Pod Save America - “Do us a favor, though.” (LIVE from San Jose)

Episode Date: September 27, 2019

Donald Trump becomes the 4th U.S. President to face impeachment as an explosive whistleblower report is released, the Director of National Intelligence testifies, and Nancy Pelosi launches a formal impeachment inquiry. Housing activist Candice Elder joins Jon, Jon, Tommy, Dan, and Jessica Yellin on stage in San Jose, California. 

What's up San Jose? Hey! Cool. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jessica Yellen. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor.

I'm Dan Pfeiffer. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Later in the show, we'll talk to the founder and CEO of the East Oakland Collective, housing activist Candace Elders here. But first, we got some news. We have some news to talk about tonight. You know, there are some days.

What's that? There are some days. Some days. Some days. We don't know what we're going to cover. We shall see. This week, Donald Trump has become the fourth president in history to face impeachment. It's going to take a while. Hasn't happened yet.

We've got some work to do, guys. We've got some work to do. Jessica, this has never happened. Is it always like this? No, it's not always like this. You have come at just the right time. Okay. Peak excitement.

So, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the inquiry based on a whistleblower complaint that was made public earlier today and begins like this. I have received information from multiple U.S. government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election. That includes pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the president's main domestic political rivals. The president's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph W. Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well. This allegation has been corroborated by a White House call summary, Rudy Giuliani and the president himself, who responded today by threatening the White House call summary, Rudy Giuliani and the president himself, who responded today by threatening the White House officials who spoke to the whistleblower with execution.

Giuliani, on the other hand, was last heard screaming on the phone to a reporter, these morons, when this is over, I will be the hero. I will be the hero. You can't make it up. You can't make it up. You can't make it up. You can't make it up. You can't make it up.

You can't make it up. Jessica, let's start with today's news, which was the release of the full whistleblower complaint and the testimony of Joseph McGuire, who's the director of national intelligence. What was the most important new information we learned from these big two developments today? There's a lot. I'd say, first of all, the director

of national intelligence said that the whistleblower did the right thing. Yeah. So that takes us out of the realm of partisanship. We could spend all night talking about the details of that report. I guess there are three big things in the complaint. One is that Giuliani was all over it, doing follow-up meetings, according to the complaint. And the State Department was so concerned that it was compromising national security, they were contacting Ukraine to help them figure out how to work around all of this. Not according to Giuliani's screenshotted text. They were into it.

They were into it? Yeah, they're super into it. Sorry, continue. That there were ongoing contacts to encourage them to play ball and then the big thing is that it alleges that the president that white house aides tried to cover up the president's phone call by hiding the transcript in a super classified server which i think tommy can do a better job explaining than i could yeah tell tell us what's going on there with uh stashing all the call transcript in the classified

server. So there's like levels of classification. There's secret, there's top secret. And you actually email systems that can handle secret and top secret information. But then there's some stuff that's called like code word information that is so sensitive and so secretive that it's given a special name that's literally a code word. To learn about that information you get read is this filed under crime no so to learn about that information you have to

get read into it where it's like read a document and sign it right so it's a compartmented information and so there's an intelligence directorate that works over in the eeob and when there's a national security council meeting when you're going to talk about some covert action program or something like really sensitive, they will bring in paper into that meeting and they will table drop it and put it in front of you because nobody, it doesn't get disseminated otherwise. They were taking like mundane call transcripts of Trump with foreign leaders and they were so worried about those things getting pushed around, they were putting them up on this secret server, which means that no one will ever see them, which is a total abuse of the classification authority to hide embarrassing or

damaging information. A violation of the Presidential Records Act? It is a violation of an executive order that oversees when and how you can classify information, so it's against the law as well. I mean, when did classified server mishaps ever get anyone involved? Yeah, right. It's the unclassified servers that'll get you. It's all full circle. Dan, one of the responses we're seeing from Republicans, from some Republicans in Congress has been,

what the president did was wrong, but this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. I think it's good for all of us to sort of take a second. Why is this an impeachable offense, what the president did with Ukraine? The most impeachable action a president can have is abusing their power for their personal political gain. And that is exactly what Trump did here. He dangled, in some way, shape, or form, critical U.S. aid to. And that is exactly what Trump did here. He dangled,

in some way, shape, or form, critical U.S. aid to a country that is under threat from Putin on the condition that, as alleged in the call, that Ukraine conduct a politically beneficial investigation into one of Trump's most likely political rivals. It is a textbook definition. It is the answer to a political science class essay question on what is an impeachable offense. It is an absolute abuse of his office. And what is important about it is it's not even subtle. He very explicitly asked for it out in the open,

which is why there was no option for the Democrats other than what they're doing here, because it is an absolute abuse of office. You cannot use the power of the presidency to help yourself politically or help yourself financially. Trump is doing both. This one is the former, not the latter, though. Tommy, from a national security perspective, why has this whole episode been so troubling? Like, what... Well, I mean, look, withholding nearly $400 million in military aid from a country where you have a brand new president

who is running on this anti-corruption platform, who is sitting on the border of Russia, where the Russians, as recently as 2014, invaded their fucking country and annexed part of it and still hold, seven to ten percent of their territory right like he is signaling to uh this new president zelensky in ukraine and to all these other foreign leaders that the way you get whatever you need from the united states is

to take care of donald trump personally you grease him you grease his guy rudy giuliani the weird drunk guy who keeps like banging around in your capital. Right. And so there's going to be like there's going to be a bunch of other countries that think, OK, Donald wants election interference. What do we got? Like, let's make something up. Let's hack someone. Like there's a million different ways this could go south. And Trump is just inviting all these people to to muck around in our elections. Hello, it is me, President of Ukraine. Mr. President Trump, I have two quick flags.

Number one, Rudy Giuliani seems to be asking me for favors to help you win re-election. Also, I don't know how to handle he is crying about his divorce. Guidance appreciated. Jessica, obviously, I missed Joe America. We haven't heard that in a while. That's Sam Ukraine. That's Sam Ukraine. So obviously, Nancy Pelosi and a lot of House Democrats have been

reluctant up until this point to sort of come out in favor of an impeachment inquiry. This is after Robert Mueller found many instances of the president obstructing justice along with plenty of evidence. There's all kinds of allegations that Donald Trump has been funneling thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars into the Trump organization by trying to out of evidence. There's all kinds of allegations that Donald Trump has been funneling thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars into the Trump organization by trying to pressure people to stay in Trump hotels. There's all this kind of stuff. What do you think it was about this incident that sort of pushed the Democrats that were holdouts over the edge? It 100% happened while he was president. It wasn't a campaign time event. He admitted to it. He

himself explained what happened. So there's no confusion that it has the appearance. It's very plain to see what happened there. And so it's not as confusing and convoluted as what the Mueller report was. There's also this sense that the Mueller report was about the election, so it was in itself partisan. And so that divided the public. And this doesn't have the taint of partisanship in the same way. Yeah. Well, I also noticed some Republicans, their first statement was, oh, this is the Democrats trying to nullify the 2016 election. You're like, what the fuck are you talking about? But no it's actually it's it's election interference with the 2020 election he sought foreign he did it again he committed the crime again he welcomed day after muller testified the day after he encouraged and then welcomed foreign

assistance in the 2016 election he got away with it and then the day after bob muller testified and you see this in the call summary right right? He calls President Zelensky and he was like, yeah, so there's this whole thing, this guy named Robert Mueller. He did a terrible job, bad performance. Anyway, I got a favor to ask. The other piece of this that is so weird, though, is he asked President Zelensky to touch base with the Attorney General of the United States because he still thinks that Hillary Clinton's secret server is just like on the lam in Ukraine you know what I mean like they just got to find the right like fake name at a hotel and that bad boy is sitting there like ripping a cig and he can be absolved like he is he's mentally unwell he is so concerned about how we view the legitimacy of

the 2016 election that he is getting himself impeached what was he like i'm trying to like sometimes step into the maga mind like what what does he think he's gonna find if hillary's server was in ukraine somewhere what is he gonna find he's He's going to find... He's going to find validation. Because I'm telling you, there's something on that server that he wants more than anything, which is a video of his father saying, Donnie, I love you.

That's what he's looking for. And all of us are part of the search. Yeah. But there's this other element i think that is how about this scandal that has helped propel this forward politically which is it feels like an old scandal you have a whistleblower right it can't like it there was a secret thing that trump did not he did not announce the crime on twitter in advance right which is his mo which is really it seems absurd but that has confounded democratic politicians in the press for two years, which is his MO, which is really, it seems absurd, but that has confounded democratic politicians

in the press for two years now, which is he commits all his crimes in the open. And so we don't have this Watergate-esque scenario of reporters digging around in government and secret sources telling you things and then popping a big story that exposes information. Like this one happened according to the old rules. And so Democrats and the press treated it

like an old scandal the problem with the mother thing is he did all this witness intimidation on twitter right and so we like we don't know how to deal with crimes committed in front of us but crimes committed in secret is something that we have a plan for in politics they also release documents in this case which is old style yeah and in the past they haven't yeah like under pressure they had to do it. Well, that's the other thing, too. It's just worth, it's been quite a week. This week began with, we're going to release that transcript.

And once you guys see it, boys, they're going to be egg on your faces. That is the funniest part of this whole thing. It's amazing. But it's worth remembering that, okay, so we hear that there's this whistleblower. We hear that there's this transcript. We hear this complaint, and the administration is signaling to all of its Republican allies and the media types, the goons, don't worry. Once you see the words on the page, it's another Mueller report. We'll put it behind us. We'll be fine. And we were worried about that

too. We're like, well, hold on, guys. Let's not forget. It's not just about the transcript. It's about the complaint. It's about the transcript it's about the complaint it's about the larger effort uh to uh corrupt the government and its work in ukraine and then the transcript turned out to be far more damaging than i think anyone i imagine fucking gobsmacked when i read that i could not i was like and then i realized you know what i forgot that they are too morally bankrupt and ignorant to know that the crimes they did are crimes. That's right. And so they weren't trying to pull one over on us. Donald Trump genuinely believed.

Now, the people who work around him clearly didn't believe this because they tried to cover up the abuse of power. But Donald Trump clearly believed that what he said in that transcript was a well he began a lot well he began the day by saying you're gonna see it's a beautiful call surprise and then inside of the of the transcript it is an explicit quid pro quo the exact thing they the exact thing they promised there wouldn't be in the transcript we thought we were going to spend a week saying hey hey hey it's not about quid pro quo it's illegal to get foreign assistance even if there wasn't a shakedown but the shakedown was in the text and it did change everything i mean the best part no the the things that are said in the call explain why

they released the call right it's because he's he lives in a world of conspiracy theories where he reads the crazy article in the hill because rudy giuliani figured out how to forward it to him on his phone and he believes that the server is on the lam and like right and then he's surrounded by people who are stupid enough to read that transcript and be like oh yeah boss you, you know, this shows that you're a genius, that you are, you know, Lindsey Graham calls him and says, I just, the transcript shows that I couldn't believe that you were that nice to your friends, like you can be that nice, it's shocking to me, right? So like, he is surrounded by the D team, the people who forward, the people who would forward their internal talking points to every Democratic office in Congress are the same people

advising him about whether he should release this call log in the first place, Jessica? I mean, there's also a level of cynicism around him where the people who are his allies defending him now say what he did is no worse than what Joe Biden did, even though there's, no, they're there. The appearance of impropriety because Joe Biden's son was working at this firm even though there's, no, they're there. The appearance of impropriety because Joe Biden's son was working at this firm, blah, blah, blah, makes, it's just politics as usual. So they play this game of politics as usual. And so within that context, the argument is that what Trump did is no worse than what most politicians do. Right. Well, that's their whole, that's their whole, that's their whole thing is like, well, you think I'm bad. The other guy's

bad too. So fuck off. How many shirts do you think Eric Trump has sweat through this week as his dad pushes around oppo research on a candidate's son? He's like, chill with that shit. If you don't think Don Jr. is sweating, you think he's sweating. I also think one of the unsung heroes of all of this is it's very clear that Rudy Giuliani's font size on his phone is absolutely extraordinary. He has to scroll to get through.

His font is so big at this point. He's not able to process the information that he needs to process before he takes, you know, three fingers of scotch and says whatever the fuck on Laura Ingraham. Dan, what do we still need to find out like what what other what other witnesses are we looking for here like in this investigation what's the what's the what do we need to know so much i mean some of the things that i'm most interested in hearing is who in the white house made the decision to put these calls in the secret system yeah next what other calls are in the secret system that don't belong there because the implication is like i want to know what trump said to putin or to mbs when talking about saudi arabia like what are the other things his best friend kim jong-un who knows what he's saying i

want to know what conversations rudy giuliani and the president had right before this call to zelensky yeah i want to know what conversations any one of the White House has had with Bill Barr about the forthcoming whistleblower complaint, the Justice Department's decision not to investigate, the Justice Department's decision to offer a legal opinion saying that shall did not mean shall in terms of the obligation to Congress to turn this over. Or the fact, by the way, that the whistleblower puts in his complaint,

I believe there was a campaign finance violation that the president committed a campaign finance violation the uh intelligence community inspector general and the dni forward a criminal complaint to the department of justice about the president potentially violating a campaign finance law and bar is implicated in this criminal complaint and bar's doj is just like nah no it's fine it's good it's not a crime at all. Barr is in the call he's in the he's the lead of the complaint as a criminal co-conspirator in a series of crimes and the Justice Department doesn't do anything about it they let him be in charge of the decision whether to investigate or not what legal opinion should be offered or whether the complaint could be turned over and so I also want to know what conversations happen between the White House and Barr about that what happened within the Justice Department about his decision not to recuse.

There is a larger web here that needs to be looked at. Yeah, I just want to add to that. So I think you divided into the crime and the cover up. But focusing on the crime for a second, now that we have the complaint, what you realize when you read this complaint is just how much of our government was subverted toward Donald Trump's sort of venal purpose, that he was pushing the Justice Department, that we know that he's infected the Justice Department. But the scale of what had to happen here, it's not just Rudy Giuliani. It's not even just the White House. We don't know Pompeo's

involvement, right? We don't know what else happened at the State Department. We don't know what other parts of the intelligence community were sort of embroiled in this. So you realize just how much power Donald Trump was wielding and how much of that power he was using towards his personal partisan goals. And that is a historic and enormous scandal. And we've only known about it for five days, and it's already transformed our politics. So I just think it's worth stepping back and just seeing the scope of it, because that's what I was sort of struck by in reading the whistleblower complaint. And one other just small thing about the whistleblower complaint, inside of it, the whistleblower

makes a note of saying, I believe what I'm saying inside of this report is unclassified. But if someone goes back and classifies this, they should have to explain, et cetera, et cetera. You see inside of the complaint, the paranoia of someone working inside of a government that he no longer trusts to follow the law, to do the proper procedures, to be a place where he knows he can turn to his inspector general or his justice department or his boss. And you realize that the reason there haven't been more whistleblowers about more things is because of how Trump reacted today by saying that they should be executed.

We should treat them like we used to treat spies. Tim Murphy had one of the funniest tweets I've ever seen, which was just, I didn't do it, I'm innocent, and all the witnesses should die. Yeah. It's also clear that there's a whole bunch of people that staff Trump on the most serious matters that a president deals with, national security, relations with foreign heads of state, etc., who are desperately afraid of what he might do or say at any moment and then spend most of their time in government scrambling to clean it up and hide it from us and prevent it from ever getting out like it is does not seem like a coincidence to me that john bolton left the white house as national security advisor very recently and there's a mustachioed

man on background in a lot of stories i was gonna say now he's in the fucking witness protection program we haven't heard for her haven't heard from the stash in a while no we've not a senior administration walrus yeah he shaved he shaved the set he said he shaved the stash and i was working out of kinkos but tommy it was interesting in the whistleblower complaint the person who wrote the complaint wasn't on the call he got the information because he said so many people on the call were so upset and concerned. That's a good point. They kept talking about it. Right.

So that is a sign that there are people around in the White House who, like, have a true north, know what's right, and are still, you know,

tacking to it. This is the one person who had the courage to write the report. Yeah, I was going to say, because that's been the story of the White House for the last couple years.

How many people have tried to be the adults in the room or to say, because that's been the story of the White House for the last couple years. How many people have tried to be the adults in the room or told reporters on background that they were the adults in the room in the White House and then they leave the administration and we don't hear from them again. The National Security staff is like 300 to 500 people. I don't really know what it is

anymore, but the majority of them are not directly hired by the administration. They're detailed from other agencies. They're career bureaucrats. You're a career person who works at CIA or the Department of State or Department of Defense and you get sent over for a 12 to 18 month detailee and they fucking hate

it. None of them want to go there. It should be this crowning achievement but they feel like this is a political thing. I'm just going to get caught up in some shit and we're like you were right. But so that I think is why on the national security side, you can have a half a dozen people talk to a whistleblower about concerns they have.

And then that gets written up and becomes part of the public record. Whereas in the White House proper side, all those goons were hired by Donald Trump because they worked in like, you know, some of the dregs of his golf operation back in 1999 I mean Jessica made an interesting point which is and this has become the key talking point for the president Republicans is the whistleblower was not on the call and that talking point is so goddamn stupid because everything the whistleblower said was in the call

right yeah well the reason we know the whistleblower was credible and correct is because everything the whistleblower said was in the call. Right? Yeah. The reason we know the whistleblower was credible and correct is because of the President of the United States. He confirmed it all. It doesn't matter if he was on the call anymore. We read the call now. What are you talking about?

What are you talking about? We have it. He wasn't on the call, but he nailed the call summary exactly in his complaint. It doesn't matter how good of a weather person he is. It's raining. Ridiculous. All right. Let's play a game.

Now it's time for OK Stop. We'll roll a clip. We can say OK Stop at any point to comment. On Tuesday, Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry, and the White House hadn't yet disseminated talking points. So for a few glorious hours, Republicans were on television like Maria... were on television like Marina Abramovich at MoMA, creating art through public deplet...

I'll get it. So for a few glorious hours, Republicans were on television like Marina Abramovich at MoMA, creating art through public... Shut up! Shut up! If you applause... If you applaud, can't do the edit.

Thank you. Thank you. Through public displays of endless self-flagellation. See, the joke was 40 fucking minutes. Whatever. Yeah, it was their fault. Fuck you guys. That joke was great.

Pearls before swine. All right. I don't mean it. It's great to be here in the Houston of California. Yes. I welcome it. All right. I'm just kidding.

I'm just kidding. I take it back. I take just kidding. I take it back. I take it back. I take it back. This death by cable hit was on full display when Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, or what would happen if a gazebo became a senator who wanted to take health care away from people, went on Chuck Todd to discuss the Pelosi presser. Let's watch.

What we do know is this. A Russian oligarch hired Hunter Biden, paid him $50,000 a month, gave a bucket load of money to his law firm. It may turn out that the, I said Russian, I meant Ukrainian oligarch. It may turn out that the Ukrainian oligarch got Mr biden's

name off of zipper crew now a word from our sponsor it's an okay joke it's an okay joke let's face it all right but i doubt it and And if you go to Mr. Biden's Wikipedia page, there are other similar allegations. OK, stop. You are a United States senator. You cannot use Wikipedia as your source. You can't do that in 11th grade history. You certainly shouldn't be able to do it if you represent a state in the Senate. I mean, maybe clean up his wikipedia page though yeah who's monitoring that i'm not making an allegation of impropriety a lot of people have attempted to look into this and they haven't found a there there to look into it

who who has and and that's the point here you brought up the fbi who's who's looked into it apparently the ukrainian government apparently every every mainstream ukrainian journalist plenty of people here we've all looked into it there have been four or five different entities that have found nothing here who i just told you Isn't it interesting, though, that it feels like Chuck has finally had enough? Have you ever seen Chuck like that? That's real Rod Chuck. No. I'm done.

That's why he grew the beard. I do think right now Senator John Kennedy, oddly named, I would say, is mentally composing a note to his staff to say, I thought this was going to be Fox News, and I thought this was going to be Sean Hannity. But you also seem to think that it is okay for what Rudy Giuliani and the president did. And I don't know what part of that is okay. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I can't speak for Mr. Julian. I've ruined it. Play it. You ruined it. I do not speak for Mr. Julian. You're a fine American and pay your taxes. Can you roll it back 10 seconds? Shut up. It's fine. Can you roll it back 10 seconds? Can we do it? Do you say no? No? That seems impossible. Isn't it digital? Isn't it digital? It's a keynote.

Ruined my keynote. Listen, we are in Silicon Valley. Listen, we are in Silicon Valley. And I can't rewind 10 seconds. I stepped on the joke. Keep rolling the clip. I always do. Too much of them. Thank you, sir.

With me now. Wow. Have to digest that in this. With me now. Let me check in with the joe biden campaign and that's okay stop all right fair that's fair uh so we talked about the crimes let's talk about the punishment uh the impeachment inquiry that was initially launched by the judiciary committee has now been blessed by nancy pelosi and a majority of the House of Representatives. I think we have like 223 Democrats and one former Republican that are on board here.

Six different House committees will investigate the Trump administration's potential crimes and corruption, and the Judiciary Committee will then write up articles of impeachment for the full House floor to vote on. Jessica, what are some of the political risks for Democrats as they head into impeachment? Well, the reason that the Mueller investigation became so unpopular is because it was perceived as a partisan inquiry. So for them, the goal is to try to make this as not partisan as possible while having no Republicans on board. Yeah. Seems challenging. So the questions they have to deliberate over are do they keep it narrow and limited to the Ukraine issue? Or do you go wide and bring in old Mueller stuff or anything else they find?

How long do they let it go? I mean, there's all this talk on the Hill now that they're going to be quick, quick, quick, which seems counterintuitive. Like, if you've opened this process that lets you get whatever you want almost from the White House, why not let that go through the campaign

as both, like, a way to get material and counter-programming to whatever the president's doing? Yeah. So those are, like, some of the issues they have to deal with right now. Dan, what do you think on both the question of time, like how long should it go, and the question of focus, where it should focus? Well, starting on focus. So there's some reporting tonight that Pelosi wants to keep this narrowly focused on Ukraine. And I understand the impulse to not go,

to not appear like you're going on a fishing expedition, except for the fact that this is a pond stocked with crimes. So fish all you want. And I think that's an important, like, the upside of a narrower focus is it's very specific. You have one story to tell. You can tell it relentlessly for a period of time. It's a very obvious impeachable offense. There's not a lot of question around what it is Trump did. The danger of it is that the way in which this crime was committed suggests that this is not an isolated incident.

This is not a case of Trump's lifelong passion for eliminating corruption in Eastern Europe getting the best of him. This is just one of many examples of Trump using his office for personal and political gain. And if we start looking, we're going to find those. And so I worry a little bit about narrowing it. In terms of timing, I think it should be spread out over a significant period of time.

It should be sort of storyboarded out so that every time it feels like the story is about to peter out, we have another rockstar witness. So it's the whistleblower at one point, and then 10 to 14 days later, it's Giuliani, and then it's Mick Mulvaney about how the calls got classified, and then it's Pompeo. So you do it that way. And I've said this to you guys before, but I would do it so that if you're going to have the vote, you have it right before or right around Trump's State of the Union. Like, let's make him do it. So ruin that for him.

Yeah. Yeah. Lovett, what do you think? Very excited for Rudy Giuliani to testify. Isn't that amazing? He's a bit like Sean Connery when he's in the plane in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. You know, he's like manning the gun and trying to fire it at the enemies,

and he catches that Catches you get it He shoots his own line. There was a little debate about this Do we all think Rudy should testify and people like Rudy because we all saw the Corey Lewandowski hearing it was a fucking circus Rudy's gonna be you know, we've seen him all over Fox. He's gonna be very Rudy. He's gonna show up, you know That's why we should schedule a hearing at 7 p.m. Yeah. Rudy should be scheduled at his favorite bar during happy hour.

I think that every time Rudy Giuliani has gone on Fox News, he's coughed up a new piece of information. I mean, the fact that he's going on Fox as of tonight, holding up his old man's cell phone with a giant font and showing texts from senior state department officials means that those officials in the entire state department are now implicated my concern would be if i'm in the house i want to figure out how to drag out their end of the process for as long as humanly possible because our goal here is to make sure that every single

person in the country understands what the president did, all the abuses of power, all the way that he is wasting their taxpayer dollars manipulating our foreign policy for personal gain. But then I'm very concerned that the minute this thing gets to the Senate, Mitch McConnell calls a vote, shuts it down, ends it. There's no trial. There's no process over there. Like, I think that McConnell will try to Merrick Garland this thing and just make it go away. Yeah, I think in terms of also focus, I think it's worth thinking of the Ukraine story as a kind of super crime, like a Gundam wing of crimes that Trump has committed, in that it has it all. There's foreign interference. And if you want to talk about foreign interference, there's a pattern involving Mueller. It has corruption and the corruption of the government

because he's illegally using, you know, the State Department and other organs of foreign policy for his own personal ends. It has obstruction and the cover up of these documents. It sort of captures it's anti-democratic. It has all elements and by the way in the reference to uh uh zelensky staying at trump's hotel you have emoluments like the this somehow manages to capture all the various and ways in which donald trump has been a corrupt and uh uh and criminal president and so whether it's focused on ukraine or not the goal to me is to make sure in what how we describe it we capture it in the bigness and scale of what it is, the subversion of American democracy and the corruption of our institutions.

So I think, you know, as Democrats, our dream for impeachment has been, you know, wall-to-wall televised hearings for as long as possible about Trump's crimes. From a media perspective, as someone who has covered politics for a long time at CNN, you should follow her now at Jessica Yellen on Instagram. Thank you, John. You continue to do a lot of news there. Like, what would the news, like, when would the news get bored? When would the media get bored with impeachment hearings? Or as long as there are hearings, would they cover it nonstop for like the next five, six, seven months? They have to keep changing the topic. I think that they'd get bored within three weeks, depending how you'd need Dan's communication strategy.

We look for a fucking plane for like three months. Well, you have to introduce some mystery element. Just add a missing plane. Introduce some mystery element. All right, some mystery, yeah. Just add a missing plane. But there's no reason this couldn't, in theory, start with Ukraine and then end up in an investigation of the Middle East or an investigation of other contacts.

And if you keep changing the topic and the focus, I think you could re-engage media interest. Yeah. I think, though, if it stays on one topic for a while, in this kind of short attention span universe, people... You've got to give them new content. I think that though, if it stays on one topic for a while, in this kind of short attention span universe, people's turn away. I think that's exactly right, which is why you've got to sort of storyboard this out

in a way that continues to keep the audience interested. The thing is, though... No, this is right. This is a show. It's like you need the writers from The Wire to come work for the Democrats in Congress. It's counter-programming. Right? It's counter-programming.

And like most prestige dramas, there will be a bit of a kind of lag in the middle. And will they stick the finale? Yeah. You don't know. But there's an argument for letting it go till October. October 2020. That's quite an impeachment hearing.

But like what is different? Like in the old pre-trump world right where cable was constantly changing topics like yes tommy's right they covered the missing plane forever and then that came to end so they needed a new missing plane or something like that the thing is for four years now we've been covering the trump story non-stop that is the primary thing on cable news in america and because the primary thing on cable news is also the primary thing that is talking that is shaping the social media conversation. And this would be the first opportunities for Democrats to dictate the terms of that conversation. It's not going to be

necessarily about what Trump tweeted or what crazy thing he said or who he promised to execute. It'll be about how Democrats tell the story about his crime and corruption. And so we at least would get a chance to become America's assignment editor for some period of months. Yeah. What were you going to say? Well, I still think that within the one story that's Trump,

there's still shiny object coverage. And so you need to keep changing what the shiny object is. And the Democrats did not do a very good job in that Corey Lewandowski hearing. No, that got me nervous about impeachment overall. I think today, you know, so Adam Schiff is going to be running the impeachment process, at least at the outset, on Ukraine.

I think he did a great job today. And so, you know, we'll see what he does. But look, I think the goal here, right, like the Democrats should act like the goal is, of course, to get enough Senate Republicans to vote to convict the president. Right. Like we don't think it's going to happen, but we should we should go for that. But the real the jurors are not just the senators. The jurors here are the American people who get to vote in November of 2020. And the reason that we have been pushing for impeachment hearings for so long is because this is an opportunity to get the attention of the nation focused on Trump's crimes and corruption and criminality and everything he's done wrong.

Because he is able to take the microphone so often with his tweets, with everything else he does, he's able to capture media attention. This is the one way, possibly the only way, that the Democratic Party, other than our presidential candidate, who's going to have challenges on her or his own, to grab the microphone and the media spotlight for an extended period of time. So the hope would be that if there are months and months of impeachment hearings that are driving Trump fucking crazy, and there is witness after witness telling a story not only of him you know promoting his own personal and financial gain with the ukraine scandal but with emoluments with his hotels with the muller with the obstruction stuff if we tell this story over and over again then the impeachment hearings are carrying the negative story about trump and our candidate who's running for president is carrying the positive story about their vision that That's how we can win in 2020.

And we have to be crystal fucking clear about what win means, right? Like there are all these polls out today which show impeachment is becoming more popular, which is great. I feel good about that. But honestly, we shouldn't give a shit. Like those polls are more favorable to impeachment now because Democrats who were playing the role of self-appointed pundits have now come around to the idea that impeaching Trump is good politics. Yeah. We do not care what the people in the MAGA hats at the New York Times favorite bar in

New York think about in Pennsylvania. Think about this. We don't care what the big polls say. We care ultimately about what 10 to 15 percent of the electorate in three to six states care about. That is it. That is how we should judge success. That's how we should think it. The filter through which we should think about it.

Everything else, the liberals who are angry that we're not doing enough, the moderates who are shaking in their boots, none of that matters. We care about whether we are taking information that can change someone's vote and putting it that they would not otherwise get and putting it in front of them we know this from the poll we did in wisconsin a few last month which is voters actually know a lot about trump but they know very little about the things that affect their decision if you tell them about how he's funneling taxpayer dollars into his pocket they are 30 points more less likely to support if you tell them about how he wants to cut medicare there are 30 points less to support him so this is an opportunity to put that information in front of the voters that matter. And that's all we care about.

The complicating factor, the complicating factor, obviously, is that we have this Democratic primary happening right now. And if there is a big, splashy, all-consuming set of impeachment hearings, it will be very challenging for them to navigate this. I mean, you might wonder if this will kind of freeze the race where it is because no one can get oxygen anymore. And if you're Elizabeth Warren, you're now kind of in the lead. Or if you're Joe Biden, you're feeling pretty good about it. There's always the Biden stance or the Warren stance to come out for that. But yeah, I mean, like they're all going to, the people who are not that top tier now have an even harder job of breaking through and making news and getting noticed and covered so

there's you know we're not gonna hear from them until the next debate probably yeah i also just one other small thing which is i have actually been surprised just the past couple days about just how uncomfortable a lot of republicans are talking about this uh it you have your kind of your you know your stone cold creep, your cruises and your cottons and they'll say whatever. But even in that, your Rubio's, but even Rubio, he's hiding. He's hiding from the news. He said more questions than answers.

Yeah. So he's avoiding. Which is what it says on the Rubio family crest. Yeah. But even even Kennedy in that clip. Right right he's on television to defend the president he's attacking all the democrats and all the rest but when he's asked about rudy giuliani he's like i'm not defending rudy and he's not and and you see a lot of republicans you know even on the intelligence committee saying i'm reserving judgment i'm holding back a bunch of people

a bunch of senators found it found themselves unable to find the time to read the eight page complaint i mean this isn't the muller report which was hundreds of pages and very dense and A bunch of senators found themselves unable to find the time to read the eight-page complaint. I mean, this isn't the Mueller report, which was hundreds of pages and very dense and pretty up to. Big footnotes, too. Come on. Come on, Bob. But this is eight pages of clearly digestible information that they know they cannot allow

into their brains. I would say one more thing on this, which is important, which is this is probably the tip of the iceberg. Yeah. Right? Like, there's a lot more to learn about ukraine but there's this other secret thing that's taking time on this and happening in washington which is this is not the only whistleblower there is a whistleblower from the irs who claims to have evidence of trump interfering into the quote unquote audit into his taxes. And that person

has been at the Ways and Means Committee for months now. But we have heard nothing from that person yet. And so you do want to know what this person thinks, because the president messing with the IRS would be exactly what happened in Watergate. And what other things there are in the government, because just the way this crime was committed and the way it was done so in the open suggests that there's so much more like this. And it's going to take time to find it, but when we show that information to people, it could have a very devastating effect

both for Trump in 2020 and the endangered Republican senators who are going to be forced to decide between voting against the base of their party or joining a political protection racket for a president. That is such an important point. It is not just Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, did you vote to impeach Trump or not?

It's Susan Collins, are you running for re-election saying that you think it's okay for the President of the United States to trade arms for election assistance with a foreign government? Because if you think that's okay, great. Then you can vote against impeachment, and that's how you're going to run. You stand with the president, and you think it's fine to trade arms for election assistance. But if you don't, then you can vote for impeachment, right? And I think she has to make that decision.

Cory Gardner has to make that decision. Martha McSally has to make that decision. Tom Tillis seems like he's already made the decision, because he was like, it's a fucking witch hunt, whatever. So he's made his calculation. Joni Ernst. Joni Ernst in Iowa. Who has made that decision as well. No, she is doing the full on duck and cover. She's like, if you want to ask me about ethanol, I'd love to talk about that. That's a direct direct quote. No, I think I think it is a I realize none of us really expect a lot of republican senators to stand up and be courageous and take the right vote here but i think we should make the case to them as if we're trying to get

them on board and i don't think i don't think you go to the american people with an impeachment hearing and be like we know it's a lost cause but we're just running through the traps anyway i think you go to it being like we are going to make a case to every american and every politician democrat and republican i think that's the president has betrayed the country. That's the case we're making. And I think that there's an impulse to punditry, which is, yeah, the Senate's never going to convict. The Senate's never going to be convicted. Maybe it is unlikely. Maybe it is unlikely. But that's doing their work for them. Taking away the surprise of them having to vote for or against this helps them. It helps them get away with siding with Trump, which is the easier thing for them to do. Elizabeth Warren

said this a long time ago when she talked about impeachment. She's like, I want them all on record. Where do you stand? In history, where are you going to stand on this? Get on record now. Last, last point on this. Last, last point on this. last point on this if all this stresses you out and makes you more anxious about the 2020 election go to votesaveamerica.com slash fair fight we have raised you guys have raised the listeners of the show have raised 850 thousand dollars for stacy abrams the baddest motherfucker in the Democratic Party who is working to fight voter suppression and make sure that everybody can get to the polls. So we got to hit a million.

We're close. Ten bucks. Everyone here. Ten bucks tonight. Come on. I'd like to see your phones lighting up your goddamn faces. Take out your phones. I did this. I still phones lighting up your goddamn faces. Take out your phones. I did this.

I still see a lot of dark faces. Thank you. Thank you. Look at the graphic. There it is. How nice. Do it. Thank you.

When we come back, less browbeating. When we come back, we'll have Tommy's interview with Candice Elder. And we're back! Our guest tonight is a housing activist, the founder and CEO of the East Oakland Collective, and she was just named to the Roots 2019 list of the 100 most influential African Americans in the country, Candace Elder. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. It's my pleasure. So I was doing some research tonight, and I saw a 2018 HUD report that said on any given night in 2018,

about a half a million people were homeless in the United States. A third of them were unsheltered, meaning that they lived on the streets in an abandoned building, but not in some sort of facility that was designed to take care of folks. And that a quarter of the homeless population in the country is here in California, especially in cities like LA, San Diego, the Bay Area. So I know we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people. They have unique stories and circumstances, but are there main drivers or causes of homelessness and reasons why the crisis is so acute here in California? The crisis is really acute here in California because of the cost of living. It is one of the

expensive states in the United States to live. So the cost of living is increasing. The cost of housing is increasing. And what we're seeing is, but the minimum wage is, you know, barely moving, you know, people actually need a living wage in order to be able to afford a studio, you know, in California. So that is driving, people are losing their homes, you know, they are being evicted out of their apartment buildings, and they're forced to live on the street. We're also seeing an increased number of people living in their cars, and people living in their RVs. We're seeing whole entire families, you know, who are forced to live in their vans. Many of those folks actually, you know, reside on my street. I wake up every day and go outside to at least five

vehicle dwellers every morning. So I do want to talk about the Trump administration's policies and some of the things the federal government's doing. But, you know, we live in California. This is a state run by Democrats, right? The governor's a Democrat, the legislature, most of the mayors. I don't think they're bad people. I think they care about helping people, but clearly their policies have failed. And I'm, I mean, there was a recent United Nations report that specifically called out San Francisco and Oakland for human rights abuses because of the way the homeless population was treated. Why are the current policies failing under liberal administrations? And what do you think cities should be doing differently? So the UN called out the Bay Area as being human rights violators

for the condition that people are living in. So California elected officials have been slow to address the problem. We are in a crisis. Governor Newsom just today passed a package of bills that sound very promising and that will help, but where were these bills under different leaders a while ago? We are extremely behind the curve. We're paying catch up to the policies. We need to pass renter's protection, you know, because we can't also forget

about preventing homelessness. You know, making sure that the 47 increase in Oakland since 2017 does not balloon and explode even more than that. So what we're seeing on both sides, whether they're Democrat, whether they're Republican, we know whether you're liberal or conservative, is that we need more compassion. We need to treat this like urgency, and we need to treat it as a human's right issue. So our president made a visit to California recently and made clear that his administration is waging war on the homeless population. I mean, the Council of Economic Advisers

proposed deregulation and more policing as their solution to homelessness. Trump, the kind-hearted man that he is, said, quote, we have people living in our best highways, our best streets, our best entrances to buildings, where people in those buildings pay tremendous taxes, clearly showing that he cares more about these objects than the people. How worried are you that there might be an intervention by the federal government that could make the work you do even harder? Very worried, especially when you have rhetoric coming like that you know from um not

my president right um we you know from what he's been saying he wants to like put everybody into these you know mega um you know facilities and we know his track record of that, right? So we definitely don't want any more, like, huge federal facilities, you know. We actually need to follow the UN recommendation, and that's to, you upgrade the environment and the circumstances of people now until you're able, as a government, to offer them adequate housing. If you're not able to do that, then you need to protect the folks while they're on the street, you know, before they suffer anymore. So I don't I don't trust, you know, Trump at all. But what he can do is give more federal funding, you know, to states like California and leave it up to the counties, you know, to actually, you know, actually implement housing programs. Because what he really wants to do is, and what he has been doing is showing that he's cutting, you know, social services.

He's cutting housing programs because a lot of people who are homeless, they have housing vouchers. You know, they are on waiting lists. They've been on waiting lists for housing for years, but there is not enough deeply affordable housing. So put that money into affordable housing. So obviously the problem of increased housing costs doesn't just lead to homelessness. It can drive people out of the homes they live in for years.

It can lead to gentrification. Folks living in the Bay Area in particular have seen housing prices skyrocket in the last decade plus. What do you think that the local governments can do to sort of help deal with these skyrocketing prices? And what do you think that some of the companies, in particular technology companies in the Bay Area, what can they do to help solve a problem that many would argue they helped create? So on a local level, we can have, the government should build deeply affordable housing. And I really want to stress that distinction of deeply affordable because the cost of living is so high, affordable is a larger range now. So affordable could be in some bay area cities you

know over 150 000 but so it still pushes out the extremely extremely low income or no to low income um residents so we need to build deeply affordable housing we need to look at non-traditional housing we want to put people into these cookie cutter models of everyone is, you know, needs a studio or an apartment. But, you know, it takes like five to 10 years to build one affordable housing unit. So while we're waiting, you know, for zoning and to get permits and to get funding for affordable housing, people are still dying on the streets. So why not look at tiny homes? You know, why not look at container homes? Look at stuff that we can house people in right now. You know, my organization and my colleagues, we try to build tiny homes and then the city tears them down

because they're not, you know, built to code regulations. So I'm glad Governor Newsom passed today. One of his bills is actually will lessen those regular those regulations while we're in this crisis. So some of that code doesn't have to apply to these tiny homes or to these container homes because we need housing now. Oh, and the last part of your question about tech companies. Oh, and the last part of your question about tech companies. Yeah, tech companies are part of the reason, you know, why we're in this crisis. Other than being mean and kind of being like, don't move here. But we, tech companies, I think can invest in, you know, more pipelines to STEM jobs. Invest in more working class jobs, you know, even pipelines to STEM jobs. Invest in more working class jobs, you know, even outside of STEM.

So, and also invest in, like I said, once again, the recurring theme of deeply affordable housing. You know, like, kind of put your money where your mouth is. Let's do it, folks. Agreed. So I bet that everybody in this room has walked by someone living on the street. Maybe you see the same folks every day, and you feel gutted by what you can see that that person is going through, but you don't know what to do. You should give someone money. You should get food.

I mean, are there things you think that people can do day to day in their own lives to help folks who are experiencing homelessness? Definitely. So folks, I know sometimes are apprehensive to give change, but if you do give change, give it freely, no matter what the person is actually going to do with it. Like that doesn't matter. The point is like for this temporary moment, you are giving them something that they are going to use to their benefit. And I always encourage people, even the most, the stuff that we take for granted, toilet tissue and lotion and toothbrushes, carry that in your car, you know, carry granola bars, carry water. You know, it's been extremely hot in the Bay Area recently.

You know, pass out waters to people. So the person that you see on the median in the street, the person you see on the sidewalk or the bus stop, you can easily just hand them a bottle of water, a granola bar. You can make hygiene kits, keep them in your car and hand them out. And support organizations who are in the trenches and who are making a difference. Like we help, you know, coordinate building tiny homes. It's like sponsor a tiny home, you know, come out to a build day, you know, and put some sweat equity in.

Yeah. So that's my last question. Tell us, tell us about the East Oakland Collective. What is it that you guys do and how can folks here and listening back home help out? So the East Oakland Collective, we do racial and economic equity work in East Oakland. We are most known for the work that we do with and on behalf of the unhoused. We do advocacy policy in organizing work. We are in the trenches. Sometimes when other larger nonprofits have a lot of red tape, we don't, you know, so we can um we are in the homeless encampments you know um three to four times a week we are empowering actually people who are on house i use the term on house because that covers the wide spectrum of people who are suffering from housing insecurity um empowering them to be able

to advocate on behalf of themselves you know in their family and to upgrade their environment in their living situation. Because a lot of times people just need help. People just need the resources. We have a large-scale feeding program called Feed the Hood. And since September 2017, we have distributed 30,000 lunches and 30,000 hygiene kits to every single encampment across Oakland. And sometimes we go into Berkeley and San Francisco

because there are 90 to 100 encampments in Oakland. So we are actually on an on-call cell phone basis with our encampment leaders. And we really make sure that their voice is heard while we are working on those long-term, even short-term media solutions. Candice Elder, thank you so much for the work you're doing.

Thank you for being here tonight. Really appreciate it. Thank you so much. And we're back. You guys want to play a game? Silicon Valley. You got to let it go. They will not forget.

It was 20 minutes ago. It is in the past. They will not forget. It was 20 minutes ago. It is in the past. Silicon Valley, the wellspring of a technological revolution that has transformed our society, a place where the best and brightest men who skip their proms to write code for an app

that sweeps porn sites for the most symmetrical faces, microdose LSD, and ponder the big questions like, what if everyone on Earth was connected to one another? And what if I had all the money but as the power of the tech industry has grown Americans have begun to ask their representatives and statehouses in Congress to hold these companies accountable whether it's uber defining its drivers as independent contractors Facebook's failure to protect user privacy or the monopolistic behavior of companies

like Amazon and Google. But there's one challenge legislatures, there's one challenge legislators aren't always the most, shall we say, there's one challenge. Listen, I'm a gay person who did a show at the Castro. I had a night. It's fine. who did a show at the Castro. I had a night. Fine.

But there's one challenge. Are you kidding? I did have a night. Shut up. They believed for a second that I had a night. Like, biospheres on screen. I watched two episodes of The Great Finish Making Show. I watch two episodes of the Great British Baking Show.

Did that have the ring of truth? The baking part, though? Yeah, that had a lot of truth. Legislators aren't always the most, shall we say, tech savvy. I'm not calling anyone old, and age is just a number, but let's just say their eyes are exploding. Regardless of age, many members of Congress have no idea how technology works, and when it comes time to tackle the complex, important issues involving regulation, it can be hard to watch, like the episode of NCIS Uncle Richard can't get to play on his Microsoft Surface

with the password taped to the front. That's why tonight we're going to play Can You Please Print the Internet for Me So I Can Read It Before the Hearing. Would anyone out there like to play? Hi, what's your name? Jason. Jason. Are you in the tech industry, sir?

I am. Is that a problem? Let's not boo him. Come on, people. What? What do you got in your pocket? The typewriter? We're all in the tech

you guys gonna mimeograph what are you talking about i'm sorry in the in what's your name jason jason yeah you ready to play i'm ready all right here's how it works we're gonna read quotes three of those quotes will be real quotes from politicians about the internet You ready to play? I'm ready. All right. Here's how it works. We're going to read quotes. Three of those quotes will be real quotes from politicians about the Internet. One will be fake. Pick the fake one. Yeah, pick the fake one. Yeah, yeah.

Crushing it. Good, good. Question one. Which of the following is a fake quote? The following quote is from President Donald Trump. We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet. We have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people

that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them, maybe, in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Or is it B? The following quote is from Senator Orrin Hatch. When it comes to computer, I'm Team Printer. Or is it C? These are all so believable.

The following quote is from President George W. Bush. Will the highways on the internet become more few? Or is it D? The following quote is from Vice President Joe Biden. If you agree with me, go to Joe 30330 and help me in this fight. What do you think? I'm going with Dan. No, that was Joe Biden.

It was B. They're all ridiculous, though. What? You're looking for the fake quote. You're looking for the fake one. Yeah. Okay, all right. They're all ridiculous. Bene. There's a little confusion here. What? You're looking for the fake quote. You're looking for the fake one. Yeah. Okay, all right. They're all ridiculous.

Benefit of the doubt. Sorry. Question two. Which of the following is a fake quote? The following quote is from Senator Ted Stevens. The internet is all around us. It's in wires, but it's in the air. Data flying through this chamber.

Whoosh. But can we grab it from the air? I don't know. Or is it B? The following quote is from Senator Ted Stevens. They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something

you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes. Or is it C? The following quote is from Senator Ted Stevens. I just the other day got an internet. It was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I just got it yesterday.

Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially. Or is it D? The following quote is from Senator Ted Stevens. What you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie. And guess what? You can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery

charge is free. Ten of them streaming across the internet. And what happens to your own personal internet? Which is the fake quote? What do you think? Tommy. I'm going with Tommy. No, it was John's.

It was A. It was A. That's real? The A was the fake one. Yeah. No, he didn't know about the internet. Did you know that Ted Stevens was the senator in charge of the internet? I did.

I remember. He was at Tubes. Then he passed away. He's dead, right? Oh, yeah. R.I.P. R.I.P. That's why I put that question in the middle.

Seemed wrong to end on it because he's dead. Question three. I don't know why. I did, though. Feels like it needs to be in the middle. Question three. Which of the following is fake? Is it A?

Representative Louie Gohmert said the following to the CEO of Google. Quote, we do a search and we get Wikipedia. My chief of staff went on, she told me, every night for two weeks and put proper, honest information with proper annotations and Wikipedia's liberal editors around the world would knock it out every day. with proper annotations and Wikipedia's liberal editors around the world would knock it out every day. Again, he said this to the CEO of Google, a company that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Or as it be. Representative Steve Chabot said the following to Google's CEO. I do a weekly blog and a while back Republicans in the House passed legislation to repeal and

replace Obamacare. When I was writing my blog about that, I googled American Health Care Act, and virtually every article was an attack on our bill. It wasn't until you got to the third or fourth page of search results before you found anything remotely positive about our bill. How do you explain this apparent bias on Google's part against conservative policies? this apparent bias on Google's part against conservative policies. Or is it C? Representative Steve King, prominent incest offender,

said the following to the CEO of Google. I have a seven-year-old granddaughter who picked up her phone board before the election, and she's playing a little game. And up on there pops a picture of her grandfather. And I'm not going to say into the record what kind of languages he's run that picture, but I ask you, how does that show up on a seven- picture of her grandfather. And I'm not going to say into the record what kind of languages used to run that picture, but I ask you, how does that show up on a 7-year-old's iPhone? Or is it D? Representative Kevin McCarthy said the following

to Google CEO Sundar Pichai. I understand you have an incognito mode, but can we trust it? Is it really private? That's my question. When you close that window, what folks were looking at, is it really gone? Because I'm worried about, let's say, terrorism.

What do you think? I'm going with Dan. You got it. You've won the game. You really sold it. And a parachute gift card. Thank you for playing. What's it called? Thank you for playing the game.

Thank you to Candice Elder. Thank you to Jessica Yellen. Thank you, San Jose. We'll be you next time. you