Pablo Torre Finds Out - This (Independent) Senator Has a Warning. Who Will Listen?

Episode Date: April 22, 2025

Angus King, the U.S. Senator from Maine (and former quarterback), is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. So we should listen very closely as he takes PTFO inside what he deems an unprecedented constitutional crisis — from tariffs and mass deportations to trans athletes and DOGE — by way of the ancient Romans, a vegetable slicer and Bill Belichick. And he explains exactly why his colleagues in Congress must stop handing their power to Donald Trump... before it's too late. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to Pablo Toray finds out. I am Pablo Torre, and today we're going to find out what this sound is. You've got to have people in your circle who are empowered to, and in fact, in my case, required to tell you when you're full of shit. Right after this ad. We're listening to Draft Kings Network. How are you doing, man? You've had a long day. You've already done about 12 hours on morning show.

Holy smoke. Oh, Senator, you know what? The energy I have for you remains, remains at maximum capacity, just to be very clear. I don't politicians are supposed to be bullse-h-h-hards. Oh, wait a minute. Let me... I think that's, will that be, is that better? Oh, look at that. Senator, how old are you, I guess, before I pay you the compliment I want to pay you to get going here?

I'm a year younger than Mick Jagger. I just turned 81. 81 with all of the gyration, all of the gyration of Jagger. The moves, all the moves. And I went to see the Eagles at the sphere a couple of weeks ago. I took a couple of my kids. I'm a big Eagles fan. Oh, my God.

I thought you're a commander's fan, but now I'm going to clip that and get you a trouble. Not those Eagles. Wait a minute. Let's be clear. We're talking about the Music Eagles Hotel California, not the, The Philadelphia Eagles. Oh, no. You know how the media works.

We're aggregating this. We're getting in trouble with everything. Good trouble, I hope, as John Lewis would say. American politics is in trouble. And it's the bad kind of trouble, by the way. The kind where your timeline is just drowning in these fake sports fans and also crypto scams and this president that so many powerful people are very conspicuously afraid to even slightly criticize. And so what we here at PTFO wanted to do today was find that rarest of things

in modern American politics, a genuinely independent politician and a real sports fan, ideally, who'd be willing to take us inside the halls of power. The halls of no less than the United States Senate, to be specific, the Hotel California of American Democracy, where so many Senate are prisoners there, it would seem, of their own device. But luckily, the sitting senator that we found from Maine at age 81 could relate to exactly how I feel. Good evening and welcome to the inaugural edition of Maine Watch. I'm Angus King.

I was a PBS TV talk show host in Maine for 15 years. And Pablo, that goes to people say, well, why did you decide to run for office? And I'll bet you this has crossed your mind because it finally occurred to me after interviewing politicians for 15 years that my questions were better than their answers. I said, hell, I can do this.

And so Angus King did it. He set his sights on a brand new job, governor of Maine, and won. And yet the most striking aspect of his political perspective here for our purposes today, I would argue, is his party loyal. because Angus King doesn't have any.

He is, very authentically, neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I've been an independent for 35 or 40 years from the time I ran for governor of Maine in 1994. I served eight years as an independent governor. And by the way, I found it was a big advantage because I could appoint people whoever I thought was best for the job rather than a member of one of the other of the parties. And then I had 10 years of teaching and business and a whole bunch of other things, then sort of somewhat to my surprise, ended up running for the U.S. Senate in 2012. And on behalf of the great state of Maine, I give you Senator-elect, Angus King. Keeping the White House, we know Democrats keeping control of the U.S. Senate, Republicans

keeping control of the House. But we're adding an independent to the Senate. He is Senator-elect, Angus King of Maine, and he's being a tad coy today. not revealing which way his political affections may bend. Everyone in the Senate now wants to know Will King caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans? What I try to do is whatever I think is right. If I had to put my philosophy on a bumper sticker,

it would be I call them as I see. In recent years, full disclosure, I voted more often with the Democrats because in recent years the Republicans haven't given me a hell of a lot that I felt like voting. for. But something you should know is that while Angus King has voted no on 14 different Trump cabinet appointees, as he did, for instance, with former wrestling promoter and our current Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, he did vote yes on seven of Trump's picks, like Secretary of State

Marco Rubio, which is to say that Senator King is not some categorical never-trumper. And so I just needed to highlight another line on his resume here, a line we found on a physical piece of paper, actually, from a course he taught entitled Leaders and Leadership at Bowden College in Maine in the spring of 2005, exactly 20 years ago now, and this line on Angus King's syllabus simply read Belichick and Parcells. One of the points I tried to make in this course was that leadership isn't just a general on a white horse or a senator or a president. In fact, when I first was approached by the president of Bowden to teach there, he said, well, of course you'll be teaching political science, right?

I said, no, I'd like to teach about leadership because I think it's so important. I don't really fully understand it, and I think teaching it may help me to understand it better. And so Belichick and Parcells, I mean, the NFL is a perfect example of teams that win consistently, usually based on leadership and on some change in leadership. You know, it helps to have Tom Brady or Jaden Daniels or Marshall and Latimore, but the key thing is how is the institution led? The Washington commanders this year are a perfect example of that. They had terrible leadership for 25 years with Dan Snyder. He sold the franchise two years ago. New owners came in, new general manager, new coach. No, it was genius to have drafted Jaden Daniels and they held on to Terry McCluren,

but they changed the whole culture. The leadership changed the culture. And that's why in that class I was talking about Belichick and Parcells, who were certainly major innovators and leaders in the NFL. By the way, I played high school football. I could have played in the NFL. I only lacked two. We saw the photo. We saw the photo. We saw the photo. I only lack two qualities. I would have been in the NFL, but I lack two qualities, speed and athletic ability.

Before we get you going on all your sports takes, because I know, by the way, I know you got Cooper flag ticks, right? The son of Maine, about to go and become the number one pick in the draft, and possibly going to Washington,

by the way, becoming a wizard, which is a cruel fate. I think we can all agree. Come on. Senator? Everybody in Maine two weeks ago was suddenly a Duke fan, which was really amazing.

But in terms of, the, by the way, the shifting allegiances, the reason why I'm going to cut you off from you going all, you know, PTI on me is because we're at this moment where leadership is not merely abstract. It is actually quite concrete and actually quite imminent. And so when it comes to the area of study that you are most passionate about, I think, the reason I really called you today, which is to say, what executive power looks like in the context of our constitution, can you just state as plainly as you can, as an independent, what you see the landscape being right now as I talk to you? Pablo, this is a really, really dangerous moment.

And not, I mean, I don't like a lot of these policies, the deportations, the tariffs, all of that. But there's a deeper danger going on here, which is essentially the collapse of the constitutional structure. The framers divided power on purpose. They put power into the Congress, into the executive, into the judiciary because they understood human nature. And human nature is that if all powers in one set of hands, abuse is inevitable. Madison, in the 47th Federalist, put it most bluntly.

He said, if legislative, judicial, and executive power is concentrated in one set of hands, that is a perfect definition of tyranny. I want to sort of vouch for myself a little bit. I've been giving this talk about the Constitution for 20 years, at least. I even gave it one day at the NSA, National Security Administration. General Nakasone asked me to come and lecture on the Constitution to their employees. And one of the things that I like to do is to demonstrate how the Constitution works. Okay?

You ready for this? Here's a cucumber. And the cucumber represents concentrated power. All right? This is George III, all power, legislative, judicial executive in one place. Okay, here's the Constitution. Oh, wow. Oh, hold on.

For those not watching on YouTube, get to YouTube and watch the vegematic in full clarity. The Constitution is the vegeomatic of power. Okay. So here's the Constitution, and you put the concentrated power in the Vegematic, and then you do this. You want to see that again? I wish I could do it in slow motion. Oh, we'll slow it down in post.

And if you've never seen a Vegematic before, this device from 1963, it is made of white plastic, has a sharp metal grate, and you put the vegetable over the grate, you slam the thing down on the top, hit that lever, and out come on the bottom. other side, the separation of powers, as it were. What's happened is, see, here's the Senate, here's the House, here's the Supreme Court, here's the veto, two-thirds override, here are treaties, here's the state law. See, it divided power up into all these little pieces.

He's throwing it over his shoulder, every piece. That's the whole way the Constitution is supposed to work, and the problem is now, the lever is jammed. I mean, you can't put it more directly than that. And it's based on human nature. Ancient Romans understood this. They had a question that summed up, I believe it sums up all of political science.

Quees custodiate, if so, custodais. Who will guard the guardians? And the question is, how do you control the government from then abusing that power against you. And the Constitution is this brilliant divider of power that was designed to keep from happening what's happening right now before our eyes,

which is the executive partially usurping, but it's also Congress abdicating its power and concentrating power into the hands of the president. Whoever is the president. I don't care if the Archangel Gabriel is the president. It's just dangerous. Not to be all highfalutin John Rawls, but the whole idea of what are the rules here,

irrespective of whether to now torture the historical reference you made to the Roman Empire, irrespective of whether the Romans, the people are chanting, we want Barabbas, right? Irrespective of whether the people are demanding something, we have a set of rules. And so how dire, how dire, Senator, I guess is my question here. How does this compare to America's history, how dire this

situation is that you see before you right now? I think it's the most direct assault on the Constitution in the history of this country. I think we're in grave danger. And the problem is, those who are cheering on this president because they like what he's doing, but they're ignoring the way he's doing it, can themselves later become the target? I said the other day, you know, you feel pretty good until the eye of Soron turns on you. And that's the danger. The president once said, I think it was in his first term, I have the powerful Article 2, you know, which is the part of the Constitution that defines the presidency.

By the way, Article 1 is the Congress, the legislative power. Article 2 is the presidency. Can I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president? But I don't even talk about that. You have Article 2 and you have many other things. That's the other thing. If you use your rights, if you use your power, if you use Article 2, it's called obstruction. Also, someday you ought to read a thing called Article 2.

Read Article 2, which gives the president powers that you wouldn't believe. I went back and re-read Article 2 the other day. Oh, yeah? What's in it? It gives the president practically no power. He only has one and a half unilateral powers. The one is pardoned. That's a unilateral power. He can do it, no checks, no balance it, nothing.

He can do it. I grant you that. It also says he's the commander-in-chief of the armed forces in times of war. But even that power is circumscribed by the Constitution giving the power to declare war to the Congress. And if you go back to the debates at the convention in 1787, August 23rd, they debated the war power. And some people said, well, a committee like Congress can't run a war. And others said, yeah, but look what these princes in Europe do, dragging their countries into war for foolish reasons. And the compromise was to split it.

Congress has the power to declare war. The president is the commander in chief. After that, here's what it says about the president's job. I want to give you an exact quote. The president's responsibility is to, quote, take care that the laws be faced. faithfully executed. That's the exact language. Take care that the laws be faithfully executed. It doesn't give him the power to decide which laws he likes or to make his own law. A perfect example is the tariffs. In a few moments, I will sign a historic executive order

instituting reciprocal tariffs on countries throughout the world. Reciprocal, that means they do it to us and we do it to them. Very simple. It can't get any simple. greater than that. The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, expressly delegates to Congress the power to regulate trade among nations. That's the term,

regulate trade among nations. So they delegated that to the president years ago with a caveat that it could only be used unilaterally by the president in an emergency. And the thinking was, you know, in a time of war,

when there was really some crisis that you had to resolve, I hate to tell you, man, there's no emergency with Canada. There's no emergency with Denmark or South Korea or Japan or our allies. Now, maybe you can argue that we have a serious situation, maybe an emergency with China, given the difficulties of that piece of trade. But to use this for this worldwide tariff regime, which threatens, really threatens our economy. in the world economy, again, it's exactly what the framers didn't want. I want to make this even more specific and relevant to your personal experience in your state

because the controversy, which feels like it's underselling it at this point, let's call it something closer now that we're in vocabulary mode, the extortionary dynamic, the mafioso dynamic of what it's like when the president is threatening the governor of your state about the trans athlete problem. and how that is now this cudgel he is using to demand not just fealty, but also the conditions he needs to give you the public programs that your people normally deserve.

But I understand Maine. Is the Maine here, the governor of Maine? Are you not going to comply with it? I'm complying with the state and federal law. Well, we are the federal law. Well, you better do it. You better do it because you're not going to get any federal funding at all if you don't.

by the way, your population, even though it's somewhat liberal, although I did very well there, your population doesn't want men playing in women's sports. It's sort of like nice little state you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. And the issue is not trans athletes. That's a legitimate issue for debate. The question, my question is, should that be decided on the local level or the federal level? Does that really rise to the level of being a federal law?

Or is this something states and school boards and sports? big should decide on their own. By the way, there was a very telling moment in that exchange, a very crucial telling moment where at one point he said, we are the law. Well, we are the federal law. He started to say, I am the law. He caught himself and said, we are the law. He stopped himself before he officially quoted Judge Dredd. Correct. I hate to say this, but he's not the law. law. Congress makes the laws. And we had a bill about trans athletes, and that's the way this should proceed. He doesn't get to write a law, call it an executive order. An executive order

is not a law. And the governor's position has, look, I'm just obeying, bang, law. And she ended her comment by saying, see you in court. Every state, good, I'll see you in court. I look forward to that. That should be a real as you want. Which, by the way, they got a temporary restraining order last Friday night from a federal district judge of like a 40-page opinion saying why the president was not correct. So the dispute really wasn't about trans athletes. It was about the president's ability to impose his view of what the law ought to be on a state. And this could happen to any state. And also part of it, we all know, was sort of personal peak. He took umbrage that this governor dared to stand up to him.

And then later on, to underline that, he said a week or so ago, if she apologized us, if she gives a heartfelt apology, we'll give him all the money. Over the weekend, the president posted a comment on truth social, saying that while the state of Maine has apologized for the governor's statement regarding the issue, he wants to hear it from her. To me, that tells you this was all about personal, not legal or policy. But in the meantime, Pablo, we're losing money for kids' lunches, for programs that pay farmers to grow food, to go to food banks, to support low-income kids in our schools.

At one point, they cut off something called the C-Grant program. 24 across the country, it supports local fishing communities and programs along the coastline, we were the only ones that were cut off. You don't want a system where one person can reach out and take this kind of action. So it was a tell, as I say, when he said, we are the law.

Because I think that's what he thinks. But it is worth noting, of course, that the latest reason that independent Senator Angus King has broken out his vegematic cucumber slicer, even beyond the tariff's, and also Elon Musk and his Department of Governmental Efficiency came about last month with the rarest of things, an admission of error from the Trump administration itself.

We turn now to what immigration officials are calling an administrative error. That error sent Kilmar-Abreu Garcia, a protected legal resident in the United States, who apprised in El Salvador last month. The Supreme Court has ordered the federal government to facilitate the return of a marriage. Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. And this was a unanimous order by the Supreme Court, nine to zero.

And the real takeaway, neither U.S. nor Salvadoran officials showing any interest or desire to bring him back to the United States. As Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, the legendary conservative Reagan appointee on the Four Circuit Court of Appeals, noted in a remarkable ruling today, the government asserts that a Breger Garcia is a terrorist in a member of MS-13. MS-13. Perhaps, perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. This should be shocking, not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far-removing courthouses still hold dear. I'll bring my personal experience into this a bit, too. My parents are from the Philippines. I'm the first one of my family born in the U.S. Earthright citizenship, man. Well, the conditions that you're describing,

Senator. They remind me of the third world. And this is not merely a hypothetical comparison. It is truly something that I see in the news as our foremost ally seems to be a man who calls himself, literally, the world's coolest dictator in El Salvador. And when it comes to that part, when it comes to are we exporting our problems to El Salvador and their terrorist prison camp. Are we importing their values?

Are we importing their principles? Exactly right. This is the argument that I've been trying to make. All of this feels like so clearly, objectively un-American to me. And that's even if you agree that we should deport people, that we should have a debate around trans athletes. It's merely about how. we have the conversations through our system, and that's what's un-American. It's not the outcome

that is bothersome, even though I might disagree. It's the utter trashing of the process again. And so when you say, we'll see you in court, I'm just worried now more than ever, Senator, and I wonder how you feel about this, that the judiciary itself is a norm, meaning it relies upon the respect of certainly the administration, but all of us, every American, in order to actually have power. Well, there are really three guardrails, Pablo. The first is the Congress, and frankly, we're falling down on the job miserably. I keep talking to my Republican colleagues and say, you know, what's it going to take?

And maybe this, sending this guy to El Salvador and not making the slightest effort to get him back and essentially defying an order of not only the... the lower court, but the U.S. Supreme Court, pretty rare to get nine to nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court, by the way, these days. And so the Congress needs to step up. We could, for example, pull back the tariff power. We could say, okay, no more nominees, and we're not going to do your precious tax bill until you start to control Doge and to also not claim these kinds of powers. In other words, the Congress does have a role to play here if they'll play it. So far, they're not doing so. Myself and the Democratic side don't have the votes. There's a majority in the Senate and in the

House that gives them the power of what happens in the Congress. The second line of defense, as you say, is the courts. And so far, the courts have been doing a pretty good job. And again, it's telling that the response of the president to an unfavorable court decision is to suggest that The judge should be impeached. But many people have called for his impeachment, the impeachment of this judge. I don't know who the judge is, but he's radical left. He was Obama appointed. Where does that leave us?

Where does that leave us in terms of protection of the rights that we all value? The question is, is this administration going to obey a court order? To me, the court order about bringing the fellow back from now Salvador was pretty damn clear. You shall facilitate. Well, what the hell does facilitate me? It means make it happen. And it's clear that they're making no effort whatsoever to make it happen. The third line of defense is the people themselves.

And we see them acting up, speaking out, rallies. I was at a hands-off rally in Portland, the biggest crowd I've ever seen in Portland two weeks ago. We had one here in Maine yesterday where farmers, it takes a lot to piss off a farmer. But the farmers were pretty angry because of what this administration has done to the agriculture. programs. So the people have a role, but here's the deal. The ultimate power of the people is in elections, and we don't have an election for 19 months. No. And I don't think we have 19 months. We could be past a point of no return, and that's why I come back to the Congress. It's our responsibility. Here's really something interesting. We're back to semantics. To defend the Constitution

against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Is it interesting that the framers anticipated there would be domestic enemies? And that our fundamental responsibility, as members of Congress, that we take the oath, is to defend the Constitution. And right now it's the Constitution that's being undermined. The president just last night is really mad that people that are in this country under parole by the last administration, have to have due process before you can kick him out. He was furious. How could this be possible? Well, the Constitution says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law. They knew how to use the word citizen. It's used in the Constitution, but they use person, which means any person who's here is entitled to due process rights. And people say, well, those are immigrants to hell with them. I'm reminded of that famous quote from pre-Holacost. First, they came for the Jews, and I didn't worry because I wasn't a Jew. And then they came for gay people, and I didn't care because I wasn't gay. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't care because I wasn't Catholic. Now they're coming for me, and there's no one here to stand up for me.

When you talk about returning to Congress, physically now just showing up to work, knowing that these are the ways in which you have an uphill battle, does that suck? Does it suck to wake up and go to work and just be like, time to not roll this boulder up this hill? Well, I'll tell you what, when I ran for re-election last year, I never knew what I was getting into. I didn't anticipate this. I mean, I was a senator through four years of the first Trump administration, but this is way different. He doesn't seem to have anybody around him who will tell him no or will tell him, you know, this isn't really the best thing to do.

That's always dangerous for any leader. Remember, I went back to my teaching. And one of the things I used to teach was you've got to have people in your circle who are empowered to, and in fact, in my case, required to tell you when you're full of shit. If you don't, you're going to make big. mistakes. A friend of mine in business up here in Maine has a sign on his office wall that says,

if you and I agree all the time, one of us isn't necessary. And so that's a real danger. From his point of view, that's dangerous because he's not going to get the straight information and he's going to make mistakes. Just, I mean, the tariff policy is a perfect example of there's no policy. There's no policy you can discern because it changes every two or three days. And what's clear is it wasn't really thought through. That's why this power was put in Congress, because things like tariffs are pretty important. They should be debated and the pros and cons evaluated. That apparently didn't happen in this case. The fundamental question I ask myself all of the time, and maybe it's the most useless question. I'll ask you today, Senator. Is this malice or is this

incompetence? I think it's a little of both. I think some of the president, advisors are malicious. Elon Musk, for example, really enjoys firing people. Obviously, they don't know what they're doing, literally. They're firing people that they have to rehire two or three days later. Oh, those people take care of nuclear weapons. I guess we shouldn't have fired them. So there's malice in terms of this, what I believe is of taking pleasure. Have you ever heard Elon Musk expressed a moment of remorse about the people's lives who are being upended and screwed up? No, zero. In fact, he's on the stage at that conference with his sunglasses and a chainsaw grinning about how cool it is that he's destroying people's lives.

This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy. Chainsaw! Now, what's going on in Social Security, I think, is a little bit of both. At first, I thought they just didn't know what they were doing and they were cutting offices just for the sake of firing people. But now it appears that they really are trying in a subterfuge way of destroying Social Security, which there are people in this country have been trying to do since 1935. When you see the people who do know better, right, malice or incompetence, let's just grant,

there are lots of senators. It's a hard place to get into. It's a hard room urine, a hard, a hard intersangdom to access. There are people who know better. What's it like to see them? every day, body language-wise? Do they betray any notion that they are risking all of the things that you see at stake? I'm not going to betray any private conversations, but I will say that many of them know that this is dangerous. But rationalization is very powerful. And we all want to

rationalize the position that we're taking, particularly at a moment like this. And so one of the most common refrains I hear is, yeah, this is dangerous, but the courts will take care of it. To me, that's a cop-out. We hope the courts will take care of it, but that presumes that the administration that the president will obey the orders of the court. If not, where are we then? So, you know, I keep trying to sort of prick their consciences, but it's a, and by the way, the framers assumed that this separation of power would be policed by the people in power to protect their own prerogatives and power. In other words, there's writing in the federalists that the Congress would not cave into an autocratic president

because they wouldn't want to give up their own authority. Yes, self-interest as a check. It was supposed to, that's the way it was supposed to, work. But the framers didn't contemplate political parties. They hated the idea of political parties. In the Federalist papers, Washington's farewell address talks about the danger of parties. But sure enough, within about five or ten years, we had the Federalists and the anti-federalists. We had Adams and Jefferson. And so now what we have is party loyalty is trumping, excuse the term, institutional loyalty. Rather than fighting for the prerogatives,

these folks are putting their party first, saying, you know, we've got to be loyal to our president. And it doesn't help that this president is notoriously vindictive. The current rumor is they're being told, if you buck us, we will primary you, and this is new, Musk will pay for it. Wow. It's one thing to face a primary.

It's another thing to face a primary with an opponent with unlimited funds. It's legitimate fear. You see Lisa Murkowski right there making really what was a stunning admission. She's a sitting Republican senator, and she's admitting that she and her colleagues are full of fear because of this Trump administration. I'm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real. So it's a sort of double-barreled threat.

It's easy for me to say this. I'm not in their position. I'm not, you know, a senator from a red state who could face the primary. So I don't, I'm trying not to be judgmental. But I do think at some point a line is crossed and people are going to have to step up. Lincoln said in a speech to Congress in 1862 that nobody from this Congress or this administration is going to avoid history. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. And we can't avoid this question.

I mean, this is the question of our time. and it goes to the fundamental survival of the system that has served this country well for over 200 years. As much as this administration is operating with a degree of a historical fraudulence, they are living in the most perfect time to do so in. But here's one of the problems, Pablo. I have found, in my experience, that if people have a general common understanding of the facts, getting to the proper solution is pretty easy. If they don't share an understanding of the facts, it's practically impossible.

And in our country today, we have people living in different factual universes. If you're conservative, you watch Fox News and Newsmax and you get on the internet to various people that reinforce your views. In fact, somebody said they had a great line the other day. people are now seeking confirmation, not information. And if you're liberal, you watch Rachel Maddo. Sure. And so people are walking around literally with different views of the facts. I think it was Barack Obama once said,

if he watched Fox News for a week, he'd hate himself. And it's very hard to resolve these problems when people have different views of the facts. For example, what is the crime problem among him? Well, the data shows that immigrants actually have a lower crime rate. Recent immigrants that are being targeted by this administration have a lower crime rate than Native-born Americans. That's supposedly valid data from the FBI and other law enforcement.

But if that's the case, then the premise is not correct that this is a national emergency and we have to forget about civil rights and we have to forget about the Constitution and due process because it's you know these people are dangerous and running rampant in our communities we've got to understand the facts before we make the policy yeah even the very basic fact of how many illegal immigrants are there jd vans is on twitter saying 20 million of course there are few few places serious places that will come anywhere close to that estimate um when it comes to the fourth state, by the way. Just to mention us gas bags in the media, of course, the tribe to which you used to belong. Another would-be check on the powers. I'm now in the stratosphere of gas bags,

man. Come on. I graduate. You know what? You're so right. You're so right. You're an inner circle, inter-sanctum gas bag, senator. I just like to imagine you as a guy who has so many takes on sports that you were hoping to get off on a sports-adjacent show like mine. So many takes, by the way, that I presume you want to get off in the halls of Congress. In various capacities,

I imagine you'd love nothing more than to talk about Cooper Flagg. And meanwhile, all I can think about listening to you give us a helpful civics lesson is that I used to consider, I grew up considering, without question the United States, as a fundamentally great organization.

And now I do worry that we are the Washington Wizards. Or the pre-the-Dan Snyder Washington football team. You know, maybe the better metaphor is the team owned by a guy who ran a building that had literal sewage spilling out of the pipes on occasion, as the aforementioned football team had. And to go back to what I've said a hundred times, it's dangerous and it's dangerous for everybody. Senator Angus King, what I'm hearing you say is that, much like the man you put at the center of your syllabus, you would like everybody in the halls of power in the Senate to just do their job. That's absolutely right. I was just writing something last night, and I went through this long thing about the role of the Congress. And believe it or not, my last sentence was, you know, just do our jobs. Bill Belichick, I seldom quote him when it comes to constitutional crises.

But with you today, Senator, I find myself doing a lot, including reflect upon how I often think of my show as a way, as an excuse to melt some cheese on vegetables for people, to get them nourishment, but to put it inside of this delicious casing. And what I realize is that sometimes you just got to go to the vegetables. themselves. Well, now, listen, I do want to make a little news here by announcing that if they pick up an edge rusher in free agency, the Washington commanders are going to be in the Super Bowl next year. Oh, God. Get him out of here. Can we get the senator? Can we get the senator? I'm reclaiming my time, Senator. I'm reclaiming my podcast. The Mick Jagger of senators. It's been a pleasure. What a pleasure. Great to talk to you.

I look forward to getting together again. This has been Pablo Torre finds out. A Metal Arc Media production. And I'll talk to you next time.