Pod Save America - “Amnesty Don.”

Episode Date: September 14, 2017

The Democrats reach a tentative deal on DACA with Trump, and 16 Democratic Senators sign on to Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All plan. Then New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand joins Jon and Dan to talk about health care and the future of the Democratic Party, and Ana Marie Cox discusses Trump’s voter fraud commission. 

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On the pod today, we have New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and later, the host of Crooked Media's With Friends Like These, Anna Marie Cox. Also this week on Pod Save the World, Tommy talks to Representative Will Hurd, Republican from Texas, first elected Republican on the show, Tommy talks to Representative Will Hurd, Republican from Texas. First elected Republican on the show, on a Crooked Media show. Probably not great for him in the long run, is my guess.

Poor Will Hurd. His career was going well until he joined a Crooked Media podcast. And Love It or Leave It is on tomorrow. I actually don't even know who his guests are. Sorry, Love It, didn't send me your guests. Okay, so where should we start today, Dan? Let's start with what did you think of the Hillary Clinton interview? You guys did a great job.

I'm not just blowing smoke. I asked that. I was just fishing for compliments, really. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You guys did do a great job. I knew you were taking it seriously when I saw the photo and you and Tommy both had colored shirts on and Lovett was not, as far as I can tell, wearing a logo t-shirt. No, Lovett was wearing his senator sweater.

Yeah, you look like actual Syria. You look like interns on your first day at work, and I thought that was great. Yeah, no, I thought it was good. Have you read the book yet? I am probably 50 pages in. I started last night, the day, yesterday I started. It's, there is a great,

I mean, you guys sort of hit on this in the interview and you can see it and you can hear it in her voice. And this is probably a microcosm

of the entire Hillary Clinton experience in politics is there's a great diversions between the book itself and the way the book is covered and talked about. Right.

You know, if you were to read, yeah, if you were to read the coverage, you would think it was this bitter diatribe of casting blame on other people and refusing to accept any responsibility or for a loss. And it's pretty much the opposite of that. And it's not an easy read, because it's like, those are really dark times for everyone. And like reliving Election Day or Hillary Clinton's speech, which I watched in a gift shop in Dulles Airport, with people crying all around me. Those are hard things to think about or Inauguration Day and putting yourself in her shoes. It's on it. It's an honest...

The parts I've read are like an honest, very open, raw take on an absolutely brutal experience. Well, yeah. I mean, and she does plenty of taking responsibility for her own mistakes. But it makes you... Reading the book makes you realize, again, that we all made mistakes. We're all responsible for this. And I don't know, I thought it was interesting that, you know, basically the point of the book is,

or one use of the book is to learn from 2016 so that we don't repeat 2016. And, you know, I think some of that is grappling with challenges that no candidate, no one candidate or campaign can control. Propaganda, whether that's Russia or Breitbart or Fox, like, you know, political media that's obsessed with scandal more than policy and sexism, racism, voter suppression, all that. And I think she does a great job of laying all that

out. Some of what we need to learn is obviously grappling with challenges that candidates and campaigns can control. And that's your message, your policy, sort of like the career and life decisions you make prior to the campaign, making sure your messages break through. And I think she's in the book, she does a really good job of acknowledging all those. I think she has less to say about how to change those things going forward. Because I think she honestly is not sure, you know? And neither are we, clearly. Exactly. Anyone who listens to this podcast knows that those answers aren't clear. And it's not clear how applicable those lessons are to any other situation other than Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump. Because I was talking to someone this morning about the book,

and I was saying how open and honest it felt in Raw, right, as I said, in the early pages. And the person said to me, if that Hillary Clinton had shown up in the campaign, would she have won? And your initial thought is yes, of course, which is just the greatest trope of post-election coverage. If the Al Gore who gave his final press conference speech had shown up, then he would have won. The thing about Hillary Clinton, though, is it's impossible. If she had been sort of that casual and honest and human-like on the campaign, it would have been covered and treated as if it was a cynical political play to be

inauthentically more authentic. Like it's not like there are, because of the way Hillary Clinton is covered and treated in the political conversation is just fundamentally different than anyone I can think of in my time in politics. It's just, you know, you thought about this in the, like when the book was coming out, my initial take was,

oh, I do not want to relive the 2016 primary. And then there's this huge debate over should Hillary Clinton write a book? Why is she writing a book? Why is she distracted us from 2018? It's like that conversation only happens about Hillary Clinton, no one else, right? Like Bernie Sanders wrote a book. Yeah. No one said that about Bernie Sanders, Sanders. So John Kerry stayed on the political stage after he lost. No one complained about that. And it's just, there's something about Hillary Clinton, not herself, not the person Hillary Clinton, the incorrectly, wrongly,

unfairly vilified political persona of Hillary Clinton, which is automatically turns every political conversation stupid. And, and I think that that you sort of can understand when you see the reaction to the book. It also helps you understand why the task before her in running for president was not that she didn't make some mistakes, she certainly did. But the task before her was more challenging in reality than it probably was on paper because of just the things that certain politicians have available to them are not available to her because people do not give – the political conversation does not give her the permission structure to actually do those things. Yeah, and I think the challenge was somewhat obscured by the fact that she leaves the State Department with like a 60-something percent approval rating, very well-liked, higher approval rating than Barack Obama at the time, you know? And so you think, okay, maybe all the problems that we've had in the past

are in the past, and they certainly were not. What'd you think about the Sanders stuff, the Bernie Sanders stuff? That was another... Because, I mean, look, it's funny when I asked her the question about Sanders, I specifically phrased it so that she wouldn't have to talk about Bernie or attack Bernie. I wanted to know about this going forward as a party. Are we a party that needs fundamental reform and change in our policy and our message, or are we a party that almost won and needs some tweaking? So I thought you'd answer that. And she used the occasion to go back and take a few shots at Bernie again. Yeah, I mean,

that was as aggressive as I have seen. Well, I mean, that's not fair. I don't say it that way. But I'm even hesitant to answer this question. It's so scary, isn't it? Yeah, we're just well, we're just I mean, it's scary for whoever whatever side of the debate is going to just go right up in our mentions. Yeah. But even beyond that, it's just there – it is important. And this book and Hillary in the interview and her larger press tour, all of which is less consequential than her Potsdam America interview is in some part about learning the lessons, right? And it's the lessons about specific democratic strategy. It's the lessons about that America is not exactly in some ways what we thought it was coming out of the Obama era. Sexism is – and I want to get to that in a minute – is more – is a bigger force in politics than I think a lot of people imagined. Hillary Clinton was probably not one of those people who imagined that given what she's been through in her life and a lot of women like Senator Gillibrand have experienced. Right.

But so there's a whole host of things about it that are important for us to just understand what happened because it is a seminal moment in American history. And hopefully we recover from it. But the Bernie part, I understand her raw feelings. And I, as I said to you earlier, I can only imagine how we would have felt if we had gone through that long, bitter primary with Hillary Clinton, and then lost to John McCain. I can imagine that we would have had a lot of grudges about that. So I am sympathetic to the emotions behind that. And I do believe that many of Sanders' attacks on Hillary Clinton were unfair. And they were, at their their heart pretty deep character attacks.

But also that was – he was not wrong. He had a case to make. He was running for president. He can make that. They weren't out of bounds, but they were tough. But I am not sure that Clinton's assessment of Sanders' role post-primary is fair. I was in the convention when Hall, when he put her name in a nomination. Which is interesting because she mentions that in the book. That's why she's actually a bit more charitable to him in the book than she was during our interview and has been covered in the press.

And she did not choose to emphasize those more charitable moments that she wrote about. You know, because when she says he should have argued with his supporters, I think with that, I don't, that doesn't mean, I could be wrong, but I don't think that means like his prominent elected official endorsers or his former campaign staff, like Jeff Weaver or Tad Devine or some of the people who we came to know on the campaign because in my recollection they followed Bernie Sanders's endorsement and did what they could to help Sanders get out there and campaign for her I think she means the quote-unquote Bernie bros on Twitter and I'm just sure. I'm not sure how he would have achieved that goal. I don't think he could have. I also think it's like, yeah, I mean, look, to me, this what matters is what matters more than sort of the personal animosity that lingers between them is, you know,

the policy message implications going forward. And it's interesting in the book, and this was Ezra Klein's first question to her, which I figured it would be, you know, there's at one point in the book, she talks about Democrats needing to be bolder on their policies. And she starts talking about how they almost proposed universal basic income that was paid for with, you know, some tax on any company that makes money from natural resources, so oil companies and some telecom companies, and it's this extremely progressive policy. She talks about taxing net worth instead of income and all these things that I didn't even hear Bernie talk a lot about during the race. And you can sort of imagine a race where she decided that she didn't want him to outflank her on the left. And she started proposing these policies.

But then again, you know, as she said to us, she has this responsibility gene. And she always expects that once you get into the general election, someone says, how do you pay for all this? And she felt like she couldn't make the numbers work. And, you know, that's just a very, it's a very Clinton thing. And I think it is, it's both, she has a responsibility chain, and I have no doubt, having worked on campaigns, and that the internal view was, we are probably going to win this primary. It may be tougher than we thought, but you look at the delicate math, and they were in pretty good shape Super Tuesday on. Just a question of when they were going to close it out. And there was also, I'm sure, political fear about running in the general and some of these left-wing,

these more progressive policies. Left-wing was the wrong term. I don't agree with that political analysis. I think the more progressive populist approach would have worked. But I understand that. But I also understand her calculus in the primary is, let's say she went to, you know, x tax rate on the wealthy. you know, X tax rate on the wealthy. Sanders, there's no world in which she can outflank Sanders. Yeah. He can always go to the left of her because he did not feel as compelled as she did to make the math work.

And he was not running, at least until the, he did not think he was gonna be president. So he was not, he was running an issues-based campaign to move the Democratic agenda and the political conversation of the country to the left. And he succeeded in that, which we'll get to in a minute. He had great success in that. Hillary Clinton was worried that she was – you are – we know this. You are accountable for your campaign promises when you get there.

So she gets elected and it's like where is your universal basic income plan? How are you going to get it passed? How does that fit you? Is it going to be in your first budget? You're talking about the state of the union. She was thinking through governing. And if you're thinking through governing, it can be a limiting principle in what you do in the campaign. And someone who does not feel limited by that reality can always outflank you. Yeah. I mean, look, I think if there's one silver lining to 2016, it is that both the primary and the general showed us that we all need to rethink what is, what does electable mean? What does politically feasible mean? And sort of expand the boundaries of, of what's possible and not be caught up in being too cautious or worrying about

the politics of something. Try to go with the biggest, boldest policy goal that you can, and then don't make it too unreasonable and don't lie to people, but set a big goal and don't worry so much about, oh, well, this isn't politically possible. Well, we'll get into this too when we get to our single payer conversation. Before we get to that, we should talk about what happened last night. So during the campaign, Donald Trump said that young undocumented Americans known as dreamers, quote, have to go. And last week, Jeff Sessions announced that Trump would be ending the Obama era program designed to protect these dreamers from deportation. A few weeks before that,

Trump threatened to shut down the federal government unless Congress funded his border wall. Last night at the White House over Chinese food, President Trump reached a tentative deal with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to offer about 800,000 young undocumented Americans a pathway to citizenship in exchange for more border security but no border wall. Art of the deal. And of course this morning he tweeted that no deal was made but then he tweeted that Dreamers shouldn't be deported and that the wall would come later which is essentially the deal dan what do you think what do you think he said no he said no deal and then laid out all the provisions of the deal of the deal schumer and pelosi announced last night once again rendering his press secretary who tweeted there was no deal looking like a fool in out in the world. Yep, that's right.

So what do you think changed here? What do you make of this? I think you asked me last week why Trump agreed to the debt ceiling deal with the Democrats, and my answer was, he's dumb. That is also still my answer today. And when Trump talked during the campaign in an interview with Chuck Todd about the Dreamers, and when you read the answer that he gives,

it's entirely clear that he has no idea who the Dreamers are, what DACA is, what a change in policy means. He's just erring on the side of fewer brown people in America, which is like his default position without thinking about anything else. And now, and so he goes, this is a pretty simple Pavlovian response, I think, which is let's do all the pieces of this. I think, which is, let's do all the pieces of this. Trump has enjoyed the press coverage that he has received from the world since his fairly minor deal with the Democrats a week or so ago.

Trump still remains mad at Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell for screwing up healthcare and just being terrible at their jobs. And three, he was offered a way out of a problem and he took it without thinking about it. When you really boil this down, Trump is bad at dealmaking, which I get the irony that the guy who ran as a great dealmaker and wrote – had a book ghostwritten for him called The Art of the Deal is bad at dealmaking. But he's taking – this is like we said last week. He's buying his cars at sticker price. It is – he's taking the first offer and not even using a negotiating tactic where you're going to demand the wall and then you're going to trade the wall for this other thing the Democrats wouldn't otherwise give you. So I say all that. I will add that I think this is good for the world.

And I'm glad it's happening if it proceeds on the path that we hope it does. I think it is great. It is great all around. I mean, most importantly, it is good for the world and it is good for these young undocumented Americans. This is a win for actual people. If it happens, we don't know. I mean, we have a long way to go, we should say, before this becomes law. You know, Paul Ryan has said before he's not doing any immigration measure in the House unless he gets a majority of Republicans on board.

immigration measure in the House unless he gets a majority of Republicans on board. Now, he is also, in the last couple of days, you know, he's spoken favorably about protecting Dreamers. So, you know, unless there's a revolt in the House that sort of threatens Paul Ryan's job, you know, you could see him trying to cobble together enough Republican votes. Then, you know, you get, of course, just about every Democrat in the House will vote for this. So you don't need a ton of Republicans, but he probably needs a good chunk of his caucus in order to save face. So you can see this getting done, but we're not there yet. But if it gets done, it is, you know, a huge policy win. It's a win for the dreamers.

Also, the other thing that's a win is that Trump's base is so angry right now. So some of the media reaction last night, basically the MAGA media reaction is split here. Breitbart ran a headline that just said, Amnesty Dawn, which is awesome. Ann Coulter said, at this point, who doesn't want Trump impeached? Laura Ingraham was critical. And Steve King, a renowned racist from Iowa, said, quote, Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair.

I couldn't get enough of these tweets last night. It was so enjoyable to read these. The only people who are still with him, of course, are the biggest fucking lackeys in the whole universe. The crew on Fox and Friends and Sean Hannity. That's the only people that stuck by him. Sean Hannity said McConnell failed so miserably with health care that now POTUS has to deal with Dem leaders. So he went with the look what Mitch made him do line of attack. I mean, he's not wrong.

I mean, sort of. First and last time I'll say that about Sean Hannity. But to twist this around, like Donald Trump makes a deal with Democrats and some of his support, the Fox team, who are basically just White House employees who aren't getting paid by the federal government, are like, it's not his problem he made a deal to this amnesty deal. It's Mitch McConnell's fault because he didn't pass health care. It is a little bit of a bank shot there.

Yeah, they are twisting themselves into a pretzel to stick with Trump. Hey, look, I do not like it when Trump gets good headlines. That makes me unhappy. But if Donald Trump is going to do the exact same thing that President Hillary Clinton was going to do, I'm cool with that. Because this is the exact deal that Hillary Clinton would have struck with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, presuming they stayed in the Republicans' retaining control of Congress, to pass the DREAM Act. It's been sitting there. This is the deal that's been out there for a long time. Republicans did not want to do it with Obama because they don't like to do things – because they were hoping that they would win an election and get to do something about it and end the program.

And now Trump is going to do Hillary's bidding, which is fucking wonderful. Yeah. do Hillary's bidding, which is fucking wonderful. Yeah. I mean, look, Trump is a clear and present danger to the globe. We need to, you know, elect him out of office or get him out of office as soon as we can. But while we're waiting for that moment, it's great if he will do things that we agree with. It's very simple to me. It's not like this is something that needs to like twist Democrats in a knot. You know, like, should we be happy for Trump or not? It's not about Trump, right? Like, you're right that he's going to he will get some good headlines from traditional media and all the people in D.C.

and the D.C. pundits and stuff like that. And it'll drive some of us crazy because it'll be like, you know, Trump, the bipartisan independent dealmaker, blah, blah, blah. But like I said, it's both substantively, this is good, but also politically, I think, you know, one thing we missed a lot of during the campaign is how much conservative media sort of drives that base. And I'll say something else pretty crazy. Steve Bannon, what Steve Bannon said on 60 Minutes is right in that this DACA decision, if it goes forward and they enshrine DACA into law, it will cause a civil war in the Republican Party. And you're seeing it already, like Breitbart and Coulter and some folks lining up on one side very much against this decision. And then the Fox and Friends and Hannity's of the world still favoring Trump. I mean, this is going to cause a huge political problem in their party, which is also good for us. So I think this is excellent.

In the last seven minutes or so, we have applauded something Donald Trump's done, agreed with Sean Hannity, and affirmed a statement of Steve Bannon. Our iTunes rankings are about to go in the toilet. What is happening today? Anyway, so we'll see. I mean, look, the other question is, you know, how long does this new Trump last? Do we trust him? You know, I don't know. Yeah, approximately seven minutes, because immediately after the deal was announced, Trump went on a tweet storm against Hillary Clinton, criticizing her for her book. Yeah, playing the hit there. We are not the independent, bipartisan, new, freshly pivoted Trump is bullshit.

We will take this deal, presuming it comes to conclusion, any day of the week and twice on Sundays. But let's not pretend we have a new president. I will say one thing after having listened to you guys on Monday. As you know, I shared your outrage about all of the ridiculous coverage overselling the simple moving of a debt ceiling vote as some sort of Reagan, Tip O'Neill-style tax reform deal. But this, and the argument was, there was no progressive principle, conservative principle that he sacrificed

in order to do that deal. This is actually one where you can say he gave Democrats something they wanted, even if he also somewhat agreed with it in exchange for almost nothing. But, you know, we'll see. But there is an actual substance. This is an actual substantive bipartisan deal if it comes together. The other thing was, yeah, I just don't want Democrats, but stupid. I just don't want to separate intention from result here. Like the result is that he, he stumbled ass backwards into a great partisan deal. It certainly was not some strategy or

intention or, you know, he just, he, everything is impulse. He, he, like you said, he likes coverage when it's good for him. He doesn't like it when it's bad for him. He makes decisions about life and death in the country based on Fox and Friends versus Morning Joe. And also he has some personal grudge with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell now, so he thought he'd piss them off by having Chuck and Nancy over for Chinese. And suddenly we have a deal. So it's like, you know, that is the best part of the whole thing. that someone reported that trump believes that the policy issue on which he and senator schumer are closest is chinese trade so they serve chinese food it's problematic on so many levels so many levels it's just it's so simplistic that it is just mind-boggling.

I would like to know what they serve for dinner if Medicare reform was their closest issue. It's so good. It's just so good. It's pretty great. Okay, let's talk about health care. Speaking of health care, two bills introduced yesterday. Let's actually start with the last-d ditch attempt by the Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare. This is a piece of legislation from Lindsey Graham, Bill Cassidy, Dean Heller,

Dirty Dean Heller, and Ron Johnson. In some ways, this is actually the worst of all the Republican health care plans, this last one standing. It hasn't gotten a lot of attention, but basically this plan cuts the Affordable Care Act by $20 billion, and then it gives the rest of the money to the states to spend on whatever health care programs they want. But 20 states, mostly large populated states, also blue states, will lose anywhere from 35% to 60% of the funding they currently get from the Affordable Care Act because of a formula in the bill that gives sparsely populated red states more money. States could also get waivers that let insurers charge sick patients higher premiums and stop covering essential benefits like maternity care, prescription drugs. The estimate here is about 32 million people would lose their coverage within 10 years, including 11 million on Medicaid and premium spiking 20%.

So the good news is no one thinks they have the votes right now. McConnell didn't promise to bring it up. He told them to go find 50 votes on their own. Cornyn, who's the whip, the vote counter, he said he didn't see the votes. Ted Cruz said they have about 44, 45 votes right now. We got Rand Paul as a no. And then the big thing is their deadline on this is September 30th. Once we pass September 30th, they go back to needing 60 votes to pass any kind of Obamacare repeal and replace.

And they can't do the reconciliation that only allows them, that only gives them 50 votes. What do you think of this, Dan? How worried should we be? Because I am not worried, we only gives them 50 votes. What do you think of this, Dan? How worried should we be? Because I am not worried, we should probably be very worried. Like, I think we should, the odds are long for them, and there doesn't seem to be a ton of appetite for it, but we thought the same thing the first time the House took it up. We thought the same thing when Dean Heller and others killed health care,

and then health care came back, and then it was killed again. And then McCain finally killed it. Like in up until the clock strikes midnight on September 30, we should maintain a healthy level of paranoia about the Republicans desire inability to snatch health care away from people so they can give tax cuts to millionaires like that's not going to go away. Yeah. We're favored by the calendar here. And it seems like from Trump to McConnell to Ryan to all the rest of the Republicans, except the ones who introduced this bill, more of them are focused on tax reform and getting that done than they are on one more attempt at repealing Obamacare. But once you get to a deadline, suddenly all kinds of dealmaking starts happening.

So, you know, everyone should be on the lookout. Yeah, I would say a non-encouraging sign for the Republicans on this is when they had their press conference, they invited Rick Santorum, who left the Senate a decade ago. No idea. I think they were like short a senator. They're like, this guy was once a senator. Let's bring him along. And maybe people forgot. He got his ass kicked by Bob Casey in 2006. Yeah. Here we are with former Senator Rick Santorum. He's going to really, he's going to juice this proposal. All right, let's talk about single payer. So Bernie Sanders introduced his Medicare for all bill yesterday, which is co-sponsored by 16 Democratic senators. It's about a third of the caucus, including Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris,

Al Franken, and our guest for today, Kirsten Gillibrand. Quick question, John. What do all of those people have in common? They may possibly be running for president in 2020, Dan. I was going to say, other than Bernie Sanders, they have all been on the podcast. Oh, good for us, huh? Yeah.

By the way, Bernie Sanders, come on the podcast. It's love it. I think that there was something wrong with my email to the Bernie Sanders people. I think it's my fault. I think that in my attempt at rapprochement, I think that I may have not been the best person to reach out. Did you send it to info at BernieSanders.com? Was that not right? That's how people get us here.

That's how Michael Cohen reaches the Kremlin. So, good for you, too. Okay. So, within four years under this plan, everyone in America would transition to a universal healthcare plan run by the government government just like Medicare is now. This is an extremely generous plan, more so than any single-payer plan in the world right now than other countries. More generous than Medicare itself. You would pay no premiums, no deductibles, no co-pays, no nothing.

It would cover hospital visits, primary care, medical devices, medical lab services, maternity care, prescription drugs, vision, dental, the whole shebang. Also importantly, it would aim to bring down costs, the cost of health care overall. We know now that the Medicare program is currently cheaper than private insurance. The government helps hold costs down. We have the screwed up system in America where we pay doctors and hospitals based on how much care they provide and not necessarily the quality of care they provide and the outcomes that we get. That's something that the Affordable Care Act tried to change. Medicare obviously has a lot more power to change this because of their bargaining power because of how many people are insured there. The deal with Bernie's plan is everyone would get about four years to transition from their current insurance plan to this new plan. How much? Hugely expensive. Sanders did not lay out the details on that. He did have a separate white paper that offered some possibilities for paying for it, including higher tax rates on high income people, a 1% federal wealth tax on the net worth of the wealthiest one-tenth of 1%. All of these tax options add up to about $16.9 trillion over a decade, and still not sure if that would be enough

to pay for this. One thing I should say that's important is higher taxes don't have to mean higher healthcare spending since no one would be paying premiums or co-pays anymore. So Dan, what do you think about this? How big is this? I mean, it's hard to overstate how fast the politics have shifted on this. In 2009, when we were trying to pass the Affordable Care Act, two things. One, Max Baucus, who was a senator from Montana, who was in charge of the finance committee that was writing the bill, refused to hold a single hearing on single-payer on the belief that it was too politically toxic and would endanger passage of the Affordable Care Act. In the Affordable Care Act was a public

option, which is a bridge to something like Medicare for All or single payer. And conservative Democrats, there were not 60 votes in a time in which Democrats had 60 votes to include that in the bill. And it was stripped out to the objection of many people, including President Obama and the people on this podcast. And to go from that to the world in which every Democrat who is thinking about running for president believes that it is – or they're willing to put their name on this bill is a pretty stunningly quick change in the political firmament. What do you think of the politics of it? It's interesting. I think that the politics of it are good. I mean, you can start with something like 64%, 65% of Democrats now believe we should have a single-payer plan. I think overall the politics are pretty good.

of spending all this money in this country on insurance companies and insurance CEOs and prescription drug companies and spend care on people and people aren't going to have to pay for care and we're going to hold down the cost of health care. I think those are all good messages. I do think that if you're an advocate of single pay or if you're an advocate of this bill, think that if you're an advocate of single pay or if you're an advocate of this bill which i am you do need to think through how you're going to pay for it and be honest with people about how you're going to pay for it and not take questions about how you're going to pay for it as oh well you're against this and you just must be in the pocket of insurance industry and you're a shill and blah, blah, blah. We have a responsibility that if we're going to put forward this plan to tell people,

we want this. This is the best way to go. This is the best way to have healthcare in America. This is the best way to insure everyone. And here's the way we pay for it. And we're not afraid to talk about that. So that's what I think. So if you were running the campaign of a 2020 candidate, would you tell them to put all the details out in the course of a campaign? I'm not saying they have to do it in the run up. But so you're out there, you're going to give your mandatory speech rolling out your health care plan. You think you got to do the pay for us? I think you got to give the some options forors? I think you got to give some options for pay. Like, I think what Bernie did, which is a separate white paper that had a bunch of options

for pay-fors, is a good idea. I would probably, like, if I was running a campaign, narrow those down, pick some, and go around, and that would be the message, you know? I mean, at least you want to get in the ballpark. I don't think you have to have this fucking scored like the CBO would score it while you're running for president. But I do think you need I mean, it's just part of the message because, you know, it's one thing to have ads that talk about this. It's one thing to go out there on the stump. At some point, you're going to get in a debate or you're going to get an attack.

And someone's going to say, well, how do you plan to pay for this? And, you know, you need to be able to give a reasonably good answer that's believable and you need to have a follow up when someone gives you a follow up. I think that's that's all you need. And I think that's doable. Do you think you do that even if you're running against Trump? Oh, I think you do that, especially if you're running against Trump. I think that's I mean, it's so funny. This is what we talked about with Hillary Clinton. And she had this, like, I think it's mistaken to think that you need to have every detail worked out. But I think if you run against Trump, it is an equally good message to say that

you're going to pay for this by raising taxes, the richest people in this country. Dan is love it. I know he wasn't going to be able to fucking sit quiet. The danger of moving the studio within 10 feet of his desk. The master of single payer over here. First of all, first of all, it's 10 o'clock. I'd be talking at the studio too. We're in where this is how it goes.

Isn't this one of the lessons though, that Republicans have spent a long time separating politics from policy. You know, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney can run around talking about all the things they're going to do to cut taxes, but then when it comes time to paying for it, they're extremely vague or they just lie about it. Trump's even worse. Isn't one of the lessons of 2016 that we should be extremely vague and lie about it? No, not that we should lie about it, but that we can simply go back to, you know, as a country, we spend X on healthcare. We can make up for this by cutting what we spend on healthcare and by making people pay their fair share and leave it at that. Do you have numbers that make that work? What I'm saying isn't what Hillary Clinton told us, is she was like, I was waiting for the point where somebody asked me, do you have the numbers that make that work? In 2016, it didn't happen.

But she wasn't afraid about putting out the numbers. She was afraid about the political consequence of what the numbers would mean. But no, I'm not talking about single payer. I'm saying that she put out all the numbers for her policies and she found that no one ever gave a shit. Well, if she didn't put out the numbers, they certainly would. Don't you think the press would have been even tougher on her if she didn't have any numbers to back up her policies? I don't know. If we're going to advocate single payer, we have to be ready to defend the cost of it and be proud of that. One, the question is, do you want to just win and have no chance of passing single payer, or do you want to win and try to pass single payer?

If you want to win and try to pass single payer, you have to put enough details out that it is a reasonable proposal. If you are just going to run on a vague notion of Medicare for all, and just take the win and let the next president deal with it, then the more Bernie in the primary Trump in the general election approach makes sense. I think on the larger politics of this, we shouldn't pretend that these politics are easy because you are at the end of the day going to move 90% of Americans off their current health insurance plan and on to another one and convincing them, as we know from the Affordable Care Act, that even if people don't love their health insurance, the fear of the unknown exceeds their discomfort with the known. It's also true, Dan, that we are watching a cautionary tale of this right now, which is they spent eight years campaigning on a lie about health care. And then when it comes time to govern, it's another matter.

Yeah, that's right. I also think the politics of this are on tough. If you can't pass single payer in California, Vermont, passing it nationally is going to be very challenging. But Democrats are 100% right to do this. It's the right thing to do. If we're ever going to get it done, people have to run on it and try to convince the nation is the right thing to do. No one has, other than Bernie Sanders in the primary, no one has run on single payer in decades or made it the centerpiece of a presidential campaign. Yeah. reform in 2012, and moved the political conversation from being largely anti-immigrant to looking for a comprehensive solution. And if Democrats want to actually solve this problem, they have to run on it. And so there's risk to it. But to the point you made earlier, John, the traditional ideas of what we think about electability and how policy plays in electability and how resume and biography play in electability, I think are out the window. And so doing the right thing and being authentic and bold about it is as good an idea as there is to win an election as we have out there. Yeah. I also think the reason I like what Bernie did is it is an opening bid. And the opening bid is far to the left so that you can sort of move back.

And one of my lessons from the Obama years is, you know, the stimulus package, right? We started off with a stimulus package that we thought we could – that was not just the right policy but what we thought we could pass. And we also thought because – you know, we needed a third of it to be tax cuts because we thought that would get Republicans and blah, blah, blah. And if we had to do it over again, I wonder it's like, if we put out the stimulus package that we wanted, that was the biggest, boldest stimulus package possible. And then we negotiate it down to what we ended up with at our opening bit. Like if we, if we end up with, instead of the extremely generous single payer plan that Bernie Sanders has laid out yesterday, if what we end up with instead of the extremely generous single-payer plan that Bernie Sanders has laid out yesterday, if what we end up with is a robust public option that ultimately so many people choose because it's much better than private insurance and the private insurance industry eventually just goes away because the public option is so popular. Which we're not going to say when we get behind that.

Well, what we got behind yesterday says we're going to eliminate the private insurance company industry altogether at once. So, you know, we got to be comfortable with the rhetoric here. Then, you know, then that's pretty great, right? Like, I think the important thing here is the goal at the end of the day is to get every single person covered, to bring down costs, and to make sure that people can pay for health care in America. And we're saying, this is the North Star. This is where we want to get to. And let's figure out how to get there. I think to sort of boil this down, when the politics for the things you want to do are not good, go change the politics.

The Democratic Party and our presidential candidates have agency here they can make a they can go to the country and convince them to do this and so that is the better way to do it then it is better to decide what the right thing to do is and try to convince the country of that then ask the country what they want and then just give that to them right so you know you shouldn't dumb down your proposals to do the most politically expedient thing. Can I ask you both a question about this? So Chris Murphy has his version of a public option. It's a strong public option where companies and individuals could buy into Medicare. I mean, I wonder if that's not where we would ultimately land, right?

It's a kind of more, it's more gives people the option and people can stay in their current health care if they want it. Do you think that we're sort of making these things too far apart rhetorically? Like we've sort of made Medicare for all one thing and the public option another. But part of me wonders if we can just say we're for Medicare for all, whether it's a Bernie plan where everybody has, everybody is in it or a Chris Murphy plan where everyone can buy into it or have access to it with a subsidy if they want. I mean, I'm just wondering if we've kind of made these things too far apart. I don't even know if we have made them far apart.

When you dig into Bernie's plan yesterday, it's a four year transition. The first year just starts with the lowering the age to 55, which is like- Which Joe Lieberman stopped. Which is Jared Brown's plan. The second year is raising the age for young people. And it kind of goes and meets them in the middle. Like the final year is like 35 or 45, right? And so even Bernie's plan has this transition.

So it is, I don't want to exaggerate the differences as long as you're someone who's proposing, you know, a robust public Medicare plan that more and more and more and more Americans can buy into. Right. I mean the ultimate solution here is probably a transition period, right, where it's like we're going to do the public option and Medicare buy-in. That will transition to Medicare for all as opposed to – it seems unlikely that we're going to pass a bill and two years later, everyone's going to be on Medicare and private insurance will be eliminated in this country. You will need to transition into it. And because of what we tried to do with public option and what we tried to do with Medicare buy-in that Joe Lieberman killed, you sort of know what the interim steps are.

And every one of those steps is a huge benefit to the individuals who would take part of that program and reducing costs and improving quality of care across the healthcare system. Yeah. Okay. When we come back, we will talk with New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. On the pod today, we are very lucky to have with us New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand, thanks for coming on the pod. You're welcome. I'm really excited to be on. We're glad to have you. So yesterday, you signed on to Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All Act.

You signed on to Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All Act, and you've actually been a proponent of Medicare for All since your first congressional race back in 2006. So it seems like there are two big challenges here with this bill or this legislation. One is figuring out how to pay for it. And two, which is something, you know, we all worried about during the Affordable Care Act debate, persuading the 90 percent of Americans who have health insurance that we can transition them to a Medicare plan with, you know, little to no disruption in their lives. How do we meet these challenges? Well, I think the most important thing is to give people the opportunity to buy into a not-for-profit public option. I think it's really important to recognize that so much of the cost in healthcare today is the fact that we have these middlemen called insurance companies that are for-profit companies that have very high profit margins, fat CEO salaries, and quarterly obligations to their shareholders.

And their goal in life is to make money as they should be. That's what they are. They're for-profit companies. We need someone who's running this that actually cares about people and puts people before profits and puts the health and well-being of Americans first. And so you need at least a not-for-profit public option. And so over the next four years under our bill, and this is the part that I worked on to write, is let people buy into Medicare at a price they can afford and do it over four years so people can be eligible each year to buy in. And it lets people see how much less it costs

if you're not guaranteeing fat CEO pay and profits for these insurance companies. Over time, I think people will then begin to see it's not only less expensive, but it's higher quality care. And so the reason why Medicare for All is so important is because you have to move away from a for-profit system into a not-for-profit system. You cannot get, in my opinion, to universal coverage and affordability at the same time. And that's why states that have one or two providers are struggling because they might have a low population, they might have an older population, they might have a sick population. And so those

insurance companies can't make enough money. And that's why they're not there. So while Obamacare did a lot to get us in the right direction, it protected kids up to 26. It said you can't be dropped coverage just because they're pre-existing condition. It made all these changes that really matter. It's still based on a for-profit system, and so it's still too expensive for a lot of middle-class families, for a lot of small businesses. It's still too expensive. And so to really get costs down, you need to be able to take the insurance companies out of the equation, and you need to be able to negotiate in bulk for the lowest cost for drugs. You have to be able to negotiate in bulk for the lowest cost for drugs. You have to be able to take on the drug companies and say, we deserve to be able to buy in bulk

through Medicare or Medicaid and get lower prices for people. So it's interesting, you mentioned adding a non-profit, a not-for-profit public option. That was actually the plan that Hillary Clinton proposed in the 2016 election, adding a public option. And even though her and Bernie fought quite a bit over her plan versus his single payer plan, do you think those differences were overblown? Because, you know, you're talking about adding a public option, then ultimately transitioning to a Medicare for all single payer plan. Do you think this is just sort of a difference in how we transition, how fast we transition. What do you think about that? Well, I think our goal has to be single payer. We have to get to a place where

all Americans are covered no matter what, and that healthcare is a right and not a privilege. So that has to be the goal for all of us. But I think the buy-in is the best way to transition, because honestly, if you give people a chance to have Medicare, I can't tell you how many people when I've traveled around the state who have said to me, you know, I'm 55 years old. I just got laid off. I don't know why, you know, I have to be in poverty to be eligible to Medicaid. It's not fair. You know, why can't I be eligible now for Medicare or Medicaid? And it's just, it's what people want. And it's not partisan. I mean, as you mentioned, when I ran in 2006, I ran on Medicare for all. I said, you need at least one not-for-profit public option, and I said people should be able to buy in.

And people liked it, and that was a very Republican district. And so it makes sense. It's really common sense, and it's all about where the money goes. And the money should be going entirely towards health care, not to overhead, not to profits, not to CEO pay. to overhead, not to profits, not to CEO pay. And to your question of paying for it, people are going to buy into this, and it's going to be less than they're paying their insurance company. So people are going to save money, and America is going to spend less money on healthcare, and you're going to get to the fundamental cost that's driving the fact that we spend so much more on healthcare in this country than other countries that have universal health care. Senator, like all things, this is a question of both policy and politics. What lessons or do you take or concerns

do you have about the fact that two of our most progressive states, Vermont and California, where John and I live, have tried to do single payer and run into great struggles politically? What lessons do you take from that as you think about how to do this nationally in obviously a much different environment than California and Vermont? I think people just have to understand what it is about. When you really simplify it and say, should money be going to insurance company CEOs and insurance company profits, or should be money being spent directly on your healthcare? It's really obvious to most voters. And so when you present it like that, they say, of course, I'd rather the money go to health care. I don't need to

fund insurance company profits. And so it's simplifying the system. And then it's making all health care available to all people. And that's why having single payer, that's why having Medicare for all is really a very elegant solution that solves our greatest problem that too many people are priced out of health care today. And it's really, in some circumstances, the most privileged among us. And it's just not right. It's morally wrong. So I think if you talk about it in that way around the country, they're going to support this. You know, the debate sometimes becomes very toxic and misleading.

And so if you really just speak truth to power, I think it's going to work. And I think people want to have Medicare for all. I think they really, they know their grandparents or their parents are on Medicare. They know they generally like things. They'd like drug prices to be cheaper. We need to deal with that as a cost measure. And then you can begin to create a healthcare system that's not focused on fee for service, but it's actually focused on well-being of patients. So we interviewed Hillary Clinton on Monday, and you've been a strong supporter of her, and you were in 2016. I asked her if she had any advice for women who are interested in politics, who are running for politics now, running for office now, on how to grapple with the kind of sexism she faced in the campaign. What kind of advice would you give to women who are running for office for the very first time,

the thousands who have signed up to run since 2016? Well, the first thing I would tell them is to believe in themselves and to make sure they know that their voice will make a difference. I started off the sidelines about six years ago to create a call to action to ask women to do exactly this, to run for office. If they didn't want to run for office, to support another woman who shared your values, to vote, to become advocates, to be heard. And what we've seen since this president was elected is a resurgence of women who desperately want to be heard. And it all started with the Women's March. I mean, I don't know if you participated in any of the marches around the globe.

Oh, yeah, right here in L.A. Yeah, millions of people came out and said, I want to be heard. And what was so brilliant about the march was its intersectionality, the fact that it didn't matter what you marched for. You could certainly march for women's reproductive freedom, but you could also march for Black Lives Matter, or you could march for immigration reform or clean air, clean water, LGBTQ equality. It didn't matter.

You just, it was the first time for a lot of people to just put what they felt most strongly about and put it on a sign and carried the sign. And it was an action that I think really was a process in democratizing democracy in a way that was powerful and certainly meaningful for me and really inspiring. So for all those women who are thinking about running, please run. We need you. And we need your voice. We need your perspective. You have a very different life experience

than most people serving in government. As you know, we only have 20% in the Senate, 18% in the House, and it's not enough. It's not enough. And so issues that overwhelmingly impact women and families sometimes don't even get on the top 10 list. It's outrageous that we don't have national paid leave in this day and age when every other industrialized country has it. We don't even have equal pay for equal work yet. And other things that perhaps because women see

the world differently, having affordable daycare or universal pre-K, these kinds of changes would make a difference. So I just, I believe that we need women. We need the diversity of our country representing our country. And we just don't have it. We need more women of color. We need more African-American and Hispanic, Latinas. We need more people running who are different than what we have today. And so I'm hoping that women really feel this intensely, that not only are they qualified, but their differences in life experience is what makes them even more effective, more powerful, and more relevant for some of the problems we need to face today. Senator, I wanted to ask you about the deal or alleged deal that Senator Schumer and

Leader Pelosi struck with Trump. And not, I guess I'm curious, not necessarily about the details of the deal, but how you think about Democrats working with Trump, while at the same time, believing that he is an existential threat to a lot in this country? Is there a danger that he gets normalized by this, or we're helping him out politically in ways that Senator McConnell certainly was not willing to do for President Obama? I don't think some of President Trump's hateful policies will ever be normalized and can never be allowed to be normalized. So when he's objectifying and discriminating against transgender troops, you stand boldly against him and you say, why? That's immoral. When he wants to say that kids who are here under DACA can't stay, you stand up against him.

But if he wants to do something good and his desire is to actually help people, there's no reason why you shouldn't do it. And in fact, it would be immoral if you didn't do it. If he wants to make sure we pass the DREAM Act tomorrow, I will be the first one to say, I will work with you to pass the DREAM Act tomorrow. So we have to do both. When he does something that's toxic, wrong, or immoral, we have to stand strong and fight hard. And if he wants to do something that helps people, that is our job, to work with him to help people. That is why we are here. We are public servants first. And if people let politics get in the way of helping people, they're not doing their jobs. So you're someone who used to have a more conservative position on immigration when you first ran for Congress.

Now, you know, you're one of the strongest advocates for a path to citizenship for undocumented Americans. Talk a little bit about your evolution on this issue and also, you know how do you think Democrats should approach immigration policy going forward? Well, as an upstate House member, I just didn't have enough experience understanding the trauma that families face who are dealing with immigration in this country. My district was maybe 98% white, and I didn't take the time to understand why this issue was so important and how harmful anti-immigration policies are. And so when I was appointed to the Senate and was given the job of representing the whole state, I spent time with families all across the state to hear from them about what their lives were actually like. And I have to say I was horrified that I hadn't been sensitive enough,

that I hadn't understood how difficult and challenging some of these hateful policies can be for a family. And I can't imagine what it's like to be a child whose parents could be shipped away at any moment. I can't imagine the anxiety that they feel. And so I feel so strongly now that we have to work much, much harder to protect these kids, to protect these families, and to really make the case about how important the history of immigration is in our country. I mean, we are a country founded by immigrants. Part of the strength of our democracy is because of our diversity. Part of the strength of our economy is because of our diversity.

And I've met with refugee populations, with immigrant populations across our state, who when they come here, all they do is grow the economy. They start businesses, they start families, they invest. And so we need comprehensive immigration in this country. We need pathways to citizenship. We have to protect the kids who are under DACA and who are dreamers. So I just feel like our country, it's not about tolerating diversity. It's about the strength that diversity calls. Our country is stronger because of our diversity. Senator, I wanted to ask you about the amendment you're working on with Senator Collins about protecting transgender troops. What would that do to address the situation of the new Trump policy? And what are the prospects, do you think?

The prospects are very strong that we can actually pass our amendment. Senator Collins and I have worked on issues that affect military personnel for many years now. She and I worked together on repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And nobody thought we could repeal that policy. Even the advocacy groups were afraid to vote on that, but we did, and we pushed it because it was the right thing to do, and goodness prevailed on that day. I think the same is true here.

We don't know how many votes we have, but we've just convinced Senator McCain to support our amendment, which is fantastic because he's seen by many Republicans as the leader on all things military. And so what our bill will do is protect any transgender troops who are serving today and make sure that they cannot be discriminated against because of their gender identity. Senator, one thing we learned this week after interviewing Hillary on Monday is, you know, from some of the responses, there's still a lot of deep divisions within the party between Bernie supporters, Hillary supporters. What are your thoughts on a message and policies that might unite the Democratic Party in 2018, 2020 and beyond? Well, certainly policies that really affect people deeply,

like Medicare for All. I think being willing to take on the drug companies and getting health care costs down is one of the biggest drivers of economic insecurity in this country today. I think focusing on rewarding work, just listening to the challenges workers face across this country,

and then working so much harder to meet their needs. So focusing on ways that we reward work, such as obviously raising the minimum wage, but also investing in manufacturing, seeing Made in America again, making sure we invest in the kind of training and education that gets people right into the jobs that are available today. Having structural changes like paid family leave. I can't tell you how many people are forced to leave the workforce because of an urgent family crisis, if they can even afford to do so. So being bold, being aggressive, speak about the vision for the party.

I think free education is something we should absolutely fight for, especially for these worker training issues. Like if you get laid off and you're mid-career and you just need six months of training to get that job at that manufacturer, you know, five miles away, that should be available at any community college, any local state school for free. And so the kinds of things we could do to level the playing field for workers and restructure the economy to reward work again. I mean, it's a long conversation, but, you know, we have had an economy that is overwhelmingly

dominated by shareholder value. It's overwhelmingly dominated by who owns things. And so if we want to refocus it towards who works in the economy, who actually are the people that build things, it's going to take some real structural challenges. And I think if you incentivize companies to do things like profit sharing or employee ownership or creating workplace policies that support workers first, really investing in B Corps and saying if you're going to focus on sustainability and have pro-worker workplace policies, you're going to get a tax advantage.

If we're going to do tax reform, let's increase tax benefits for companies that create their companies this way. And then support our unions. Our unions are our greatest voices for workplace fairness and to get higher pay for workers and really help communities understand that if they have someone negotiating for them, they're going to be more powerful. So really renew our commitment to helping unions be strong because they put people first. And so it's just this question of what do you do first, people or profits? And we are a capitalist country. We believe in capitalism, but we don't believe in greed. And that is the difference. That has been the divergence for the last several decades.

And so we have to reward good companies that want to create jobs, reinvest in the middle class, and reinvest in their workers and make it more profitable for those kind of companies to succeed by investing in them. Awesome. Thank you so much, Senator Gillibrand, for joining us. And please come back again. Thank you guys so much. I really appreciate you including me oh absolutely take care take care bye-bye on the pod today we have the host of crooked medias with friends like these

anna marie cox welcome. Hi there. You just did an interview with our pal, Rembrandt Brown, right? I did. And if I do say so myself, it was fantastic. It was good for me. I hope it was good for him. I hope listeners appreciate it as well. We did a really deep dive into the piece that came out this week that he wrote that is a profile of Colin Kaepernick with a missing piece, which is an actual interview with Colin Kaepernick. But in a way, just as a magazine nerd and as a writing nerd, I'm sure you guys appreciated this about the piece as well, which is that one of the things it's about is that it's not Colin Kaepernick's job to be a celebrity and be in profiles. And it's not his job to be interrogated by people about his beliefs.

He has a job and he's doing it, which is that he's an activist now. He's not at the beck and call of reporters or other people that want to question him. He's doing what he needs to do. That's an interesting angle on it. I like that. And it's just a great piece. And obviously, it's really current right now, not just because we are, you know, in the middle of one of the most politically charged football seasons that we've seen in a while. But obviously, Jamel Hill at ESPN tweeted some truths about Donald Trump, including the fact he's a white supremacist. And not only did ESPN

discipline her in some unspecified way, but Sarah Huckabee Sanders asked ESPN to fire her from the podium of the White House. What's your guys' take on that as far as like using the White House podium to ask for people to get fired? I mean, it's fucking absurd. You know, when when reality television star Donald Trump ran around calling Barack Obama and others racist, we didn't call for his firing from the White House podium, but we could have. Yeah, perhaps we should have. You guys could have really nipped this in the bud. I think that's actually the real lesson here, right? This is the baby Hitler question as it relates to Trump. So that's super ugly in race news this week. And other stuff too. What did you guys want to talk about? What do we got left on the list? Well, what we have left on the list is

we didn't talk about the antics, the Chris Kobach antics this week with Trump's voter fraud commission. Kobach wrote a piece in Breitbart where he said that Hillary Clinton and Maggie Hassan won in New Hampshire because of illegal voting by out-of-state residents. This is, of course, false. Most of these were out-of-state college students who had every legal right to vote in New Hampshire. What's the deal with this dog and pony show here? Well, in a way, it encapsulates, it's a microcosm of everything that's wrong with the Trump administration, which is to say that it's a poorly formulated idea that was poorly executed that will have very few real world ramifications beyond just re-solidifying bad ideas. Like Chris Kobach himself has said that

he's not sure if anything's going to come from this commission. But as you guys know, propping up the idea that voter fraud is something that is a real thing that we need to do something about is itself a powerful idea. You know, that's a powerful tool to broadcast to the nation that there is such a thing as massive voter fraud and that it's done on behalf of Democrats. The thing itself was like almost literally a joke. Like at one point they brought out antique New Hampshire voting machines to demonstrate like like you would not pay a nickel to go see in a museum, you know. a museum, you know? What do you think about some Democrats were calling on the Democratic members of this commission to resign and they refused saying, you know, we need to be here to sort of watch Kobach's antics. What do you think about that? I'm torn. I think that the main reason I

would say that they should be there is that one of the members of the commission, Hans Slotlasky. Do you guys know how to pronounce his last name? It's just one of those complicated Eastern European sounding names. I don't know. He's one of the main architects of this voter fraud fraud. He asked that Democrats not be a part of the commission. So therefore, I think that they should be. not be a part of the commission.

So therefore, I think that they should be. If one of the main perpetrators of this lie doesn't want Democrats there, then I think Democrats should be there. I mean, I'm curious about, this is a question for a lot of people on the left right now, is how much you should be working with the other side.

I'm sure you guys dived into the DACA thing. You know, should Democrats at all work with Trump or work with Republicans? I mean, I think it's probably a case by case basis. Yeah, I think it's case by case. I think on DACA, it's our policy outcome. So, yeah, of course, it's not like we gave up almost nothing or it looks like we're going to give up almost nothing.

Yeah, I do think the Democrats being on Kobach's commission means that there's probably a little bit more transparency there. Like they'll fight for people to be able to come and see the commission's hearings at least and see that they're in charge. Yeah. Well, this is, you know, I've been very critical of some of these folks who are in the Trump administration who are claiming they're there to like save America. And, you know, they're serving for that reason. And I think at this point, they should absolutely resign and tell the country what's going on in the Trump administration. And that would have a greater impact on them staying in there, aside from some of those in national

security roles like McMaster. But on this one, on the voting commission, I like that there are Democrats on the commission because it's a public commission. And I think that if you have Democrats there, they can speak out and call out Kobach's lies to the public while it's going on. And I would imagine that if this commission comes to a conclusion that's insane and wrong, they will certainly not sign on to that and they can use that position to speak out. And they will have some weight behind not signing on, right? Like they'll be able to say, and this is why we're not signing on rather than speaking from the outside. I do want to, I mean, people who are listening to- And they're speaking out now and they're not waiting either, which is nice.

And I know people listening to this show know this, that voter fraud is not a problem. It doesn't really exist. But this is one of the most pernicious like urban legends that exists in America. Yeah. pernicious like urban legends that exists in America. My Trump supporting in-laws, you know, again, are a good example here. Like they earnestly believe that there's some kind of conspiracy around this and they refuse to be shaken from it. So the more that we can do to combat this and like just the, you popular narrative i mean the better and the best the best way to combat it though i think is just continuing to fight against the you know uh unfair

gerrymandering and just continue just to register people to vote and do voter turnout there's no unfortunately like just make make the evidence put the evidence in the votes if that makes sense yeah and and publicize some of these battles, I know, on the local and state level, which our friend Jason Kander is doing so well. So I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. I think it's worth noting that Hans Van whatever, he was on the FEC. He was recess appointed because the junior senator from Illinois, too much controversy controversy put a hold on his nomination. So real pressing it move there, Barack Obama. There you go.

All right, guys. Well, so everyone should tune in. So with friends like these, your interview with Thrembert Brown drops tomorrow. So everyone make sure you download. It'll probably be a little long. I'm just going to toss it out there. I know people probably,

I know some people don't like when we do this kind of bonus episode length stuff but i think it's worth it it's a really good piece hey it's it's love it um i want to talk a little bit about salesmanship uh i would say that there are probably other qualities besides the length of it that people might enjoy the interesting qualities of the conversation the fascinating insights that rembrandt brought to the table perhaps perhaps long is a better thing because you'll be so engrossed in it you won't want to stop listening i think time will fly i think people won't even realize people i'm not even gonna say how long it's gonna be because

people aren't gonna know because they'll their sense of time will be warped by the investment that they have while they're listening i don't know if you've been to McDonald's recently, but Americans like more. More podcasts, same price. Guys, I think we've bled right into the outro here. We're in the outro. It's here. Now we are, because this episode is now long. Can I add two minutes to this intro before we go?

Sure. So I was on a podcast last week called The Rights to Ricky Sanchez, which is the premiere of Philadelphia 76ers podcast. Oh, yeah. I saw that. That's my favorite Philadelphia 76ers podcast. Well, good, because you came up on the podcast. Now you've got his attention.

Yeah. Now he's excited. He's a TV writer in Hollywood. And many years ago, he interviewed to be your assistant on 1600 Penn. Cool. And now- You did not hire him. You did not hire him. But you did tell him the main part of the job was to get you French fries whenever you

wanted them. No, no. That's exactly wrong. That's exactly backwards. And now I'm glad I didn't hire this person. Elijah, this is the clip that we want to use. You can use this clip all you want because I vividly remember what I said because I ended every

interview by saying the same thing. I am not kidding. If anyone brings me french fries, they're fired. And I'm going to ask for them. Seems like there was a lot of firing. Yeah, we went through 40 people. Alright, guys.

Well, that's all we have for today. We still have tickets to Pod Save America. Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor. What kind of operation is that? Where I'm going to be. That's the show I'm in. They're joining us.

Yeah. It's crooked.com slash tour. Also, you know, Santa Barbara still in December, but that's a couple months away. But Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor is going to be in October and we have a second show. So we still have tickets to the second show. Excellent. All your friends will be there.

Come see us guys. We'll all be here. All right, guys. We will, we'll talk to y'all on Monday. Take it easy. Take it easy.

Bye guys. End of show. Good night. Good luck. Just mixing it up on the outro. And that's the way it is. Bye, guys. End of show. Good night and good luck. Just mixing it up on the outro. And that's the way it is. Courage.