Latest / Pod Save America / “A prison of political caution.”

Transcript

“A prison of political caution.” · Pod Save America

0:20
Speaker 1: Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau.
0:22
Speaker 2: I'm Dan Pfeiffer.
0:23
Speaker 3: Later in the pod, I chat with Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib
0:26
Speaker 3: about all kinds of stuff in the news. Before that,
0:29
Speaker 3: we've got a lot of news to get through from
0:30
Speaker 3: the lawsuit that might undo the Affordable Care Act to
0:33
Speaker 3: the latest Trump scandals to some brand new polling we're
0:37
Speaker 3: releasing today about the 2020 primary. A few programming notes.
0:42
Speaker 3: We'll be releasing a bonus episode of Pod Save America
0:44
Speaker 3: on Friday featuring our interview with World Cup champion Megan Rapinoe,
0:51
Speaker 3: who will be dropping by Crooked HQ later today. The
0:55
Speaker 3: entire staff is very excited, Dan.
0:59
Speaker 2: That's awesome. That is very cool and I'm very jealous.
1:02
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:03
Speaker 3: Also on the latest episode of Pod Save the World,
1:06
Speaker 3: Tommy and Ben talk about Trump's Twitter fight with the
1:07
Speaker 3: British ambassador to the U.S.
1:10
Speaker 1: As well as big updates out of Iran, North Korea.
1:13
Speaker 3: And make sure to check out our new Crooked Minis
1:15
Speaker 3: series called Reclaiming Patriotism hosted by former Navy pilot and
1:19
Speaker 3: congressional candidate Ken Harbaugh featuring interviews with people like Pete Buttigieg,
1:24
Speaker 3: Tammy Duckworth, and Barbara Lee. It's an excellent series.
1:28
Speaker 1: Go check it out.
1:29
Speaker 3: Finally, we will be in Denver on July 17th and
1:33
Speaker 3: in Salt Lake City on July 18th. That's next week.
1:37
Speaker 3: The shows will be co-hosted by Hysteria's Aaron Ryan. So
1:40
Speaker 3: make sure to come see us live. Get tickets at crooked.com
1:43
Speaker 3: slash events. There are still some available. All right, let's
1:48
Speaker 3: get to the news. Donald Trump and Republicans moved one
1:52
Speaker 3: step closer towards their longtime goal of destroying the Affordable
1:56
Speaker 3: Care Act this week. when two out of three judges
1:58
Speaker 3: on a fifth circuit court of appeals panel seemed amenable
2:02
Speaker 3: to the argument made by republican plaintiffs that the entire
2:05
Speaker 3: law is unconstitutional now that the individual mandate has been
2:10
Speaker 3: eliminated by congress uh... dan obviously the affordable characters had
2:15
Speaker 3: some close calls before how did this particular legal challenge
2:19
Speaker 3: come about how did how do we get to this place.
2:23
Speaker 2: So Late last year, a very conservative judge in Texas
2:28
Speaker 2: struck down the law, and the argument behind it was
2:32
Speaker 2: that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Now, in 2012, the
2:35
Speaker 2: Supreme Court held that the individual mandate was constitutional, but
2:39
Speaker 2: they did so by saying that the government could require
2:43
Speaker 2: people to have health insurance because they had the power
2:45
Speaker 2: to tax. In the Republican tax bill of 2017, they
2:52
Speaker 2: struck down the individual mandate. Thank you, Susan Collins. And
2:56
Speaker 2: so this judge said, since the Congress was no longer taxing,
3:00
Speaker 2: that they didn't have the power to do this. And
3:02
Speaker 2: then the judge said, because the individual mandate was unconstitutional,
3:06
Speaker 2: the entire law was. So the law stayed in place
3:09
Speaker 2: as this argument was happening. It went to the Fifth Circuit,
3:12
Speaker 2: I believe. They had this argument where they're going to
3:15
Speaker 2: test two questions. One, whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional
3:21
Speaker 2: if the government is not taxing.
3:23
Speaker 1: And two.
3:24
Speaker 2: this idea of severability where you, could you remove the
3:28
Speaker 2: individual mandate, keep the rest of the law? And that,
3:32
Speaker 2: so those are the, the two fundamental questions are, is
3:34
Speaker 2: the individual mandate constitutional? And if it is not, is
3:36
Speaker 2: it quote unquote severable from the law? And you got
3:40
Speaker 2: all of that because I took three constitutional law classes
3:42
Speaker 2: at Georgetown.
3:43
Speaker 1: I was going to say, you know, I'm no, I'm
3:46
Speaker 1: no legal expert, legal scholar. I'm not a lawyer.
3:49
Speaker 3: But there's two pretty common sense answers to the questions
3:53
Speaker 3: at the heart of this case that you just raised. One,
3:57
Speaker 3: is the individual mandate still constitutional? Well, it was like
4:02
Speaker 3: you said, it was held as constitutional because it's a
4:05
Speaker 3: tax and Congress has the power to tax. All Congress
4:08
Speaker 3: did in the 2017 bill was take the tax from
4:12
Speaker 3: whatever it was down to zero. So now there's just
4:15
Speaker 3: zero dollars of fine if you... if you go without
4:19
Speaker 3: health insurance. So I don't know how that changes the
4:20
Speaker 3: constitutionality of it. And the second question, can the law
4:25
Speaker 3: survive without the individual mandate in place? Well, we've had
4:28
Speaker 3: two years since they brought the fine down to zero,
4:32
Speaker 3: and the law has survived. And so I don't understand
4:37
Speaker 3: this legal argument. And we should point out, by the way,
4:39
Speaker 3: that it's not just a bunch of liberals and Democrats
4:42
Speaker 3: who are arguing that this challenge, this particular legal challenge,
4:45
Speaker 3: is absurd. There are some very conservative legal scholars, most
4:50
Speaker 3: notably this guy named Jonathan Adler, who is a law
4:54
Speaker 3: professor at Case Western, who had previously filed briefs against
5:00
Speaker 3: the Affordable Care Act when it was being challenged legally,
5:03
Speaker 3: and it appeared before the Supreme Court. And now he's
5:06
Speaker 3: saying this legal challenge from conservatives is, quote, absurd.
5:12
Speaker 1: So.
5:13
Speaker 3: So legal scholars from across the political spectrum think this
5:16
Speaker 3: challenge is absurd. And yet they found this judge in
5:19
Speaker 3: Texas who decided to uphold, you know, decided to side
5:24
Speaker 3: with the plaintiffs. And now two out of three judges
5:27
Speaker 3: on this circuit court panel, one was appointed by George W. Bush,
5:31
Speaker 3: one was appointed by Trump. And they both at least,
5:36
Speaker 3: you know, during the argument, they seemed like they might
5:38
Speaker 3: be amenable to the plaintiff's case. So how scared should
5:41
Speaker 3: we be here?
5:44
Speaker 2: We should always be scared. Absolutely. I mean, there are
5:48
Speaker 2: reasons to not panic, and we can talk about those.
5:53
Speaker 2: But I found this very worrisome because the arguments flew
5:58
Speaker 2: in the face of reality. I mean, I say the arguments.
6:04
Speaker 2: The arguments from the people who want to get rid
6:06
Speaker 2: of the ACA, yes, that was absurd, as it was
6:08
Speaker 2: meant to be. But the questions that the judges asked,
6:11
Speaker 2: like Judge Elrod, who is I believe the Bush appointee
6:14
Speaker 2: on the panel, basically said Congress didn't make it clear
6:18
Speaker 2: that they wanted to preserve the law when they got
6:20
Speaker 2: rid of the individual mandate, except there are two problems
6:22
Speaker 2: with that. Congress had voted against repealing the law about
6:28
Speaker 2: less than a year before, or about a year before
6:30
Speaker 2: they voted to get rid of the individual mandate, and
6:35
Speaker 2: the swing votes on the individual mandate provisioned have said
6:41
Speaker 2: that they support the law. So there is both, there
6:43
Speaker 2: is actions that happened beforehand and comments afterwards, which should
6:48
Speaker 2: both make it pretty fucking obvious what Congress was trying
6:51
Speaker 2: to do here. And so that part, to me, is
6:55
Speaker 2: very worrisome. Like this, it's seen from the questioning, right?
6:59
Speaker 2: And there are lots of comments here, but it's seen
7:01
Speaker 2: from the questioning that the judges were looking for a
7:04
Speaker 2: pretext to overturn the law and send it to the
7:07
Speaker 2: Supreme Court.
7:08
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, what you were just talking about is
7:11
Speaker 3: that the judges are basically trying to divine congressional intent here.
7:15
Speaker 3: So did Congress intend to get rid of the whole
7:19
Speaker 3: law when they repealed the individual mandate? And one of
7:22
Speaker 3: the judges, Judge Elrod, actually said, don't you think that
7:25
Speaker 3: maybe when Congress repealed the individual mandate that they said, aha,
7:29
Speaker 3: this is the silver bullet that will destroy Obamacare? But
7:33
Speaker 3: like you said, the big problem is they had an
7:35
Speaker 3: opportunity to destroy the whole law.
7:37
Speaker 1: They voted it down. They didn't have the votes to
7:40
Speaker 1: destroy the whole law. They don't want to. So I just.
7:44
Speaker 3: It's absurd. It is completely absurd. So what are the
7:47
Speaker 3: reasons for optimism here? If, let's say, what we think
7:52
Speaker 3: will happen happens and the Fifth Circuit basically sides with
7:58
Speaker 3: the judge in Texas on holding the whole law unconstitutional,
8:01
Speaker 3: what happens next?
8:03
Speaker 2: Well, the reasons for... I don't even want to say
8:06
Speaker 2: optimism because optimism just feels... like the wrong thing to
8:10
Speaker 2: offer people, but is into– and I say that because
8:14
Speaker 2: there are– this is not– I have optimism when the
8:18
Speaker 2: public can do something to affect the outcome.
8:20
Speaker 1: Right.
8:21
Speaker 2: When you have a bunch of federal society born and
8:24
Speaker 2: bred judges in this circuit and the Supreme Court making
8:28
Speaker 2: decisions that are in line with the Republican Party policy
8:32
Speaker 2: and the wishes of the Republican donor class, then I
8:35
Speaker 2: am cynical. When the public has a chance to weigh in,
8:39
Speaker 2: then I am optimistic. And in this case, there are
8:41
Speaker 2: reasons for it here. But the reasons, just to provide
8:44
Speaker 2: some context for this, is in 2012, when the Affordable
8:50
Speaker 2: Care Act had its Supreme Court hearing, the hearing went
8:53
Speaker 2: so poorly that everyone presumed the law was dead. It
8:57
Speaker 2: was just seen to be a disaster for the Obama administration,
9:02
Speaker 2: and the law was preserved. The other reason is that
9:05
Speaker 2: despite all the changes that have happened in the Supreme Court,
9:07
Speaker 2: the jamming through of people like Brett Kavanaugh, the stealing
9:10
Speaker 2: of the Merrick Garland seat, the five justices that ruled
9:13
Speaker 2: to preserve the Affordable Care Act in 2012 and 2015
9:17
Speaker 2: are still on the court.
9:18
Speaker 1: Right.
9:19
Speaker 3: So we will see what happens here. I mean, the
9:22
Speaker 3: Fifth Circuit has to rule and then if they happen
9:24
Speaker 3: to rule against the judge in Texas and against the plaintiffs,
9:27
Speaker 3: then the Supreme Court will probably never hear it and
9:29
Speaker 3: the whole thing will be done. But if they do agree,
9:31
Speaker 3: then yeah, then we'll have another, probably the third legal
9:35
Speaker 3: challenge to the Affordable Care Act to reach the Supreme Court.
9:39
Speaker 3: And this will also likely be in the middle of
9:43
Speaker 3: the 2020 election. So obviously there are tremendous political implications,
9:47
Speaker 3: as well as the sort of horrifying consequences for Americans
9:51
Speaker 3: if this law is repealed. In terms of the political implications,
9:56
Speaker 3: let's start with the primary. Most of the debate thus
10:01
Speaker 3: far has been about whether or not to move to
10:04
Speaker 3: a single-payer system. How, if at all, does the debate
10:08
Speaker 3: change now that the Affordable Care Act is in jeopardy?
10:14
Speaker 2: I think this is going to go two ways. For
10:15
Speaker 2: a in his big speech in South Carolina last weekend,
10:22
Speaker 2: is essentially trying to rerun the play that Hillary Clinton
10:26
Speaker 2: ran in 2016, which is to take on the advocates
10:29
Speaker 2: for Medicare for All or a single-payer system by making
10:34
Speaker 2: himself the defender of the Affordable Care Act, right? That
10:37
Speaker 2: it is Affordable Care Act versus Medicare for All. And
10:41
Speaker 2: if the Affordable Care Act is not around, that makes
10:45
Speaker 2: that a harder challenge. I think the big question for
10:48
Speaker 2: Democrats will be, does the argument shift towards preserving the
10:56
Speaker 2: Affordable Care Act? The Affordable Care Act has almost been
10:58
Speaker 2: an afterthought in the healthcare conversations in this primary. It's
11:02
Speaker 2: all been about what comes next and not so much
11:04
Speaker 2: about what is here now and how we protect it.
11:07
Speaker 2: And I wonder whether it's going to, for some portion
11:10
Speaker 2: of our very large primary field, we will start having
11:16
Speaker 2: more of a conversation about what is good about the
11:18
Speaker 2: Affordable Care Act as opposed to what is missing and
11:22
Speaker 2: what needs to be added onto it or changed or
11:25
Speaker 2: scrapped to have a better, more affordable, more accessible universal
11:29
Speaker 2: healthcare system in this country.
11:31
Speaker 1: Yeah.
11:31
Speaker 3: I mean, it's probably useful to think about this in
11:33
Speaker 3: terms of we all want guaranteed universal coverage. We all
11:39
Speaker 3: want affordable and quality coverage. And Where does the Affordable
11:44
Speaker 3: Care Act fall short on those goals? And then how
11:46
Speaker 3: can we reach those goals? And that could mean covering
11:50
Speaker 3: the people who still aren't covered, making sure that deductibles
11:53
Speaker 3: and co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses aren't as high as they
11:57
Speaker 3: still are for a lot of people. And I think
12:00
Speaker 3: the question is, can you achieve those goals by adding
12:05
Speaker 3: a public option or improving the Affordable Care Act in
12:07
Speaker 3: other ways? Or is the only way to achieve those
12:10
Speaker 3: goals to finally move to a single payer system, which
12:15
Speaker 3: would look very different than what we have right now
12:18
Speaker 3: with the even with the Affordable Care Act. And I
12:21
Speaker 3: do think like Biden's people have at least hinted in
12:26
Speaker 3: recent weeks that this is where they want to take
12:29
Speaker 3: the health care debate. One Biden aide told Politico we're
12:33
Speaker 3: headed for a health care conversation in this party. I
12:36
Speaker 3: think he'll be talking about it more in the coming days.
12:38
Speaker 3: And then Biden himself in Charleston said, on Sunday said, quote,
12:42
Speaker 3: on health care, we strongly disagree. I don't want to
12:44
Speaker 3: do away with Obamacare, start all over and trash it.
12:47
Speaker 3: What do you think about that argument?
12:50
Speaker 2: I don't love it for a whole host of reasons.
12:53
Speaker 2: I think there's a legitimate policy discussion about whether you
12:56
Speaker 2: take the Affordable Care Act and you build onto it
12:59
Speaker 2: with a Medicare buy-in or a public option or something else,
13:01
Speaker 2: as opposed to over a transition period, scrapping the entire
13:05
Speaker 2: system and building a new one that is single-payer based
13:08
Speaker 2: like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and others have advocated for.
13:11
Speaker 2: I think that is a legitimate policy debate. What I
13:13
Speaker 2: find uncomfortable about the Biden approach, which I think was
13:15
Speaker 2: also endemic to the Clinton approach in 2016, is it
13:21
Speaker 2: turns this into a proxy conversation about your love for
13:27
Speaker 2: Barack Obama, right? Are you going to stand with Barack
13:30
Speaker 2: Obama and be for the ACA? Are you going to
13:32
Speaker 2: be against Barack Obama and suffer the political consequences of
13:35
Speaker 2: being the other side of someone who has a 96%
13:38
Speaker 2: approval rate in the Democratic primary? The problem is Barack
13:40
Speaker 2: Obama himself is very clear-eyed, open, and honest that the
13:44
Speaker 2: Affordable Care Act is the beginning of a process to
13:47
Speaker 2: get us universal health care and has talked about Medicare
13:50
Speaker 2: for all as an eventual goal and supported a Medicare
13:53
Speaker 2: buy-in in 2000. when we were trying to pass the
13:57
Speaker 2: bill and supported a public option, all those things. And
14:00
Speaker 2: so I think we should have a legitimate conversation about
14:04
Speaker 2: what the best policy is and a frank conversation about
14:07
Speaker 2: the political ramifications for choosing one of those sides. What
14:12
Speaker 2: are the political consequences both in terms of the general
14:17
Speaker 2: election and also for a president who was newly elected
14:21
Speaker 2: who was trying to enact that policy? That This should
14:24
Speaker 2: not be some sort of ivory tower conversation. There's politics
14:27
Speaker 2: involved here, and that should be part of the conversation
14:30
Speaker 2: that happens. But I think it is an oversimplification of
14:34
Speaker 2: the process to say you're either with the ACA and Obama,
14:37
Speaker 2: or you're with Medicare for All and against Obama, because
14:40
Speaker 2: I don't think that's how Barack Obama would come down
14:41
Speaker 2: on that issue.
14:42
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I think there's a.
14:43
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm hoping there's a sort of robust policy
14:47
Speaker 3: debate about healthcare in this primary that doesn't sort of
14:51
Speaker 3: resort to you know, are you on the side of
14:53
Speaker 3: Obamacare or are you not? Because look, I even think
14:57
Speaker 3: that the, and you know, Ezra Klein wrote a good
14:59
Speaker 3: piece about this in Vox. Like I think this debate
15:03
Speaker 3: about abolishing private insurance or not is a bit of
15:06
Speaker 3: a red herring in terms of what the real differences
15:11
Speaker 3: are between all the plans and the real heart of
15:13
Speaker 3: this debate is, which is about sort of financing this
15:17
Speaker 3: new system, right? Like in Bernie's bill, that Warren and
15:21
Speaker 3: Harris and others are on and support, literally everything is free.
15:26
Speaker 3: Your doctor's visits are free. There's no copayments. There's no out-of-pocket.
15:30
Speaker 3: Everything's covered. Every procedure's covered. But also, you know, the
15:35
Speaker 3: government sort of sets prices and has to figure out,
15:38
Speaker 3: you know, what is covered. And to finance a system
15:42
Speaker 3: like that, like, you know, Bernie's folks will say, well,
15:46
Speaker 3: you're not going to pay premiums anymore, so when you
15:48
Speaker 3: pay more in taxes... that's just you paying the premiums
15:52
Speaker 3: you would have paid otherwise. But it's not quite as
15:55
Speaker 3: clean as that. And there is this transition period too.
15:58
Speaker 3: And so, you know, no one has really laid out
16:01
Speaker 3: in detail exactly how you finance completely free medical care.
16:06
Speaker 3: You know, Medicare that is more generous than the Medicare
16:08
Speaker 3: program we have now and more generous than most countries
16:11
Speaker 3: with a single payer system. And the question is, how
16:15
Speaker 3: do you finance that? And who pays what? And what
16:19
Speaker 3: do the tax increases look like? And what do the
16:22
Speaker 3: reimbursements to the hospitals and doctors look like?
16:24
Speaker 1: And these are all.
16:25
Speaker 3: Really important questions that go far beyond, are you going to,
16:28
Speaker 3: quote unquote, abolish private insurance or not?
16:32
Speaker 4: Right.
16:33
Speaker 2: Even though that is an important question, both, because it
16:38
Speaker 2: may be the right thing to do, it may be
16:39
Speaker 2: the wrong thing to do, but it has implications. And
16:42
Speaker 2: it does make... It sort of... damages some of the
16:45
Speaker 2: comparisons to other countries who have government-run health care or
16:49
Speaker 2: single-payer health care that also still have some measure of
16:52
Speaker 2: private insurance.
16:52
Speaker 1: That's right.
16:53
Speaker 2: That is an element of the plan that is interesting
16:57
Speaker 2: and notable to a lot of people.
16:59
Speaker 4: Yeah.
16:59
Speaker 3: So if the Supreme Court kills the Affordable Care Act,
17:02
Speaker 3: it's pretty obvious how it becomes a major issue in
17:04
Speaker 3: the election. If it doesn't, though, or if we're still
17:08
Speaker 3: in limbo, How do Democrats make the Republican threat to
17:12
Speaker 3: repeal the law a more central issue than it's been
17:15
Speaker 3: so far since we've been talking so much about Medicare
17:18
Speaker 3: for All?
17:19
Speaker 2: Well, let's start with the worst scenario and work our
17:22
Speaker 2: way backwards. So let's say the Supreme Court strikes it down.
17:26
Speaker 2: What I would then recommend that the Democratic House does
17:29
Speaker 2: is immediately pass a version of the ACA that is
17:33
Speaker 2: almost word for word what we currently have without the
17:35
Speaker 2: individual mandate. and sends it to the Senate, and forces
17:38
Speaker 2: the Trump administration to oppose it, and all of those
17:41
Speaker 2: vulnerable Republican senators to oppose it and filibuster it. That's
17:47
Speaker 2: what we should do. If the ACA is gone, if
17:50
Speaker 2: the parameters of the Democratic healthcare discussion has been the
17:55
Speaker 2: Affordable Care Act is the floor, and we're debating what
17:57
Speaker 2: the ceiling can be in the near term about the
18:00
Speaker 2: US healthcare system, then we got to put the floor
18:02
Speaker 2: back in place. And So if we were able to
18:06
Speaker 2: do that, I think that would put tremendous pressure, put
18:08
Speaker 2: the ACA back on the table, would reignite the conversations
18:11
Speaker 2: that were happening in 2018 that were so beneficial to
18:13
Speaker 2: Democrats about the future of the Affordable Care Act being
18:16
Speaker 2: on the line. The Affordable Care Act is popular, which
18:20
Speaker 2: is a weird thing for those of us who were
18:22
Speaker 2: around in the early days to say, but it is
18:23
Speaker 2: quite popular with a large swath of voters. And we can, like,
18:27
Speaker 2: that would be the recommendation. I worry that we would
18:29
Speaker 2: wrap ourselves around the axle about that with, like, Should.
18:33
Speaker 1: We do that?
18:34
Speaker 2: Should we make it the ACA plus? Should we do
18:37
Speaker 2: the ACA plus something else? But just do the simplest
18:40
Speaker 2: thing that puts the ACA back on the table and
18:43
Speaker 2: puts pressure on Republicans to show that they are against
18:47
Speaker 2: all of the parts of the plan that are incredibly popular.
18:49
Speaker 2: Protection of people with pre-existing conditions, preventive care, lifetime limits,
18:54
Speaker 2: caps on out-of-pocket costs, all the things that are incredibly
18:56
Speaker 2: important and popular, and make ourselves the advocate for that
19:00
Speaker 2: again and make it very clear who the opponents are.
19:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, especially, I mean, we need to highlight the
19:06
Speaker 3: very human stakes of what happens if this law is killed,
19:11
Speaker 3: which Republicans have advocated for for a.
19:14
Speaker 1: Very long time.
19:15
Speaker 3: It's 20 million people who will lose their health insurance.
19:20
Speaker 3: This isn't like, you know, you had private insurance and
19:22
Speaker 3: then you transition to a government program like we're talking
19:25
Speaker 3: about with.
19:25
Speaker 1: Medicare for All.
19:26
Speaker 3: This is losing your health insurance. You have no health insurance.
19:30
Speaker 3: This is All the prescription drug discounts in the bill
19:34
Speaker 3: go away. The protections for pre-existing conditions go away. So
19:37
Speaker 3: an insurance company can prevent you from getting insurance if
19:41
Speaker 3: you have a pre-existing condition or drop you from your
19:45
Speaker 3: insurance if you have a pre-existing condition. It means young
19:48
Speaker 3: people can't stay on their parents' health insurance. insurance until
19:51
Speaker 3: they're 26 anymore. So it's not just even the uninsured
19:55
Speaker 3: or people who buy insurance on the exchanges that get
19:58
Speaker 3: screwed here. It's millions and millions and millions of Americans
20:03
Speaker 3: who are paying less for their health care because of
20:06
Speaker 3: the Affordable Care Act and who are protected from the
20:08
Speaker 3: worst practices of the insurance companies because of the affordable
20:11
Speaker 3: care act all of that goes away and i think
20:14
Speaker 3: democrats can very fairly lay that at the feet not
20:18
Speaker 3: just of the at the courts of every republican politician
20:22
Speaker 3: who's advocated for the repeal of the affordable care act
20:24
Speaker 3: and voted for it numerous times over the last ten
20:27
Speaker 3: years and donald trump himself supports this lawsuit who's filed
20:32
Speaker 3: brief after brief in support of this lawsuit it is
20:35
Speaker 3: their fault that the affordable care act is in jeopardy
20:38
Speaker 3: right now and if the blood dies it is the
20:40
Speaker 3: republicans fault and i think it's also good for democrats
20:43
Speaker 3: to say even if the supreme court upholds the law
20:46
Speaker 3: well it's nice at the supreme court upheld the law
20:48
Speaker 3: but if you vote for republicans if donald trump is
20:50
Speaker 3: reelected and republican house is elected this is exactly what
20:54
Speaker 3: will happen they will finish the job they've promised to
20:56
Speaker 3: finish the job and they will kill obama care in
20:59
Speaker 3: these devastating consequences uh... will be felt all throughout this
21:03
Speaker 3: country so i i i feel like that's that's gonna
21:05
Speaker 3: be the argument right.
21:07
Speaker 2: And the question is how you deliver that argument, right?
21:09
Speaker 2: How do you get it in front of people? Because
21:13
Speaker 2: here is the Affordable Care Act. Here's something that affects
21:15
Speaker 2: millions of people. From a domestic policy perspective, it should
21:19
Speaker 2: be the single most important story in the land. And
21:22
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's social media summit slash grievance gathering is going
21:25
Speaker 2: to get nearly as much coverage because that's just how
21:29
Speaker 2: the press works this day. And I just think Like
21:31
Speaker 2: everyone talks about what are the lessons in 2018? What
21:34
Speaker 2: works so well that help us do so well in 2018?
21:37
Speaker 2: How can we replicate that for 2020? And the argument
21:40
Speaker 2: in 2018 that was so powerful with voters was that
21:43
Speaker 2: Democrats would protect their four-world character, Republicans would get rid
21:46
Speaker 2: of it, right, in order to pay for tax cuts
21:48
Speaker 2: for millionaires and Wall Street executives. But it is not
21:52
Speaker 2: true that all the news stories in the run-up to
21:56
Speaker 2: the election were about health care. In fact, none of
21:59
Speaker 2: them were. The reason it was on the ballot was
22:02
Speaker 2: because Democratic candidates and campaigns put it on the ballot
22:06
Speaker 2: by advertising about it digitally and, yes, on television and
22:10
Speaker 2: elsewhere and talking about it on the stump every single day.
22:12
Speaker 2: They did it with zero help from the press.
22:15
Speaker 1: Yeah.
22:15
Speaker 2: Right? And so, like, we see this and you see
22:19
Speaker 2: it in all the talking points and press releases that
22:20
Speaker 2: we see from Democratic politicians and campaigns. It's like, oh,
22:24
Speaker 2: something's happening that will allow us to talk about the
22:26
Speaker 2: ACA for five minutes. And that's great. We should do that.
22:28
Speaker 2: Take advantage of that opportunity. to try to get a
22:30
Speaker 2: little coverage. But the way you penetrate, there is no
22:34
Speaker 2: way to make healthcare a top long-term news story in
22:39
Speaker 2: this country because that is not who the press is.
22:41
Speaker 2: That is not what the economic model of media and
22:46
Speaker 2: the digital ad age, that's not how it works. And
22:48
Speaker 2: so campaigns have to decide to do this. The presidential
22:51
Speaker 2: campaign has to decide to do this. The presidential candidates
22:54
Speaker 2: have to decide to do this. All the Senate and
22:55
Speaker 2: House candidates have to decide to do it. They have
22:57
Speaker 2: to invest money And the Democratic super PAC and party
23:02
Speaker 2: apparatus has to invest money in doing this, and they
23:05
Speaker 2: have to start now.
23:07
Speaker 1: Yeah.
23:08
Speaker 3: Every candidate for office, every Democratic presidential candidate, every candidate
23:11
Speaker 3: everywhere else should be saying they want to take your
23:14
Speaker 3: health care away at least five.
23:16
Speaker 1: Times a day.
23:18
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, it's got to be a central
23:21
Speaker 3: part of the message. And you're right that you have
23:24
Speaker 3: to be creative enough and persistent enough that you get
23:29
Speaker 3: get this message out in a way that doesn't rely
23:32
Speaker 3: on the, you know, media that has ADD from, you know,
23:39
Speaker 3: you can't rely on them to do it. You can't
23:40
Speaker 3: rely on, you can't wait for opportunities like this. You
23:43
Speaker 3: just got to keep saying it every single day.
23:46
Speaker 2: I am a broken record on this. I'm going to
23:48
Speaker 2: scream about it till my head explodes or we win
23:51
Speaker 2: this election, whichever comes first, which is if you think
23:55
Speaker 2: the mainstream media, everyone from the New York Times to CNN,
23:58
Speaker 2: is the primary vehicle for getting your message in front
24:01
Speaker 2: of voters you are going to lose. That was barely
24:04
Speaker 2: true 10 years ago. And in this age, particularly in
24:07
Speaker 2: the era of Trump, it is impossible. It cannot work.
24:10
Speaker 2: It is a strategy doomed to failure. It was a
24:12
Speaker 2: lesson in 2016. The lesson of 2018 is that there
24:16
Speaker 2: is another way to do it. And we have to
24:18
Speaker 2: adopt a new fundamental understanding of communication in the modern age.
24:24
Speaker 2: End of rant.
24:25
Speaker 1: Agree.
24:28
Speaker 3: All right, let's talk about what Democrats in the House
24:36
Speaker 3: are doing or not doing about the ever-growing pile of
24:39
Speaker 3: crimes and scandals around Donald Trump. On Wednesday, the president's
24:42
Speaker 3: labor secretary, Alex Acosta, defended his handling of a 2008
24:46
Speaker 3: plea agreement he offered as a U.S. attorney to Jeffrey Epstein,
24:50
Speaker 3: a rich, politically connected investor who's now facing fresh charges
24:53
Speaker 3: of running a child sex trafficking operation. Under the deal,
24:58
Speaker 3: Epstein entered a guilty plea in state court and served
25:00
Speaker 3: only 13 months in jail and was allowed to leave
25:04
Speaker 3: to work in an office during his trying 13-month stay
25:08
Speaker 3: in a jail. Acosta said he made the deal with
25:11
Speaker 3: Epstein because he didn't want to risk Epstein not going
25:14
Speaker 3: to jail at all, which he thought would have happened
25:15
Speaker 3: if he didn't make the deal. Congressional Democrats, including House
25:19
Speaker 3: Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are calling on Acosta to step down.
25:22
Speaker 1: But Pelosi also basically ruled out.
25:24
Speaker 3: Impeaching Acosta and said that accountability for Acosta is the
25:27
Speaker 3: president's problem and that it's, quote, his cabinet. This comes
25:31
Speaker 3: after Pelosi chose not to fight Republicans over the recent
25:33
Speaker 3: border bill, continues to resist impeachment, and said a few
25:37
Speaker 3: weeks ago that Congress had too many other things going
25:39
Speaker 3: on to investigate the recent rape allegation against Trump. Dan,
25:43
Speaker 3: let's start with the Acosta-Epstein drama. Who is Jeffrey Epstein,
25:48
Speaker 3: and why does this story have a political connection in
25:51
Speaker 3: the first place, aside from the link to Acosta that
25:55
Speaker 3: we just spoke about?
25:57
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein is a shadowy rich guy. It's not clear
26:02
Speaker 2: how he got to be as rich as he claimed
26:04
Speaker 2: to be, or if he is even that rich. But
26:07
Speaker 2: he was very politically connected. He was close friends with Trump. Uh,
26:13
Speaker 2: in his papers that were released, he had 14 different
26:16
Speaker 2: numbers in his contacts for members of the Trump family
26:19
Speaker 2: from Trump to his assistants, to Melania, to Trump's ex-wife,
26:23
Speaker 2: to Ivanka. So very connected, also very close with Bill Clinton, um,
26:28
Speaker 2: claims to have been intimately involved in the idea for
26:33
Speaker 2: the Clinton global initiative has traveled with Clinton on a
26:35
Speaker 2: couple of times met on his planes many years ago. Um,
26:39
Speaker 2: So he's been in and around for a long time.
26:42
Speaker 2: And so the political connection is his connection to both
26:44
Speaker 2: Clinton and Trump, who do seem to have an amazing
26:49
Speaker 2: ability to be friends with some of the worst people
26:52
Speaker 2: in the world, which would be the one thing I
26:53
Speaker 2: think those two men have in common.
26:54
Speaker 1: Yes.
26:57
Speaker 2: And then the fact that his plea agreement was negotiated
27:02
Speaker 2: and signed off on by Alex Acosta, who's now Trump's
27:04
Speaker 2: labor secretary, has put what would be an otherwise– a
27:09
Speaker 2: political case right in the middle of American politics.
27:13
Speaker 1: Yeah.
27:14
Speaker 3: So why, I mean, why does Acosta still have a
27:18
Speaker 3: job right now? And what can, what could the Democrats
27:20
Speaker 3: do about it? I mean, this guy, the more you
27:22
Speaker 3: look into this deal, he gave this scumbag of a
27:26
Speaker 3: human being, the more enraged you get, right? Like the
27:30
Speaker 3: fact that this guy only served 13 months when there were,
27:34
Speaker 3: I think Acosta set aside, I think the number is
27:37
Speaker 3: 54 different charges in in a federal indictment that had
27:41
Speaker 3: to do with sex trafficking, sex trafficking of minors. I mean,
27:46
Speaker 3: it is truly disgusting stuff. And the fact that he
27:50
Speaker 3: only gets 13 months in jail, during which time he
27:54
Speaker 3: gets to leave to go to work, when you compare
27:58
Speaker 3: that to what, you know, people who are convicted of
28:02
Speaker 3: very minor drug offenses, the prison time that they get.
28:04
Speaker 2: I don't know, having a now legal substance on their person.
28:08
Speaker 1: Right, exactly. Yeah, no shit.
28:10
Speaker 3: So when you compare how Epstein was treated to how
28:14
Speaker 3: most people in this country are treated, especially people of color,
28:17
Speaker 3: especially people who are involved in minor drug offenses, it's
28:21
Speaker 3: pretty sickening. And also, by the way, we should note
28:26
Speaker 3: that a federal judge ruled the deal unlawful because Acosta
28:31
Speaker 3: did not notify the victims, Epstein's victims. And, you know,
28:37
Speaker 3: Acosta gave all kinds of excuses for this yesterday, but
28:40
Speaker 3: a judge ruled that it was illegal. So how does
28:43
Speaker 3: this guy still have a job?
28:46
Speaker 2: Well, I want to go back a second to Nancy
28:48
Speaker 2: Pelosi saying that accountability for the cabinet is the president's responsibility.
28:55
Speaker 1: Right.
28:57
Speaker 2: That is not true. I am sympathetic to Nancy Pelosi
29:00
Speaker 2: on a lot of things. I think she was put
29:01
Speaker 2: in an impossible position on the border bill. Could it
29:03
Speaker 2: have been– should we have a better bill?
29:04
Speaker 1: Yes.
29:04
Speaker 2: Could it have been handled better?
29:05
Speaker 4: Yes. Yes.
29:06
Speaker 2: But all of the blame for that does not fall
29:08
Speaker 2: on her. A lot falls on Senator Schumer and a
29:10
Speaker 2: shitload of Senate Democrats who wanted to go home for
29:13
Speaker 2: the holidays. But on this one, she is wrong. Alex
29:17
Speaker 2: Acosta is the Secretary of Labor. He is responsible for
29:20
Speaker 2: human trafficking policy within the administration. The idea that the
29:24
Speaker 2: person in charge of human trafficking policy gave a sweetheart
29:29
Speaker 2: deal to a politically connected billionaire who was accused of
29:34
Speaker 2: sex trafficking is something that the Congress should look at.
29:37
Speaker 2: Congressional oversight is it is not an option. It is,
29:40
Speaker 2: it is a responsibility, not a privilege. It is something
29:43
Speaker 2: that they are supposed to do. That is their job.
29:46
Speaker 2: And the idea that it is somehow that we're going
29:47
Speaker 2: to count on Trump to, to enact accountability on people
29:53
Speaker 2: who have done things that, who have protected, um, sexual
29:58
Speaker 2: predators is an absurd idea. And it is absolutely something
30:02
Speaker 2: that conquerors should look at. Whether they can actually, they
30:04
Speaker 2: could impeach them. And now could that, we're not counting
30:08
Speaker 2: on the Senate to convict, but they should absolutely look
30:10
Speaker 2: into this deal and expose to the public what can
30:12
Speaker 2: be exposed. That is their job. That is the job
30:15
Speaker 2: we pay them to do. And they should do it.
30:17
Speaker 2: And it is just, it is, I think it is
30:20
Speaker 2: a true, it is a bizarre abdication of responsibility from
30:26
Speaker 2: the congressional Democrats, to not look into this. It really is.
30:30
Speaker 2: And I think it's really unfortunate. I don't even understand
30:32
Speaker 2: what political itch they're trying to scratch by avoiding this.
30:36
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, it does look like they, you know,
30:39
Speaker 3: slightly reversed themselves yesterday when, I guess, Elijah Cummings, who
30:43
Speaker 3: is the chair of the Oversight Committee, sent a letter
30:45
Speaker 3: to Acosta asking that he come testify and answer some questions. Now,
30:50
Speaker 3: I don't know if a subpoena will be issued or what,
30:54
Speaker 3: I sort of wonder, I wonder what you think about this,
30:56
Speaker 3: if there's sort of a logic problem for Pelosi. Like,
31:00
Speaker 3: if she says that the House will look into and
31:04
Speaker 3: possibly begin impeachment proceedings against Alex Acosta, who covered up
31:09
Speaker 3: for a sexual predator, then isn't the question, well, then
31:14
Speaker 3: why won't you begin impeachment proceedings against a real sexual
31:18
Speaker 3: predator in the White House.
31:21
Speaker 4: Who.
31:22
Speaker 3: also committed a whole bunch of other crimes. Like, to me,
31:26
Speaker 3: I feel like she has trapped herself, she has backed
31:29
Speaker 3: herself into a corner by every day seeming to close
31:33
Speaker 3: the door on impeaching Donald Trump so that every other
31:38
Speaker 3: investigative question, every other potential scandal, everything else she's asked
31:42
Speaker 3: to look into, she starts worrying that if she goes
31:44
Speaker 3: down the road, that road leads to impeachment, which she
31:48
Speaker 3: doesn't want to do. Like, to me, it seems like
31:50
Speaker 3: this is the problem with not just saying, I don't
31:55
Speaker 3: know about impeachment yet, but it's an option and we'll
31:57
Speaker 3: see where the facts go. But instead, what she's been saying,
32:00
Speaker 3: which is, you know, Donald Trump is self-impeaching and I
32:04
Speaker 3: don't think we want to do this and basically just
32:07
Speaker 3: throwing cold water on impeachment every day. It seems like
32:09
Speaker 3: she's trapped herself.
32:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're right. She has put herself in a maximum
32:13
Speaker 2: security prison of political caution, which is everything flows from
32:17
Speaker 2: that choice. And the problem is it's pretzel logic because
32:24
Speaker 2: the actual– like if you were doing the politics of it,
32:26
Speaker 2: let's just say you are Nancy Pelosi. You've decided either
32:29
Speaker 2: you yourself believe or the majority of your caucus believe
32:31
Speaker 2: that impeachment is a political error and we should not
32:34
Speaker 2: go down that path. So one option would be to
32:38
Speaker 2: try to shy away from investigations and oversight, which is
32:41
Speaker 2: what they're sort of doing. It's like a fits and
32:43
Speaker 2: starts process. The other thing to do would be to
32:45
Speaker 2: aggressively investigate everything and then if you– if you are willing,
32:51
Speaker 2: if you find something, then you can maybe reverse your
32:53
Speaker 2: position on impeachment. But you are, you're setting the end goal.
32:58
Speaker 2: You're basically, you're working backwards from an end goal as
33:00
Speaker 2: opposed to just going through the process. And I do
33:03
Speaker 2: think one of the things that is affecting our House
33:05
Speaker 2: leadership is whether it's Clyburn or Steny Hoyer or Pelosi
33:11
Speaker 2: or a lot of the other people there, they've been
33:12
Speaker 2: around for a very, very long time. They are the
33:15
Speaker 2: products of their experience. And one of their experiences is
33:18
Speaker 2: in the 90s. When the Republicans took the House after
33:22
Speaker 2: the 1994 election, they investigated Bill Clinton like lunatics, like
33:28
Speaker 2: obsessive conspiracy-laden things to the point where it even seems
33:33
Speaker 2: ridiculous to tell this anecdote. But the person who had
33:36
Speaker 2: Elijah Cummings' job back then, Dan Burton, was convinced that
33:39
Speaker 2: Vince Foster did not commit suicide. He was actually murdered.
33:41
Speaker 2: And in order to prove his point, he once shot
33:43
Speaker 2: a gun into a watermelon as part of a hearing.
33:46
Speaker 2: And so they were insane. And the view in that
33:48
Speaker 2: time was the Republican zeal to investigate Clinton led to
33:53
Speaker 2: Clinton's reelection. And the problem is, Clinton is not Trump.
33:58
Speaker 2: Pelosi is not Gingrich. Then is not now. Because something
34:02
Speaker 2: happened in the 90s doesn't mean it's going to also
34:04
Speaker 2: happen in the 2010s. And so I think they are
34:09
Speaker 2: in some ways, it is this caution born of a
34:14
Speaker 2: very unrelated experience that is keeping them from being as
34:17
Speaker 2: aggressive as they should be. And it causes them to
34:20
Speaker 2: miss the stakes of what is happening here.
34:22
Speaker 1: Yeah.
34:22
Speaker 3: And again, if you are spending every day shitting on
34:26
Speaker 3: the idea of impeachment, which Pelosi does every time she
34:29
Speaker 3: gets asked about it, as opposed to just, you know,
34:33
Speaker 3: a sort of go slow strategy where she says, who
34:35
Speaker 3: knows what might happen and where the facts may lead.
34:38
Speaker 3: The question is, remains, what are you doing all these
34:42
Speaker 3: investigations for? Why are we hearing from Mueller next week
34:45
Speaker 3: if there's no possibility of impeachment? Why do any investigations
34:49
Speaker 3: or oversight at all if it's not possible that what
34:52
Speaker 3: you uncover would lead you to impeach the president? And
34:56
Speaker 3: I think that's her, you know, having it both ways,
34:59
Speaker 3: trying to appease the pro-impeachment crowd with some investigations, with
35:04
Speaker 3: sending a subpoena here, throwing a letter there, but then
35:08
Speaker 3: appeasing the anti-impeachment crowd by saying, oh, we're not going
35:11
Speaker 3: to go there, we don't think it's politically wise, is.
35:14
Speaker 1: A terrible strategy. It's just, it's a terrible strategy. Like,
35:18
Speaker 1: pick one.
35:19
Speaker 3: You know, either go out there and say, we're not
35:22
Speaker 3: going to impeach this guy because the Senate's not going
35:24
Speaker 3: to convict him, and so therefore we're going to focus
35:26
Speaker 3: entirely on other shit.
35:28
Speaker 1: I don't know what it is.
35:29
Speaker 3: I guess passing fucking message bills that will die in
35:32
Speaker 3: the Senate. I guess that's the big strategy. We're going
35:35
Speaker 3: to focus on other shit. Or, At least leave open
35:38
Speaker 3: the fact that at the end of these investigations, you
35:40
Speaker 3: may impeach the president of the United States because he
35:43
Speaker 3: has committed these crimes and is surrounded by a bunch
35:46
Speaker 3: of other criminals and people who protect sexual predators and
35:49
Speaker 3: all the rest.
35:51
Speaker 1: I don't know, man.
35:53
Speaker 2: I'm really losing patience. I have tried to be very
35:57
Speaker 2: sympathetic to the position that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership
36:01
Speaker 2: is in. Because I do believe that Nancy Pelosi in
36:04
Speaker 2: her heart believes that Donald Trump should be impeached. And
36:06
Speaker 2: she is both making a political decision, which one I
36:10
Speaker 2: disagree with, but a political decision. But it's a rational,
36:15
Speaker 2: it's not an irrational political conclusion to make about impeachment,
36:19
Speaker 2: but also serving as a shield for her many members
36:22
Speaker 2: who are hesitant, on impeachment or, or worry about the
36:26
Speaker 2: politics of it and are trying and are now able
36:28
Speaker 2: to say, well, Nancy Pelosi said we're not going to impeach.
36:30
Speaker 2: And so they don't have to suffer the wrath of
36:33
Speaker 2: the 85% of democratic voters who want impeachment.
36:37
Speaker 3: Well, let me ask you about that. Cause, uh, Brian
36:39
Speaker 3: and Boitler and I were sort of, uh, talking about
36:41
Speaker 3: this yesterday. Brian thinks if, um, if it was put
36:46
Speaker 3: to a vote right now, uh, the house would vote,
36:50
Speaker 3: there would be enough votes to impeach or at least
36:52
Speaker 3: to move forward with impeachment proceedings. Um, And that Nancy
36:56
Speaker 3: Pelosi is basically actively whipping against this, or at least
36:59
Speaker 3: not providing the leadership that would bring over some of
37:02
Speaker 3: these moderate Democrats onto the side of impeachment. Because Brian's
37:06
Speaker 3: argument is, look, if they were given a choice, maybe
37:09
Speaker 3: they're sort of, uh, skeptical of impeachment now, but if
37:12
Speaker 3: you're given the choice to stand with Jerry Nadler and
37:15
Speaker 3: launching an impeachment inquiry or standing with Trump and protecting him,
37:18
Speaker 3: then Mo, you know, a majority of Democrats in the
37:21
Speaker 3: house would, uh, vote for the inquiry.
37:23
Speaker 1: Do you agree with that?
37:24
Speaker 3: Or do you think that Nancy Pelosi is doing this
37:27
Speaker 3: because there are not enough votes and there are plenty
37:30
Speaker 3: of members who are just saying, absolutely not, I do
37:32
Speaker 3: not want to vote for even beginning impeachment proceedings?
37:35
Speaker 2: I think the reality is a little more nuanced in
37:38
Speaker 2: a couple of ways. One, I do not think she
37:40
Speaker 2: is whipping against impeachment. I have not heard anything to
37:43
Speaker 2: suggest that. It would be uncharacteristic of Nancy Pelosi's style
37:48
Speaker 2: to be whipping against impeachment. Second, she's certainly not making
37:52
Speaker 2: it easier for people to come for impeachment. Right. So
37:55
Speaker 2: like that is also true. So she's not actively whipping,
37:58
Speaker 2: but she's certainly creating an environment where it's more challenging
38:01
Speaker 2: to come out for impeachment, particularly for committee chairs and
38:05
Speaker 2: members of her leadership team. I think Nancy Pelosi is right.
38:11
Speaker 2: Like if there was a secret ballot, right, where no
38:13
Speaker 2: one had to put their name on their vote, I
38:16
Speaker 2: think impeachment would fail.
38:19
Speaker 4: Yeah.
38:20
Speaker 2: Because I think a lot of people– and I've talked
38:23
Speaker 2: to some of these newly elected freshman members, and this
38:27
Speaker 2: is very worrisome to them. They look at their district.
38:29
Speaker 2: Many of them have polled it, and they think it is,
38:32
Speaker 2: as it currently stands, very unpopular. They depend on a
38:35
Speaker 2: large number of independent votes to get over the top.
38:38
Speaker 2: And so they're very worried about it. I think it's
38:40
Speaker 2: a battle they can win. And right now we're living
38:42
Speaker 2: in a world where you're getting the worst of all worlds,
38:44
Speaker 2: but they believe that. I think if Nancy Pelosi were
38:48
Speaker 2: to decide she was for impeachment and were to say,
38:50
Speaker 2: we're going to have a vote, it would pass. People
38:55
Speaker 2: would vote reluctantly. They wouldn't want to do it. But
38:58
Speaker 2: being on the 15% side of an 85-15% issue in
39:03
Speaker 2: your party is pretty close to impossible if a vote
39:05
Speaker 2: were to be called. And so it's sort of– I
39:08
Speaker 2: don't think there's a whole bunch of people who secretly
39:09
Speaker 2: are for impeachment. I think there are a bunch of
39:11
Speaker 2: people who would be dragged to it by the base
39:15
Speaker 2: and If they were forced to stand in the well
39:17
Speaker 2: of the house and pick one side or the other.
39:20
Speaker 4: Yeah.
39:21
Speaker 2: And Nancy Pelosi is protecting them from that outcome.
39:24
Speaker 1: For a reason.
39:24
Speaker 2: But having said all of that, I think the pay,
39:28
Speaker 2: like the, we have been sympathetic. I have, I have
39:32
Speaker 2: been sympathetic to the position they're in, even if I
39:34
Speaker 2: disagreed with their outcomes. But I think we like between
39:38
Speaker 2: the continued fight with the quote unquote squad, the sort
39:44
Speaker 2: of the half measure approach on this stuff, the way
39:48
Speaker 2: the border bill put out, there's a lot to be
39:50
Speaker 2: very frustrated about how things are going. The answer here
39:54
Speaker 2: is not to disengage from politics and disengage from the
39:56
Speaker 2: House of Representatives. The answer is to re-engage with them
39:59
Speaker 2: and continue to put the pressure on them to do
40:01
Speaker 2: the right thing time and again.
40:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree with that.
40:05
Speaker 3: Okay, let's talk about 2020 and the results of our
40:07
Speaker 3: brand new post-debate poll with our friends at Change Research.
40:11
Speaker 3: We polled 1,261 voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South
40:15
Speaker 3: Carolina and found that a week after the first set
40:17
Speaker 3: of debates, Kamala Harris has gained quite a bit of support,
40:20
Speaker 3: and Joe Biden has lost some. As a result, we
40:23
Speaker 3: see a very close race in the early states, with
40:25
Speaker 3: Bernie Sanders at 19%, Elizabeth Warren at 19%, Joe Biden
40:29
Speaker 3: at 18%, Kamala Harris at 17%, Pete Buttigieg at 15%,
40:33
Speaker 3: and no other candidate above 3%. Harris and Biden are
40:37
Speaker 3: the only candidates whose numbers moved by more than one
40:40
Speaker 3: percentage point in either direction following the debates between our
40:44
Speaker 3: pre-debate poll and our post-debate poll.
40:46
Speaker 1: Overall.
40:47
Speaker 3: the survey found that the debates changed the minds of
40:50
Speaker 3: about a quarter of the voters contacted. That is a
40:54
Speaker 3: tight race, Dan. Five-way race.
40:57
Speaker 1: That's all within the margin.
40:58
Speaker 3: Of error, basically, between 15% for Pete and 19% for
41:02
Speaker 3: Bernie and Warren. Would you think of the results and
41:06
Speaker 3: did anything stand out at you?
41:08
Speaker 2: Well, I think we now have established two very clear tiers.
41:11
Speaker 2: There had been several tiers within the race of maybe
41:14
Speaker 2: Biden at the very top and then Bernie in a
41:16
Speaker 2: second tier all by himself and a bunch of people
41:18
Speaker 2: competing for the third. There is a top tier and
41:22
Speaker 2: there is everyone else. And while there's still a lot
41:24
Speaker 2: of time left, the time is starting to run out
41:28
Speaker 2: for some of those candidates who aren't in that top
41:31
Speaker 2: group to get in that top group to have a
41:33
Speaker 2: real chance to make an impact in this race. So
41:35
Speaker 2: that's one. Two, Kamala Harris's debate performance was even more
41:41
Speaker 2: impactful than we thought it would be, both for her
41:43
Speaker 2: and for Biden. And that sets a stage for what's
41:47
Speaker 2: going to come in these next set of debates for
41:51
Speaker 2: the need for her to maintain her new status, for
41:54
Speaker 2: Biden to recover from where he got, and for a
41:56
Speaker 2: whole bunch of candidates who probably now see the path
41:58
Speaker 2: to the top of the polls is to take a
42:01
Speaker 2: pretty big swing at someone. So I think that's going
42:03
Speaker 2: to impact what happens on the stage. So, I mean,
42:06
Speaker 2: this is an incredibly tight race. It is interesting. And
42:09
Speaker 2: the last thing I'd say is it's very interesting how
42:11
Speaker 2: different the polling is early states is in the national polls.
42:15
Speaker 2: Even though you see some of the trends in the
42:18
Speaker 2: national polling, what happened in the debate is even more
42:21
Speaker 2: impactful in the early states where people are more engaged
42:23
Speaker 2: and they have a context for understanding these candidates because
42:26
Speaker 2: they are there all the time.
42:28
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I think that the two big differences between
42:30
Speaker 3: national polls and I think some of these early state polls,
42:34
Speaker 3: especially our early state poll, is Bernie Sanders seems to
42:38
Speaker 3: be holding on to his support. I know that the
42:40
Speaker 3: poll shows him in first here, but his number did
42:43
Speaker 3: not change between our pre-debate poll and our post-debate poll,
42:46
Speaker 3: which is very interesting. He was at 19% in the
42:48
Speaker 3: pre-debate poll and wasn't in first place, and now he's
42:52
Speaker 3: tied for first with Warren. I mean, everything's within the
42:54
Speaker 3: margin of error here. So he does seem to have this...
42:58
Speaker 3: Bernie's not growing support, and none of these other polls
43:02
Speaker 3: are showing him sort of gaining any support, but he's
43:04
Speaker 3: not really... He probably lost a little bit since he
43:06
Speaker 3: got in the race, but he's not... It seems that
43:08
Speaker 3: he has a floor right now. um, at least in
43:11
Speaker 3: some of these early States. And I'm that's, so that's
43:12
Speaker 3: sort of an interesting thing to watch.
43:14
Speaker 1: Is that enough? I don't know. It seems like you
43:16
Speaker 1: need to grow your support at this point.
43:18
Speaker 2: Um, and then in this poll, it is enough.
43:21
Speaker 1: Yeah.
43:21
Speaker 3: This poll, exactly. It's an interesting thing, right? Like the
43:25
Speaker 3: other candidates could start splitting the vote so much that
43:28
Speaker 3: as long as Bernie holds on to the, you know,
43:30
Speaker 3: anywhere between 15 and 19% that he has in a
43:33
Speaker 3: lot of these polls, then who knows if that's enough?
43:35
Speaker 1: Maybe it is. Um, The other thing is I think
43:37
Speaker 1: Pete Buttigieg, who in some.
43:39
Speaker 3: Of these national polls has either leveled off or sort
43:41
Speaker 3: of lost some support in the early states, especially in Iowa,
43:47
Speaker 3: is still doing really well.
43:50
Speaker 2: And that, so two things about this. The Bernie thing
43:53
Speaker 2: is very important because if he were to, like, there
43:57
Speaker 2: is movement among other candidates and Bernie is rock solid.
43:59
Speaker 2: And they're like, as you said, there's a question of
44:01
Speaker 2: whether his floor is enough to win. But the, the, the,
44:06
Speaker 2: The sequence of the early states is very favorable to
44:09
Speaker 2: Bernie Sanders if he is able to hold on to
44:11
Speaker 2: that floor. We've seen other polls where he has dropped
44:14
Speaker 2: below his steady level in recent months because Elizabeth Warren
44:18
Speaker 2: has gained or others have gained. But let's just take
44:20
Speaker 2: our poll because it's ours. So if he stays there,
44:23
Speaker 2: Iowa he almost won last time. He's incredibly strong in
44:26
Speaker 2: New Hampshire. And you knock those first two out, you're
44:29
Speaker 2: very great. So there has been, I think, a little
44:31
Speaker 2: bit of– like Bernie went from I think being overestimated–
44:36
Speaker 2: having a strength overestimated to now being underestimated. And our
44:39
Speaker 2: poll sort of shows right where he is, which is
44:41
Speaker 2: a very, very legitimate contender for the nomination, particularly in
44:44
Speaker 2: a field where you have several strong contenders. And, you know,
44:49
Speaker 2: there are other contenders, you know, other people in this
44:51
Speaker 2: poll who are doing not well now, but have show
44:54
Speaker 2: room for growth. And some of that growth could come
44:55
Speaker 2: at the expense of some of these other candidates, right?
44:59
Speaker 2: We're running out of free vote, free percentage points for
45:02
Speaker 2: people to get as candidates become more known.
45:05
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think to the first point that you made
45:07
Speaker 3: about the poll, about how there's sort of two tiers now.
45:10
Speaker 3: The other point I thought was interesting from our poll
45:12
Speaker 3: is how difficult it is to sort of break out
45:15
Speaker 3: of that bottom tier, even if you've had a good
45:18
Speaker 3: debate performance. So let's take Julian Castro. He was a
45:23
Speaker 3: pleasant surprise in the debates to 23 percent of respondents,
45:27
Speaker 3: which was behind only Kamala Harris, who was at 26 percent.
45:32
Speaker 3: But while Harris's horse number, horse race numbers skyrocketed as
45:35
Speaker 3: a result of the debate, Castro is still at 1%
45:38
Speaker 3: support and he's the second choice of only 2% more.
45:41
Speaker 3: So obviously his name ID is still very low. It
45:45
Speaker 3: was helped in his favorability ratings were helped by the debate,
45:47
Speaker 3: but it didn't really, even though we had that moment
45:50
Speaker 3: and had this great debate, it didn't really change the
45:53
Speaker 3: horse race numbers for him.
45:54
Speaker 1: All that much.
45:55
Speaker 3: And, and he's the one who had in the lower
45:58
Speaker 3: tier who had a really good debate. I'd say Cory
45:59
Speaker 3: Booker did too, and his numbers didn't really change. So
46:02
Speaker 3: it sort of shows the challenge of breaking out of
46:04
Speaker 3: that bottom tier.
46:06
Speaker 2: It'll be interesting if we ever get to a point
46:09
Speaker 2: where the debate stage is narrowed, right? And I was
46:15
Speaker 2: thinking that was going to happen in September when the
46:19
Speaker 2: third debate happens and the DNC requirements go up, but
46:22
Speaker 2: we've seen A number of candidates who were in danger
46:24
Speaker 2: of not making that stage either get there or come
46:27
Speaker 2: very close to get there. Castro announced, I believe, the
46:30
Speaker 2: other day that he got the 130,000 grassroots donors. Andrew
46:35
Speaker 2: Yang was incredibly close to that number a few weeks ago,
46:38
Speaker 2: so I imagine he crossed it. The problem is your
46:41
Speaker 2: good performance is diluted by being one of 20.
46:43
Speaker 1: Yeah.
46:45
Speaker 4: Right?
46:45
Speaker 2: And particularly if you are less known, you've been less
46:48
Speaker 2: in the mindset. You know, as people... There's a handful
46:53
Speaker 2: of very well-known candidates, and it is– and coming into
46:56
Speaker 2: this race, right? Like Biden had 100% name ID. Bernie
47:01
Speaker 2: Sanders had 100% name ID. Elizabeth Warren, very well-known, been
47:04
Speaker 2: on the national scene for a long time. Kamala Harris,
47:06
Speaker 2: newer to the national scene but came into this race
47:08
Speaker 2: with a big boost of momentum with someone who was
47:10
Speaker 2: talked about. If you read about her, as she announced,
47:13
Speaker 2: you're like, oh, this is someone who could definitely be president.
47:15
Speaker 2: Mayor Pete put himself onto that list by dint of
47:19
Speaker 2: an incredibly successful communication strategy and an appealing message. The
47:23
Speaker 2: other candidates have been unable to do that. Even some
47:26
Speaker 2: who are like Booker or Klobuchar who have some knowledge.
47:32
Speaker 2: It's just, it's very, it's, I think it's very hard
47:34
Speaker 2: when there are 20 people for people to like, I
47:36
Speaker 2: think when the average people who are interested in this
47:38
Speaker 2: process are thinking about it, you can't think about all
47:41
Speaker 2: 20 people, right? So you're kind of narrowing it to
47:43
Speaker 2: a list and getting into that, into that list of
47:46
Speaker 2: conversation is very challenging. Even with the debate for us,
47:48
Speaker 2: it may be easier if there are only 10 of
47:50
Speaker 2: you on stage.
47:51
Speaker 1: Right.
47:51
Speaker 2: And the, and the, like if it had been one
47:53
Speaker 2: debate and Castro had had his huge moment on that
47:56
Speaker 2: one debate and it hadn't been overshadowed the next day by, uh,
48:01
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris and Biden's exchange, maybe it would have meant
48:04
Speaker 2: more being on the first debate was probably a disadvantage
48:07
Speaker 2: to a lot of people who are trying to break out.
48:09
Speaker 1: Yeah.
48:10
Speaker 3: Uh, the, the one other thing I thought was interesting
48:12
Speaker 3: from the poll, um, Democratic voters favor the more progressive
48:15
Speaker 3: position on other top debate issues. Voters would abolish private insurance,
48:20
Speaker 3: 58% to 23%. Voters want a government health plan to
48:23
Speaker 3: cover undocumented immigrants, 54% to 24%. And voters favor decriminalizing
48:28
Speaker 3: unauthorized border crossings, 75% to 13%. Now, I was not
48:34
Speaker 3: surprised that obviously Democrats are probably going to favor the
48:38
Speaker 3: more progressive position.
48:41
Speaker 1: But I was surprised at the margins. Were you?
48:43
Speaker 3: Because those are some pretty big margins for favoring those
48:46
Speaker 3: positions that we have all talked about are pretty lefty.
48:51
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, I was, like you, I was not surprised
48:54
Speaker 2: that the more progressive position won out, but I was
48:58
Speaker 2: surprised by the margins, particularly on the decriminalizing the border,
49:01
Speaker 2: just because that is a newer issue. We've been talking
49:04
Speaker 2: about private insurance for a long time, the conversation around
49:10
Speaker 2: healthcare for undocumented people. It's been around for a long time.
49:13
Speaker 2: It also is like, it's easy to understand, right? Like in,
49:17
Speaker 2: on its face, what it means. The Duke criminalizing the
49:20
Speaker 2: border one is much more, it's newer. It like really
49:23
Speaker 2: had not been discussed in the national conversation until Julian
49:26
Speaker 2: Castro put it in the national conversation. So I was
49:28
Speaker 2: surprised by how strong it does. And it does, I think,
49:30
Speaker 2: speak to the reaction within the democratic elect primary electorate
49:35
Speaker 2: to the, um, absolutely, uh, inhumane treatment of migrants and
49:41
Speaker 2: undocumented people under this administration and the desire to move
49:44
Speaker 2: as far away from that as humanly possible.
49:46
Speaker 3: Yeah i think that's right um one last point in
49:48
Speaker 3: our poll before we move on um we asked uh
49:53
Speaker 3: we asked what issues you wanted to hear more about
49:54
Speaker 3: and then we asked a question do you think that
49:57
Speaker 3: uh the dnc should hold a climate only climate change
50:01
Speaker 3: only debate and 65 percent of voters said they want
50:04
Speaker 3: a climate debate and climate was uh the number one
50:08
Speaker 3: issue mentioned that people wanted to hear more about in
50:11
Speaker 3: the next debates.
50:12
Speaker 1: So I thought that was pretty interesting. Yeah.
50:14
Speaker 2: And I would, I would just say one thing about this,
50:16
Speaker 2: which is if the campaigns wanted a climate debate, they
50:19
Speaker 2: could have one because the campaign managers all speak to
50:22
Speaker 2: each other. They, they move in block. And so if
50:26
Speaker 2: Biden's campaign manager called, uh, Kamala Harris's campaign manager called,
50:30
Speaker 2: Bernie Sanders's campaign manager called, uh, Elizabeth Warren's campaign manager,
50:33
Speaker 2: and they said, we want a climate debate, there would
50:34
Speaker 2: be a climate debate. In 2008, David Plouffe, our campaign manager,
50:38
Speaker 2: talked to Patty Solis Doyle, Clinton's campaign manager, talked to
50:41
Speaker 2: folks at Edward's campaign. Whenever there was a question about
50:45
Speaker 2: a new debate or a new forum to sort of
50:47
Speaker 2: move in mass together because we determined what happened. And
50:50
Speaker 2: so the campaigns could make a climate debate happen tomorrow
50:52
Speaker 2: if they wanted to. And so I think as activists
50:55
Speaker 2: are looking for places to pressure, it's not just the DNC,
50:57
Speaker 2: it's the campaigns themselves.
50:59
Speaker 1: Yeah. Last 2020 thing.
51:01
Speaker 3: This week we said goodbye to Congressman Eric Swalwell, he
51:06
Speaker 3: dropped out of the race, and then we said hello
51:08
Speaker 3: to billionaire philanthropist Tom Steyer, who has entered the race.
51:13
Speaker 3: You have any thoughts on the departure or the entrance
51:17
Speaker 3: of more candidates?
51:20
Speaker 2: Well, let's just say, you know, we obviously had some
51:23
Speaker 2: fun at Eric Swalwell's expense after his debate performance. And he,
51:30
Speaker 2: you know, he certainly had a lot of very cheesy lines,
51:34
Speaker 2: which is like, it's like all of our pet peeve. Um,
51:37
Speaker 2: and so we, you know, we, we got annoyed by it,
51:40
Speaker 2: but it is, I'd say, I think we should at
51:42
Speaker 2: least say two things. One, he put gun violence prevention
51:46
Speaker 2: at the center of his campaign and that should be
51:47
Speaker 2: applauded and more candidates should do that. And he was
51:49
Speaker 2: very aggressive about it. And two, having the sense about
51:55
Speaker 2: when to drop out, having that level of self-awareness is important.
51:59
Speaker 2: And He had a reason to get out that only
52:04
Speaker 2: a handful of others do, which is he has another
52:07
Speaker 2: office to run for. He wants to run for re-election
52:11
Speaker 2: to the House. So there was a point at which
52:13
Speaker 2: he was going to make that not a viable option
52:16
Speaker 2: for him and other candidates would get in. So he
52:17
Speaker 2: had to do that. That really, I think, only applies
52:20
Speaker 2: to Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard, if they want to
52:24
Speaker 2: run for re-election to their House seats. The rest of
52:26
Speaker 2: the candidates do not stand for election in 2020. So
52:29
Speaker 2: I don't know that this presages a massive exodus of
52:32
Speaker 2: candidates in the race.
52:33
Speaker 1: Don't forget Tim Ryan.
52:35
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, Tim Ryan. Sorry, I like Tim Ryan. Yes,
52:37
Speaker 2: also Tim Ryan. My apologies to Tim Ryan.
52:39
Speaker 1: It's hard to keep track of everyone, man. No, I
52:42
Speaker 1: feel the same way about Swalwell.
52:43
Speaker 3: Look, you talked about him bringing gun violence, making it
52:48
Speaker 3: central to his campaign. And when he was on the
52:51
Speaker 3: debate stage, he was able to force a discussion on
52:56
Speaker 3: the government buying back assault weapons. Um, and a couple
52:59
Speaker 3: of candidates committed to that on the debate stage. So
53:02
Speaker 3: good for him. You know, that's good that he did that. Um,
53:05
Speaker 3: what do you think about Steyer?
53:07
Speaker 2: I like disclosure being that I know Tom Steyer and
53:10
Speaker 2: I like Tom Steyer and I did some consulting work
53:12
Speaker 2: for Tom Steyer a few years ago. Um, I just
53:16
Speaker 2: find it hard to imagine you're a human being who
53:20
Speaker 2: looks at this field, whether it's our poll or the
53:23
Speaker 2: other polls or sees, um, Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren
53:28
Speaker 2: or Mayor Pete or the former vice president of the
53:30
Speaker 2: United States or Bernie Sanders that, you know, and says
53:33
Speaker 2: what this campaign needs is another candidate, right? This is
53:36
Speaker 2: a strong field. There are times in which people come
53:39
Speaker 2: in late to a field that people think is weak.
53:41
Speaker 2: They're supposed to be some sort of white knight savior candidate.
53:45
Speaker 2: And this field is in no need of that, right?
53:46
Speaker 2: We have too many good options. We don't need another one. Um, Look,
53:52
Speaker 2: Tom Steyer is the biggest donor of Democratic causes for
53:55
Speaker 2: all of the shit people give him about his ads
53:58
Speaker 2: on impeachment. He invests a tremendous amount of money in
54:01
Speaker 2: organizing and youth voter registration and fighting for climate change,
54:05
Speaker 2: and that should all be applauded. I certainly hope that
54:09
Speaker 2: the $ 100 million that he spends, he has pledged to
54:13
Speaker 2: spend on this campaign, does not come at the expense
54:16
Speaker 2: of those other efforts, because they're incredibly critical to a
54:19
Speaker 2: lagging progressive infrastructure that needs all the help it can get.
54:23
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I sort of feel the same way.
54:26
Speaker 3: I think that the most important question any candidate can
54:30
Speaker 3: answer is sort of like, why you, why now, and
54:33
Speaker 3: why not the other people? And he made an attempt
54:36
Speaker 3: at answering that in his opening video and in some
54:39
Speaker 3: of his interviews that he's done. But he said all
54:42
Speaker 3: these Democrats have great ideas, but none of them are
54:46
Speaker 3: going to come to pass unless we stop the corporate
54:48
Speaker 3: takeover of our democracy. But, like, you know, that's what
54:52
Speaker 3: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are saying. And a lot
54:55
Speaker 3: of other candidates talking about sort of the, you know,
54:57
Speaker 3: corporate influence in our democracy and have some great plans
55:01
Speaker 3: around democratic reform and how to do that. And so
55:04
Speaker 3: I'm still not quite sure, besides his $ 100 million, what
55:09
Speaker 3: Steyer brings to the race that other candidates... don't have
55:15
Speaker 3: or have not offered yet. And I think he is
55:19
Speaker 3: going to have to answer that question. And he's probably,
55:21
Speaker 3: that's a more urgent question for him to answer than
55:24
Speaker 3: even any of the other candidates because he's decided to
55:27
Speaker 3: get into the race so late. And, you know, you've
55:29
Speaker 3: already seen sort of Warren and Sanders sort of take
55:31
Speaker 3: shots at him by saying like, I, you know, those
55:34
Speaker 3: two candidates are out there and they've raised a lot
55:37
Speaker 3: of money so far from a lot of just grassroots
55:40
Speaker 3: donors without getting, doing a lot of high dollar fundraisers.
55:43
Speaker 3: And they're out there saying, like, why do we need
55:46
Speaker 3: some self-made, some billionaire in the race when we were
55:51
Speaker 3: able to raise the money we need from grassroots, from
55:53
Speaker 3: the grassroots? And I think that's a pretty fair criticism,
55:56
Speaker 3: you know?
55:57
Speaker 2: Yeah. Like, Trump's message in 2000... Trump, when he ran
56:01
Speaker 2: in 2016, told everyone that he would not be influenced
56:05
Speaker 2: or basically purchased by special interests because he was funding
56:09
Speaker 2: his own campaign. Now, he... didn't fund his own campaign,
56:13
Speaker 2: and was also bought and purchased by special interests both
56:16
Speaker 2: at home and abroad. But that message was appealing. The
56:19
Speaker 2: difference between the Republican primary and the Democratic primary is
56:22
Speaker 2: the Republican candidates were all being funded by billionaire and
56:26
Speaker 2: pseudo-billionaire super PACs. And you have candidates in this race
56:29
Speaker 2: like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, who are raising all of
56:32
Speaker 2: their money in a grassroots fashion. And so that's a
56:35
Speaker 2: harder– sort of the– political advantages of self-funding will not
56:42
Speaker 2: be as prevalent in this primary as they potentially have
56:45
Speaker 2: been in the past or in the Republican primary.
56:47
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree with that.
56:48
Speaker 3: Okay, when we come back, my interview with Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib.
57:00
Speaker 3: Joining us today, the Democratic Congresswoman representing Michigan's 13th District,
57:04
Speaker 3: Rashida Tlaib. Congresswoman, thanks for joining us.
57:07
Speaker 4: Thank you for having me.
57:09
Speaker 3: So obviously there's been a lot of back and forth
57:10
Speaker 3: in the D.C. press about the relationship between you, some
57:14
Speaker 3: of your closest friends in the House, and Nancy Pelosi.
57:17
Speaker 3: I won't ask you to get into who said what
57:19
Speaker 3: about who, but from a legislative and political standpoint, I'm
57:24
Speaker 3: wondering what has frustrated you about some of the decisions
57:28
Speaker 3: leadership has made, or at least the working relationship right now?
57:32
Speaker 4: Well, you know, I've been so focused on my district.
57:34
Speaker 4: I have a third poorest congressional district, and some of
57:36
Speaker 4: this You know, just the discussion around the border and
57:42
Speaker 4: what's happening to children, and we're talking about thousands of
57:45
Speaker 4: children that have been ripped away from their parents. Some
57:48
Speaker 4: don't even know where their children are at this point.
57:52
Speaker 4: Just yesterday, having a woman talk about her two-year-old daughter
57:58
Speaker 4: dying shortly after leaving custody with ICE claiming that they
58:02
Speaker 4: did a medical exam of the child before releasing them,
58:05
Speaker 4: which was completely false. just hearing about the culture around
58:11
Speaker 4: detention and what's happening at the border that has been
58:14
Speaker 4: fueled by the ideology of Trump, of othering and dehumanizing
58:20
Speaker 4: our immigrant neighbors. And all of that is very fueled.
58:23
Speaker 4: And for many of us, especially I think for some
58:26
Speaker 4: of my colleagues, it is very personal for us. We're
58:30
Speaker 4: very passionate about those issues. But I think from day one,
58:33
Speaker 4: many of us came here saying we want to defund
58:36
Speaker 4: hate and we want to defund ICE. And we haven't
58:41
Speaker 4: wavered on those issues. And we hope, as many of
58:45
Speaker 4: us continue to do, is educate and mobilize people to
58:49
Speaker 4: understand the importance of real fix to our immigration crisis,
58:54
Speaker 4: not throwing money at a broken system, especially when agents,
59:00
Speaker 4: many of them, were very sincere, three or four of
59:03
Speaker 4: them at least taking me aside out of over a
59:05
Speaker 4: dozen giving us a tour at El Paso border, saying,
59:09
Speaker 4: don't throw my at this. It's broken. I wasn't trained
59:12
Speaker 4: to rip two-year-olds away from their parents, and I wasn't
59:16
Speaker 4: trained to be a social worker or a Medicare worker.
59:18
Speaker 4: I was trained to be at the border defending our
59:22
Speaker 4: country from drug and all these other kinds of illegal activities.
59:27
Speaker 4: this is not what they were, you know, they, they
59:29
Speaker 4: signed up for it. I can tell you, you know,
59:33
Speaker 4: I jokingly talk to my team about this, that I
59:36
Speaker 4: I'm very lucky that I'm reading a book right now.
59:39
Speaker 4: That's kind of helping me, you know, prioritize and be
59:42
Speaker 4: centered around what's important. And right now what's important is
59:45
Speaker 4: that my district feels like they have a voice here
59:47
Speaker 4: in Congress. But yeah, I'm reading Mark man, Mason's the
59:53
Speaker 4: subtle art of not giving a fuck. And I think
59:56
Speaker 4: reading that book while this has been going on has
59:59
Speaker 4: been helping me and try to, you know, people hear
1:00:02
Speaker 4: me say this all the time, but outwork it and
1:00:04
Speaker 4: just continue to be on a mission to making sure
1:00:07
Speaker 4: that I'm elevating the voices of those that don't feel
1:00:09
Speaker 4: like they have a voice here, trying to push real
1:00:12
Speaker 4: economic justice issues like around the boost act where, you know,
1:00:15
Speaker 4: getting people $ 6, 000 back in their pockets, really trying to
1:00:20
Speaker 4: push back against discriminatory practices on car insurance and And
1:00:23
Speaker 4: on top of that, I have to deal with a
1:00:26
Speaker 4: president that should have been impeached months ago. At least
1:00:30
Speaker 4: the inquiry should have happened. I mean, we are dealing
1:00:32
Speaker 4: with a lawless president. No matter what we pass here,
1:00:36
Speaker 4: whatever the Supreme Court decisions are, he is going to
1:00:40
Speaker 4: do what he wants to do because he is king-like.
1:00:43
Speaker 4: And no one is holding him accountable to that. And
1:00:45
Speaker 4: that's unfortunate, but we're going to respectively disagree. We're going
1:00:48
Speaker 4: to do it in a professional way. But I think
1:00:51
Speaker 4: leadership starts at the top. And as a woman of
1:00:53
Speaker 4: color in this space, it is hard when you do
1:00:58
Speaker 4: sometimes feel a pushback of trying to silence you or
1:01:01
Speaker 4: oppress you or even belittle the fact that you represent 650,000
1:01:05
Speaker 4: people that believed in my ideals and the values that
1:01:09
Speaker 4: I bring at the table.
1:01:11
Speaker 3: So on the border bill, on the debate over the
1:01:14
Speaker 3: border bill, what do you think that Pelosi and Schumer
1:01:16
Speaker 3: could have done differently to force McConnell and Trump to
1:01:20
Speaker 3: sign off on some of the protections for migrant children
1:01:22
Speaker 3: that you advocated for?
1:01:25
Speaker 4: You know, I think it's really important that the separation
1:01:27
Speaker 4: policy needs to end. We had a tremendous amount of
1:01:30
Speaker 4: leverage there to really elevate that. And that's one of
1:01:33
Speaker 4: the agents actually said that, you know, the separation policy
1:01:36
Speaker 4: is creating this crisis. But in the 1980s, we actually
1:01:39
Speaker 4: had more people show up at the border and detention
1:01:42
Speaker 4: was very unusual as a tool to address it. We,
1:01:45
Speaker 4: you know, have an asylum process that needs to be followed.
1:01:49
Speaker 4: I mean, it's a legal process. And again, we have
1:01:51
Speaker 4: an administration that is using this in some sort of
1:01:54
Speaker 4: way to deter, but also to demonize immigrants. This is
1:01:58
Speaker 4: not a person that wants to fix the immigration crisis
1:02:01
Speaker 4: or even pass immigration reform. This is a person that
1:02:04
Speaker 4: wants to push out people that are fearing persecution in
1:02:09
Speaker 4: our community, fearing death in their own countries and coming
1:02:12
Speaker 4: to our border. if they have a claim or not,
1:02:15
Speaker 4: it doesn't matter. The fact that they comment and they
1:02:17
Speaker 4: are able to do it is a legal process that
1:02:18
Speaker 4: we have in our country. And that's something we should
1:02:21
Speaker 4: have been able to uplift and we should have been
1:02:23
Speaker 4: able to push back and saying, we'll do this, but
1:02:26
Speaker 4: we have to stop the separation of children. That should
1:02:28
Speaker 4: have been at the forefront of the discussion.
1:02:30
Speaker 3: So what are the next steps here on immigration and
1:02:34
Speaker 3: sort of, you know, alleviating the conditions or ending these
1:02:39
Speaker 3: awful detentions? Because like, say, You know, say you even
1:02:43
Speaker 3: get Pelosi and the rest of the House Democrats on board.
1:02:46
Speaker 3: You have a majority in the House. We obviously don't
1:02:48
Speaker 3: have a majority in the Senate. We don't have the presidency.
1:02:52
Speaker 3: What can you do with the power that House Democrats have,
1:02:55
Speaker 3: and knowing that there's some Democrats in the Senate too,
1:02:57
Speaker 3: to actually force the administration to accept some of these
1:03:01
Speaker 3: protections for migrant children?
1:03:04
Speaker 4: And this is where we actually have a real wall,
1:03:07
Speaker 4: and what I call the real crisis, is that we...
1:03:12
Speaker 4: have an administration that no matter what we pass here,
1:03:15
Speaker 4: no matter what we push forward, from even passing bipartisan
1:03:19
Speaker 4: subpoenas out of committee asking for the names of the
1:03:23
Speaker 4: children at the border that have been separated, even the
1:03:26
Speaker 4: pushing back against the crisis in Yemen and saying that
1:03:29
Speaker 4: Americans shouldn't be paying for any kind of humanitarian crisis
1:03:33
Speaker 4: and fueling that, all of that has been just ignored
1:03:39
Speaker 4: by the administration. So We have a deep-rooted crisis here
1:03:43
Speaker 4: that we do have an administration that is acting very lawless.
1:03:47
Speaker 4: We have an administration, honestly, that, but for the fact
1:03:52
Speaker 4: that we haven't been able to put them forward and say, look,
1:03:54
Speaker 4: we need an impeachment inquiry into these offenses, that congressional
1:03:58
Speaker 4: subpoenas cannot be ignored, that you can't come and lie
1:04:02
Speaker 4: to the United States Congress and get away with it,
1:04:05
Speaker 4: that we have asylum laws and legal processes that you're
1:04:09
Speaker 4: not abiding by. This goes far more than any other
1:04:13
Speaker 4: previous president. And when there has been impeachment inquiries in
1:04:17
Speaker 4: the past, it gets to the point, like, do we
1:04:20
Speaker 4: continue giving this administration money that doesn't believe in human rights,
1:04:25
Speaker 4: that doesn't believe that there should be an asylum process?
1:04:29
Speaker 4: You know, when do we say enough is enough? And
1:04:32
Speaker 4: that's the thing that we're dealing with. The fact that
1:04:36
Speaker 4: we are a co-equal branch of government and we want
1:04:38
Speaker 4: to pass something, but we Even when the House moved
1:04:41
Speaker 4: forward in something that many of my colleagues thought that
1:04:46
Speaker 4: was livable, like we could support something like this, what
1:04:49
Speaker 4: did they do? They sent something back that was completely
1:04:52
Speaker 4: blank of any accountability on the private detention centers, on
1:04:57
Speaker 4: pushing forward on basic health care standards for children, making
1:05:04
Speaker 4: sure that there was some accountability on where the money
1:05:06
Speaker 4: was being spent. None of that... was even included in
1:05:10
Speaker 4: what came back.
1:05:11
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:05:12
Speaker 3: So it does seem like from listening to you and
1:05:15
Speaker 3: from reading the news that all roads sort of lead
1:05:18
Speaker 3: to impeachment here, right? Like no matter what we're trying
1:05:20
Speaker 3: to do, whether we're investigating, whether we're trying to force
1:05:23
Speaker 3: the White House to do something, impeachment seems like the
1:05:27
Speaker 3: only answer here because it's the one real tool that
1:05:29
Speaker 3: the House has. You were in the news way back
1:05:31
Speaker 3: when for saying we're going to impeach the motherfucker. You
1:05:34
Speaker 3: were obviously right about him being a motherfucker, but the
1:05:37
Speaker 3: House has not impeached him yet. If the full House
1:05:40
Speaker 3: were to vote on moving forward with an inquiry today,
1:05:44
Speaker 3: do you think it would pass?
1:05:47
Speaker 4: Look, I know when the Watergate class came, and by
1:05:49
Speaker 4: the way, we're the largest class since Watergate, ironically. And
1:05:53
Speaker 4: when the Watergate class came together and said, look, we
1:05:56
Speaker 4: have to hold President Nixon accountable, they didn't run on
1:06:00
Speaker 4: impeaching that president. They didn't run on the possibility of this.
1:06:04
Speaker 4: But at that moment, they had to do what was
1:06:06
Speaker 4: right for our country, what was right for our democracy.
1:06:09
Speaker 4: And they moved forward, even though they weren't sure it's
1:06:12
Speaker 4: going to get through the Senate. But they did what
1:06:15
Speaker 4: was right. And, you know, organically, Nathan, or maybe it
1:06:18
Speaker 4: was the people power outside of the halls of Congress
1:06:21
Speaker 4: where I think real change matters and makes us do
1:06:25
Speaker 4: what is required to putting our country first. I can
1:06:29
Speaker 4: tell you from just hearing about what he's going to
1:06:32
Speaker 4: do about the census. I mean, the United States Supreme Court. said, sorry, Mr. President, sorry,
1:06:40
Speaker 4: Trump administration, but we need more of a reason of
1:06:43
Speaker 4: why you're putting the census question on there. Just clarify more.
1:06:47
Speaker 4: He decided he's going to go ahead and do it anyway.
1:06:50
Speaker 4: And understand what this means. This is not about U.S.
1:06:53
Speaker 4: citizens and counting them. It's about how the lines are
1:06:57
Speaker 4: going to be drawn and about reducing the number of
1:07:00
Speaker 4: communities of color and our neighbors. He doesn't want us counted.
1:07:04
Speaker 4: I mean, again, this is about an ideology. and about
1:07:08
Speaker 4: a precedent, a very dangerous precedent that is being set
1:07:12
Speaker 4: right now by allowing this president to go forward without
1:07:15
Speaker 4: holding them accountable. It seems no amount of subpoenas. We're
1:07:19
Speaker 4: going to be passing contempt charges. I mean, we just
1:07:21
Speaker 4: did out of committee. It's going to go through the
1:07:22
Speaker 4: floor where we're holding the United States Attorney General and
1:07:26
Speaker 4: the Commerce Secretary in contempt. And you see not even
1:07:32
Speaker 4: no blinking by the current administration. They, you know, him
1:07:38
Speaker 4: and many of his cabinet members are moving forward as
1:07:40
Speaker 4: if the other, you know, branches of government don't exist.
1:07:44
Speaker 4: And it's really dangerous. I mean, think about it. This
1:07:46
Speaker 4: will not be the last crooked CEO that runs for president.
1:07:49
Speaker 4: And he needs to understand this is not a business.
1:07:52
Speaker 4: This is a government. This is about people. You can't
1:07:54
Speaker 4: run it the same way.
1:07:56
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:07:56
Speaker 3: So I think the question is, you know, what do
1:07:58
Speaker 3: you say to some of your more skeptical colleagues who
1:08:02
Speaker 3: are new House members who who won in pretty conservative
1:08:05
Speaker 3: districts with, you know, a bunch of Republican votes for people,
1:08:09
Speaker 3: Republicans who didn't like Trump or don't want, you know,
1:08:12
Speaker 3: Trump to take away their health care. But these members
1:08:15
Speaker 3: are worried about impeachment being unpopular or they're worried about
1:08:19
Speaker 3: running on immigration. But, you know, you know that their
1:08:22
Speaker 3: heart's in the right place and they want to do
1:08:24
Speaker 3: the right thing. How do you persuade some of your
1:08:26
Speaker 3: more skeptical colleagues in the House that this is the
1:08:28
Speaker 3: right path forward?
1:08:30
Speaker 4: And I want you to know many of them I
1:08:33
Speaker 4: think all of them are sincere about doing something about
1:08:37
Speaker 4: the children and making sure there are better conditions. You know,
1:08:41
Speaker 4: we all have different views, but I think at the
1:08:42
Speaker 4: heart of it is like we have to do something.
1:08:45
Speaker 4: It's just different than what we think we should be done.
1:08:47
Speaker 4: But I can tell you this. You know, I think
1:08:49
Speaker 4: about Truman and the fact that he went to war
1:08:52
Speaker 4: without going through Congress and how every single president since
1:08:55
Speaker 4: then has done that, has kind of just decided to
1:08:58
Speaker 4: go to war with going through the process of going
1:09:01
Speaker 4: through Congress. And to me, that's a dangerous precedent. And
1:09:06
Speaker 4: I think for many of us in this chamber, we
1:09:09
Speaker 4: need to understand what does this mean in 20 years?
1:09:12
Speaker 4: Will this be the last CEO that runs for president?
1:09:14
Speaker 4: Absolutely not. And when we do this, when we look back,
1:09:19
Speaker 4: is it, was it the right thing to do to,
1:09:21
Speaker 4: you know, basically say, well, this is not, we'll just,
1:09:24
Speaker 4: political strategists are coming forward and telling a lot of
1:09:27
Speaker 4: my colleagues, look, you know, let's just get rid of
1:09:29
Speaker 4: him in 2020. Well, guess what? Nixon won his second
1:09:31
Speaker 4: term and that's when they decided to impeach him. And,
1:09:34
Speaker 4: you know, at this moment, there is not only an
1:09:38
Speaker 4: immigration crisis, but you have changes being made in the EPA,
1:09:44
Speaker 4: being done in HUD right now, And even in how
1:09:49
Speaker 4: transportation funding is being implemented, you know, I sit on
1:09:53
Speaker 4: oversight every week. We're hearing more and more details about
1:09:57
Speaker 4: administrative changes, executive decisions being made. Just the other day,
1:10:02
Speaker 4: you know, we had folks that are in charge of
1:10:04
Speaker 4: like the AmeriCorps program. This is a huge volunteer program
1:10:07
Speaker 4: that helps, you know, refugees and helps like low-income homeless communities,
1:10:11
Speaker 4: even national crises, you know, like when we have flooding
1:10:14
Speaker 4: and and hurricanes and all of those things. And there
1:10:19
Speaker 4: are being changes done right now that they want to completely,
1:10:23
Speaker 4: you know, they call it transformation. But no, their intent,
1:10:27
Speaker 4: because they're zeroing it out and the administration is zeroing
1:10:30
Speaker 4: it out, their intent is to just completely get rid
1:10:33
Speaker 4: of that. And these are going to take years for
1:10:36
Speaker 4: us to just... Get the years back. And some of
1:10:40
Speaker 4: you all get the years back for our families that
1:10:42
Speaker 4: are going to be directly impacted by decisions being made
1:10:45
Speaker 4: by this president that doesn't feel like he needs to
1:10:47
Speaker 4: be held accountable or that he needs to come before
1:10:50
Speaker 4: Congress to making sure there's a transparent process. Again, you know,
1:10:55
Speaker 4: we can't allow all of this to proceed and think that, well,
1:11:00
Speaker 4: it's just better, we'll get rid of it later.
1:11:02
Speaker 1: No.
1:11:03
Speaker 4: If we don't do anything now, then who comes along
1:11:05
Speaker 4: next and thinks that they don't have to follow subpoenas?
1:11:07
Speaker 4: that they don't have to, that lying to the United
1:11:10
Speaker 4: States Congress, misleading the United States Congress is okay.
1:11:14
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, last question.
1:11:16
Speaker 3: There was news this morning that Pelosi urged House Democrats
1:11:19
Speaker 3: to get the word out about immigrants' legal rights ahead
1:11:22
Speaker 3: of Trump's planned immigration raids this weekend. What do people
1:11:26
Speaker 3: need to know?
1:11:28
Speaker 4: What they need to know is I want you to
1:11:31
Speaker 4: understand you are allowed to somebody knocks on your door,
1:11:34
Speaker 4: you're allowed to not answer that door. But also, more importantly,
1:11:38
Speaker 4: you're allowed to ask what your rights are. You're also
1:11:40
Speaker 4: allowed to ask for an attorney, to speak to an
1:11:44
Speaker 4: attorney before you speak to anyone. But I also want
1:11:46
Speaker 4: them to lean on community organizations in their local neighborhoods,
1:11:50
Speaker 4: even the church communities, faith-based communities. People are really gearing
1:11:54
Speaker 4: up and trying to push back. But the fact that
1:11:58
Speaker 4: we're even talking about this right now, I am so
1:12:01
Speaker 4: worried and the trauma that we're going to just eject
1:12:07
Speaker 4: it throughout the communities all across the country. And I
1:12:10
Speaker 4: don't think people realize how much this is going to
1:12:13
Speaker 4: impact their, not only their livelihood, even if they're U.S.
1:12:18
Speaker 4: citizens or naturalized, it doesn't matter. You are going to
1:12:21
Speaker 4: see the pain and suffering of what it means to
1:12:24
Speaker 4: uproot people within our communities that have been there. But
1:12:27
Speaker 4: no fault of the fact that we just haven't passed
1:12:30
Speaker 4: any fixes to immigration crisis. I mean, I have U.S.
1:12:32
Speaker 4: citizens married to non-U.S. citizens that can't adjust their status
1:12:36
Speaker 4: because of the broken immigration system. I have people waiting
1:12:38
Speaker 4: years to hear their asylum cases in courts because they
1:12:41
Speaker 4: don't have enough judges. I have children that, you know,
1:12:45
Speaker 4: their parents are U.S. citizens, but they can't adjust their
1:12:47
Speaker 4: status and become legal permanent residents. We have a broken system,
1:12:51
Speaker 4: and instead of fixing it, we're going to actually go
1:12:54
Speaker 4: and terrorize these communities, many of which have helped our
1:12:59
Speaker 4: neighborhoods grow. I grew up in southwest Detroit where I
1:13:01
Speaker 4: have 20 different ethnicities, but for my immigrant neighbors, I
1:13:05
Speaker 4: think we would have actually suffered more when our city
1:13:10
Speaker 4: filed bankruptcy, and they were there strong, side-by-side with all
1:13:14
Speaker 4: of us to make sure that we all were protected.
1:13:17
Speaker 3: Congresswoman Tlaib, thank you so much for joining us. Keep
1:13:20
Speaker 3: up the good fight and come back again soon. Thank you.
1:13:23
Speaker 4: Thank you.
1:13:28
Speaker 3: Thanks to Congresswoman Tlaib for joining us today. And we'll
1:13:33
Speaker 3: talk to you guys next week. We'll be on the
1:13:34
Speaker 3: road in Denver Wednesday night, but we'll have a pod
1:13:38
Speaker 3: on Monday before that.
1:13:38
Speaker 1: So we'll talk to you then. Bye, everyone.
1:13:44
Speaker 4: Thank you.