Pod Save America - “A contest of sick burns.”

Episode Date: May 9, 2019

The President's blanket defiance of Congressional oversight plunges the country into a constitutional crisis, the New York Times discovers that Trump avoided income tax by declaring a billion dollars of business loses, and Kamala Harris tries to reset her campaign by going after Trump. Then Stacey Abrams talks to Dan about fighting voter suppression and whether she’ll run for president. Also – Pod Save America is going on tour! Get your tickets now: crooked.com/events.

Welcome to Pod Save America, I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. I'm Jon Lovett. Here on the Thursday Pod,ing it up a little bit. It's Jets and Splinstones. That's right. It's Jets and Splinstones. Very current pop culture reference. Young hip vibe here at Crooked Media.

Alright, later in the pod you'll hear Dan's interview with one of our very favorite people in all of politics, Stacey Abrams. But first we're going to talk about Donald Trump going full Nixon by obstructing Congress's obstruction investigation, the New York Times story about how the president scammed the tax system while his business has lost more than a billion dollars, and all the latest 2020 news. New episode of Pod Save the World dropped on Wednesday. Tommy and Ben talked about our challenges with Iran, escalations in Gaza and Venezuela, the new royal baby, and why Ben will be living down a very particular interaction he once had with the Queen of England for the rest of his life.

That episode description took a real twist when it got to the reaction to the royal baby. How about Ben and the Queen of England? I feel like I know all of his Queen of England stories, so I'm interested to hear this one. Also, tomorrow, Friday, we will be going live on YouTube to take some of your questions. But this time we have a very special guest that will be doing it with us.

Senator Brian Schatz. So check it out. Go to YouTube.com slash Crooked Media. And it will be at 10 a.m. Pacific, 1 p.m. Eastern. And it will be me and John and Tommy and Brian Schatz taking your questions. Schatz. Schatz. Schatz taking your questions. Schatz. Schatz, Schatz. There you go.

Schatz, Schatz. Just like the song. Finally, we are on the road next week in New York and Washington, D.C. We have a show Thursday night in Brooklyn, Sunday night in D.C. The Keep It crew will be in Los Angeles at the Regent Theater on May 14th. Pod Save the People just announced shows in Chicago and Minneapolis in June. May 14th. Pod Save the People just announced shows in Chicago and Minneapolis in June. For more details and tickets for all of our shows, head to crooked.com slash events.

All right, let's get to the news. Donald Trump's attempt to cover up his various crimes and abuses of power have plunged the country into what House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler and now Speaker Nancy Pelosi have called a constitutional crisis. After promising that his administration will defy all congressional subpoenas for testimony and documents related to any scandal or investigation, Trump asserted executive privilege for the first time in his presidency on Wednesday to block the full release of the same Mueller report that he's claimed totally exonerates him. Hours later, the Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress. Dan, let's start with the claim of executive privilege. What is executive privilege and what is Trump's explanation for asserting it? Well, executive privilege is

traditionally a right of a president to protect a certain set of documents from Congress. And that can include, it often includes presidential correspondence, their own letters. It includes deliberations with their aides. And the idea being that president, which is a good one, actually, is that president should be able to have confidence that their discussions with their aides as they work through decisions are confidential. So anything that involves a decision-making process is usually subject to executive privilege, and therefore Congress does not have a right to that. That is not what Trump is doing here. This is something very different. He is asking for a blanket set of executive privilege over a wide array of things that do not fall anywhere within 100 miles of the traditional set of documents that the courts have upheld as worthy of executive privilege. Lovett, is it odd for Trump to claim executive privilege on a report that he claims exonerated him?

Well, it's odd, obviously. Right. He's hiding something that is supposedly good for him? Well, it's obviously, right, he's hiding something that is supposedly good for him. Obviously, that's not true. It's also hard to justify claiming executive privilege, which is inherently about the president's own deliberations, about a report that investigated him, right? It's about something that was happening to the president. It's not something he did.

So it doesn't really make sense. I also, I will say, though, I am a little, I'm a little frustrated by, like, so Nancy Pelosi just agreed that Gerald, with Jerry Nadler's claim that this is a constitutional crisis. And I find it a little, it's like, things are very bad. But how we describe them does matter. And it is, to me, a little bit premature to call this a constitutional crisis, as if there's no constitutional remedy when we know some of the remedies that could come. There's contempt. There's contempt that can play out in the courts. It can play out in the Department of Justice.

It can play out through the sergeant at arms, what have you. But I find it a bit strange to as you are taking the first step toward discovering as to whether or not the Trump administration is going to comply with the law and comply with maybe future judicial requirements to call it a constitutional crisis, like right out the bat. to mean that there's quite literally a crisis in, like, the executive branch is basically telling the legislative branch, we're not going to comply with any oversight, even though the Constitution says that the Congress has power of oversight. And so when the executive branch and the congressional and the legislative branch are just not in agreement and not willing to abide by, you know, if the executive branch isn't willing to abide by the Constitution, then what do we do? I think that's right. I mean, it is, this is different than any other situation in the sense that Trump has said explicitly that he will not cooperate with any oversight. He is basically saying, I do not feel an obligation to be checked or balanced. And even on basic things involving the testimony of a Senate-confirmed cabinet officer in William Barr is something that he will not allow, the idea that he might prevent

Bob Mueller from testifying. So that, you know, whether you want to use the term that we are currently in the crisis or we're barreling towards the crisis, we are in a very precarious position right now because how this plays itself out, both in terms of how Trump reacts, how Congress reacts, and how the courts, which are now stacked with political hacks, reacts will define the congressional presidential relationship for decades going forward. And so whatever terminology you want to use, I think there is cause for significant concern. And I think no president in history has ever sort of defied all oversight completely. Like that's unprecedented as well. I know people are using the word unprecedented quite a bit over the last couple of days and throughout this presidency. But it does seem like, I mean, we should add that one of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was Nixon obstructing Congress, much like Trump is doing. But it seems like even Nixon didn't have sort of a blanket refusal to cooperate with any congressional oversight whatsoever, right? Yeah, no, he provided that there were witnesses and documents in the initial,

the huge court battle around executive privilege was Nixon's attempts to keep the tapes from the taping system in the White House from Congress. And what the Supreme Court ruled was executive privilege cannot be used to prevent Congress from having access to potentially criminal conduct. You can't hide evidence through executive privilege. And there is some evidence, if you will, that that is what is happening here. Yeah, it's interesting. It really is. Nancy Pelosi said this thing about Donald Trump self-impeaching, which is hilarious.

But it really does. I don't get it still i think it means that he read it for a couple different times i know i i was thinking about it and i really think what she means is he is he is he is making he is putting himself in a position he is taking steps to make it impossible not to impeach him that he is basically impeaching himself i saw her earlier say she's he's goading us into impeaching yeah i think that i right i think it's both right he's goading he's's got he whatever whatever that means, whether he's doing it because he thinks impeachment is good for him or because he simply enjoys flouting the law. He is pushing Congress to impeach him in one way or another. But it is interesting how impeachment would play into this, because it does seem as though one of the that that being in the midst of an impeachment proceeding will make

Congress's hand stronger in trying to get these documents, because it's no longer just about proving that Congress has the right to do oversight or some legislative purpose, but actually needs to investigate the conduct of the president, which is unassailably Congress's say like solemn responsibility. Yeah, because we should say that, you know, one avenue here for the Democrats is to throw it to the third branch of government, the judiciary and say, OK, you settle who's right different investigations and so many different administration officials defying subpoenas, that this could just wind up in the courts and it could take quite a while. In fact, it could take beyond 2020 or even beyond Trump's term in office for the courts to settle this. And I think what you just said, Lovett, is in the case of impeachment, if they start an impeachment proceeding and they try to defy subpoenas, I guess it would get decided much quicker because they're opening an impeachment proceeding. This is a proceeding that's investigating the president's corrupt behavior, and I guess that gives them a stronger hand.

Is that what you took from this too, Dan? Yeah, but I think there is an element of running out the clock here that is very critical to the Trump strategy. For example, just yesterday, the courts finally settled a case involving a dispute over access to documents between the Obama administration and Republicans in Congress that began in 2012. So it was a seven-year process to work that way through the courts. So we could be well into Don Jr.'s first term before we even resolve some of these issues. So let me ask, is a protracted fight over the Mueller investigation, is that advantageous to Trump?

Like, what if he just said, you know, let's just give them the unredacted report. Let's move on, focus on, you know, other shit that Trump wants to focus on, you know, immigrants at the border, all his favorite hits. So then he doesn't have to focus on this at all. Like, why is he engaging in this protracted fight over oversight and accountability? You know, it's some things are just instinctual for Trump, and Trump's instinct is to fight. He always wants to be fighting. He needs enemies.

He needs a grievance. It's how he gets out of bed in the morning. I think that's both like a personal psychological thing, but also a political strategy that he just, like with all things with Trump, I think his strategies, even though they're effective sometimes are instinctual, not intellectual. And he, he just wants to be fighting Democrats. I also think he has a fear about the deeper people dig, the more crimes they will find. Um, but it's, I think it's a little more, uh, on the surface than, than there's this very specific thing he's trying to hide. Yeah.

This is why the calling it a constitutional crisis sort of bugged me. And I'm having trouble articulating it. But there is this feeling that what we're in is this very complicated process argument in which you have the White House. Sarah Huckabee Sanders goes out there and says, Jerry Nadler is ridiculous. He's trying to issue a subpoena and hold the attorney general in contempt for not breaking the law, right? Because they claim that it would be breaking the law to turn over the grand jury testimony. Then the Democrats go out there and say, this is unprecedented. The Republicans go out there and say, this is unprecedented. And as strong as we believe our argument is, and as unprecedented as Donald Trump's behavior is, we end up in a situation in which we are arguing in these stark and grand terms about fundamental

questions about the Constitution while nothing's actually happening. And it just feels like a lot of noise where, and I guess I just wish that I understood better the strategy of Democrats to get something out of this argument? Yeah, I mean, look, I think that's, I think that one of the problems is this is why Democrats should have taken it up to an 11 when the Mueller report was released. Because the problem with not saying, yes, these are impeachable offenses, and now we're going to hold investigations, but impeachment's absolutely on the table at the end of these investigations. And that could have been an easy message, even though that's not what they did. A lot of them said, well, impeachment's too good for him and blah, blah, blah, you know, all this other bullshit. The problem is, if you start with that message, and then you find yourself moving towards

impeachment because the administration is basically saying fuck off to every single subpoena that they get, then you look like, then it starts looking like you said, which is this protracted battle over process. I mean, and I think the reason that you use the term constitutional crisis is they have to now convey the urgency of the situation, because it is an urgent situation, because like, why should an average person care about what's happening in Congress right now? Well, if you have a president, an administration that's saying, about what's happening in Congress right now. Well, if you have a president and an administration that's saying, we can do whatever the fuck we want, we can abuse power in any way we want,

have any kind of scandal we want, and no one's going to do anything to us because we're not going to comply with congressional oversight and we don't think you're going to impeach us anyway because we have Senate Republicans who aren't going to break from us. And by the way, we feel pretty good about our chances on the Supreme Court because we have a bunch of Republicans on there.

So we can do whatever the fuck we want. And one of them is a goon who literally threatened Democrats during the hearings. Right. Yeah, it feels a little bit like there was a fire and it was burning and Democrats collectively made a decision to let it burn out. And now they're trying to start the fire again. Yeah. And it's just, you know, it's frustrating. I think that's right.

But I do believe we are in a constitutional crisis, because I think this is different. Like previous presidents have had, with the possible exception of Nixon, but this is worse than Nixon in some ways. But previous presidents have tried to push the envelopes within the confines of the constitutional system. Trump is saying the constitutional system does not apply to him because he doesn't want it to. And like whether Democrats are handling that correctly or not, or describing it correctly, or having the appropriate proportionate actions to it is an open question and worthy of discussion. But where we are right now is basically, like I said, Trump has decided that Congress has no role in providing accountability to him, and he will not agree to the

strictures put forward by the Constitution. And now this will eventually go to a court that we know is stacked with Republican political operatives. And that sort of means the guard rails of government are off. I think the question for Democrats, to go to the Johnny Erickson question, which is, is this fight good for Trump? Is it's the fight is only good for Trump if Democrats let it be, right? So we have to use this, like, this is what's happening. We have to use it in an argument that's not about process. It's not about subpoenas may not even be about the Constitution, but it is about people's lives. And I think that goes to that Trump is a chaos agent. But that chaos has consequences for all the things we are not doing that are affecting your lives. Yeah, I think that's right. How does the contempt vote against Barr get Democrats

closer to what they want? And what comes next there? So the Judiciary Committee has voted to hold him in contempt of Congress. Obviously, it's got to go to the full house for a vote. But let's say Democrats prevail, and he's held in contempt of Congress. What happens next? I mean, I don't know that it gets us any closer than we want. It's just we're basically going to make Bill Barr wear a Scarlet Sea as he eats dinner at Cafe Milano. I don't like I think it's an important like we have to set like you have there have to be some sort of consequences. And he will go down in history as someone who was held in contempt, presuming Democrats go forward with this. But I don't think it gives us any more access to documents. It doesn't change the dynamics of power. I mean, I'm for doing it, but we should be realistic about the effects of it.

So, but Dan, to me, this is, look, all roads lead to impeachment, people. This is the problem. You can hold them in contempt. You can then sue. You can go to court. You can do this. Every avenue has – there's something blocking it at the end. With the courts, it's time. They can run out the clock. With contempt votes, it's like no one's thrown Bill Barr in jail. It's like the only – it seems like the only – the Democrats have two choices. One, forget about everything.

Don't conduct oversight. Move on with their business and just decide that this is a lawless president who can do whatever the fuck he wants or conduct impeachment proceedings, because it doesn't seem like the middle of the road investigation strategy where they subpoena people and hold investigations on a whole bunch of different issues is going to work for them. Right. But this is this is why, Dan, like, you know, I agree with you. Right. Donald Trump is refusing to comply with the basic tenets of oversight. He is refusing to participate in the kind of basic rules of how our government's supposed to function. But in some sense, that is predicted, right? The assumption is that at some point there will be a president

who refuses to obey the Constitution. And to me, right now, we're in this nether space where Donald Trump is refusing to comply. Democrats are kind of, I don't know, in some senses going to where they need to go for subpoenas, holding people in contempt, and others being a bit feckless, saying, oh, you know, impeachment's too good for him. We're not sure what to do. To me, the threshold we haven't hit, in part because Democrats haven't pushed it there, is what happens when Donald Trump is either refusing to obey court orders, refusing to, you know, if we get to the point where the sergeant at arms is involved, what have you, but we're not at the point right now where Donald- Get Louis Mensch. What? Well, when the impeachment eagle has been let loose by the-

Get the marshal. By the Supreme Court marshal. But, you know, look, these are, we're talking about like fundamental notions of power and where it flows from. And right at a certain point, it is going to come down to whether or not Donald Trump refuses to obey the courts because he says, how can you enforce it? Or it comes it becomes Congress's responsibility to start using some of those inherent powers of Congress to enforce its subpoenas. To me, that is the kind of nightmare endgame that we're not at, at which point we truly would be in a genuine crisis in which the Constitution does not afford us the remedies we need to protect ourselves from Donald Trump.

I guess the open question will be whether those remedies still exist. Right. Yeah. What do we think that the Senate wants with Don Jr.? In a bipartisan way. Bipartisan. Bipartisan. Don Jr.

Don Jr. In a bipartisan way. Bipartisan. Bipartisan. People are, Republicans are not very happy with Senator Richard Burr right now, who is the chairman of the Intel Committee in the Senate because he has signed on to the subpoena along with Mark Warner for Don Jr. And, you know, Don Jr. is attacking Burr. Like, Cornyn basically was saying, I don't know why this isn't case closed.

I don't know why we're still doing this. So he's not even getting support from his Republican colleagues. Not John Cornyn. Fucking Twitter troll. Yeah. So what do we think that the Senate wants with Don Jr., Dan? I mean, I presume it is about whether he lied to the Senate about the Trump Tower deal, which has been something Adam Schiff has hinted about in the context of Trump Jr.'s testimony to the House Intel Committee. And if that is the case, that does, I think, explain why Burr would do this, because it gets buried down deep somewhere. There are still some institutional prerogatives within the Senate that they frown on

being lied to even by the president's son. Now, the challenge of this is, is if they find that, the person who will decide whether Donald Trump Jr. should be... So the way this would play out is if the Senate were to believe that they would make a referral to the Department of Justice about Trump lying, and the person who would make the decision as to whether that was a chargeable offense would be none other than Bill Barr. Telling you, all roads. There's got to be a road that goes somewhere else somewhere. I mean, I guess impeachment or beating him in 2020 seem like the two roads here, and maybe both. That road's got a lot of...

We'll talk about that. There's some predators on that road, too. I should say that we also still don't know whether Democrats are going to be able to successfully compel testimony from Robert Mueller himself. Nadler said this week in an interview that Trump's use of executive privilege could delay Mueller's appearance for weeks, because he's still technically an employee of the Justice Department. And, of course, you know, Trump no longer wants Mueller to testify. He flip flopped on that one. Originally, he said he didn't care.

Now he doesn't want it to happen. They're trying to get Mueller to testify on May 15th. Can Trump and the Republicans stop Mueller from testifying, Dan? And what should we expect from a Mueller hearing? Any bombshells or should we keep our expectations in check? Never allow yourself to have hope. Dan Piper, Barack Obama staffer, 2007 on. I've been dark since the Yes Weekend days.

I think I want to make one point about Trump's executive privilege claim that I think is important as it relates to Mueller himself, which is Trump – the claim that Trump filed is what is called a protective claim, not a conclusive claim. Which means what he's saying is he may claim executive privilege on either all of or portions of the Mueller report, but they haven't gone through it to do that yet. So this is actually a very clever delaying tactic, which means now I think there's something like a million pieces of paper that make up all the underlying evidence and pendants of that report. So what normally what happens is when you file an executive privilege claim, you're very specific about the documents you are not providing and why, right? And you say that this is deliberative content involving discussion between the president and their advisors or whatever the traditional acceptable legal standards of

executive privilege are. And so what he's potentially doing here is delaying Mueller for a very long time as one person in the White House counsel's office goes page by page through all one million documents. And there's a world in which the courts give them some leeway to come back and argue about a specific document as opposed to all of them. Just sort of the court saying, you must release it right now. Now, can they stop Mueller? Only Bob Mueller will decide that. It's like if he decides he wants to testify, are they is are you going to be arrested on his way to the Senate? Right. Like there's they there's no real way to stop has been unwilling to date to do anything other than write sternly worded, mostly secret letters about his concerns about how things are going. So we'd put that on him. Yeah. Dan, can I ask you something? There's this feeling to me right now that Democrats are, they're screaming to the bloody rafters, but nothing's happening.

Do you see, it almost feels as though what we need is something to get the ball rolling, something to get an avalanche started that's not just begging Trump officials to be decent. Do you see any way through hearings, through congressional action, to use congressional power in a way that doesn't require Trump administration compliance to start getting attention on these hearings and on these issues in a way that would build a kind of drumbeat to create pressure on Trump officials to participate? I think Trump officials are immune to political pressure. And Trump is immune to political pressure. Because everyone takes their cue from Trump and that's everyone from Mitch McConnell to Kevin McCarthy. And the it's just the the most important factor in a Republican's mind is a thing about their politics and you try to is the Trump base. Right. So you have to look at this behind Trump, there's no incentive for Republicans to do anything because they're much more afraid of being primaried or Trump endorsing their opponent.

Like look at Mark Sanford and the congressman from South Carolina who Trump endorsed his opponent. He lost, although he did eventually win that seat. All the candidates, establishment candidates who bucked Trump and then he endorsed their opponent lost. establishment candidates who bucked Trump and then he endorsed their opponent in law. I don't think there's anything that will come of a hearing that will either move Trump officials to act differently or, frankly, dramatically move public opinion on this matter. And I think that is one of the factors that underlie Nancy Pelosi's reticence to aggressively go down this path. underlie Nancy Pelosi's reticence to aggressively go down this path?

I do think, if Mueller testifies, I don't think that Mueller is going to say anything all that different than what he put in the 400-page report that he worked on for quite some time. But I do think that from a political perspective and a moving public opinion perspective, having Mueller talk about what is already in the report, but saying it out loud and maybe answering questions about it, I think it would at least put the spotlight on Trump's wrongdoing and the fact that Mueller clearly believes there's evidence that he committed obstruction of justice. And seeing that on your TV, I do think is a little different than reading it in a report. And we know that something like 97% of Americans haven't looked at the Mueller report at all, of course. So, you know, do I think that's going to move public opinion a lot? Probably not. But that could be a little bit of the drumbeat that you're talking about. But Mueller is the only one I can see doing that. Because like Dan said, I think all the rest of the officials are going to say, fuck off. I'm defying a subpoena. And their tactic, the reason we're not going to get to the constitutional crisis that you talked about, Lovett,

which is, you know, what happens when Trump ignores a ruling from the courts is because delay is the tactic here. They're thinking, you heard what Jan just said about the Eric Holder case that started in 2012. And here we are in 2019 and it's just wrapping up. So the Trump administration is thinking to themselves, we're not going to have to get to a point where Trump says, no, I defy a court order, because we can tie this up in the courts for years. Yeah, these court cases are like Avatar movies. Specific reference. All right, let's move on to the stuff that the president might be working really hard to cover up. The New York Times published a story on Tuesday about how Donald Trump's businesses lost more than a billion dollars between 1985 and the mid-90s. More money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer.

This helped him pay no federal income taxes in eight of the 10 years the reporter studied. The president defended himself on Twitter on Wednesday saying, quote, you always wanted to show losses for tax purposes. Almost all real estate developers did and often renegotiate with banks. It was sport. Guys, any surprises in this story? I'm personally surprised that the Chinese intelligence agency is watching Maddow. Hey, listen to Hillary Clinton. It happened. What a dream.

From Hillary Clinton's lips to the Chinese ears. Usually she does that at private speeches. I mean, look, I don't think anyone is surprised to find out that Trump is a fraud. The degree of that fraud where he is, you know, love it as you always say, we elect America elected its worst person. It turns out we also elected our worst business person since he lost more money than any other taxpayer in most years that were in the information provided to the Times. Yeah. I mean, how, how, if at all, should Democrats talk about Trump and his taxes and what's in this story? I mean,

is it, is it possible to undermine the image of Trump as a successful businessman with the fact that he was actually America's least successful business? Yeah. We, we did, we have gotten a taste of how conservatives are going to respond to this from our pals at Fox and Friends.

And I think I think we do have a clip of that that we can play anything. You read this and you're like, wow, it's pretty impressive. All the things that he's done in his life. It's beyond what most of us could ever. I don't know that there's any suggestion that he broke the law. Yeah, I think the suggestion is simply that he used the tax laws to his benefit. As if if you buy something and it doesn't pan out right away or ever, you're a loser. No, you take shots.

You have an opportunity to do things. That's the way he lived. The reason why we all knew Donald Trump's name is for 30 years. That's what he did. He bought towers, hotels, golf courses. He did it in other countries. What do people not understand about he's a little bit different than most people? You know what? In full agreement that he is a little bit different than most people. Yeah, definitely different. It's, you know, again, like this, this reminds me of the

Mueller letter saying how mad he is at Barr. It does feel like a deleted scene from an old episode. Like, OK, great. I do believe a lot of people decided to just sort of say, fuck it and vote Donald Trump because they believe this reputation that he was a businessman. I think now he's been president for three years. We get to judge him on his actual conduct in the actual job, which matters so much more than what his reputation was. So I'm not really interested in hashtags like billion dollar loser. I'm genuinely, I'm generally not interested in hashtags at all,

but I do think. Send love at your best hashtag. It does to me matter insofar as it's part of a larger case against the way Donald Trump conducted himself as president in that for all his talk about being so wealthy, he didn't nothing, you know, he couldn't be bought. He has spent most of the time in office seeking out personal gain, in part because he's clearly been in so much debt and had so many entangling foreign financial interests that he is beholden to all kinds of private companies and foreign governments in ways we don't fully understand. And, you know, something that John said all the time, which is true in this case, is that he is not looking out for the American people.

He is not looking out for anyone but himself and his own bottom line. Dan, let's say that Lovett is right, that people care less about how he got rich or didn't get rich and care more about his conduct as president. How is it possible to still use these stories about taking advantage of tax loopholes at best, at worst, possibly committing tax fraud? Is it possible to use these stories in a message about Trump as we move towards 2020? Yes. Donald Trump was an incredibly rich person who paid zero in taxes for a decade. Donald Trump then won the presidency and passed a law to make it so that more rich people and more corporations pay zero in taxes. The people who clean the rooms at the Trump Hotel paid more in taxes than Donald Trump, a multimillionaire, did.

You pay more for your Amazon Prime subscription than Amazon, a $ 900 billion dollar company pays in federal taxes donald trump thinks that system is right we think it's wrong elect democrats and we'll change it put that in a fucking ad yeah it's just so right it just seems like it needs to be part of like an argument against the republican policies that make someone like donald trump rich yeah i think you've got to tie him to very unpopular Republican policies, which, by the way, I mean, we've talked about this a lot, is different than saying, maybe it's not in conflict, but it's different than saying Trump is some unique emergency. He's so much different than the Republicans. He's worse than the Republicans. Let's remember that

the most unpopular policies don't necessarily just come from Donald Trump, but they came from Paul Ryan and a lot of the Republicans in Washington, which are tax cuts for the rich and then paid for by gutting Medicare, gutting Medicaid, and trying to take away your health care. I mean, that's a core message that you could have used in 2012, 2016.

It's been true for a long time. It worked, and... Do we still have Dan? Yeah, I'm here. I'm right here. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. Yeah, and look, it worked in 2012, especially when Barack Obama talked about Mitt Romney as one of these rich guys who wanted to pass a bunch of tax cuts for rich people because he himself was rich and took advantage of all kinds of tax loopholes.

I love that you had to ask if I was still in the line because you said Paul Ryan's name and I didn't immediately start screaming. So you thought it must have been a difficulty. It was weird. Like, testing. One, two, Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan is back. It's funny too, because it's like, at least, you know, look, Bain Capital was mercenary and vicious and sociopathic and undermining, you know, the ability of working people to kind of have a living wage. But at least they made a profit. ability of working people to kind of have a living wage, but at least they made a profit. So let's talk about trying to get the rest of Trump's tax returns. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnookin continued his effort this week to block Congress from obtaining access to the tax

returns. He said on Monday that a request from House Ways and Means lacks a legitimate legislative purpose. Richard Neal, who's the chairman of Ways and Means, said he would let us know on Thursday what steps he's going to take next, some of which could involve going to court. What's going on here? Like, what other options do Democrats have to get these tax returns? Is this just the same position we were just talking about with oversight writ large, which is, you know, the Trump administration's betting it gets tied up in courts and then they just never have to comply. I mean, I hate doing the thing where we hammer Democrats and we it's sort of like disillusioning. But what this like I am legitimately mystified and frustrated by what Richard Neal is doing

here. Like, what did he think was going to happen here? And why was there not a decision made about the next step before he got the letter from mnookin that is the most it's the craziest fucking thing so be ready it's like it's so crazy dan it is so like every like the trump administration not complying with the order for don Trump's tax returns, the most predictable thing, the most predictable thing since October of 2016. Like and and seems it seems taken aback without a clear, immediate next step. It almost like the next step should be in the request letter.

Like what what is going on? Everything's very careful and cautious. And the problem with it is, is it's undermining of Nancy Pelosi's strategy. Whatever you think about it, Nancy Pelosi's view is starting impeachment proceedings right now is a mistake. So we are going to aggressively look at all of this stuff and then come to an conclusion on impeachment. But that strategy, the political merits of that strategy and the substantive ones, frankly,

fall apart if they are not incredibly aggressive on everything that is happening short of impeachment. And so if Richard Neal is dawdling around thinking about what he could possibly do, and in his quote, he's like, well, we could subpoena him, but they don't seem to be really complying with subpoenas these days, so I don't know. It feeds into the caricature that a lot of Democrats have about how the Democrats are going about this. It's just a terrible legislative political mistake. Dan, what do you think about states like California that are requiring candidates to release their taxes in order to be on the ballot. I remember you talking about this before. I thought this was a good idea for a really long

time and I've advocated for it and I've argued for it, but then I had a massive amount of concern about it a few days ago. And so what I would like to know from like some of our political polling data experts is what do we believe the impact on turnout in California would be if Donald Trump is not on the ballot? Oh, interesting. So think about this, right? So California, if you presume turnout drops at a rate proportional to party registration, that means that more Democrats will stay home. And how does that affect our capacity to hold the crooked seven and, you know, go after someone like Devin Nunes, right? Like, are those voters who are, you know, like the voters who did not turn out in 18, but you can potentially get in a presidential election year, are they

going to turn out in a state like California if they can't vote against Trump? So our Democratic nominee is on the ballot, obviously, but Trump is not. What is the impact of that? I'd like to sort of know that because this is a political discussion before proceeding forward. Yeah. Good for you for going right to the political context here. I think there should be a federal law that just like to run for president, you have to file financial disclosure forms. That law should be updated

to include the release of tax returns, which I believe was in H.R. 1, the first bill the Democrats in the House passed. But absent that, if we set up this piecemeal system,

we could live in a world where we're disadvantaging ourselves because the only states who would pass such a law are ones that are controlled by Democrats, therefore probably safe states in the presidential election. But we need higher Democratic turnout among less likely voters to win things up and down the ballot in the more Republican parts of these blue states.

Interesting. It's also worth, I think, worrying about what happens when Republicans in states that are in reach of Democrats start using this as an opportunity to create other standards to keep Democrats off the ballot. Yeah, I'm sure they'll do that soon. I mean, there were efforts to make Democrats to make presidential candidates release their birth certificate. I think, yeah, right. Or something like that. They didn't get all the way to the end, but this was a big thing in the early parts of Obama years. All right, let's talk about 2020. Question of the day is, how much do the Democratic candidates need to make their campaigns about Trump in order to stand out in a crowded field and unify the party? So there was a long New York Times story by Astrid Herndon and Jonathan Martin this week

about how Kamala Harris and her advisors are trying to reset and recalibrate her campaign by having her spend more time taking on Trump. In Detroit over the weekend, she added a new section to her stump that ended with the line, quote, this president isn't trying to make America great. He's trying to make America hate. Okay. So the reason that she wants to do this is that there's a disagreement within her campaign over whether Kamala should run to the left or to the center. Quote, other Harris advisors and allies have winced at some of the senator's overtures to liberals. They believe her pool of attainable voters sits squarely between the center and left and that she need not always offer the answer liberal activists may want from her. Dan, what do you make of this piece?

It made my head explode. We scream all the time about how reporters and pundits presume political calculation behind every utterance a candidate makes. And that is unfair because political candidates, like humans, have sincere beliefs and they will say things they believe in regardless of the politics of it. But when a candidate's advisors call up The New York Times or anyone else and then explain in gory detail the political calculation between that candidate's next utterance, you're doing that candidate a massive disservice. You know, Kamala Harris has really smart, loyal staff on her campaign. But some people in and around her campaign, I think, did her a tremendous disservice by reading the New York Times into their playbook. You know, we always yell about Democrats in the House needing an inner monologue instead of calling it politico. This is also true of campaign advisors. Like, I think if this had happened on the obama 08 campaign i think pluff would have burned the building down i mean i'll tell you we're not on campaigns right now but we

still get emails from political reporters asking us to talk about you know some like inter-party fighting and what's going on what do you think of biden because you were in the white house and i'm like no no you do it anonymously yeah i'm just kidding but it's like i mean you don't respond i never participate in those stories even though i'm not a campaign because i'm like it's just there's nothing that comes from my participation in that story that's going to be helpful to the candidate so never mind if you're on the campaign or advising the campaign doing that like jonathan martin calls you up no i love jonathan martin he's a great reporter but i'm not talking to him about that if i'm on a campaign i have a

simple rule i only talk to reporters if they're writing a glowing profile about me personally i also want to say one other thing because i'm sorry make america great again make america hate again i have expected kamala to remove her face like Arya Stark and reveal Hillary Clinton. And like I worked for Hillary Clinton for years. I believe Hillary Clinton should be fucking president right now. I agree with every criticism of those who constantly blame Hillary Clinton alone for the reason she's not president. But that sentence to me gets at some of the mistakes we made in 2016 that we should not be making in 2020. I mean, it's also a line that is a very, I mean, it's a piece about consultants and advisors

talking to the New York Times. And that's what that line sounds like. I mean, I talked to Kamala Harris for almost an hour here and she never said stuff like that. She never rhymed. She's warm, brilliant, engaging. She's like, she is a very authentic person. I know authenticity gets thrown around, but like Kamala Harris is.

So the piece says her advisors have, quote, extensively polled and run focus groups on the Democratic primary electorate and, quote, do not believe she should bow to liberal activists, setting aside the wisdom of people telling reporters this. Are they right, Dan? No. I mean, I'm like, I am speechless at the absurdity that someone told that. It makes me so mad. I can barely stand it. And it makes me actually really, I'll get to your answer, but I just want to vent for one sec. It makes me mad on Kamala Harris's behalf. She just had her best moment on the campaign since the announcement.

She just demonstrated to the whole world in the bill bar hearing about like what like what she is so good at and how talented and smart she is and the response to that is to lay out your political strategy and the times is crazy it's i think the it's the wrong way of thinking about it which is you're putting yourselves in this twitter blue check mark pundit box that is just not how voters think about it, right? They are making a holistic judgment on a candidate, on who they are, what they stand for, what their policy beliefs are, and what kind of opponent they would make to Trump. And to try to choose between like, we have to be liberal or moderate is the, like, you

don't campaign in a silo, right? You are a human being. And voters will support people that they agree with on some things and disagree with on other things because they're making an overall judgment. So if members of her campaign are thinking about this in terms of one path or the other path, I think it's just a very faulty way of thinking about presidential politics. Sometimes that is a way you think about a Democratic primary for Senate or governor, which is there's a liberal candidate or there's a moderate candidate. You count up the liberal voters, count up the moderate voters, and figure out which one has a better shot. But a presidential campaign is something incredibly different than that. And the judgments that voters make is

incredibly different than that. It's much more complex. And this is an incredibly and painfully simplistic way of looking at politics. I also think there's something more important than ideology and deciding that you're going to tack to the left, tack to the center, apologize for a past position, whatever. I mean, we have candidates in here all the time and we have pushed them on their support for the filibuster. When Kamala Harris was here, I asked her about her record as a prosecutor in the truancy program she started and she said you know she regretted her support for this law that caused some parents to be arrested and my view on my view on this is if you believe in your past record even if it's

not necessarily popular right now then say you still believe it. If you're truly regretful of it, say you're truly regretful. If you're for the filibuster, don't tell me that now you're against the filibuster just because you're here and you know that we feel that way. You know, like I will respect it a lot more if you come here and say, I know you guys hate the filibuster. I know you guys think, here's why I think we should keep the filibuster because I really believe that. Like just be who you are and stand by your beliefs. And I think you will get a lot more credit from people than having a bunch of advisors say, oh, well, when you go on this program, you should attack to the left a little bit. When you talk to this

crowd, you should attack to the center a little bit, all that kind of stuff. Because that just gets you twisted in knots all the time. Right. Well, because what's not mentioned in the article is, what does Kamala Harris actually believe about the kind of policies we should have when she's president? One reason this story is going to be so damaging is now if she bucks the left wing of the party, it's not because she believes it or doesn't believe it. It's because that's the strategy. If she decides to accede to demand of the left wing of the party, it's not because she believes it. It's because she has made a strategic decision. And so reducing every position to a strategic choice just makes it

harder to take any position whatsoever because it's no longer about who you are and what you stand for. It's about messaging and strategy. Yeah. I mean, let's get to the crux of the pieces. So because there's this disagreement about whether she should attack to the left or attack to the easier way to stand out in this crowded field because candidates who take on Trump directly, whether it's Joe Biden, whether it was Kamala Harris taking on Bill Barr in that hearing, whether it's, you know,

other candidates have done this as well, those candidates tend to get more coverage than the primary candidates who are running around just talking about policy. Dan, what do you think about that? I just, it's once again, a very simplistic way of thinking about it. It's this incredibly false choice. Which candidate is not taking on Trump?

Right. Elizabeth Warren's policy rollouts are done entirely in the context of fixing the problems that many times existed before Trump, but have been exacerbated by Trump, right? Like, Trump is the conversation. There is no dearth of candidates talking about Trump. Like, what was so impressive about Kamala Harris's performance in the Bill Barr hearing was not that she took on Trump and no one else did. It was that she showed herself to be smart and thoughtful and to take no shit from Bill Barr. And like that, it's just her general demeanor. She came off as an incredibly impressive person who you could see sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office in that moment. It was not that all of a sudden she discovered the benefits

of Trump criticism. In fact, she didn't even really talk about Trump in there. She really talked about Bill Barr and Bill Barr's conduct and how the report was done. And it highlights an important part of her background, which was that she was a prosecutor. So one way of thinking about that exchange is people value her role as a prosecutor, much in the way that we believed in the 2008 campaign that people valued Barack Obama's role as a community organizer because it spoke to the kind of president he wanted to be as someone who would try to bring change from the bottom up. So you could take from that we should talk more about her being a prosecutor. I don't know that you can look at what happened there and the success they had, I presume, raising money and generating attention after that and say the reason for that is, the answer to that is we need more Trump criticism. Trump criticism is fine. Criticism

only one. He's worthy of all of it and more. But I don't know how that's going to make you stand out in this field. Yeah, again, I mean, in some instances, Trump represents a unique emergency. In other instances, Trump is merely a continuation of a Republican Party that's become radicalized over the last decade. And probably you should just respond to each instance when it happens. You know, like if it requires you to take on Trump directly because you're talking about a specific issue where Trump is some unique emergency, then talk about Trump. Otherwise, you don't have to. Like, I think it's just it's situation dependent here. I don't think it's a strategy to necessarily stand out in a field. I don't think. It's also this is the third story in as many weeks about a candidate deciding to use Trump

to make themselves distinct. Right. I mean, Bernie did that, I think, in his announcement. He spoke more about Trump than others. Joe Biden made Trump and the way in which Trump is an aberration central to his announcement. So I find it all a bit strange. And, you know, Dan, to your point, the reason that moment stood out was not because it was about Trump. It was because it was about her. It was a moment about that she stood out. She stood out because she did something in that moment that probably no other candidate in the field could do. My advice to candidates is always like, think about the things that make you unique and stand out in this field that are unique to you.

Skills that you have, a background that you have, issues that you've cared about for a long time. Because when you do that, then people are like, oh, that's only something that Kamala Harris could say or do. That's only something Elizabeth Warren could say or do. And the more you're focusing on that, the more people say, okay, now I know why this particular candidate stands out in the field, because none of these other candidates could do that, say that, propose that policy, etc. I'm not saying this is what is underlying Kamala Harris's

campaign's approach to this. But I did talk to someone who was advising another presidential candidate who was seeking attention. And a big way in which they are thinking about this is how can you get Trump to react to you? Right? And if Trump attacks you, the candidates who have had Trump engage with them have seen jumps in fundraising online, right? So if like Trump will tweet about you or pick a fight with you or whatever else that that is helpful. And I can see why candidates are trying to look for a way to get him to react to you because that is attention. But it's important to note that is a tactic, not a strategy. And that is a way to generate money. It's not a way to sort of win the primary. The second point I want to make is just generally, as we think about our nominee and we

run through our mind about what attributes do we want the nominee to have to make them best suited to take on Trump? And that I don't mean like what they look like or who they are or where they're from, but like what are they good at as candidates? I am much more concerned that our nominee be able to tell their own story about why they're running for president, what they would do as president, who they would fight for, than I am in their ability to say bad things about Trump. I think we – like what happened – the lesson of 2016 is not that we need to do a better job of making the case against Trump, although there's fair criticism of how the Clinton campaign did that. It is that we need to not chase Trump down every rabbit hole. We can't allow him to define the four corners of the conversation. We want a nominee who can talk about themselves and talk about their vision and inspire people on their own, not just try to scare them about Trump. And so I just think that we can wrap ourselves around the Trump axle in a pretty dangerous way

pretty quickly yeah i think it's very important for candidates to look at that first debate and realize that it is not a contest of sick burns oh it is not you know it's not like uh so and so had the best uh trump hit rt if you agree you know like that's not the the people should walk away from those debates and where they're going to look at fucking 10 people on stage two nights in a row and think, OK, which candidate really stood out? Not because they had the best line on Trump, but because I said, oh, that person is bringing something to the table that none of these other candidates bring. There's a point that Mayor Pete has made a few times, which I actually think is really smart, in that when either you look for a way to insult Trump effectively or when you seek to get Trump's attacks, yes, you are picking a fight with Donald Trump. But in some sense, not only are you playing on his turf, you're in some sense seeking his approval, seeking his recognition that you're on his level.

And it really does, once again, define everything around Trump and by Trump. So I do think, you know, Dan, to your point, it's tactic, not a strategy. Not only is it not a strategy, I think in the long term, every time we engage in a debate that is about seeking Trump's criticism, you are giving him power in our part of the process. Yeah. And like you said, Dan, I get why people do it because in the short term, you get a burst of online fundraising and you get a lot of people cheering you on Twitter. And you obliterate every other candidate. It's just you and Trump.

Right. And so that's very tempting. And I think there's definitely a time and a place to do that once in a while. But you're right. It's not an overall strategy. Okay. When we come back, we'll have Dan's interview with Stacey Abrams. Our guest today is Stacey Abrams. She's the former Georgia House Minority Leader, founder of Fair Fight Action, and author of the amazing book, Lead from the Outside. Stacey Abrams. She's the former Georgia House Minority Leader, founder of Fair Fight Action, and author of the amazing book, Lead from the Outside. Stacey, welcome back to Pod Save America.

Thank you for having me. So this is the first time we've had a chance to talk since you announced your decision not to run for Senate. I understand and deeply respect a decision to not run for an office that you don't feel is right for you. But I'm curious about what brought you to that decision, because in your announcement, you said that democracy is under attack. And I'm curious what it is about the attack on democracy that makes you think the Senate is not the right place to lead the fight against that. So I see those as two separate but interrelated issues. The role of the Senate is to propose legislation. It's also an extraordinary platform to have debate and conversation.

And I think that that job needs to be taken by a Democrat from Georgia, and I'm going to do everything in my power to make that so. But my experience, not only in the recent elections, but for the last 20 years, has also signaled the importance of having folks on the ground doing the work every day, and particularly tackling the bureaucratic entrenchment of voter suppression at the state level. And when I weighed my responsibility and my goals, And when I weighed my responsibility and my goals, while I deeply respect Chuck Schumer and believe absolutely I could have won that election and a Democrat can win it, when I thought about the next six years, the next 12 years, next 18 years, three, two or three terms, or even a single term, I do not believe that the work that I do and the way I approach the work that I do would be a match with the Senate. I think I could have supported that kind of work on the ground, but I do not think I could have let it. And for me, that's the most important issue, being on the ground doing this work. And to be fair, I see myself and have seen myself for the last 20 years, I'm much more suited to

a more executive role than a legislative role. Because even in the state legislature in Georgia, I was a legislator for four years, I was the leader for seven years. And part of that was that for me, it's about building systems and making sure that the execution of the ideas are as tightly done as possible. And that's what I'm good at. So you're going to be leading this effort through your organization, Fair Fight Action. What will Fair Fight Action be doing to fix our democracy and fight against voter suppression?

So Fair Fight Action has three roles right now. One is litigation. We have filed a comprehensive federal lawsuit that goes beyond any lawsuit that's been filed before. Instead of attacking individual examples of voter suppression, and there have been incredible lawyers and groups that have been doing that work, we are essentially articulating a Brown versus the Board of Education theory of the case, which is that as a matter of fact, this connection of registration access denial, ballot access denial, and ballot counting denial, when those things are

yoked together, there is a system of disenfranchisement that violates the Constitution of the United States of America, and we do not have free and fair elections in Georgia. This litigation had its first test last Tuesday in front of a federal judge. We are waiting to hear if he will grant the state's motion to dismiss, which is predicated on the argument that they weren't really responsible for the election, which we disagree with. Number two, it's legislation. We are fighting for fair systems, for actual voting systems. we are fighting for fair systems, for actual voting systems. Georgia is about to make the single largest purchase we believe in, we know in American history, we believe ever, of machines that have been called the worst machines in the world. They are hackable,

they are vulnerable, and they do not provide an audit trail. And we will spend $150 million for a license to allow the state to continue to pay for these flawed machines. And it just so happens if the wrong company is selected, the two colleagues of the current governor, his deputy chief of staff and his general counsel will be benefiting their former employers. The third part is advocacy. We know that it's not just enough to talk about the right to vote, to talk about the right to vote, to talk about democracy in the abstract, but to really connect it to the lives that we lead. That's why we've been fighting against not only this purchase of machines through legislation,

but we've been talking to people about the fact that we still don't have Medicaid expansion in Georgia. That's a direct result of stolen elections. We, as a state, just saw the governor sign the most draconian anti-abortion legislation in America. That's because of this election outcome. If people's voices aren't heard, then their will and their visions can't be realized. And so we're using verified action to push that conversation and to talk about advocacy so that people understand it's not just about the right to vote, it's voting for your lives. I think that's a really important point, because Democrats often fight back against voter suppression in the courts. And then when we have political power, trying to do it legislatively, but not often enough do we make the public argument of the consequences against it.

Do you feel like the party is starting to learn a lesson here? Do you want to hear more from Democrats making a public case so that there are political consequences for Republicans who push these laws? Cummings, who has launched an investigation into the Georgia elections. We've had conversations and were part of the hearings that are being conducted by Chairwoman Marsha Fudge. We are working with Representative Terry Sewell on the restoration of the Voting Rights Act. And every presidential candidate I've spoken with so far has agreed to talk about voter suppression. But I think your point is the most accurate one, which is that we have to connect the dots. The people who are the most likely to be victimized by voter suppression are the very ones who have been convinced that voting is irrelevant because they've never seen

their lives truly advance. If we don't remind them not only of the power that they hold, but show them that there should be consequences for stealing that power, then we are no solution to their problem. And so my approach to the work that I do, regardless of what it is, is to always make sure we come back to the core belief system, which is that we have a democracy so that the people can be served. We have government so that as a community, we benefit as many people as possible and we remove barriers for opportunity to success. Those are not conversations you can have when people can operate with impunity in the theft of your votes, but also when people come to power and they don't use that power to advance your interest. If you win your lawsuit, what are the national

implications of that? Does it extend beyond the state of Georgia in terms of setting precedents? So it's going to be – it's certainly going to have an effect through the findings of fact for other states that have similar situated laws. Because it's a state-based case that's using specific language that's in our state legislation, there are limits to what the implications can be. But as we know, when legislation is overturned, when the courts make determinations, other courts do look to what those decisions were. It won't necessarily compel better action, but it sets a precedent, and we believe it sets the framework for other states to pursue a similar strategy. Everything I do, whether it's

Fair Fight Action and our fight for voter integrity, or Fair Count, which is an organization I launched a few months ago that is looking at the census, or New Georgia Project, which I started in 2014, every organization I start, we design it to be exportable and replicable. So even if the litigation itself cannot solve the problem in Ohio or in Indiana or in Texas or Tennessee, what we want to have happen is that others will know what to do, how to do it, and we will have given them a roadmap and the resources and support to get it done. A few months ago, you wrote an incredibly powerful essay about identity politics and pushback on a lot of the bullshit that surrounds that conversation, the conversation about

identity politics and the Democratic Party. I wonder if you could explain to our listeners, if you didn't get a chance to read that, what your argument was and get your reaction to the endless and endlessly stupid debate among pundits about whether Democrats should go after the quote-unquote base or the white working class. Okay, so a very quick top-line explanation. The most reductive idea of identity politics is either that you pick someone based on their identity or you only select them because they see your identity. Okay. No one should elect anyone simply because they have a shared identity. But what they should expect and why identity politics is so powerful and thus is

the target of so many attacks is identity politics essentially says, I see you. I see the obstacles to your success. I see the barriers to your opportunity. And as someone you are hiring to solve the problem, you can trust that I know how to solve the problem because I see the problem. The more complicated way of talking about it is to say that we know throughout our history, more complicated way of talking about it is to say that we know throughout our history, identity politics has always been the impetus for change, that when communities that were denied access aligned themselves and organized themselves based on their shared challenge, that they were able to produce results. That if people can't see you, if leadership can't see you, it will not solve for you. The corollary then is that we have to recognize that everyone has an identity, that white working class is an identity. African-American middle class is an identity.

Latino is an identity, but so is growing up in a rural community. So is being in the blue collar segment of a town. What we want from leadership is an inclusive understanding that all of us want the same things. We want access to healthcare. We want economic security. We want a good educational opportunity. We want a fair justice system. We want free and fair elections. And that if you don't understand what the challenge to my accomplishing those ends are, then you are not good for this job. And that if you cannot see my identity, you cannot see me, you cannot serve me. I mean, that is such an important understanding of how politics operates. Do you think people are starting to better understand what that means, or are we still operating in an outdated sense? I think we are seeing more leaders push back on

the narrative. But unfortunately, some of the folks running for the presidency are still caught up in this very reductive and internally inconsistent idea. Because to the underlying point of your other question, when you try to give primacy to one group over the other, you are giving primacy to one identity over the other, which is to say you don't reject identity politics. You just don't give privilege to the identities who need you in this way. don't give privilege to the identities who need you in this way. And so in my campaign, we centered communities of color. We centered marginalized communities. But that didn't mean I didn't campaign everywhere and talk to everyone. I simply acknowledge that most of the politics of our communities are geared towards the normative voter, and that if we don't then acknowledge those

who are outside the system, we will never bring them inside. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact, they are deeply connected, and when tied together and leveraged together, they are extraordinarily effective, unless, of course, you're running in a state with deep voter suppression, in which case the outcome may not be what you expect. in which case the outcome may not be what you expect. Fair enough. Do you believe Georgia will be a swing state in 2020? It is. It already is. I point people to the fact that despite the outcome of the election,

I ran against a cartoon villain who controlled every mechanism of power, and he still only barely eked out a victory of 54,000 votes. In a midterm election where the gubernatorial race was the top of the ticket, which means you didn't have the natural national resources that come with a Senate campaign or better, a presidential campaign, we were able to increase Latino, Asian Pacific Islander turnout by 300 percent. We tripled their turnout. We increased youth participation rates by 139 percent, increased black turnout by 40 percent. We transformed the electorate, and we increased white participation in the Democratic Party for the first time in a generation. Those are all signals that if a well-funded presidential campaign comes to call, you can replicate that outcome.

You simply have to do what we did, which is talk to everyone, see everyone, and invest in those communities. If you do that, that's 16 electoral votes. I don't know of a candidate who should imagine that it's worth squandering access to 16 electoral votes simply because you have to come south of the Mason-Dixon line. And we're on our way to Florida, so you might as well stop by and invest. I would just note that as someone who watched your campaign very closely and has family in Georgia who very proudly voted for you, that I think your campaign is a model just not for Democrats turning Georgia blue, but for winning the whole thing,

an inclusive, progressive, unifying campaign. So that's a personal note on my end as someone who really was impressed by you and the campaign you ran, which leads me to ask this question that I'm required to ask. Otherwise, they will take my microphone away. Which leads me to ask this question that I'm required to ask, otherwise they will take my microphone away. But it has been reported that you, while not running for Senate, are still potentially considering joining the ever-growing Democratic presidential field. Is that true? Yes.

Oh, interesting. Would you be willing to share what factors are going into that decision, what would lead you to make a decision one way or the other? Certainly. As I said, for me, the most important and urgent conversation of the day is the fight for free and fair elections, because I believe that that is an existential crisis facing our democracy. If people doubt it, they should look at what has happened in the last six weeks in Tennessee, in Texas, in Arizona, in Florida. These are all direct assaults on the right to vote. And these are direct assaults on our elections in places where people who are considered the outliers have asserted their power and their voices. And we see Republicans doing everything they can to strip them of their votes. More importantly, or not more importantly, but as a proof point, the Wall Street Journal

published what had to be one of the weakest and most spurious arguments against voter suppression that I've seen outside of some screed written on Facebook. All of this is to say we cannot win elections in America for the people if we do not have candidates who are fighting against voter suppression, but we also have to have candidates who are fighting for all of us, who realize that this is not an election against Donald Trump. It is for America. If we allow ourselves to be pulled into a battle royale against a craven opportunist who has no respect for people, then we diminish who we are and we take our eye off the ball. We also have to have candidates who believe that every community is a persuasion target, not just a turnout target, and that we have to have a strategy that looks at

every state and understands how can we maximize our turnout, not to win the popular vote, but to win the electoral college vote. I'm looking at all that, and I want to make certain that the candidates who are moving forward are paying attention to that and have plans for that. If I think they don't, I'll probably jump in myself. Well, that is interesting. Well, whenever you have an announcement that you want to make, you're always welcome here on Pod Save America. Before I let you go, though, I did want to ask, while you're making this decision, how can our listeners who are supportive of what you're doing in Georgia with Fair Fight Action, how can they help you? you? We'd love for them to go to fairfightaction.com and sign up. We will not only keep you apprised of what we're doing with Fair Fight Action, but we will also tell you about what's

happening across the country. We're working with other groups, and we want to just continue to amplify this question and this conversation. And then as a quick aside, I want to plug faircount.org. We are also doing work on the 2020 census. As you know, if people aren't counted, they do not count. And there's a concerted effort to erase communities of color and poor communities from the narrative of America. This cannot be allowed to happen. And that means we have to redouble our efforts to ensure that there's a fair census in 2020. That means the work starts now, and we are hard at work doing that here in Georgia and working across the country. So go to fairfightaction.com and faircount.org. Sign up and let us know how you want to help because we will call on you when we need you.

Stacey Abrams, thank you so much for joining us, and we hope to have you back soon. Look forward to it. Thank you so much. Thanks to Stacey Abrams for joining us, and have a great weekend we'll uh we'll talk to you on monday bye everyone don't complain to me about the fact that i got all over your thursday pod i don't care wow i'm feeling a little sensitive always bye everyone bye dan bye Bye, Dan. Bye.