kind of regulation
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: that we need that we would never get without this
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: Democratic Congress, especially of AI and what the real threats
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: are there of a biological weapon resulting in the extinction
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: of humanity, as we.
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: Heard from a former member of Anthropic. So it's quite
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: a show.
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't think you need to worry about that anymore, Professor,
• 3:13
  Speaker 3: because I think we talked about this. You know, in
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: nuclear power, we have the NRC to regulate and make sure.
• 3:20
  Speaker 3: And then airlines have the FAA. Drugs have the FDA, right?
• 3:24
  Speaker 3: Food has the USDA. Financial markets have the SEC. Workplace safety,
• 3:28
  Speaker 3: we got OSHA. But artificial intelligence? we are going to
• 3:32
  Speaker 3: trust the consciences of Silicon Valley billionaires to regulate themselves.
• 3:37
  Speaker 3: Don't you feel safer, Professor, knowing that that's the hand
• 3:40
  Speaker 3: of the state? I mean, historically speaking, that's kind of
• 3:43
  Speaker 3: a bold bet, right?
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: Well, I got to say, you know, one of the
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: things we'll talk to Ted Lieu about is the idea
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: of the need for a kill switch. And that's really,
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: I should say, too, he's the perfect person to talk
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: to because he has a degree from Stanford, not just
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: in political science, but also in computer science. And his
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: bill is really a leader in thinking about how to
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: regulate and talking about the need to have the basic
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: ability to turn off AI, to have a kill switch.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: And the real danger, just to lay it out too
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: in teasing that interview, we have talked about it before,
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: but it's not necessarily that somebody's going to use AI
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: to create a nuclear weapon, but certainly that they might
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: use it to create a biological weapon. And self-regulation, there's
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: no way that's going to work because... It might come
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: from one of the open source AIs, for instance, even
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: if it doesn't come from anthropic or open AI. So
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: this race, this congressional race, we'll get into the nitty
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: gritty of it. It's so important on so many dimensions
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: in avoiding the kind of travesty that we saw in
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: this attempt to convince Jack Smith to commit perjury and
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: the failure to regulate in such essential areas that are
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: literally life and death like And that's going to require
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: us also talking some politics today about what these races
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: look like.
• 5:02
  Speaker 3: I'm excited to talk politics with you today, Corey. It's
• 5:04
  Speaker 3: like you're on my show. Well, Jack Smith appeared before
• 5:07
  Speaker 3: the Senate Judiciary Committee, presumably because Chuck Grassley, who is
• 5:11
  Speaker 3: 173 years old, thought that would be a good idea.
• 5:16
  Speaker 3: Let's go back to the well. Remember when Rand Paul
• 5:18
  Speaker 3: beat up on Fauci for a day a few months ago?
• 5:20
  Speaker 3: We don't have anything to brag about. We're the least
• 5:22
  Speaker 3: productive Congress in history and everyone hates our president. Let's
• 5:25
  Speaker 3: give them another villain they should hate for the Fox
• 5:27
  Speaker 3: News folks. So that was the setting. We know going
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: into this that these Republican senators were nothing but content creators.
• 5:33
  Speaker 3: They were just trying to get gotcha soundbites that could
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: air on Fox and OAN and Newsmax that night. And
• 5:41
  Speaker 3: so Jack Smith sits down and faces these Republican accusations
• 5:45
  Speaker 3: that His investigations of Trump were politically motivated. It was
• 5:48
  Speaker 3: an abuse of prosecutorial power. And it was remarkable, Professor,
• 5:51
  Speaker 3: rather than back away from his decisions, Smith defended them,
• 5:55
  Speaker 3: said he would not be intimidated by any threats of prosecution.
• 5:59
  Speaker 3: And what struck you the most when you saw his testimony?
• 6:02
  Speaker 3: I really can't believe how short-sighted the Republicans on this
• 6:05
  Speaker 3: committee was to think that somehow putting this guy under
• 6:08
  Speaker 3: oath in front of TV cameras was going to be
• 6:10
  Speaker 3: good for them.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Well, you know, he really learned the lesson that we
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: didn't get in the Mueller testimony, for instance, when the
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: Mueller report came out, where Mueller was so cagey and
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: not really wanting to say what that report clearly did say,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: which was that Donald Trump was guilty of 10 instances
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: of obstruction of justice. And there was a technical reason
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: why he couldn't be indicted, which was the Department of
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: Justice policy against it.
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: But the way he did it, and maybe it was
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: his age.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: We talked to Glenn Kirshner about this, and he thought
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: that might have been part of what was going on.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: But the bottom line was you just got this totally incoherent,
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: frankly boring testimony from Mueller that didn't tell us the
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: truth of what's going on. You didn't get that at
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: all from Jack Smith. He really learned the lesson, which
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: is you have to communicate directly and clearly. And when
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: he said, I would do it again in essentially a
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: heartbeat if a former president committed these crimes. And there
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why he indicted
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: him in the January 6th insurrection trial. And also in
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: the documents case, a violation of the Espionage Act. So
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: what struck me was they were playing gotcha. And we'll
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: talk about that with the hawks and all these attempts
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: of trying to rub them into perjury. But the bottom
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: line is he used the forum so perfectly in order
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: to say what needed to be said, which was there
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: was an attempted insurrection. The president was criminally a part
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: of it and criminally guilty. And the president also stole
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: these documents and refused to give them back in violation
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: of the Espionage Act, putting American security at risk. And,
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: you know, to say that clearly with force and with
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: no hesitation to refuse to apologize, that was great.
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: He handled, too, a lot of the gotcha questions.
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: Including, you know, why was it that you were just
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: looking into Republican senators when it came to the insurrection?
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: And his answer was, well, if there were Democrats involved
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: in the insurrection, we would have looked at them too.
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: But there weren't.
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: And that kind of blunt talk is just what we needed.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: So it was an important moment for American democracy.
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: Yeah, he really seemed to understand that these senators did
• 8:15
  Speaker 3: not care at all about prosecutorial misconduct. These are Todd
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: Blanch cheerleaders. He knew they were coming just to hurt him,
• 8:22
  Speaker 3: to make him a villain, to try to aggrandize Trump,
• 8:24
  Speaker 3: who they can't otherwise defend. And it was remarkable. I mean,
• 8:28
  Speaker 3: he essentially said, I investigated Trump because the evidence warranted that.
• 8:32
  Speaker 3: And I would make the same decision again. He was
• 8:34
  Speaker 3: very comfortable presenting evidence to the American people on camera. Remember,
• 8:39
  Speaker 3: for years... They kept trying to have him only testify
• 8:41
  Speaker 3: behind closed doors. But this was a dumb move on
• 8:45
  Speaker 3: their part. Corey, they accused Smith of weaponizing the Justice
• 8:49
  Speaker 3: Department against Trump. What would someone actually have to prove
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: to establish that a federal prosecution was politically motivated? I
• 8:58
  Speaker 3: don't think his wife's beliefs have anything to do with that.
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: Well, I guess what they were trying to say is
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: that this was somehow, well, it wasn't just a selective prosecution.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: What that would require would be a comparison, that there
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: were instances of somebody committing a crime that was not
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: prosecuted and somebody else committing it who was.
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: And so there is, you know, a real argument that's.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Going on among scholars and among lawyers about whether or
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: not the prosecution in New York was a selective prosecution.
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: I don't think it was. It's the falsification of business records.
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: But January 6th, that's.
• 9:35
  Speaker 3: Somehow a selective prosecution.
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: I don't think so.
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: There's never been another president that has engaged in that
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: kind of malfeasance, except there's one exception, which is John Adams. And,
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: you know, the idea that you would charge the current
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: Department of Justice for not prosecuting John Adams. And I
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: talk about that in my book, his attempt to really
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: use a similar technique to steal the election.
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: He was caught much earlier. There was no voting.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: So even that isn't comparable. But really what they were
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: trying to say is that it was manufactured weaponization of
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: the Department of Justice and that there was no case there.
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: Well, look at the evidence. That's Jack Smith's response.
• 10:13
  Speaker 3: No, they're not going to do that. They're not going
• 10:14
  Speaker 3: to look at the evidence. No, they're going to call
• 10:16
  Speaker 3: you woke and they're going to have their Fox News
• 10:18
  Speaker 3: law fair talking points. And it was so amazing the
• 10:21
  Speaker 3: level of stupidity they rely on in the American people.
• 10:25
  Speaker 3: And I know plenty will give it to him. But
• 10:26
  Speaker 3: like this whole episode, Trump is now president. Those federal
• 10:31
  Speaker 3: cases were dismissed. Smith is now the former prosecutor. Diesel
• 10:36
  Speaker 3: is almost seven dollars a gallon. And they're calling hearings
• 10:40
  Speaker 3: in D.C. to argue whether the original discarded prosecutions were legitimate.
• 10:46
  Speaker 3: The entire thing, the entire thing was ridiculous. Corey, what
• 10:50
  Speaker 3: questions should these Republicans have asked if their goal really
• 10:53
  Speaker 3: was to determine whether Smith abused prosecutorial power? Because all
• 10:57
  Speaker 3: they wanted to do, and we know it for a fact,
• 11:00
  Speaker 3: they wanted to get their soundbite of beating up on
• 11:02
  Speaker 3: this week's whipping boy.
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: Well, you know, they would have needed some sort of
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: actual evidence that he was engaged.
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: In prosecutorial misconduct. And I think, frankly, the.
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: Reason why you saw such ridiculous questions was that there
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: is no evidence because that's not what was going on.
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: This was really a straight up prosecutor who looked at
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: these two cases, which to my mind were calling out
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: for prosecution and did what the law required. And I
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: believe him when he says he would have done it
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: if it was a Republican or a Democratic prosecutor. Now,
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: what they were trying to allege And Senator Eric Schmidt
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: from Missouri was the sort of poster boy for this
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: totally ridiculous, I mean, historically bad attempt to claim that
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: somehow he was engaged in a conspiracy with the district
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: attorney in Georgia to bring down the president of the
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: United States. And then that's what led him into this
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: absurd moment of accusing him of being in Georgia at
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: a point in which he wasn't, which I'll let you
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: fill in the details, but involved a total mix-up of
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: the name of basketball teams, the Hawks and Hawkeyes.
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know. You want to explain that?
• 12:11
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I think everybody listening, if they listen
• 12:13
  Speaker 3: to this podcast, they probably know what happened with Senator
• 12:16
  Speaker 3: Eric Schmidt. But it is fascinating because if it wasn't
• 12:19
  Speaker 3: for that epic cock-up, nobody might have heard of this testimony.
• 12:24
  Speaker 3: It would have just come and gone really quick. And,
• 12:26
  Speaker 3: you know, your grandma watching Fox drooling on the clicker
• 12:29
  Speaker 3: would have seen, you know, a clip of it, and
• 12:31
  Speaker 3: that would have been it. It would have been forgotten.
• 12:32
  Speaker 3: But now... Yeah, it's huge news because he was so determined.
• 12:37
  Speaker 3: They're so determined and led by hate to just hurt
• 12:41
  Speaker 3: the other side that you get sloppy, you get messy.
• 12:43
  Speaker 3: And it's a very good lesson for liberals who want
• 12:46
  Speaker 3: to go out and debate as well. But I found
• 12:48
  Speaker 3: it fascinating. All the folks on the left who came
• 12:50
  Speaker 3: out and said, Eric Schmidt destroyed his career. Did you
• 12:53
  Speaker 3: see what happened? What a humiliation. That guy set his
• 12:55
  Speaker 3: career on fire. Corey. Senator Eric Schmidt didn't destroy his
• 12:59
  Speaker 3: career at all. I mean, these folks seem to think
• 13:01
  Speaker 3: the modern base is offended by lies and stupidity and incompetency.
• 13:06
  Speaker 3: They don't care that he lied. They don't care that
• 13:09
  Speaker 3: it blew up in his face. He hates who they hate.
• 13:12
  Speaker 3: That's enough. If people cared about truth or law, they
• 13:15
  Speaker 3: wouldn't be rooting. for the Republicans against this law enforcement
• 13:20
  Speaker 3: official who sat there and talked about how they fired
• 13:24
  Speaker 3: career FBI agents for committing the crime of following the
• 13:28
  Speaker 3: law and punishing wrongdoers on January 6th. I mean, by definition,
• 13:32
  Speaker 3: wasn't this an anti-constitutional inquisition?
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: Absolutely. I mean, it was an attempt.
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: First of all, I should say, shout out to Amy Klobuchar.
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: Senator Klobuchar caught the the discrepancy in real time between
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: Hawkeyes and Hawks and knew her sports teams enough to
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: call out Eric Schmidt. And I think your point, just
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: to pick up on it, which is that, you know,
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: he was embarrassed clearly in the moment. I mean, when you're,
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: you know, have a poster and a line of questioning,
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: this is a former prosecutor who's bragging that you've got
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: your gotcha moment and it rests on a confusion of
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: two sports teams.
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: I mean, it was embarrassing.
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: And watching it, I felt like you could see the
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: embarrassment on his face. But after the fact, you know,
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: he backtracked so quickly.
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: What?
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: I just asked him a question about whether or not
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: he attended a sports, you know, sports event.
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: And what's the big deal? He just denied it.
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: And the only universe in which you can do that
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: is one in which there are two factual universes, one
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: in which there was an insurrection that a president, you know, we.
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: Watched in real time.
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: Encouraged telling people to go down to the Capitol to
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: block the certification of the election against him to stay
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: in power beyond a reasonable doubt. As we heard the
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: other Jack Smith case, the documents case, essentially stealing of
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: documents and threatening national security by keeping them in a
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: bathroom in Mar-a-Lago. That's the universe we live in, the
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: universe that Eric Schmidt lives in. is one in which,
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: you know, you can just in real time embarrass the
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: hell out of yourself and then claim you weren't embarrassed
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: at all.
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: It was just a normal question and he answered it.
• 15:09
  Speaker 3: Here's the question that kept me up at night after
• 15:11
  Speaker 3: watching this. I don't think Jack Smith is afraid, but
• 15:15
  Speaker 3: let's say you're a federal prosecutor in the year 2027
• 15:19
  Speaker 3: or 2028, right? And you have evidence that a politically
• 15:22
  Speaker 3: powerful person may have committed a serious federal crime, but
• 15:25
  Speaker 3: now you also know If the political winds change, you
• 15:30
  Speaker 3: could personally become the subject of a criminal investigation. I mean,
• 15:34
  Speaker 3: these guys went after the terrorists who beat cops on
• 15:38
  Speaker 3: the Capitol steps to steal our election. And the law
• 15:41
  Speaker 3: enforcement was fired for going after them. So doesn't this
• 15:44
  Speaker 3: change prosecutorial independence? I mean, this could cause a lot
• 15:49
  Speaker 3: of prosecutors to keep their morality in check.
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: You know, I think there are members of the Department
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: of Justice who are still there, who are trying their
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: best to hang on and who are hoping, you know,
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: that we've had a bad moment, but things are going
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: to pick up.
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: And return to normal.
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: And what your question really points to is the fact
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: that when it comes to the Department of Justice, it's
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: much easier to destroy it than it's going to be
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: to build it back. Because, yes, prosecutors are going to
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: worry about bringing charges against powerful people in the future.
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: Less that they find themselves.
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: Targeted by an investigation in the same way that Letitia
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: James was targeted and James Comey. Now we've seen Jack Smith,
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: you know, essentially they're looking for anything that they can
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: do to charge him criminally with perjury.
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: That's what they were trying to do.
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: That's what all this ridiculousness about Hawkeyes and Hawks was about,
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: was trying to catch him up in a lie that
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: they could then prosecute. And I should say too, Senator Schmidt,
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: said point blank, you've committed, you know, I think you've
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: committed perjury. And based on nothing, that shows how desperate
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: they were not to get at any kind of facts
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: or ask any kind of questions, but to prosecute them. And,
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: you know, what I think what Jack Smith shows is
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: it takes a certain amount of courage to do the
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: right thing in these jobs. And, you know, what's worrying
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: is that is there a chilling effect in the future
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: when it comes to prosecuting people?
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: Yes, because they'll think about retaliation.
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: Now, that's why it's so important as much as I
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: want to see the law enforced in the future when
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: the Democratic Party takes the House, takes the Senate, takes
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: the presidency, hopefully in a couple of years, that although
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: the law needs to be enforced and if there's legal
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: violations by any of the current members of the administration,
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: they absolutely need to be prosecuted. But that has to
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: be done carefully and different than anything like retaliation.
• 17:36
  Speaker 3: Well, so let me ask you about this then. And
• 17:38
  Speaker 3: I know we have to get through a break, but
• 17:40
  Speaker 3: what really made them angry, or at least what their
• 17:42
  Speaker 3: performative anger was about, and it's actually hilarious, that Smith
• 17:46
  Speaker 3: was accused of collecting the phone records from senators and
• 17:49
  Speaker 3: communications involving journalists and political figures. Now, I mean, it's
• 17:53
  Speaker 3: pretty much open and shut, right? Like, it's like, yeah,
• 17:56
  Speaker 3: we're investigating the president who was committing many crimes that day.
• 17:59
  Speaker 3: We don't know, we didn't investigate anyone. We got the
• 18:02
  Speaker 3: phone numbers he was talking to, and we investigated who
• 18:05
  Speaker 3: those calls were. I mean... He's saying the subpoenas involving
• 18:09
  Speaker 3: the lawmakers were connected to evidence that Trump's circle was
• 18:13
  Speaker 3: trying to influence senators on that day. What is the
• 18:17
  Speaker 3: constitutional balance between congressional privilege and a legitimate criminal investigation?
• 18:22
  Speaker 3: These Republicans are just, they're clutching their pearls theatrically, right?
• 18:25
  Speaker 3: They don't really have a grievance here.
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they were trying to pretend essentially that the Republican
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: members of Congress who were involved in the insurrection were
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: in some ways having their rights violated. There is a
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: speech and debate clause of the United States Constitution that protects,
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: for instance, the right of free speech to senators to
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: say what they want in the halls of Congress. And
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: of course, there is a First Amendment right to have
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: your beliefs and to say all sorts of things, but
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: that doesn't extend any more for senators than it does
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: for ordinary citizens. to the right to engage in a
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: conspiracy to overturn an election. And to the extent that
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: the criminal case against the president involved communication with senators
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: about that topic. And after all, it's the Congress that's
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: certifying the electoral votes. That was part of the plot
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: to stop that process from happening.
• 19:17
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: So that the vote would be thrown under the Constitution.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: This is a slightly complicated process, but I'll explain it quickly.
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: If they didn't get to the threshold of electoral votes,
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: it goes to a special session of Congress where each
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: state gets one vote. And what Donald Trump and John Eastman,
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: his lawyer who was advising him on this coup plot,
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: had calculated is that they had the votes to win
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: in that special session of Congress if they could get
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: to it. So did you need to look at communication
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: between the president and members of Congress?
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: Yes, of course. That was a huge part. of what's
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: going on.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: And when he was asked about it, and I referenced
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: this earlier in the conversation, he said, you know, I
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: looked at anybody who was involved in the criminal conspiracy.
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: And if there was a Democratic member of Congress, which
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: I guess, you know.
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: It's not what happened. But if there was, then yeah,
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: I would have looked at them too.
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: And the idea that they were trying to use this
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: sliver of evidence that it was only Republicans who were
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: being looked into, that plays to the, again, that theme
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: of the Fox News audience. But that's not what a
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: criminal investigator does. They look at the crime and the
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: facts that support the evidence that a crime was committed.
• 20:27
  Speaker 3: But that's the big thing. I mean, because I think
• 20:29
  Speaker 3: we're going to talk about the midterms after the break.
• 20:31
  Speaker 3: But to me, one of the big consequences of this
• 20:33
  Speaker 3: is that this election is not just about immigration or
• 20:36
  Speaker 3: health care or the economy. It's about who investigates the
• 20:39
  Speaker 3: executive branch. So, I mean, could a change in the
• 20:43
  Speaker 3: House or Senate control lead to investigations into this administration
• 20:46
  Speaker 3: that would not happen under Republican control? That's what this
• 20:49
  Speaker 3: is about.
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: I think that's why this election is so important and
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: what ties all the things that we're going to talk
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: about today together. that what the election of the president
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: and his party was about was taking the executive branch
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: and opening it up to the purest form of crime
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: and corruption possible.
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: And part of that was.
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: That there is technically a way to bring these cases back,
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: the January 6th case and the documents case, but for
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: all intents and purposes, it's dead.
• 21:19
  Speaker 2: And that was part of it. And it was also
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: about cutting off any.
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: Oversight because what this Congress's duty is, is to look
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: at constitutional violations when it comes to war, when it
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: comes to the more than $ 2 billion in corruption that
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: this president's been engaged in and provide oversight.
• 21:34
  Speaker 2: And this Congress has done anything but.
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: And if Democrats can win at least one house, hopefully two,
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: then that oversight becomes a real reality.
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: And that scares the hell out of the president and
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: his party.
• 21:45
  Speaker 3: And let's take a quick break because I am so
• 21:47
  Speaker 3: excited to actually talk about the politics of the midterms
• 21:49
  Speaker 3: with you, Professor, in several states, because they all impact us,
• 21:53
  Speaker 3: don't they? So don't go anywhere. Quick break. Back in
• 21:55
  Speaker 3: a moment with The Oath in the Office.
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: As students return to Texas public schools this fall, classrooms
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: across the state will feature a new poster, the Ten Commandments.
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: How did we get here?
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: Texas passed a law requiring public schools to display the
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: Ten Commandments in every classroom, specifying a Protestant Christian version
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: that must be displayed. Americans United, our sponsor, and their
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: allies are challenging this law in court because it violates
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: religious freedom and the constitutional rights of students and families.
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: The appeals court downplayed the importance of these displays, saying
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: they just, quote, put a poster on a classroom wall,
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: end quote. But forcing government-mandated religious displays into our public
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: school classrooms and taking away families' freedom to choose their
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: own religion and belief systems is a very big deal.
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: And AU is here to protect everyone's First Amendment freedom,
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: everyone's right to the freedom of and from religion. Learn
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: more and get involved at au.org slash T-E-N-C. that freedom
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: without favor and equality without exception should be the understanding
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: of the First Amendment.
• 23:23
  Speaker 3: Welcome back to The Oath in the Office. I'm John Fugelsang,
• 23:25
  Speaker 3: along with Professor Corey Bretschneider. Corey, we're going to talk
• 23:28
  Speaker 3: about five Senate races that are pretty interesting in Texas, Ohio,
• 23:32
  Speaker 3: North Carolina, Maine, and Alaska. Some of these are states
• 23:35
  Speaker 3: that Democrats were not supposed to seriously be competitive in.
• 23:39
  Speaker 3: And now they're incredibly competitive, although Republicans still do have
• 23:42
  Speaker 3: a lot of structural and financial advantages here. And we
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: don't know how much we can trust the polling, but
• 23:48
  Speaker 3: we know that Republicans are shifting substantial resources into states
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: like Texas and Ohio and Alaska. They're pulling out of
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: North Carolina. Roy Cooper has strengthened his position there. So
• 24:00
  Speaker 3: Washington Post analysis says Democrats need only a small net gain. Gerrymandering,
• 24:04
  Speaker 3: of course, is going to do what it does. What
• 24:07
  Speaker 3: do you think? I mean, is the House as in
• 24:09
  Speaker 3: play as everyone seems to think it is?
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: Well, the way I see it is what's and this
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: is encouraging. And, you know, it's partly the polling and
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: it's partly where resources are being spent.
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: And as you say, we look at we look at
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: all the factors.
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: But, yeah, I feel strongly that despite the gerrymandering, which
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: is a form of cheating. that Democrats will take the
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: House of Representatives, which of course is, you know, the
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: seats were apportioned proportionally, but the states have engaged in
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: massive amounts of redrawing those boundaries. And even with that,
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: I think that it's still going to be the case
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: that we'll get a House victory for the Democratic Party.
• 24:45
  Speaker 2: And, you know, there's an analogy here, I think, of
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: what happened in Hungary.
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: Viktor Orban, the essentially dictator of Hungary, had engaged in
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: unbelievable amounts of gerrymandering and still In that election, his
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: party lost.
• 24:59
  Speaker 2: And what was it? I think the analogy really is strong.
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: I mean, there were a lot of reasons, but I
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: think the main reason was that there was a focus
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: on Orban's, not just his authoritarianism, but tying it to
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: his corruption. And that's one of the things I think
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: is really going to resonate with people here, especially as these.
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: Candidates begin to. And I hope to see more of it.
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: Connect the corruption to the fact that our economy is failing.
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah, of course.
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: The corruption, too, of a president who has usurped the
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: congressional power to declare war and is spending our money
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: and causing inflation through a war that nobody wants. So
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: all of that suggests, at least in the House, that, yeah,
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: there was massive gerrymandering, but there's going to be an advantage.
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: But the shocking thing to me, and surprisingly, in a
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: great way, because it suggests not just some pushback, but
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: the ability of both houses together to pull back. And
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: just to skip ahead, you know, I'm going to ask
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: Ted Lieu about impeachment. You need 50% of the House,
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: but two-thirds of the Senate. And without a majority of
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: Democrats in the Senate, the removal part of the impeachment
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: process becomes the Senate part. The Senate trial becomes very unlikely.
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: But in all these races that you already alluded to,
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: it looks like the Democratic Party has a very good
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: chance of taking the Senate as well.
• 26:20
  Speaker 3: Let's talk about it, because I'm not so comforted by
• 26:23
  Speaker 3: the Hungary vote. That was, I mean, the liberals, the moderates,
• 26:26
  Speaker 3: and the conservatives all got behind a very conservative guy
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: to get a very corrupt right-wing guy out. I'd like
• 26:31
  Speaker 3: to believe that could happen here, but the Senate is
• 26:34
  Speaker 3: much more complicated than the House. Republicans have a 53-47 majority.
• 26:38
  Speaker 3: No one six months ago thought the Democrats would have
• 26:41
  Speaker 3: any chance of doing this. And yet, so many states
• 26:45
  Speaker 3: are now in play. So let me start with Texas.
• 26:48
  Speaker 3: Maybe the most amazing of the five, because we're talking
• 26:50
  Speaker 3: about a state Democrats have struggled to win statewide for decades.
• 26:54
  Speaker 3: But you've got James Tallarico, who's sort of like a
• 26:57
  Speaker 3: 16 year old choir boy living in the body of
• 27:01
  Speaker 3: a 94 year old disappointed Presbyterian librarian. And this guy
• 27:05
  Speaker 3: is doing what they always say. He's actually quoting Jesus directly.
• 27:09
  Speaker 3: And there's nothing that offends Christian nationalists more. The polling
• 27:13
  Speaker 3: is insane. What we're seeing right now in Texas. But
• 27:16
  Speaker 3: I mean, if Democrats are forcing Republicans to spend so
• 27:19
  Speaker 3: heavily in Texas, even if Tallarico doesn't win, that still
• 27:23
  Speaker 3: helps the Democratic Party elsewhere, right?
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: Absolutely.
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: You know, it takes resources away from other races because
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: in a normal universe, Texas wouldn't be a solid red
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: state and.
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: It's anything but.
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: In fact, Tallarico looks like he's leading in a lot
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: of the polling. And, you know, let me say something, too,
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: that you already referenced. I mean, in many ways, he's
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: the John Fuglesang candidate of the moment because his ability
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: to combine talking about the message of Christianity and Jesus
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: and using it against the kind of fake fundamentalism of
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: fake Christianity, I think that's really been effective. And, you know,
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: there doesn't have to be one message of the Democratic Party.
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: I know that some disagree with me.
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: They want to see every candidate, you know, speak the
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: way maybe candidates do in New York, but he doesn't
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: buy into that. And this is showing that it's working
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: because this election, and, you know, maybe there is an
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: analogy with Orban that, that Tallarico is going to seem
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: to some members of the democratic party, you know, to
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: speak in a way and to have positions that don't
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: resonate with them.
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: Well, we need a coalition. That's how you win an election.
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: That's how you get.
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: Impeachment of people committing high crimes and misdemeanors like Pete
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: Hegseth with his attacks on What he says are drug boats,
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: but likely are migrants who are being illegally targeted. That
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: kind of criminality needs a response. And Telerico, I think,
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: is helping to show that the Democratic Party, you know,
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: is taking on, this is not true of the Republican Party,
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: a brand of not just anti-corruption, but anti-authoritarianism, anti-tyranny. And
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: that vocabulary, it's going to sound different. It's one of
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: the most encouraging things about the moment.
• 29:01
  Speaker 2: We can't miss out, too, on his opponent, Paxton, who
• 29:04
  Speaker 2: is just.
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: An epitome of Trumpism, but also an embarrassment to Trump.
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: Trump makes fun of him a lot.
• 29:12
  Speaker 3: Which I appreciate. He berates him. I mean, cruelly, it
• 29:15
  Speaker 3: takes a lot for me to feel sorry for Ken
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: Paxton for it. And again, they could have had John Cornyn.
• 29:19
  Speaker 3: They could have had boring, reliable John Cornyn, who's a
• 29:22
  Speaker 3: much better fundraiser. And this thing would be over. But
• 29:26
  Speaker 3: they're too racist. They hate women too much. They're too crazy.
• 29:29
  Speaker 3: So they went with Ken Paxton, who was bleeding votes
• 29:32
  Speaker 3: for them all over the place. And I think I
• 29:33
  Speaker 3: said it on our show last week, but can you
• 29:35
  Speaker 3: imagine showing up to vote for Ken Paxton in a
• 29:37
  Speaker 3: primary and a runoff and a general? How much? do
• 29:40
  Speaker 3: you have to hate women to get in your car
• 29:41
  Speaker 3: and drive to vote three times in one year for
• 29:44
  Speaker 3: Ken Paxton? And the polls show it. I mean, they've
• 29:48
  Speaker 3: done it.
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: You know, it's part of why I would call the
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: subtle invoking of Christianity by Tallarico works so well, because
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: his opponent is so craven. And any claim that he
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: has to appeal to Any religious.
• 30:01
  Speaker 2: Person is absurd.
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: I mean, this is somebody who really has his personal
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: life in shambles.
• 30:07
  Speaker 2: You know, he's impeached by his own party.
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: And so, you know, sometimes, you know, it's about the
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: strength of a candidate. But it's also when they go
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: against a weak candidate like that, I think things are
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: looking pretty good.
• 30:19
  Speaker 3: So let me ask you about Ohio, because, look, I'm
• 30:22
  Speaker 3: a fan of Vivek Ramaswamy because I like comedy. You know,
• 30:25
  Speaker 3: I'm like for me. He's like if, I don't know,
• 30:29
  Speaker 3: let's say if Eddie Haskell from Lever to Beaver stayed
• 30:32
  Speaker 3: up doing coke all night in a basement with James Woods.
• 30:35
  Speaker 3: That's Vivek Ramaswamy. But in the Senate race, we've got
• 30:38
  Speaker 3: former Senator Jared Brown, who's done my show, and he's
• 30:40
  Speaker 3: trying to return to the Senate against Republican John Hosted. Again,
• 30:43
  Speaker 3: this one's also neck and neck. I mean, but that's
• 30:46
  Speaker 3: a very different Ohio professor from the state that elected
• 30:49
  Speaker 3: Donald Trump by large margins. Is this really a referendum
• 30:53
  Speaker 3: on Trump and the Republican Party? Or do you think
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: Brown is benefiting because he's a familiar figure who won
• 30:58
  Speaker 3: statewide office before?
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: I think it's that.
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: I also think that, you know, states like Ohio have
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: a current in them that is much more anti-Republican.
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: And traditionally Democratic. And the more we.
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: Emphasize the tide, I mean, this is a good example
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: of where this isn't exactly the dynamic in Texas, but
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: I think it is in Ohio. The more that we
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: emphasize the tie between Trump's corruption and and inflation, and
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: the danger of the economy. And when you talk about
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: AI and the jobs, you know, that are going to
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: be lost from it if there isn't sensible regulation, all
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: of these things, I think, are going to resonate with
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: Ohio voters. And yes, when you have somebody who, you know,
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: there's no issue of name recognition, this is a tested candidate,
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: and that certainly helps. Yeah.
• 31:42
  Speaker 3: So let me ask you then about North Carolina, because
• 31:45
  Speaker 3: this might be the most dramatic race of all of these.
• 31:47
  Speaker 3: Former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper running against Republican Michael Watley.
• 31:51
  Speaker 3: Cooper has significant leads. A recent one showed him 51%
• 31:54
  Speaker 3: to 39%, and now the GOP-aligned groups, Professor, are pulling
• 31:58
  Speaker 3: money out of North Carolina. What does that tell you?
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: Well, I mean, if it was a race that was winnable,
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: you'd see them pouring money in, but they might be
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: thinking to themselves, you know, and they have internal polling
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: that's showing this, and they're making decisions about their own resources, which,
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: although they're vast, are Also.
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: You know, not unlimited.
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: And wow, maybe that suggests that North Carolina is more
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: blue and purple.
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: Slash blue than we realized.
• 32:28
  Speaker 3: It's always been purple, yeah.
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: And, you know, I think that's certainly going to help us.
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: We're a long way from the days of Jesse Helms,
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: you know, winning elections. And I think there too, the
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: sort of, you know, my wife's, you know, from Chapel
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: Hill has spent a lot of time in North Carolina
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: and And when you think about the research triangle, when
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: you think about Black Mountain and Asheville, these are strongly
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: progressive areas. And then if you can combine the strength
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: in those areas with a message that resonates throughout the state, again,
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: and I think also about the economy.
• 33:03
  Speaker 2: Is so crucial here. It looks like it's not just winnable,
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: but a very good chance. Yeah.
• 33:08
  Speaker 3: Great audiences, too, for comedy in South North Carolina. And
• 33:12
  Speaker 3: it is a pleasure watching these Republicans redistribute their own
• 33:15
  Speaker 3: wealth like this. But I got to ask you about Maine,
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: which is fascinating because Susan Collins for years has had
• 33:22
  Speaker 3: this ability. I mean, she's already got magical powers every
• 33:25
  Speaker 3: every six years. She somehow magically transforms into a moderate.
• 33:28
  Speaker 3: It's weird. But she really has shown an ability to
• 33:31
  Speaker 3: outperform the Republican Party's national numbers time and time again,
• 33:34
  Speaker 3: even when they do badly. She sails through. But now
• 33:38
  Speaker 3: she's facing Troy Jackson, and the race is tied in
• 33:41
  Speaker 3: the most recent poll. And of course, there is her
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: personal life, and there's all that kind of stuff. But,
• 33:46
  Speaker 3: I mean, a month ago, people were saying that this
• 33:47
  Speaker 3: race was written off because of Graham Platner. Now everybody's saying,
• 33:51
  Speaker 3: you know, Graham who? And what's really remarkable is that
• 33:54
  Speaker 3: Susan Collins right now is finally– apparently having a reckoning
• 33:59
  Speaker 3: over her vote for Brett Kavanaugh. And he assured me
• 34:02
  Speaker 3: that he'd protect Roe v.
• 34:03
  Speaker 4: Wade.
• 34:04
  Speaker 3: I mean, it seems like a Supreme Court vacancy could
• 34:06
  Speaker 3: become a really important issue in this race.
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: You know, I think that Mainers have had enough that
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: they realize that they've been duped. The way that she
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: did that Brett Kavanaugh maneuver, I think, was particularly gross,
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: is how I'd put it. Because She lied to them.
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh, we knew what he was doing. When he
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: was asked about Roe v. Wade, he would say things like,
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: and listen to how I frame it, we know, Senator,
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: that Roe v. Wade is a precedent of the Supreme Court.
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: He would give factual explanations of what the court had
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: said before. And she somehow was willing to say, I
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: can't believe she believed it, that this was a promise
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: that he would uphold Roe v.
• 34:46
  Speaker 2: Wade. And he never even said that.
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: He just framed these words in a way that allowed her,
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: and he knew that he was playing to Trump, but
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: especially in the disgusting response to the credible accusations of
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: his sexual assault. But the way that he responded to
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: was playing to her by giving her this language that
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: she could then use to go back to her state
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: and say, oh, well, he promised me. And I feel
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: betrayed when the court, including Brett Kavanaugh, directly overturned Roe
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: versus Wade. Well, I don't think she believed it, and
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: I don't think Mainers believe it. There was an amazing
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: article by Jodi Kantor, who was on our podcast, A
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: Piece of Journalism, where she went out to the island
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: where Justice Roberts is spending time. And even on this
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: remote island in Maine, people are sick of it. And
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: they really see what this Supreme Court has done to
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: our rights. So her complicity. And she is responsible directly
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: for so much of what's happened, not just with Roe
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: versus Wade, but with the shadow docket. I'll remind listeners too,
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: and John, that I wrote a piece called Kavanaugh's Dangerous
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: Idea of Executive Power for Politico that really warned this guy,
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: everything in his history, he had been involved in Bush
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: versus Gore.
• 36:00
  Speaker 3: He was operative.
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: He was not somebody that was you know, in any
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: way neutral and that he was going to be complicit
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: in this takeover.
• 36:08
  Speaker 3: He was a Karl Rove toady. He was a Karl
• 36:11
  Speaker 3: Rove toady who helped shut down the 2000 recount in Florida.
• 36:15
  Speaker 3: And yet, I'm sorry, Corey, I blame Democrats for this more.
• 36:18
  Speaker 3: I mean, we learned a lot about Dr. Christine Blasey
• 36:20
  Speaker 3: Ford and God bless her. But if they had fought
• 36:22
  Speaker 3: based on this guy's life and his embarrassing career as
• 36:25
  Speaker 3: hard as they did on her, I mean, at least
• 36:27
  Speaker 3: people would have known about it, even if they had
• 36:29
  Speaker 3: lost anyway. But what an irony. A few months ago,
• 36:32
  Speaker 3: we were just talking about Graham Platner nonstop. And now
• 36:35
  Speaker 3: Graham Platner's scandals forcing him to drop out may be
• 36:38
  Speaker 3: the reason the Democrats take the Senate.
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I have to say this race is
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: closer than it should be. I think given all that
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: we were just saying about what's wrong with Susan Collins,
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: that the polls should go the other way. And that
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: this one actually, unlike Texas, for instance, where I feel
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: so encouraged, I'm concerned that it's as close as it is.
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: And we have to acknowledge, I think part of what's
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: going on here is that when Plattner stepped down, it
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: basically meant that there was no primary. And we saw
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: that in the National Party, you know, where not having
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: a primary is a bad thing for democracy. And my
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: worry is that there might be some effects there. But
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: in the end, I do think that this Senator Collins
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: schtick is what I'd call it. I mean, this ridiculous
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: set of lies that she's been telling Mainers is not
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: going to fly anymore.
• 37:22
  Speaker 2: And this election is the time to show it.
• 37:24
  Speaker 3: Only reason she voted against Todd Blanch, right? Because she's
• 37:26
  Speaker 3: up for election and she knows how toxic this is.
• 37:28
  Speaker 3: And she has to do her little moderate act.
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: I mean, you probably knew he had the votes to
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: go through, too. I mean, she doesn't know unless she
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: she you know, it's not going to have any consequence
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: of these deals.
• 37:39
  Speaker 3: And if her vote had kept him from getting the job,
• 37:41
  Speaker 3: Donald Trump would have attacked her and she never would
• 37:43
  Speaker 3: have done it. Let's talk about Alaska, because I never
• 37:46
  Speaker 3: thought we'd be having this conversation. Republican Dan Sullivan is
• 37:50
  Speaker 3: facing Democrat Mary Patola. And the latest polling is essentially
• 37:54
  Speaker 3: deadlocked again. They're within margin of error for each other.
• 37:58
  Speaker 3: how seriously should Democrats be taking Alaska?
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: Look, you know, this is when we're talking about resources,
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: even if Alaska does go to the Republican Party, the
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: idea that you would have to divert resources in order
• 38:11
  Speaker 1: to keep a state that, you know, in any normal
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: year would be safe for Republicans, that can only be
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: a good thing when it comes to the check on
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: executive power that we need that will only come from
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: a Democratic victory, including in the Senate.
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: So, you know, I take that to be A good thing.
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: I think, too, you know, the fact that Alaska is
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: in play, that Kansas is in play with another candidate
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: that resembles Telerico, a reverend, that that's really showing you
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: that this isn't an election like any other. It isn't
• 38:42
  Speaker 1: an election that's just about economic issues, although I've talked
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: about why that matters in specific races and tying it
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: to the corruption is, I think, the way to do it.
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: but that Americans are really upset by what's going on
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: with this country. And as much as Donald Trump thinks
• 38:57
  Speaker 1: that Americans are idiots when it comes to his foreign wars,
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: for instance.
• 39:01
  Speaker 2: And campaigning on no more foreign wars.
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: And then initiating one on his own, the fact that
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: we have all these states in play that normally would never,
• 39:09
  Speaker 1: including Alaska, you know, that I think tells us how
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: bad things are with this presidency and how Americans, thankfully,
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: you know, we're always looking for hope on the podcast.
• 39:19
  Speaker 2: This is where it is. Americans are seeing what we're
• 39:22
  Speaker 2: all seeing.
• 39:23
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I mean, you know, not to put too
• 39:25
  Speaker 3: fine a point on it, but yeah, Donald Trump just
• 39:27
  Speaker 3: announced 150 million for Alaska power transmission infrastructure while J.D.
• 39:32
  Speaker 3: Vance was campaigning there for Sullivan, which will go great
• 39:35
  Speaker 3: once you get your $ 5, 000 refund check and your dose
• 39:37
  Speaker 3: check and your $ 500 Medicare check and everything else he's
• 39:40
  Speaker 3: desperately promising as the clock runs out. So let me
• 39:43
  Speaker 3: ask you, having discussed all this and seeing that the
• 39:46
  Speaker 3: House seems likely and the Senate might actually happen, too.
• 39:50
  Speaker 3: It's all about congressional oversight, right? Are we approaching a
• 39:53
  Speaker 3: point where it may actually happen, where at least one
• 39:57
  Speaker 3: branch of government, all it has to be is the
• 39:59
  Speaker 3: Senator of the House, and that will hold this man
• 40:01
  Speaker 3: in check at least somewhat, right?
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: So much of what actually works in our system, and
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: we've seen so much of what doesn't work over the
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: last two years, because when the Republican Party, which is
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: devoted to a monarchical idea, an authoritarian idea of the Constitution,
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: controls not just the presidency, but his lackeys control the Congress,
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: which has been the case. The Speaker of the House
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: has so much power blocking any possibility of impeachment, certainly,
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: any possibility of serious bills coming to the floor. The Senate,
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: with its massive power, any one of the victories, either
• 40:35
  Speaker 1: in the House, which I think is likely, or in
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: the Senate, which also might be likely, Results in the
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: ability of senators to subpoena members of the executive branch
• 40:44
  Speaker 1: to see what's going on, to start to peer into it. And,
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: you know, that alone, I think, is traditionally, even with
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: this administration, a way of bringing people to heel because
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: it's a way of getting information out.
• 40:56
  Speaker 2: But that's just the starting point. Oversight. And you'll hear
• 40:59
  Speaker 2: me talk to Congressman Lew about it.
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: But what also I think is important is that we
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: start to talk about the reality, and I know a
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: lot of candidates don't want to talk about it, and
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: Lou in particular and others, Hakeem Jeffries, they don't want
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: to say what's coming, which is that, yes, there's so
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: much evidence of theft, of high crimes and misdemeanors by
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: the president, by his cabinet, that that becomes a real possibility.
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: And part of the point of that is that's how
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: we start to get information out.
• 41:27
  Speaker 2: But I want to mention one other thing, John.
• 41:28
  Speaker 3: Please, please.
• 41:29
  Speaker 2: I'm just really... excited about this. And I'll talk to
• 41:32
  Speaker 2: the congressman about this. But we need legislation. That's supposed
• 41:36
  Speaker 2: to be the job of Congress.
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: This Congress has done nothing when it comes to its
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: lawmaking function.
• 41:42
  Speaker 2: And the point of laws.
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: Are to protect us from what we started with, for instance,
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: the threat of, well, of nuclear weapons, or in this case, AI,
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: resulting in the creation of a biological weapon that a
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: former employee of Anthropic is saying has a 10% chance
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: of of extinguishing all of humanity.
• 42:01
  Speaker 2: My God, of course we need legislation.
• 42:03
  Speaker 1: And so that's part of the point of a victory
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: in both houses, to get these bills out of committee,
• 42:10
  Speaker 1: onto the floor, to get votes on them.
• 42:13
  Speaker 2: And you know what?
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: Of course the president's going to veto them, but at
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: least we're starting to have a battle over the laws
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: that we need and will reveal the danger that is
• 42:21
  Speaker 1: this presidency. We might even get, and we did get
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: this in the last two years of Nixon's presidency.
• 42:27
  Speaker 2: This seems far off, but it is possible.
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: Override votes to reverse the president's veto. And that happened,
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: for instance, in the War Powers Act, something we desperately
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: need now. A reconsideration of the way we think about
• 42:40
  Speaker 1: war powers.
• 42:41
  Speaker 3: I think Trump knew what would happen with the Epstein
• 42:43
  Speaker 3: Files law, which is why he signed that. But I mean,
• 42:46
  Speaker 3: for me, if the Congress refuses to exercise... their power
• 42:49
  Speaker 3: of oversight under the executive branch, then, I mean, that's
• 42:51
  Speaker 3: just as bad as the crimes of the executive branch.
• 42:54
  Speaker 3: Are we getting to a point, Corey, where our elections
• 42:57
  Speaker 3: are going to be deciding not just policy, but every
• 43:00
  Speaker 3: election will decide whether government institutions investigate government misconduct at all, right?
• 43:05
  Speaker 3: I mean, you're not going to get a federal investigation
• 43:08
  Speaker 3: of any hate crimes until there's a different attorney general.
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: You're not going to get an investigation of the many
• 43:14
  Speaker 1: crimes of this administration, including the massive theft including, let's
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: just preview what we're going to talk about, the selling
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: of pardons, I mean, which is going on, you know,
• 43:24
  Speaker 1: in the Oval Office, the basically run around the Department
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: of Justice and the willingness to outright have a president
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: and brokers for the president selling pardons and taking percentages.
• 43:36
  Speaker 2: All of that should be the subject of criminal investigation.
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: But the Department of Justice under this administration is not
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: going to do it.
• 43:43
  Speaker 2: Well, who might do it?
• 43:44
  Speaker 1: That's exactly what oversight means when it comes down to it.
• 43:48
  Speaker 1: Either House of Congress could do it. And I think
• 43:50
  Speaker 1: that's one of the things that we're going to start
• 43:52
  Speaker 1: to see. And again, it's not enough to investigate the
• 43:55
  Speaker 1: president's selling of pardons. We need a bill that's going
• 43:58
  Speaker 1: to look at this. And Congressman Lew will help outline
• 44:01
  Speaker 1: that for us.
• 44:02
  Speaker 3: Right on. Corey, last question, and then I'm excited for
• 44:04
  Speaker 3: Ted Lew. If Democrats win the House and the Senate,
• 44:07
  Speaker 3: what is the single most important constitutional responsibility you think
• 44:11
  Speaker 3: they need to exercise?
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: Look, unlike, I'm not running for Congress. I'm not at
• 44:16
  Speaker 1: the behest of the Democratic Party. congressional committee. So I'll
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: just say what's really at stake, which is we have
• 44:22
  Speaker 1: a president and cabinet members who are not just committing
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: high crimes and misdemeanors, but are threatening the destruction of
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: our democracy with their massive corruption, with their shutdown of
• 44:34
  Speaker 1: free speech. That needs to be front and center, not
• 44:37
  Speaker 1: just oversight, but thinking about impeachment.
• 44:40
  Speaker 3: Right on. Let's take a quick break. And when we
• 44:42
  Speaker 3: come back, it's Corey's big sit down with my congressman,
• 44:45
  Speaker 3: Ted Lieu.
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: Welcome back to The Oath in the Office. Joining us
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: is Congressman Ted Lieu. He's joining us again, and we're
• 45:02
  Speaker 1: so honored that he's a repeat guest on the show.
• 45:06
  Speaker 1: Congressman Lieu represents California's 36th District, and he serves as
• 45:10
  Speaker 1: vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus. Born in Taiwan
• 45:14
  Speaker 1: and raised in Ohio, Congressman Luce studied computer science and
• 45:17
  Speaker 1: political science at Stanford and earned a law degree at Georgetown.
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: He was also in the Air Force and retired from
• 45:24
  Speaker 1: the Reserve as a colonel. And he entered Congress in 2015.
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: I'll note, too, in Trump's first term, he helped to
• 45:33
  Speaker 1: draft the article of impeachment against Trump and served as
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: a House impeachment manager in the second impeachment in regard
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: to January 15th.
• 45:41
  Speaker 2: Six.
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: So I was very eager to have Congressman Liu back
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: to talk about not just the challenges we face, but
• 45:48
  Speaker 1: the legislation that we need. We're always talking about the
• 45:51
  Speaker 1: threats to democracy, but also about ways to have hope
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: and to really fix the problems of our democracy. And
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: to my mind, Congressman Liu is really in the forefront
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: of the most important areas. So, Congressman Liu, welcome back
• 46:05
  Speaker 1: to The Oath in the Office.
• 46:07
  Speaker 3: Thank you, Corey. Honored to be back on the show.
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: Let's start off by talking about AI.
• 46:12
  Speaker 1: I'm still recovering from the shock that a member, a
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: former employee of Anthropic has told us that he puts
• 46:19
  Speaker 1: it at about 10% chance.
• 46:21
  Speaker 2: That the world will be destroyed by AI.
• 46:24
  Speaker 1: And of course, we've heard, well, far from denials from
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: the Anthropic CEO, which sounded to me like an acknowledgement
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: that something around that number might be right. And Yet
• 46:35
  Speaker 1: at the same time, we have the president essentially resisting
• 46:39
  Speaker 1: any form of regulation. Now I'm eager to talk to
• 46:42
  Speaker 1: you because one of the things I know that you're
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: doing is talking to us, talking to members of Congress
• 46:47
  Speaker 1: and sponsoring legislation about how to, well, to stop the
• 46:51
  Speaker 1: extinguishing of all human life by AI.
• 46:54
  Speaker 2: So talk to me about the nitty gritty. How can
• 46:56
  Speaker 2: we do this?
• 46:58
  Speaker 4: Thank you, Corey, for your question. I'm a recovering computer
• 47:01
  Speaker 4: science major. And so I've been Looking at this issue
• 47:05
  Speaker 4: for decades, but something qualitatively changed with their introduction of
• 47:10
  Speaker 4: large language models about four or five years ago. That
• 47:13
  Speaker 4: was a massive leap in technology. And the problem with
• 47:17
  Speaker 4: this technology is it's still relatively brand new and multiple
• 47:22
  Speaker 4: AI companies have now lost control of the AI models
• 47:26
  Speaker 4: and agents. And so we need to make sure we
• 47:28
  Speaker 4: put adequate safeguards around these models and make sure that
• 47:33
  Speaker 4: they don't go ahead and cause harm. Now, you know,
• 47:37
  Speaker 4: I'm not sure it's helpful to say, look, we're all
• 47:39
  Speaker 4: going to die, you know, in a few years. There's
• 47:41
  Speaker 4: a lot more specific harms that could, in fact, happen. So,
• 47:45
  Speaker 4: for example, you could have these models go ahead and
• 47:48
  Speaker 4: engage in breaches of other companies, institutions. Some of these
• 47:53
  Speaker 4: agents and models have already done that. But what if
• 47:56
  Speaker 4: next time It happens to be a bank holding your
• 48:00
  Speaker 4: money and they decide to empty that account. That would
• 48:03
  Speaker 4: be a problem. And so you got some specific risks
• 48:06
  Speaker 4: that we need to address and deal with. And at
• 48:09
  Speaker 4: a minimum, we need to be able to turn off
• 48:12
  Speaker 4: and kill these agents when they go rogue. And that's
• 48:15
  Speaker 4: why I'm very pleased I've introduced a bipartisan AI Kill
• 48:18
  Speaker 4: Switch Act with Congressman Nathaniel Moran, and it's gaining traction
• 48:22
  Speaker 4: and support.
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: I mean, I would think that at minimum, the idea
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: that you could turn this thing off if we found
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: ourselves at risk, either our economy or us personally, there
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: are all sorts of scenarios of these agents taking over, well,
• 48:36
  Speaker 1: dangerous weapons, for instance. So at minimum, a kill switch
• 48:40
  Speaker 1: sounds right. I mean, what do you say to the...
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: in the spirit, of course, of agreeing, I'm just wondering
• 48:45
  Speaker 1: how you respond to the kind of absolute libertarianism that
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: we're sometimes seeing of defenders of AI that say, look,
• 48:52
  Speaker 1: it's too complicated to figure out how this kill switch
• 48:55
  Speaker 1: would work.
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: We don't have the ability to do it.
• 48:58
  Speaker 1: I mean, what's the response to that, that the demand
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: somehow would kill innovation?
• 49:04
  Speaker 4: Earlier this year, the Trump administration got so freaked out
• 49:08
  Speaker 4: by two of Anthropic's advanced models that they essentially ordered
• 49:13
  Speaker 4: a shutdown of those models and Anthropic did so. So clearly,
• 49:17
  Speaker 4: as of right now, it appears that these AI companies
• 49:20
  Speaker 4: can turn off their models and agents when they go rogue.
• 49:23
  Speaker 4: And one of the reasons for this bill is to
• 49:26
  Speaker 4: force their AI companies to prioritize being able to turn
• 49:31
  Speaker 4: off their models and agents if they go berserk or
• 49:35
  Speaker 4: have capabilities that they did not expect. Also, Even if
• 49:39
  Speaker 4: you're a straight up libertarian, you still would acknowledge that
• 49:42
  Speaker 4: it was regulations that allowed cars to be able to
• 49:47
  Speaker 4: become safer, such as with seatbelts and airbags. And, you know,
• 49:52
  Speaker 4: continuing this analogy, we would never allow a car on
• 49:54
  Speaker 4: the road if it had no brakes. And so we're
• 49:57
  Speaker 4: just saying, look, put brakes on these things. Make sure
• 50:00
  Speaker 4: you can stop and turn off your models. And it's
• 50:03
  Speaker 4: a very simple to understand concept.
• 50:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, that seems right, that if we're going
• 50:07
  Speaker 1: to have dangerous technologies out there, that there have to
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: be ways of regulating and stopping it. And certainly a
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: kill switch seems like a great start. I mean, what
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: about going beyond that? One thing that I've found disturbing, frankly,
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: is the sort of idea that it's impossible to regulate
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: AI from the outside, from government. But when it comes
• 50:26
  Speaker 1: to nuclear facilities or any host of dangerous areas, including
• 50:32
  Speaker 1: environmental protection, we have legislation that creates agencies with experts
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: that oversee these dangerous technologies. What do you think about that?
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: That's one question I've been asking people. Why not have
• 50:47
  Speaker 1: an AI agency that was stacked with experts who could
• 50:50
  Speaker 1: keep up with the technology and have rulemaking ability to
• 50:55
  Speaker 1: forcibly regulate it in order to ensure the safety? As
• 50:58
  Speaker 1: much as I applaud the effort about the kill switch,
• 51:01
  Speaker 1: my worry is shouldn't the industry as a whole be
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: regulated so that we never get to that point where
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: a kill switch would even be needed?
• 51:10
  Speaker 4: So the AI Kill Switch Act is simply one bill,
• 51:14
  Speaker 4: and hopefully it becomes law that I believe is necessary,
• 51:18
  Speaker 4: but certainly there's a lot more legislation that's also necessary.
• 51:23
  Speaker 4: In terms of what you just said, I have two responses.
• 51:27
  Speaker 4: 57 years ago, we sent people to the moon, landed
• 51:33
  Speaker 4: one of them, person walked around, flew the folks back
• 51:37
  Speaker 4: to Earth. So clearly we can do this. There is
• 51:41
  Speaker 4: nothing impossible about regulating AI. And my second response is,
• 51:46
  Speaker 4: you know, there's something that's just as complicated, if not
• 51:50
  Speaker 4: more so, and that is, well, how do organic molecules
• 51:53
  Speaker 4: interact in a human body with introduction of other molecules?
• 51:58
  Speaker 3: I don't know, but you know what?
• 51:59
  Speaker 4: I voted on, you know, issues related to the FDA.
• 52:04
  Speaker 4: And so Congress voted set up an entire agency known
• 52:08
  Speaker 4: as FTA that deals with very complicated matters. And so
• 52:13
  Speaker 4: if this is what Congress chooses to do, we certainly
• 52:15
  Speaker 4: have the technical know-how to be able to do it.
• 52:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, somehow this is very encouraging because so much of
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: what I'm hearing from the companies or from the Republican
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: side of the aisle and to the extent that the
• 52:27
  Speaker 1: president's addressed it is something like, wow, this technology is
• 52:30
  Speaker 1: too new that regulating it would be incompatible with its growth.
• 52:35
  Speaker 1: And then when you look at so many other areas,
• 52:38
  Speaker 1: and medicine seems to be just a primary one, this
• 52:41
  Speaker 1: stuff is very complicated. And yet we have techniques for regulation,
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: which is the creation of agencies that employ experts, protected, hopefully,
• 52:50
  Speaker 1: as civil servants who then make rules. So, I mean,
• 52:54
  Speaker 1: I guess what I hear you saying, and I'll just
• 52:56
  Speaker 1: throw it back to you, is that this really is
• 52:58
  Speaker 1: not different than other complicated but dangerous technologies that we've
• 53:04
  Speaker 1: dealt with.
• 53:04
  Speaker 2: And medicine seems to be a primary one.
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: And one of the great achievements of the 20th century
• 53:09
  Speaker 1: is the creation of administrative agencies that can regulate.
• 53:13
  Speaker 2: Does that sound right?
• 53:15
  Speaker 3: That sounds exactly correct.
• 53:17
  Speaker 4: If Congress feels like regulating an area, we certainly can
• 53:22
  Speaker 4: do so. There's nothing stopping Congress. There's no technical impossibility.
• 53:26
  Speaker 4: And people who raise that issue just really don't want regulation.
• 53:31
  Speaker 4: They're just, you know, making up excuses. But there's nothing
• 53:33
  Speaker 4: stopping Congress from doing so if we so chose so
• 53:36
  Speaker 4: to do so. Right.
• 53:37
  Speaker 2: Great. Actually, I'm tempted to ask one more question.
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: We've talked a lot on the show about the unitary executive,
• 53:42
  Speaker 1: and I'm wondering how the kind of moves of allowing
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: the administrative agencies to be taken over by the president
• 53:49
  Speaker 1: would affect any of this.
• 53:50
  Speaker 2: I mean, you know, I'll just throw it out there.
• 53:52
  Speaker 1: But is one danger, as much as we're in heated
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: agreement that we need these agencies, is one danger that
• 53:58
  Speaker 1: that if we were to create a regulatory agency to
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: regulate AI, that it might be taken over by a
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: nefarious president for his own purposes? Do you have thoughts
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: about how to push back against that to some degree?
• 54:12
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court undoing the independence of agencies worries me
• 54:16
  Speaker 1: at the same time that I emphatically agree that we
• 54:18
  Speaker 1: need this legislation.
• 54:20
  Speaker 4: Well, so let me first say I'm agnostic as to
• 54:24
  Speaker 4: how the regulation is done. And so, you know, you
• 54:28
  Speaker 4: could have one agency. You could also empower the current
• 54:31
  Speaker 4: agencies we have right now to regulate AI. And one
• 54:35
  Speaker 4: reason that that might make sense is, for example, there's
• 54:39
  Speaker 4: 57 billion use cases for AI. And so the AI
• 54:43
  Speaker 4: that the FAA is concerned about may be very different
• 54:47
  Speaker 4: than the AI that the Small Business Administration is concerned
• 54:51
  Speaker 4: about or the AI that the Department of Energy is
• 54:53
  Speaker 4: concerned about. And so There are different ways of doing this.
• 54:56
  Speaker 4: So to me, it doesn't really matter exactly how it's done.
• 54:59
  Speaker 4: It just matters that we have to put guardrails on
• 55:03
  Speaker 4: AI systems to make sure that they benefit society and
• 55:06
  Speaker 4: don't cause catastrophic harm that is preventable.
• 55:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's an important point that we already have the
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: expertise out there, for instance, when it comes to energy
• 55:14
  Speaker 1: and protection of energy resources. And so maybe we could
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: build on what's already there rather than building it again.
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: But the key we're agreeing about is that we need
• 55:24
  Speaker 1: to do something. Let's switch topics a little bit and
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: think about legislation. I mean, I should say, you know, again,
• 55:31
  Speaker 1: as I said in the introduction, it's so important that
• 55:34
  Speaker 1: as we face all of these challenges, I think people
• 55:37
  Speaker 1: give up hope when they think, you know, there's nothing
• 55:39
  Speaker 1: to be done. And what you've been saying in this
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: discussion so far is, no, of course there is something
• 55:44
  Speaker 1: to be done. Congress has this power to regulate, to
• 55:47
  Speaker 1: solve our problems and challenges and needs to do something
• 55:51
  Speaker 1: about it. One of the things that I think has
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: people with their mouths open is the president's process of
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: bypassing the Department of Justice. And essentially, it looks like
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: selling access to pardons. There, of course, was the 60
• 56:06
  Speaker 1: Minutes story that we've talked about that documents the way
• 56:09
  Speaker 1: that really there seems to be an open market and
• 56:11
  Speaker 1: access to pardons that bypasses entirely the pardon attorney. And
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: I know you've been thinking about this and have legislation
• 56:19
  Speaker 1: trying to stop the worst abuses of the pardon power.
• 56:21
  Speaker 2: So, Let's get into the nitty gritty.
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: Tell us how you would do it and what kind
• 56:25
  Speaker 1: of legislation we need here.
• 56:27
  Speaker 4: Let me first say that the Supreme Court decision immunizing
• 56:31
  Speaker 4: the President of the United States is one of the
• 56:32
  Speaker 4: worst decisions ever in the history of the Supreme Court
• 56:36
  Speaker 4: because it completely threw out a whack the carefully crafted
• 56:40
  Speaker 4: separation of powers in the constitutional balance that the framers
• 56:44
  Speaker 4: put in. It greatly increased the power of the executive branch.
• 56:49
  Speaker 4: And You see that happening with Donald Trump basically just
• 56:53
  Speaker 4: committing all sorts of crimes and engaging in corruption. Now,
• 56:56
  Speaker 4: that decision also only applied to one person, the president.
• 57:00
  Speaker 4: And our view, in terms of the Democrats in Congress,
• 57:06
  Speaker 4: in my view as well, is that people who are
• 57:10
  Speaker 4: engaged with the president that commit crimes are not immunized.
• 57:14
  Speaker 4: And so if you are, for example, a lawyer who
• 57:17
  Speaker 4: pays a bribe to get your client pardoned, then We
• 57:21
  Speaker 4: believe that lawyer can be prosecuted. And if you're their client,
• 57:24
  Speaker 4: that pays a bribe to get pardoned. We believe the
• 57:26
  Speaker 4: client can get prosecuted also. And so we will be
• 57:30
  Speaker 4: investigating this issue with the goal of getting evidence and
• 57:34
  Speaker 4: information so that the next administration, which I believe will
• 57:37
  Speaker 4: be Democratic, can then prosecute anyone that engage in criminal
• 57:41
  Speaker 4: or illegal behavior in transactions with the president of the
• 57:44
  Speaker 4: United States.
• 57:46
  Speaker 1: Let me ask you a follow-up. I mean, of course,
• 57:48
  Speaker 1: I applaud this, the abuse of the pardon power. It's
• 57:50
  Speaker 1: a naked abuse in front of everyone. It's a real
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: embarrassment to our system of government. What about pushing back
• 57:57
  Speaker 1: on the immunity decision in this area in particular? I
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: have no doubt that the Supreme Court might rely both
• 58:03
  Speaker 1: on the idea that the pardon power is somehow absolute
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: and the notion of immunity to push back on any
• 58:10
  Speaker 1: legislation that tried to criminalize what the president is doing.
• 58:13
  Speaker 1: But I guess just to offer a follow up thought,
• 58:16
  Speaker 1: I mean, the Trump versus the United States, as you
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: absolutely say, one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: history and one of the most dangerous because it's incentivized
• 58:25
  Speaker 1: this what should be criminal acts by the president. And
• 58:28
  Speaker 1: he believes he's got to get out of jail free card. So,
• 58:31
  Speaker 1: of course, he's essentially selling pardons, it looks like. But
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: what about legislation that would try to narrow that decision
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: to say, If you sell a pardon, that's not an
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: official act and it's not a legitimate use of the
• 58:44
  Speaker 1: pardon power.
• 58:45
  Speaker 2: Are you open to that.
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: Idea that there would be a way in the legislation
• 58:49
  Speaker 1: to push back against the Supreme Court, maybe using some
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: of the categories of official, you know, technically the president
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: is immune within the core of his duties and within
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: the outer perimeter of official acts. And so I guess
• 59:03
  Speaker 1: one thought is, does that leave some leeway for a
• 59:06
  Speaker 1: more direct assault on what the president's doing? And are
• 59:10
  Speaker 1: you open to that as we go through? And yes,
• 59:12
  Speaker 1: it would be confrontational with the Supreme Court, but we've
• 59:15
  Speaker 1: talked about this before. Sometimes I think it's a good
• 59:18
  Speaker 1: thing for Congress to stand up to the president.
• 59:21
  Speaker 4: I don't think that bill or law would make any
• 59:24
  Speaker 4: difference because that would be a matter of constitutional interpretation.
• 59:29
  Speaker 4: The Supreme Court is going to make a decision as
• 59:32
  Speaker 4: to whether selling pardons constitutes a core executive function. And
• 59:37
  Speaker 4: it doesn't matter whether Congress has a law on that
• 59:39
  Speaker 4: or not. Either it is or it isn't. Now, that
• 59:42
  Speaker 4: doesn't mean we can't author other bills or laws that
• 59:45
  Speaker 4: can try to put some guardrails on the pardon power.
• 59:49
  Speaker 4: So I am a co-author of legislation with Congressman Suhas Subramanian.
• 59:55
  Speaker 4: That does two things. First, it says that basically the
• 59:58
  Speaker 4: White House's pardon attorney has to provide a written justification
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 4: for why any particular person was pardoned, as well as
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 4: a criminal history of that person. And it limits the
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 4: person seeking a pardon from providing more than $ 1, 000 to
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 4: any political committee connected to the president.
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a nice way of recognizing the reality that
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has protected the president, but the rest
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: of us don't get that immunity.
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 2: And so it's a nice reminder anyway of that and
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 2: a way of putting limits.
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: One thing that I really heard a lot from listeners
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: last time you visited with us was how important you're
• 1:00:40
  Speaker 1: speaking out against a president who's really taken the war powers,
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 1: which are The declared war power to initiate war is
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 1: supposed to be Congress's. And this president has just ignored
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: it completely, initiating war in Iran and not trying to
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 1: hide that fact. And we talked last time about different
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 1: ways of reining in that abuse, constitutional abuse. And in particular,
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 1: we talked about the first strike bill that would ban
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 1: the first strike use of nuclear weapons by any president,
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: Democratic or Republican. But, you know, a lot has happened
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 1: since we talked last time when it comes to war
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 1: in Iran.
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 2: And so I just wanted to ask that follow up.
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 1: I mean, do you do you see ways of pushing
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 1: back both against this president and his illegal war and
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 1: also of creating a kind of constitutional reform, reformulation, maybe
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 1: of the War Powers Act that would stop these presidential
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 1: abuses in this area from happening again?
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 4: The best pushback would be an overwhelming electoral result in
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 4: November that flips the House, flips the Senate and sends
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 4: a message to Trump and his enablers that they have
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 4: to change course, that they have to get out of Iran,
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 4: that they have to start focusing on lowering the high
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 4: costs of gas and groceries and mortgage rates, that they
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 4: have to reduce the cost of health care. there'll be
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 4: the best pushback, which is from the American people. And
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 4: by the way, I also like referencing James Madison, who
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 4: essentially basically said, look, the democracy depends sort of on
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 4: the character of the people. And so if the people
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 4: this November, when given the opportunity to cast a vote,
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 4: do so, and they send a message, then hopefully that
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 4: will start to turn our country around and go in
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 4: a different direction. And then in terms of war powers,
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 4: I'm very pleased the House has on a bipartisan basis,
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 4: now pass a war powers resolution, terminate hostilities in Iran. Now,
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 4: the Senate has not yet done so. Again, the voters
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 4: have a choice this November, and if they change and
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 4: make up the Senate, then we're going to try again,
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 4: and hopefully we can get it through the Senate and
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 4: then put it on the president's desk, which will increase
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 4: pressure on him to explain why he is still in
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 4: the Iran war.
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that would certainly increase pressure. I mean,
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 1: what do we do in the world in which the
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 1: Democratic Party does take the House and the Senate, and
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: there is a clear war powers resolution saying stop. And
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 1: under the current law, continuing would clearly be illegal. But
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 1: what do we do when this president, we've seen him
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 1: in his administration willing to ignore courts. What if he
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: ignores the will of Congress in that moment? Would you
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 1: be willing, for instance, to cut off the allocation of
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 1: funds to his war in Iran?
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 4: So with the War Powers Resolution, the president could veto it.
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 4: And then we would need a two-thirds override. And if
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 4: that does not succeed, then another alternative would be looking
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 4: at appropriations. So Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, has
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 4: the power of the purse under the Constitution. And we
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 4: could use appropriations bills to limit what the president can
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 4: do in Iran.
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 1: I mean, one worry about that is that it's one
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 1: thing to say the war is illegal and to ban it,
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: but the political fallout of defunding the effort will obviously
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 1: be framed by the president and his party as a
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 1: defunding of the military. I mean, is that a kind
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: of political pressure you think the Democratic Party might be
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 1: able to overcome? It is a very, I mean, when
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: people say, what can we do? As you just acknowledged,
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 1: it is a serious power way of reigning in a president,
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 1: but it comes.
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 2: potentially with some cost. I mean, what are your thoughts
• 1:04:25
  Speaker 2: about that?
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 4: Poll after poll shows that the Iran war is one
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 4: of the most unpopular wars in U.S.
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 2: History.
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 4: And I'm not sure that the funding of the Iran war,
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 4: in fact, would put pressure on Democrats. I think it
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 4: actually would put pressure on Republicans.
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 2: Great to hear. Talk to me about this hope.
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 1: And I, like you, am optimistic that at least the
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 1: Democratic Party will take the House and you'll be in
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 1: a very different position than you are now.
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 2: You'll be in the majority.
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 1: What kind of oversight would you like to see over
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 1: the president's cabinet, over the officials that we're seeing work
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 1: with the president and abusing power?
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 4: The Democrats in the House are going to do two things.
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 4: We're going to pass legislation off the floor of the
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 4: House of Representatives to restore the ACA tax credits, to
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 4: reverse the largest Medicaid cut in US history for healthcare,
• 1:05:19
  Speaker 4: to stop the stupid Trump tariffs that are increasing prices
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 4: all over their board. And then at the same time,
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 4: our committees will be doing the work of oversight. And
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 4: so my view is that the first principle is we
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 4: should be trying to stop stupid stuff from continuing to
• 1:05:37
  Speaker 4: happen and to deter additional bad conduct. So that would
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 4: be one reason for the oversight is to shine a
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 4: light on those areas that the Republican Congress has been
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 4: unwilling to do so. Second, I believe we should be
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 4: getting evidence so that we can hand it to a
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 4: future administration to prosecute people that violated the laws of
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 4: the United States. And then third, it'd be to get
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 4: evidence to any state attorneys generals that could prosecute people
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 4: who violated any laws.
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 2: Now, what do we do?
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 1: I mean, I think, of course, applaud all those ideas
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 1: and the gathering of information that would be handed over
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 1: to state attorneys general might be a very effective technique.
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 1: But what do we do with the problem that, of course,
• 1:06:20
  Speaker 1: in the end, that the attorney general seems to be
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 1: a lackey of the president. So even if you were
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: able to get evidence, not just of wrongdoing, but criminal wrongdoing,
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 1: that Todd Blanch, who of course was the president's personal
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 1: criminal lawyer, would refuse to act. Do you have thoughts
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 1: about how to pressure the DOJ to act in line
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 1: with the law rather than the president's own interests?
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 4: I don't believe that the DOJ will act. in any
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 4: way other than what Donald Trump says. And so again,
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 4: the goal is to get evidence so that the future
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 4: administration can prosecute or state attorneys generals can prosecute. Also,
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 4: just shining a light on misconduct can get behavior change,
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 4: making sure that people are forced to testify under oath
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 4: in front of American people to explain what they're doing.
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 4: That by itself can cause behavior change.
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 2: You know, so much of what's going on is being
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 2: done in secret.
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 1: And the more we can find out about it, it
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 1: might really affect what's happening in Homeland Security and the
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 1: Department of Justice itself and other areas of the president's cabinet.
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 1: While I have you, I've been talking a lot on
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 1: the show about election security. Of course, the midterm election.
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 1: I'm also optimistic. But we've seen a concerted effort by
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 1: this administration to really shave votes off and even cheat.
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 1: The SAVE Act, thankfully, was stopped. That was very much
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 1: alive last time we spoke. This effort by the president
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 1: and the post office to mess with mail-in ballots looks
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 1: like it's been stopped. I mean, how are you feeling
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 1: about election security at this moment? There is this Department
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: of Homeland Security effort of gathering lists supposedly of fraudulent votes.
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 1: Are you seeing that as a threat? Are you seeing
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 1: any threats to the system at this point? Or are
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 1: you feeling like we're in decent shape here?
• 1:08:10
  Speaker 4: Leader Jeffries established a task force on election integrity. It's
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 4: chaired by Congressman Joe Morelli on the House Administration Committee.
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 4: And they have met with attorneys generals. They met with
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 4: lawyers groups, with members of caucus, with nonprofits, with local
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 4: and state election officials. They've gamed out over 100 scenarios
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 4: of voter suppression. And so the House Democratic Caucus is
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 4: very aware of this and do everything we can fight back.
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 4: My message to voters is just go frickin' vote. The
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 4: administration is going to try to suppress your vote. And
• 1:08:49
  Speaker 4: the best way to stick it to an authoritarian administration
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 4: is to find a way to vote. If there's less
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 4: ballot drop boxes now than there were two years ago, well,
• 1:08:59
  Speaker 4: drive a little further and drop off your ballot or
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 4: mail it in or go wait in line on election day.
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 4: Go vote early. That's probably the best advice to people.
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 4: If you vote early, then you can avoid a lot
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 4: of complications that may happen as the election day gets closer.
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 4: But Go vote and get 10 of your family and
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 4: friends to vote. And that's how you stick it to
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 4: the man this November.
• 1:09:21
  Speaker 2: Absolutely.
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 1: That's the way we'll reclaim our democracy. I've got to
• 1:09:24
  Speaker 1: ask one last question before we sign off. And I
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 1: do want to follow up on the question of oversight. You,
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 1: of course, were involved, as I mentioned in my introduction
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 1: in the impeachment over January 6th. Even though there weren't
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 1: the votes in the Senate to remove the president, I
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 1: continue to think that was an extremely important effort just
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 1: in revealing what happened and getting it on the radar
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 1: of the American people and having a record.
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 2: I'll ask you not about impeachment.
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 1: Of Donald Trump, but of high-level officials, Pete Hegseth, given
• 1:09:53
  Speaker 1: the role he's played, for instance. in the war, officials
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 1: at Homeland Security who have been involved in the attack
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 1: on our citizens and non-citizens on our own soil. That's
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 1: not been something that I've heard members of Congress talking
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 1: about at length, but I wonder if that is something
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: that you would consider, again, as the evidence comes to light,
• 1:10:13
  Speaker 1: the more we see wrongdoing, would you add that to
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 1: the list of responses that we might have?
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 4: So I'm a former prosecutor and I view an impeachment
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 4: from the house, similar to indictment. So you wouldn't, as
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 4: a prosecutor, just read these articles and then indict someone.
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 4: You would actually try to get evidence. You'd envy witnesses.
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 4: You'd secure documents. You would investigate. And so to me,
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 4: that process has to happen first. And then depending on
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 4: what the evidence shows, then we can have a decision
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 4: point as to what we'd like to do. But you
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 4: got to first start at the investigations. And assuming the
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 4: house does flip, Democrats will start investigations next year.
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, great.
• 1:10:57
  Speaker 1: Well, Congressman, what a pleasure to have you back to
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 1: The Oath in the Office. We hope you'll continue to
• 1:11:01
  Speaker 1: come back because you're doing the work that we are
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 1: talking about.
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 2: You're making it happen.
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 1: You're also showing not just that we can look at
• 1:11:09
  Speaker 1: the facts, look at the threat to democracy that we're
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: all facing, but that there's a lawmaking power that gives
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 1: us the ability to do something about it. So thanks
• 1:11:18
  Speaker 1: so much for joining us. And thanks especially for all
• 1:11:20
  Speaker 1: your work.
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 3: Thank you. Appreciate it. Corey, what a great conversation with
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 3: Congressman Ted Lieu. He's done my show a bunch of times.
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 3: He's joined us on stage at the Stephanie Miller Sexy
• 1:11:29
  Speaker 3: Liberal shows. He's a very fun guy.
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 1: He's a fun guy, and he's really the kind of
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 1: person that we need at this moment because this congressional election,
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: these midterms are, as we've been saying in our segments
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 1: and the discussion with Congressman Lieu about preserving our democracy.
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 1: The Supreme Court is not going to do it, people.
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 1: You might have learned that in seventh grade civics that
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court protects the Constitution.
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 2: I don't think so.
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 1: But this congressman, a Democratic House, hopefully a Democratic Senate,
• 1:11:57
  Speaker 1: absolutely it's going to do it. And I should say, too,
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 1: you know, we've been very partisan on this podcast today
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 1: in a way that isn't always the case. And that's
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 1: a good thing, because the only way to protect this
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 1: democracy is to recognize democracy. that there is one party
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 1: trying to protect the Constitution at this moment and one
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 1: party that is desperately failing. And that party protecting the
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 1: Constitution obviously is the Democratic Party. And that's why I'm
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 1: so glad to have Ted Lieu on it.
• 1:12:24
  Speaker 3: Some of them are. Some of them are, Corey. Some
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 3: of those Democrats.
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 2: I don't want to say every. Yeah.
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 3: The ones who are supporting democracy are some of the Democrats.
• 1:12:30
  Speaker 1: There's a guy in Pennsylvania named Fetterman.
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Few of them. Professor, thank you. What a what
• 1:12:36
  Speaker 3: a packed show. I want to thank everyone. Let you
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 3: all know I my show is called The John Fuglesang Show.
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 3: We're on Sirius XM Progress every day at 12 noon Eastern,
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 3: 9 a.m. Pacific Coast. And we do this unholy comedy tour,
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 3: the Stephanie Miller Sexy Liberal Comedy Show. We're having only
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 3: one this year. It's going to be at the Saban
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 3: Theater in Los Angeles, Saturday, October 24th. This is the
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 3: big midterm show. If you can't make it to L.A.,
• 1:12:57
  Speaker 3: we're also going to be a live stream pay-per-view. Angela,
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 3: and our special guests. Corey, you know who our guests
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 3: are this time? You know who we got coming on?
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 3: Glenn Kirshner, future America's Attorney General, Mr. Glenn Kirshner, Senator
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 3: Adam Schiff will be joining us on stage, and the
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 3: last Jedi, Mark Hamill. Those three guys, that's like my
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 3: dream crime spree. All three of them joining us live
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 3: on stage on the 24th. Go to sexyliberal.com to get
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 3: your tickets for live or virtual.
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 1: I got to say shout out to Mark Hamill, who
• 1:13:27
  Speaker 1: I know, John, you have interviewed, met him several times.
• 1:13:30
  Speaker 1: I've never met him, but I do see him liking
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 1: when we post the podcast.
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 2: So I'm hoping Mark Hamill is listening.
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 1: My childhood hero, Luke Skywalker, taking in the fight against
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 1: authoritarianism as we knew he would.
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 2: I mean, he fought Darth Vader. He'll help us. Fight
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 2: off this president.
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 1: I haven't said yet, but please do subscribe wherever you
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 1: get your podcasts. You can find us on Spotify or
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 1: Apple or Spreaker and leave us a review. They keep
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 1: coming in, just loads of them. And they are extremely people.
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 2: Like this show.
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 1: I got some data, too, that we have over 80
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 1: people percent listen completion rate that might sound a little
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 1: wonky but it means everybody's listening to almost the whole
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 1: show and you know thanks so much for all the
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 1: support we grew this podcast of course it's independently owned
• 1:14:16
  Speaker 1: and we grew it from zero to one of the
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 1: top three on apple trending podcasts every week we hit
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 1: that top three sometimes we hit one and you can
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 1: find us on youtube i'll also mention too the oath
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 1: in the office sub stack check that out if you
• 1:14:29
  Speaker 1: haven't found it Right on.
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 3: Professor, thank you so much. I want to thank Wendy
• 1:14:33
  Speaker 3: and Beowulf and everyone who puts the show together. And
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 3: I can't wait to see you next time, Corey. Oh,
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 3: and also, yeah, give us your reviews and write to us, too.
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 3: We will read your letters on the air as well.
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 3: Thank you so much, Corey. We'll see you next time
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 3: on The Oath in the Office.