Pod Save America - “Elizabeth Warren talks dogs and capitalism.”

Episode Date: February 21, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren sits down with Tommy to talk about Medicare for All, climate change, Venezuela, Israel, and more. Before that, Jon and Dan talk about Mueller’s end game, Trump’s latest attacks on the media, and the future of the Supreme Court. Also – Pod Save America is going on tour! Get your tickets now: crooked.com/events.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Later in the pod, you'll hear Tommy's interview with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who stopped by our office on Tuesday to meet Leo and Pundit. We'll also talk about reports that Robert Mueller might be wrapping up his investigation, Trump's latest attacks on the media, and a frightening report that Clarence Thomas might retire so that Trump can pick his replacement, a move that one Democratic presidential candidate might have a solution for.

Ugh. Bad news all around, Dan. A move that one Democratic presidential candidate might have a solution for. Ugh. Bad news all around, Dan. Not good. I got some questions. Where was Luca? More of like a Bernie guy? Luca sat in our office, and she didn't come out and play.

I don't know why. It was sort of sad. You know what? It's Tommy's Iowa caucus roots. She's not ready to commit yet. Let's see all the candidates come through. That is correct, yes. Luca wants to, yeah.

Luca's much more choosy. Also, check out this week's Keep It that features an interview with Desus and Mero. Check out this week's Pod Save the World that features an interview with Tommy and his former boss, former National Security Advisor Tom Donlan. That will sound very different than the Desus and Mero interview. And check out crooked.com slash events to get tickets to our upcoming shows in Boston and New Hampshire in April. All right, let's start with the big news that broke on Wednesday. CNN, NBC, and the Washington Post are all reporting that newly confirmed Attorney

General William Barr and Justice Department officials are preparing for the end of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and are expecting to receive a confidential report as early as next week. During his confirmation hearing, Barr did not make any commitments that Mueller's work will be made public. Dan, I want to hear what you make of these reports. It struck some Mueller watchers as odd because there's still a lot of loose ends out there. There's open investigations into Roger Stone. Mueller's in a legal fight with some mystery foreign company. There's Jerome Corsi's aborted plea deal. He could be indicted still. We don't know what's going on with George Nader and his cooperation about Middle East influence on the elections. There's the Seychelles meeting with Eric Prince and the Russians.

Adam Schiff just turned over a bunch of transcripts for witnesses they interviewed during the House investigation to see if there was perhaps perjury committed. Because many people think there might be. A lot of loose ends. On the other hand, you know, Mueller's office has already started handing off some investigations to other parts of the Justice Department. Some Mueller prosecutors have gone back to their old jobs. People were spotted moving files out of Mueller's office last week, which really could mean anything. Dan, what do you what do you make of all this? I have no idea. I've obviously become obsessed with this. I read everything Marcy Wheeler had

to say. I read what Garrett Graff from Wired had to say. He was another very close Mueller watcher. And we just don't know, right? We don't know if this is a good sign, a bad sign, a sign for panic, a media report that's off. It's not. I honestly just don't know what to think. But we probably have to emotionally and politically start preparing for the end game in the near future. How does one emotionally prepare for the end game? Lower your expectations, John,

lower your expectations. What if, what if they play out the arguments in your head? When Mueller has a report that comes out, that is, uh, does not draw specific conclusions, but lays out a pretty compelling case.

And all the MAGA hat people don't immediately on Twitter. Don't immediately just change their avatar to William Weld. Don't be disappointed, right? Like the, you know, Mitch McConnell doesn't schedule a Senate trial. Like we just have to be prepared that whatever Mueller finds as it relates to Trump, right, is interesting, is very important for the historical record, but is unlikely, highly unlikely to result in his removal from office from any reason other than the verdict of the voters in the fall of 2020. Did we spend too much money on Red String?

Is that the conclusion? is that is that that's the conclusion well um look so we don't know what's in the report but uh you know some people like our feelers fearless uh editor-in-chief brian beutler you know suspect that it's possible that maybe trump may be involved in shutting this investigation down early since these reports came right after william barr's confirmation i know brian's not sure of this but he was at least floating with this possibility yesterday. And I think actually now he probably doesn't think that's the case. But, you know, what do you think of that, this idea that we're hearing these reports that there may be the end of the investigation coming next week because somehow Trump is involved. Barr has just been confirmed. Known idiot Matt Schlapp, whose wife is strategic communications director in the White House,

tweeted after Barr was confirmed. Oh, good. Now we have a real attorney general and Mueller will be gone soon, which was sort of crazy. What do you make of all that? First, I would note that I'm pretty sure the use of the word strategic in Mercedes Schlapp's title is ironic. But the – look, it's very – like we have been saying this for a long time that we have been living in a slow motion Saturday Night Massacre, you know, in reference to when Nixon fired everyone in the Justice Department in order to end the investigation into Watergate. That has been happening. You know, we've been purging the top ranks of the FBI. Trump fired Jim Comey. Trump has been tampering with witnesses out in the open. Reports are, pardons are being floated to people like Paul Manafort. Paul Manafort's cooperating with Bob Mueller and communicating with Trump's attorneys at the same time.

Trump has done everything he possibly can to throw roadblocks and stop this obstruction short of firing Bob Mueller, which has been the political third rail here for him. for him. And so, I mean, anything is possible, but what he's basically done is remove the people slowly who are supporting the investigation and replace them with loyalists who oppose the investigation. That includes Barr, and it includes getting Rod Rosenstein out of the Department of Justice. Not saying he's not firing Hot Rod, but Hot Rod is being replaced, and therefore someone else will be in charge of the investigation. And so you don't have to be some crazy, spooky, molder conspiracy theorist to believe that ultimately Trump is pulling the strings here, whether he's like actually sent a message to end it right now and Barr is that, or he's just forcing everyone's hand through his actions to date. Like, Trump's fingerprints are all over this, for sure.

I know that you and me and Tommy refer to him as Hot Rod sometimes. I think that's the first time it's actually come out on the pod. Hot Rod Rosenstein. I mean, if your name is Rod, like, you're gonna have to nickname Hot Rod. Rod like that. I don't think anyone in the history who's gone by Rod has not been referred to as Hot Rod, either literally, figuratively, ironically. So I don't think anyone should be shocked by that.

So, yeah, you're right that Trump has been openly attempting to obstruct this investigation from the start. He tells us this. He famously told Lester Holt he did. You know, Marcy Wheeler said yesterday that she does think that this is Mueller making the decision to end this investigation on his own timeline. And she thinks part of the reason it is Mueller's decision is because he, you know know these reports are coming out um yes uh bar has been confirmed but he hasn't started yet which means that rosenstein still is in charge of the investigation uh and rosenstein has been allowing the investigation to continue uninterrupted um for some time now and also because there's many reports that Barr knows Mueller, is family

friends with Mueller, and would not try to do this to him. Now, that's Marcy's view of this. But look, I do think that's, it does seem to make sense, right? That, you know, if Barr was, it would be hard for Barr to have shut down the investigation already because Barr hasn't even gone through his ethics briefing. He hasn't really taken the job yet. He's just been confirmed. Rosenstein's still there. And also, Mueller can think to himself, well, I didn't want to end it while Whitaker was the acting attorney general because he's such a fucking goober and not really legitimate.

So now at least I can say Rosenstein was overseeing the investigation, but Barr was in place, newly confirmed by the Senate. Now I feel good about the legitimacy of how to end this thing. So that's another theory. I mean, very, very compelling. Yeah. So if the report does come out soon, the next fight is over whether we'll know what's in it. Barr said during his confirmation that he wants to be as, quote, transparent as possible with Congress and has made clear that the Justice Department generally guards against publicizing, quote, derogatory information about uncharged individuals. Unless that person is Hillary Clinton. to do about this because you could see the situation where and i think in the washington post they said you know people in the white house are not expecting any um additional criminal indictments to touch anyone in the white house or trump's allies or anything like that but they are expecting things in the report to be politically damaging to donald trump now what the fuck do

they know because they're a bunch of white house goobers who don't really know much but um you know it would be it it does seem like it would be very bad if there was a report that had a lot of damning information about Trump and his close associates. And yet because they weren't technically indictments, we never know about it. I think – I mean there is a very real question about the ability to subpoena that report. Yeah. I mean there's a very real question about the ability to subpoena that report. And when Marcy was on the pod last Thursday, she explained why she's not worried about the report. But yeah, this is going to be a real question if this is the end. If there's no more indictments at the end of the day, we have Michael Flynn for lying, Paul Manafort for tax evasion and lying. We have Roger Stone for lying and we don't have actual crimes, which is reminiscent of how the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation into whether the Bush administration publicized – maliciously publicized leaked classified information to smear uh valerie playman joe

wilson and which simply scuturally be going to jail for um lying to the fbi or lying to investigate i can't remember the actual charge was but it was a lying obstruction charge not a charge of actually committing the crime and that i mean that is a real possibility. It is very hard to prove something like a conspiracy here, even though the like there's the research, and then lying about it on multiple occasions, either to the FBI, to Congress, or on their legally required national security clearance forms, at the same time that Trump was doing business with Russia to strike a deal that would be his richest building deal yet, to build a tower in Moscow with a reported penthouse for vladimir putin and so we like lying about all of it we all know and lying about all of it the entire time lying about it through the campaign lying about it through the transition lying about it in the

early administration and we know it continued during the transition with mike flynn calling the russians talking about sanctions relief after Obama placed sanctions on Russia for interfering in our elections. I mean, it's like, it is, I mean, it is important to realize, like you said, if there are no more indictments, right, and MAGA media goes crazy, and it will absolutely spill into the mainstream media as well. We will get stories after stories that just say, you know, Democrats in disarray now. Had they all been counting on these indictments? What if Trump was right? Does this mean he's going to win reelection now? I mean, it is, you know, my advice, if it comes to pass, just go take a walk. Shut off your Twitter and your news for a long time because it's going to be unbearable.

And one of the reasons it's going to be unbearable is because what we know, not just from news reports, but from federal prosecutors, is that Donald Trump and his team were willing to cheat to win the election. In the case of the hush money payments with Michael Cohen, we know that they did cheat to win the election. And federal prosecutors not only put Michael Cohen in jail for this, but they have implicated Donald Trump, the president of the United States, in a felony, in a campaign felony. So that's one case of cheating to win the election is Donald Trump's son, his son-in-law, his campaign chairman, who's also going to jail, meeting with Russians saying, please give us dirt on Hillary Clinton so we can win the election. We know that's all true. We know that he was lying about business deals. We know that Vladimir Putin knew that Donald Trump was lying about his business deals with Russia, which means that the president allowed himself to be compromised by a foreign

leader of a government that tried to interfere in our elections. That's not great. We know that Donald Trump also was disloyal to the United States and would rather believe Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies. And we know that because he stood up in front of the world in Helsinki and said that. Like, there is plenty of wrongdoing around Russia that should tell us Donald Trump is unfit for this job. It's sort of all we need. But even beyond that, if we lived in a world with a normal Republican Party that wasn't essentially a political protection racket for Donald Trump, you could impeach Trump right now for multiple reasons without ever mentioning the word Russia. Yeah.

You could do it on his business dealings. You could do it on the allegations we have. You could do it simply on corruption alone from the fact that foreign governments and corporations are spending absurd amounts of money in his schlocky hotel in order to influence the president and line his pocket, which is a violation of the Constitution, mind you. You could do it on the Stormy Daniels case.

You could do it on multiple things, and you wouldn't need to mention Russia. But that's also a moot point because Trump is not being impeached. This is not an argument that is going to be made to a jury of senators. It's not an argument that's going to be made to a jury of Trump's peers. It is an argument that is going to be made to a absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Right.

Just we know for a fact, as you pointed out, that Russia helped Trump win this election. We know that Trump's family and campaign staff sought and benefited from that help. We just can't prove, maybe we can't prove they all actively worked together, proved beyond a reasonable doubt of that fact, but we it happened and it is what it is i don't like everyone's gonna freak out put your phone in a drawer put something good on television go for a walk walk your dog if you have them play with your children don't freak out when the new york times blares across its front page muller trump innocent of all charges as they will do as part of some sort of guilt eradication exercise over the fact that they're located in manhattan twitter's gonna be so bad um okay or by the way there's another uh alternative here there's actually many alternatives

but one is um you are listening to this maybe Thursday afternoon when it comes out. Tomorrow is Friday. There could be more indictments on Friday. This could sound very quaint on Friday. The other thing we know that's coming out tomorrow, Friday, is Mueller will be submitting a sentencing memo for Paul Manafort, which is likely to have quite a bit of detail about how he conspired with a suspected Russian intelligence asset, Konstantin Kalimnik, something he has already pled guilty to. And we're going to find out more details about just what that was, what that conspiracy looked like, what it was when he shared the polling information, all kinds of information about that. We're about to find that out on Friday. And then, you know, there could be other indictments or the report, by the way,

there's sort of this assumption that maybe the report's going to be fine just because, you know, William Barr and the Justice Department know about it. But like the report could also say that the president obstructed justice. The report could name him as an unindicted co-conspirator. We have no idea. We have no idea what might happen next week. And it may not even happen next week. You know, it could be in the weeks to come. So there is a lot we don't know. And we should all hold off on making judgments until Bob Mueller speaks or his report speak. I mean, my advice to everyone, as you can tell from the tone of our conversation today,

is prepare for the worst, hope for the best. So that is what I'm doing. Yeah. Oh, and Michael Cohen is testifying Wednesday, February 27th. On the day of the North Korea summit. Great job, Adam Schiff. Well, you know, Brian Boitler brought this up to me late last night when we were sort of connecting all of our red string on this together.

You know, Schiff tweeted last week or the week before, we are postponing Michael Cohen's testimony until February 27th because of the investigation, because of the Russia investigation. We have been, because they've asked us to basically. So that's pretty interesting that why, why would Michael Cohen not be allowed to testify until February 27th? What's happening between now and then? Who knows? Who knows? One more, One more thing to think over. Okay, let's talk about two news stories from yesterday. The first is from the New York Times, and here's the lead. Even by his standards, President Trump's biting attacks on the press this week stand out.

He has praised a libel lawsuit against the Washington Post, called for, quote, retribution against NBC for satirizing him on Saturday Night Live, and on Wednesday issued his sharpest words yet against the New York Times, calling the newspaper, quote, a true enemy of the people. That's first story. Now, second story from yesterday is about how, according to the FBI, a Coast Guard officer who was arrested with 15 guns and a thousand rounds of ammunition was actually a white nationalist who was plotting with 15 guns and a thousand rounds of ammunition was actually a white nationalist who was plotting to murder Democrats and media personalities on a, quote, scale rarely seen in this country. The government has labeled him a domestic terrorist. So there's absolutely no evidence that Trump's hateful rhetoric about Democrats in the media led

directly to this person's actions. But as Tommy noted on Twitter yesterday, there was a hundred percent chance that Trump was briefed on this domestic terrorist before he tweeted that the New York times is the enemy of the people. So that seems beyond fucked up. No. Yes, John,

it does seem beyond fucked up, but not surprising. I mean, you know, I have to say like after the saturday night live tweets when everyone was sort of freaking out and i know alec baldwin was freaking out and they're like trump's targeting us and all that kind of stuff there was part of me that is like you know is this a little overdone the president's complaining about a sketch you know that he doesn't like and that's just typical trump he's a whiny baby about shit um and maybe we shouldn't get you know and then something like this happens and it reminds you of how dangerous this is and you know we're only a couple months out from uh in october when some maga asshole sent pipe bombs to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton

and a whole bunch of our leaders, Democratic leaders. And journalists. And journalists at CNN. So, you know, this stuff is very, very scary. And all Donald Trump would have to do is not say crazy shit like this. He can complain about the media all he wants. He can complain about his coverage all he wants. Words matter when you're the president of the United States.

And you tweet shit like the press is the enemy of the people. People are going to listen to you. And people who are unstable or unwell or white nationalists trolling around in the internet they're going to eventually take cues from you they're going to think it's okay because the president says what they think yeah that's that's exactly right there for all of the policy atrocities and the national and the just international embarrassment is to have this fucking clown as our president. There like there is a moral dimension to this, which is even if a lot of us 60% of the country knows that Trump is a joke. There are people who date the president.

The president is sitting in the Oval Office, like all the normal presidents who came before him and his words matter. And he sets a tone on issues for at least some portion of the population. And there is danger to this. I've had the same reaction you've had a lot of times because even though only a small percentage of the country is on Twitter, every reporter is on Twitter, whenever Trump attacks the press, it dominates everything. And I do think it's one of the few strategic things he does, which is he knows how to distract them. There's no better way to distract the press than to talk about the press, right? And sometimes it's just like,

can the press have the same reaction when Trump targets immigrants or African Americans or other people of color in this country or women, right? Why is the greatest outrage set for empty threats about ending the White House briefing or libel laws or things like that? But we have reached a point where what the president is doing is deeply irresponsible and dangerous. And it is we are incredibly fortunate that no one got hurt back last fall and something very dangerous is going to happen. And this is what happens when you have a malicious, narcissistic, raving lunatic in the White House. And I mean, it's a huge problem.

It is also interesting that there is a world in which where Trump's words now have more power with people like this individual who was arrested or the person who sent the pipe bombs, but less influence on the discussion. Institutionally, we don't take Trump seriously when he threatens legal action against SNL or NBC or says he's going to stop doing the ex-press thing or do press coverage. He's like the boy who cried authoritarian on those issues, right? People don't take him seriously anymore. That says – I kind of wonder what is more dangerous, that he constantly tries to abridge – he says he's going to abridge the freedom of press or no one takes him seriously and abridges the freedom of press. says he's going to bridge the freedom of press or no one takes him seriously and bridges the freedom of press but it's but beyond that aspect of it the the danger of his words was very evident yesterday yeah and look he's got a whole it's not just him he's got a whole chorus of uh conservative

media and uh you know some of the crazier parts of the conservative media like the alex joneses of the world and and people like that who are who've been parroting the stuff and saying the stuff for years. And now they have someone who's the most powerful person on the planet parroting that stuff, which is very, very scary. All right. One last story to scare the shit out of all of you. First, the good news. Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned to work at the Supreme Court this week. Very happy to see Ginsburg back.

We love Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Everyone send her vitamins. So she's back. She's back at work. Now the bad news. Jeffrey Toobin wrote a piece in The New Yorker this week about the possibility that Clarence Thomas might resign from the court soon, leaving Donald Trump the opening to appoint a younger conservative justice to replace him. Toobin writes, will Thomas retire? Over the years, he has made little secret of the fact that he doesn't enjoy the job very much. With a conservative future of the court secure, why wouldn't he call it a day after 28 years?

Now, Toobin goes on to say that Thomas's friends don't think he'll do that, but of course we don't know. Dan, how possible is this? And how absolutely fucked would we be? As you know, I'm someone who tends to reside on the darker side of things periodically. And I often do. It's,

it is like, I was talking about the Mueller report, like a form of emotional management where I like to imagine the worst case scenario and then be pleasantly surprised when it doesn't occur. And nothing knocks me for a loop. Then when a worst case scenario emerges that I have not imagined yet, and it had never even fucking occurred to me that Thomas could resign between now and a Democrat hopefully defeating Trump next year. And so now it's like, obviously, that's going to fucking happen. Of course it is. Like, why wouldn't it? It is perfectly in line

with how the Republicans think about the Supreme Court and using power and everything. And Thomas is a conservative activist, not a judicial activist, an actual conservative activist. His wife runs a very conspiracy-laden fringe right-wing group. She was meeting with Trump just recently. And so, of course, for someone who cares about conservative politics,

not conservative legal theory, but conservative politics, right, not conservative legal theory, but conservative politics, why wouldn't you resign while Trump and Mitch McConnell could jam it through when you have no idea what's going to happen with the Senate or the White House in 2028? It is a, you know, Trump is probably a slight favorite to be president just because incumbents tend to win, sorry people. And just because of the map, Republicans are a slight favorite to keep the Senate, but it is not much better than a coin flip. And so why wouldn't you do this? Be very in line with how Thomas, Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the conservative world thinks about the role of Supreme Court.

Yeah, I feel like a moron for not thinking about this because me, the naive optimist, was thinking, ifburg can hang on do we have a democratic president then we have a democratic president who could potentially replace ginsburg if she retires and then the next person in line to retire would be clarence thomas and then if somehow a democratic president could replace clarence thomas suddenly now we have a 5-4 liberal majority on the court again, and things are good. And so I was thinking, like, that's a scenario that could come to pass. Let's hope for that. You know, if we get, it's another bonus of having a Democratic president in 2020. But then, of course, you know, the alternative is Clarence Thomas also understands that scenario and thinks, fuck it, I'm letting Trump appoint my replacement.

So how would Mitch McConnell handle this, given the Garland precedent, which is, you know, you don't appoint a Supreme Court justice during a presidential election? That's so funny. Why does Mitch McConnell do anything? Because he can. If Clarence Thomas decided to retire six days before the election, Mitch McConnell would jam that through before a Democrat took over. Of course he would. Do you think he honestly believes in the norm of allowing the American people to decide who the Supreme Court judges would be? Fuck no. Mitch McConnell has the political power equivalent of fuck you money.

He would just do it and he would not give a shit what anyone said about it. So that's going to be bad. But the good news is at least one Democratic presidential candidate may have a solution here. Earlier this week, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg said in a town hall that, quote, I don't think we should be laughing at the idea of adding more seats to the Supreme Court, saying, quote, it's no more a departure from norms than what the Republicans did to get the judiciary to the place it is today. This idea has gotten more air since, you know, Gorsuch took a seat that should have been Merrick Garland's. Now, so people know, you know, nothing in the

Constitution requires nine justices on the court. The court originally had six seats, and then various presidents and congresses added and took away seats throughout the first half of the 19th century, including in 1863 during the Civil War, when Lincoln and the Congress added a seat to protect the union from legal challenges. To add a Supreme Court seat, you would need majorities in both houses and then the president to sign the law. Dan, we have talked about this once before on the Monday Pod, but what do you think of this idea? I think you and I talked about it once as well. Did we? I came in opposed. And then I think you, if I remember correctly, you made a very compelling argument and you switched my position.

But I can't remember what your argument was. I actually have very mixed feelings about this. So let me sort of lay out the way I think about it. One, Pete Buttigieg is exactly right in why he's raising this, which is Republicans give zero fucks about what is good for democracy. They only care about what's good about Republicans. And if we try to hang on to governing norms like they are like life rafts in the ocean, we're going to get swamped. Like we constantly, it's like- We'll have a lot of norms, but not a lot of America. Yeah.

Right. And so like Republicans will like, they will destroy a norm, get exactly what they want. And then we feel like it's our job to restore the norm, but they've already, Romans have already burned the bridge behind them. And so like,

we have to expand, we have to widen the aperture of how we think about political power as Democrats. Republicans think about political power for political power's sake. The point of having it is to have more. Democrats think of political power as something that you get, and then it is your job to immediately spend it without any concern about achieving more political power in order to pass policy. Now, Democrats are – that is the right way of thinking in the sense that it is good. Like if you win elections, you get this huge House and Senate majority. You get this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pass the Affordable Care Act. Even though it's going to cost you dearly at the polls, you do it.

Republicans don't think that way. They think about how do we use our 60 Senate seats to get 65 Senate seats or our 35 seat house majority to get a 50 seat house majority. And we do have to find a balance between the way we thought about power and the way Republicans thought about power. Something between naive optimism and McConnell-like nihilism, right? There's something in the middle where we regret. And so I really applaud Pete Buttigieg for thinking about this in a right way, because I think for too long, Democrats have essentially brought a spork to a gunfight. Like we're just getting clobbered. And we think like you even if you hear Democratic Sanders, even Bernie Sanders, the most aggressively progressive leader in the Democratic Party, by many measures, wants to keep the Senate filibuster. I know.

Which means that none of his legislation will pass with the possible exception. He maybe has one thing, a budget reconciliation. Yeah. And when you talk to senators, most of them think that all Republicans are operating in good faith. And if Harry Reid hadn't used the nuclear option, we'd still be living in a world where Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan hung out and drank whiskey. And if we just had more bipartisan lunches together, then we would pass infrastructure. And that's just fucking stupid. And you've got to wake up and realize the nature of the opponent here.

And that is right. Now, I also – the only reason I have concern about this is I don't know how it plays itself out in the long run. I certainly am not – the argument I don't buy is that it would besmirch the independent reputation of the Supreme Court. That is absurd. One, Brett Kavanaugh is in the Supreme Court and he's a partisan hack, accused of very serious things. Two, I was in Florida when a conservative 5-4 majority decided to hand the election and fuck over the planet for George W. Bush in 2000. So it's not about some sort of destroying this independent, unvarnished American institution, the Supreme Court. It is as partisan as the other branches of government.

I just don't know. How is it going to work? Are we going to add one? And then they're going to add one. We're going to add one. And then eventually it's going to be like Supreme Court decisions will be like 63-27. I just don't know how it works. Well, no. So that is the good argument against doing this is that we add seats, then they add seats next time they're in power.

And then the Supreme Court, even though it has been growing more partisan and political over time, especially with the addition of the most recent conservative justices who you rightly point out are not just conservative justices they are conservative activists thomas is like that he wasn't even so recent an appointment uh gorsuch is clearly like that kavanaugh is clearly like that we've seen that in the decision so far um maybe the only one who's been who's a conservative justice who hasn't shown that he is purely a partisan hack is John Roberts so far in some instances. But so the idea would be if we add justices, then the Republicans add justices. And suddenly the court is basically just a political tool of whichever party is in control of the White House. And it is not a third independent branch of government. We have actually seen this happen in various Eastern European countries,

places like Hungary, where they just keep adding justices to the court and the court is nothing but a political tool. So it is a concern. On the other hand, you can say, we just named some of the times in the early 19th century where they changed the number of seats between six and nine. There was another time where one person basically changed the makeup of the Supreme Court. And that was between February of 2016 until April of 2017. There were only eight justices on the Supreme Court for a full year and two months. And do you know who was responsible for that? Not a law passed by Congress and signed by a president. One person was responsible for that. And his name is Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell changed the makeup of

the court from nine justices to eight justices for a year so he could wait for a Republican president and install a conservative activist on the Supreme Court. That's what Mitch McConnell did. And so I think as Democrats have to figure out how do we rectify that extreme violation of a norm. And one way to do it is to say, you know, there's different plans out there to do this. Someone I saw in the Washington Post, this has been floating around, a plan where Democrats add two justices to the court to make up for the Garland seat, to rebalance the court. And you name those two justices for 18 year terms. And then after 18

years, those two justices serve for life on the federal bench, on a lower federal bench. So then the court goes back to nine. And basically, you would add the justices and say, we are only doing this, not because we just want to make the court a partisan political tool, but because we are rectifying a serious violation of the court's independence when Mitch McConnell decided that he would change the whole makeup of the court on his own in order to install a conservative activist. And then, you know, you basically do it in the name of institutionalism. So that's one way to do it. That's interesting. The lifetime appointment is in the Constitution, right? Yeah, they said there is, these are legal, these are two Yale professors who came up with this, and they said it's technically in the Constitution that the justices have to serve in the judiciary for life, which is why you could do term limits but then send them back to the federal judiciary.

At least that's what some law professors think and various legal scholars as well. Huh. I wonder if you can retroactively do it. That I don't know. That I don't know. That's an interesting idea because it is actually – there should be term limits for federal judges yeah i mean we can't live in a world where where you for we have a half century of fucking conservative rule because 80 000 people in three states decided to tip the electoral college against the popular vote like

that's a fucking crazy way to run a country. Well, that's – I mean – yeah. It really – like I was reading – I think it was – one of the many articles I read about this yesterday talked about how basically the argument for court packing is that it's just stupid that Supreme Court's – Supreme Court opens are basically like lottery tickets for presidents, right? They happen when you – they either happen when you're president or not. And if they happen to happen when you're president, you get to shape the ideological direction of the country for a half century. It's a crazy way to run a government.

And look, I mean, there are plenty of reasons to worry about this kind of proposal. But here are the facts. If Donald Trump does replace Clarence Thomas with a justice who is a similar age to Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who are Gorsuch, I think is 51. Kavanaugh, is he like forty nine fifty? He's around the same age. And then John Roberts is sixty five. John Roberts is 65. And I think Alito is like 68. That is the 5-4 majority on the court. Five conservative justices all in their 50s and 60s. That is a couple decades of a very conservative, very right-wing court overturning all kinds of legislation from even the most Democratic Congress and Democratic president. And if you're a liberal in this country, even if you're an independent, even if you're moderate, you have to look at that and think, is that what I want for the next couple decades, knowing how right wing those justices are? And if it's not what I want for the next

couple decades, when we are facing climate change, when we are facing massive inequality, when we are facing people with high health care costs who can't get by. If that's not what you want, what are we going to do about it? And there are remedies that are entirely legal here, that are in the Constitution. You can add justices. You can pass the law. It is not unconstitutional. And so I think it is, I'm glad that Mayor Pete brought that up. And look, and to go back to your point about the filibuster, like, have you been surprised how the different candidates have split on all these questions of court reform, congressional reform, basically ways to, you know, instill more democracy into our democratic system, as I would call it. Basically, you just have

to our democratic system as i would call it um basically you just have mayor pete and uh elizabeth warren who told tommy in in the interview that all options are on the table with the filibuster she might get rid of the filibuster um you have both of them talking about potentially getting rid of the filibuster and so far not many of the other candidates uh j Gillibrand was sort of said she'd think about it when I interviewed her. Biden, Biden clearly loves it. Bernie said he likes it. Kamala Harris's campaign said she is not for getting rid of it at this time. And so I'm wondering why. I guess it's because they're all senators, although good for Elizabeth Warren for breaking out of the pack there.

Oh, Cory Booker has said he likes the filibuster and would actively defend it. What's going on with these folks? I don't have a clue. The filibuster is stupid. And it is a problem in the short term for Democrats. And it is a gigantic problem in the long term, as long as we can continue to exist in a world where California and Wyoming have the same power, and New York and Idaho have the same power and young people who tend to be Democrats are moving to places like California and New York and these other blue states and populations are decreasing in these other states, the power that progressives have in this country is going to diminish dramatically over time if demographic and population trends continue. So we are not going to pass progressive legislation. You're going to get one shot per presidency. You're going to get to pass something on budget reconciliation, which takes 50 votes. And that is it. We're going to pick one thing. We're going to get one Democratic president in 2021. We're going to do Medicare for all. Then we're going to be shut out until

we get another new Democratic president. They're going to get one shot. They're going to pass some part of the Green New Deal. And that is it. And you limit yourself if your way of doing this is budget reconciliation, because there are really complicated rules about the kind of things you can do. It has to be budget related. It's harder to do a lot of things that we care about. And so we are tying both hands behind our back. I think it's crazy. I think senators spend too much time with each other. You know, the most generous possible view of this is that all the senators had a meeting. Elizabeth Warren couldn't make it. And they decided that their plan was we're not going to say we're going to get rid of the filibuster until we get elected.

And then we're going to get rid of that fucking thing and we are going to pass everything. That's the only thing I can think of that makes sense other than deeply naive institutionalism for a broken institution. Look, I've also seen, you know, plenty of good liberals say the problem with getting rid of the filibuster is can you imagine what Donald Trump would have done and Mitch McConnell would have done by now if there were no filibuster? Because there is still a filibuster right now. If there were no filibuster, because there is still a filibuster right now. And my response to that is they tried to rip up the Affordable Care Act through reconciliation. They passed an absurd tax cut that was geared towards the wealthy through reconciliation. They've eliminated the filibuster for the Supreme Court.

So like, I guess they could have done more damage. But also also all the stuff we just said remains true about progressive priorities. And I, like I said, I really have a concern about Democratic candidates going out there and talking to voters about how when they become president, they're going to pass Medicare for all and they're going to pass a Green New Deal. willing to think through how they're actually going to get those plans passed. Because if a filibuster is in place, if they want to pass the Green New Deal and Medicare for all, but they also want to keep the filibuster in place, they're not being honest with the voters. It's not going to happen. And then what's going to happen is we're going to elect a Democratic president. Trump's going to be gone. Everyone's going to be cheering. And then, you know, President Kamala Harris or Cory Booker or whoever is in or Joe Biden or whoever's in there is going to say, oh, yeah, remember on the campaign trail when I talked about Medicare for all in the Green New Deal? Actually, I can't get that done because, you know, we we need 60 votes and we don't have 60 votes. So sorry, everyone.

And that's going to make people more cynical for next time. They're going to make more cynical about government and participating. That's what's going to happen. So it really does bother me. And again, I don't, I would rather you say, I'm not for Medicare for all. I'm for, you know, lowering the age where you can participate in Medicare to 55. And I actually think I can get some Republican senators for that. I think that's probably a stretch also. But at least like, be realistic about both your plans and your plan to get them done. That's right. The other part that bothers me about it is,

in the Democratic Party right now, all the good things are happening at the grassroots level, right? It is new groups like Swing Left or Run for Something. It is the people running for office from school board to state legislature, et cetera, that is really exciting. Like really, it's the new members of Congress who got elected who aren't from the political establishment, right? It's a new party that's more diverse in gender and ethnicity and background and ideology. And that is all great. At the top of the party, I really worry that we just have our blinders on about what we're facing. And if you don't understand the ways in which Republicans have been strategically stacking the deck against a growing progressive majority in this country, then you're going to be unable

to succeed because they are going to throw everything at you. The Republicans, while the economy was going off a cliff, decided they would rather fuck over Barack Obama than save the economy. So this is the cynical, hackish group we are dealing with. If we don't approach that, if we don't rethink how we approach Republicans and how we think about political power, we are not going to achieve our fractured things we need to do. And this isn't just like this is an opportunity cost. This is life and death for things like Medicare for all. And it is the fucking planet that is melting underneath us. And we're worrying about norms and institutions and filibusters and having rose colored glasses for some period of the Senate that didn't exist when the filibuster

to do such important things like, oh, I don't know, stop the Voting Rights Act for a while. Like what it alarms me about what's happened. I really want like this is not like I don't want everyone putting on the war paint trying to do McConnell light, but we have to think seriously and aggressively about how we handle this. And I really think there is Washington, D.C. bubble naivete going on. The point you just made how we shouldn't be Mitch McConnell-like, like Democrats do not have to frame this as we have to play dirty like they play dirty. This is about minority rule. Republicans are trying to rule and have power with only a minority of voters electing them. We might have a situation where a vast majority of the American people elect a president and elect a Congress who has promised them to expand healthcare access, who has promised them to combat climate change, who's promised all

these things. And the reason that that progressive majority made up of Democrats, independents, non-voters, maybe some disaffected Republicans. The reason that that majority won't get those policies is because Republicans have tried to put in all these rules in place to govern by minority rule. And all we are saying is that the voices of the majority of people in this country should carry the day. It is a set of democratic reforms. It is not playing in the mud like Mitch McConnell is playing in the mud. It is merely saying we want more democracy in our democracy. I think that's the way to frame it. Yeah. And like we want everyone to vote and

we want everyone to vote. We want everyone's voice heard in Congress. We want people's voices not drowned out by billionaires. And if that leads to more progressive policies, great. Right. But once that once that once those obstacles have taken out, it is incumbent upon both parties to make an argument for their vision for the country. We are willing to do that. Republicans know they will lose if they will do that. So they're rigging the game. Yeah. If you believe you can assemble a majority in this country for your policies, go for it. And if you get that majority, you get to put those policies in place. You won the argument. But if we win the argument, we get to put those policies in place. That's a fucking democracy. And I know that we have a republic and a representative

democracy and all these other things, but Republicans have put far too many rules in place and abused the system in far too many ways and violated far too many norms so that now we have rule by minority. We do not have rule by majority in this country. And I think that's what Democratic candidates need to start talking about. Heads Republicans win, tails Democrats lose is the way these are going. Okay. When we return, one Democrat who has certainly figured this out, Tommy, we'll be talking to Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren. I am honored to have in studio a Massachusetts resident, a United States Senator Elizabeth Warren. Thank you so much for being here. Oh, thank you. I'm delighted to be here. You just met Pundit Leo and Luca. I did. So most important question of the day, we got to give the people what they want. How is your new Golden Retriever puppy, Bailey, doing? Oh, I'm telling you. Bailey is taking to campaigning. So he now comes to the events in New Hampshire, since we're nearby. And he runs his own separate photo line. And I keep saying to everybody, it is not a competition.

I'll do one. He'll do one. And I have to keep saying that because more people want to get their picture taken with Bailey. He is painfully cute. Everyone check him out on the Center's Instagram page. He's a honey bun. I mean, just amazing. Okay. And I just want you to know he's completely in favor of affordable child care, universal child care, affordable health care. He's in on all of this. He's for all of this accountable capitalism. Accountable capitalism, he's in. The whole suite of issues.

Yeah, we had to do the whole thing on Glass-Steagall, which was early on. And I think maybe he was a little young when I first introduced him to it. But he's now in. He really pushed you towards the no first use nuclear policy as well. Oh, actually, this was a big deal for him. And I think it came from the other guys at the dog park had been talking about it for a long time. And, you know, there just comes a moment when it is the right time to just go ahead and say it. We're just not going to do this.

Make some news. That's right. And make a statement of your principles here. I like it. No first use. He really is opposed to nuclear war. So what could I say? You know, you've got to work together.

Well, I would love to dig into that in a minute. But first question for you. love to dig into that in a minute. But first question for you. So during President Trump's soaring, stirring, beautiful State of the Union speech, he said, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country. You stood, you clapped, you said you're a capitalist. Why are you a capitalist? Because I see the value of markets and that they can produce a lot of good if they have rules. But let us all be clear. Markets without rules are theft. And I am opposed to theft.

There is a reason that the folks on Wall Street, the big CEOs, don't want me to even be in the Senate. They're kind of in the anyone but you. That's exactly. Maybe that will be their tattoo. Anyone but her. You know, because I get how the system works and how it can work when it works right. And how these are the guys who are ripping it off and making it not work. And I really do want to. I want to see it work.

I want to see us as a country, not just continue to produce more wealth, but I want to see us continue to produce more wealth. Where that means opportunities, not just for those at the top, but opportunities for everybody. And I mean, not like kind of everybody. I really literally mean everybody. So I think in part because of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Sanders and then President Trump picking up the mantle of socialism, I'm sure he's a big supporter. It's been discussed a lot recently. And so, I mean, I'm just trying to help people understand the distinction because, you know, you support Bernie Sanders Medicare for all bill. You said you support the concept of a Green New Deal. You know, I think people look at you and they look at Senator Sanders and they think there's a lot of similarity there on policy views, but he's a democratic socialist, you're a democrat and a capitalist. And I'm just hoping maybe we can help listeners understand that distinction and how you might differ on policy.

So, you know, Bernie and I have been friends since long, long before I ever got in politics. Of course, that's not saying much. I actually haven't been in it that long on the political end of it. It's always been the policy end. But the best I can do is explain my end of it. So let me give you two parts to it. First part is we've got a country right now that works great for those at the top. It is a country that works great for giant drug companies, just not for people who are trying to get prescription fills. It works great for giant oil companies that want to drill everywhere, but not for people who see climate change as it's bearing down on us. It works great for investors in private prisons, but not for the people whose lives are destroyed and whose communities are torn apart.

When a government works just for those at the top, that's corruption, plain and simple. And we got to call it out. Because what's happened in this country is in effect on every decision that gets made from giant ones that we see out in front, like drilling offshore, down to minute regulatory decisions. There's almost always somebody in the room representing the rich, the powerful, or multiple someones trying to get the field tilted just a little bit more in favor of their clients. And not just once, but twice, 20 times, 200 times, 2,000 times. And the consequence has been we now have a government that really does. It's not working for the people. And so whatever issue brings you to the table, whether it's around economic issues, gun safety, climate change, net neutrality, it all intersects through this fundamental piece of corruption, of a government that's listening to the folks with money instead of a government that's listening to the people who elected us to get there.

So I start with we got to root out the corruption. start with, we got to root out the corruption. And then we got to change the rules in this economy and move us away from an economy that works, again, giant corporations who can buy political influence. We've got to get to an economy where there's more balance in it. It ought to be easy to join a union, right? We ought to make it easy to have more worker power. Accountable capitalism says workers get to elect 40% of the seats on the corporate. This is a bill I've already put forward. 40% of the seats on corporate boards. Ways to get more power back into the hands of workers.

That's how we start to rewrite this economy. ways to get more power back into the hands of workers. That's how we start to rewrite this economy. And I just keep working through that in every part of it. Taxes, progressive taxation. I put an ultra-millionaire's tax out, a proposal on this. Think about this. A proposal on this, think about this. If we taxed people, families, that have more than $50 million in assets, if we charged them 2% a year and they put that back in the kitty to help build opportunity for everybody else, we could pay for universal child care. We could bring down student loan debt. We could make a big down payment on a green new deal. We could make the investments that make this country work. And that's for me what this is all about. Yeah, but there wouldn't be a lot of investing in Nantucket summer houses.

Oh, boo. And I think that they need new decks and places to park boats and such. So staying along these lines, I mean, a lot of this 2020 Democratic candidates support Medicare for all. I think it's sort of table stakes really in this race. Some people think. I think, interestingly, you've said that there are a lot of paths to get to universal coverage. But there are some critics on the left, you see a lot of Twitter, fun place to be, who vigorously disagree. They sincerely believe that a public option won't get us to universal care and that we need to eliminate private insurance to actually fix a broken healthcare system. Bernie Sanders, for example, told the New York Times that he thinks the only role for private insurance in the system he

envisions would be cosmetic surgery. You want to get your nose fixed, something like that. Why do you disagree with those who have a more draconian take on how to get to universal health care? So let me start by saying I believe in Medicare for all. I'm a co-sponsor on the bill. Yeah, I'm signed up for this. out for this. But remember, even the bill that Bernie has put on the table has a lot of layering in over time. It doesn't just happen immediately. Nobody throws a light switch and says, we're there. It's got its ways of how we get

some people, how we get some more people, how we get some more people, and by the way, how some people never end up in it. So for example, veterans are kept in a different system. There's a question about how Medicaid gets brought into it. It's a big and complex system to be able to do this. And so there are folks who think, for example, one way you could layer this in is you could say, you know what, how about if we say Medicare now starts at 60, and then a year from now it starts at 55, and a year from now it starts at 50, and a year from now it starts at 45, or how about we go the other way, and we say everybody 30 and under is covered by Medicare, and in another year, another two years, everybody 35 and under is covered by Medicare. How about if we let more of the population shift to Medicare

immediately by letting employers buy directly and drop private insurance and put people into Medicare? How about if we let people individually be able to buy into Medicare instead of having private insurance? In fact, I'll tell you, I have a bill that I put out last year that Bernie is a co-sponsor on that says if you're going to have any private insurance, one of the provisions we ought to put into law right now is private insurance has to at least cover what Medicare covers. So that's what I mean by there are a lot of different paths, but we all know, or at least I know where we're aiming, and that is the center of this, where we're trying to head to, is that everyone has Medicare coverage and that everyone in this country has coverage at a price they can afford. And let me just add on that, think about what it means that Democrats are talking about, okay, is the way to get there that you do it? Bernie said, well, let's do it

over four years. Other people say, let's do it over six years. Some people say, let's build up from Medicaid instead of from Medicare. Others say, start with the young people, start with the older people, lots of different ways. That's the conversation Democrats are having. You just reject this. It's all or nothing. Well, but here's my point. While the Republicans are out there at the same moment doing everything they can right now to take away health care from tens of millions of Americans. And, you know, they've still got the lawsuit pending down in Texas that they're trying to repeal all of the Affordable Care Act, the Medicaid, they're

trying to cut Medicaid, and they're doing everything they can through HHS and the regulations around that to undercut it. So I think this is a great moment for what primaries are about, is to get the ideas out there, get a lot of people to talk about. But the point is to build the kind of energy, grassroots energy in this country for Medicare for all so that Democrats win 2020. We've got the House. We've got the Senate. We are ready to move forward and get everybody covered. It has been a very substantive primary so far. It has. Let's keep it that way. Other candidates listening. Not you, you've been perfect. So President Trump recently

declared a national emergency on the southern border so that he can take a bunch of money from other places to pay for his stupid wall. There is no emergency. This is absurd. I think everyone knows that, including Mitch McConnell, even though he flip-flopped on it. But it's also clear to me, I think, that the Republicans aren't going to stop him. I mean, Congress could block him in this instance, but it would require Republican votes. And I think we're all sick of waiting for them to be courageous. So I guess my question to you is, shouldn't Democrats say to Republicans, if you're not going to step up and protect the institution of Congress and enforce the old rules, then these are now the new rules and that we're going to play by these rules when a Democrat is elected. And we fully intend to use a national emergency to advance Democratic priorities or things that are actually an emergency, like climate change. Yeah, which is an emergency, right? We got a lot of real emergencies.

So here's how I see this. I'm not quite ready to give up the way you implied in that question. In that fight. Yeah. In the following sense, there is no emergency at the border. So the facts are just wrong on this. Second, I don't think he has legal authority to do this. And he's not going to be able to do anything right now. As you know, 16 states have sued him. We're going to see a lot of law. And that's just going to be the beginning of the lawsuits. This is going to be like full employment for lawyers who can spell constitution, right? But we're going to see a piling on of these lawsuits. Ultimately, the courts will settle out what is the legal authority here of the president of the United States. So the threat here is not imminent.

We can continue to have this constitutional debate around it. I think the president is wrong on this. But I do think it is a moment to talk about what you think a real emergency is. And to talk about that emergency in terms of trying to highlight for all of us, this is the responsibility of government. Government's job is to look out there and see what's coming. And climate change is upon us. I'm going to say something really controversial here. I hope everybody listening be calm out there. This is controversial. I believe in science.

And climate change is real. It's man-made. And we have got to act. We're running out of time on this, the urgency of the moment. running out of time on this, the urgency of the moment. And banging on that drum, I think, is critically important right now. And I want to say it. I want to do the emphasis on that in a big public sense again, because I see our opportunity in 2019 and, you know, up through November of 2020 as a chance to pull more people in on the core issues.

And I think, look, I think the questions about the power of precedent are very, very important. Come on. I believe in this. But we've got to be out there talking to the American people about the stuff that touches their lives. We really do have to be talking about a government that's not working for them, talking about universal childcare, talking about people who are just getting crushed by student loans, talking about the importance of raising the minimum wage and the opportunity to join a union.

Talking about climate change. Talking about gun safety. Talking about the things and making them real that affect people every single day. And saying to them, hey, look, maybe you're already a Democrat, then you should be a fired up Democrat. Maybe you're an independent, but man, if you're worried about climate change, or if you're worried about gun safety, or if you're worried about your student loan debt, or how you're going to get your kid in some kind of high quality, affordable daycare, we are the party who is working for you. We're the party who's trying. And that's our

chance to write back some of those Trump voters. I want us to use this period of time to build the grassroots movement. So when we win in 2020, we are ready to start making those changes. Look, I'm 100% with you. But I do think there's a lot of Democrats out there who look at the past few years and are pissed off. They look at Mitch McConnell stealing a Supreme Court seat. They look at the way Trump right now is completely ignoring the Magnitsky Act requirements he has to report to Congress about whether the Saudis, whether he's going to sanction the Saudis for murdering a journalist. They're pissed off that he's using

a national emergency declaration to take away from Congress its most clearly articulated power in the Constitution, which is the power of the purse. And so I think they're wondering, are Democrats, when we get power back, going to fight fire with fire? Or are we going to try to return to norms and institutions that seem a little passe, especially when you have someone as craven as Mitch McConnell in charge for the Republican side? I think that's sort of what I'm trying to get at. So maybe the best place to look at that one, how about if we do it in the specific around when we think about the rules on voting, right? What's going to take a 60-person majority? Are we really going to have a filibuster?

Or are we going to say 51? Now, I'm somebody who believed very, very strongly in filibuster reform. I'm on the record on this. I fought for it for a long time because the Republicans completely blocked us, right? They weren't letting us put anybody in the courts. But it was worse than that. Not worse, equally bad. They also weren't letting us put anybody in the consumer agency.

So the agency couldn't get its legal, full legal authority. NLRB, they're about to shut down the NLRB. And the answer to that, and I think it was the right answer, was just to say we're done on the filibuster. And I voted for it. I strongly supported it. Harry blew it up. Harry blew it up, and I think Harry was right to blow it up.

I strongly supported him when he did that. Now the Republicans turn around, and they took the filibuster and blew it up even more. So they said even on a Supreme Court nominee, and we hadn't even done anything yet, right? So first they steal a Supreme Court seat, then they turn around and change the rules on filibuster on a Supreme Court seat. And so when it swings back around to us, what are we going to do? And my answer on that is, all the options are on the table, that that's how we got to do this. If the Republicans are going to try to block us on key pieces that we're trying to move forward, then you better believe we got to keep all the options on the table. And I think that's the way we should be describing it right now on everything that the Republicans are doing,

that nobody's going to forget what happened here and all the options are on the table. We're not going to play, let them play by one set of rules and then we play by the, you know, polite, everybody drinks tea and and keeps a curled pinky up while they do it i'm just not for that i'm not on the morning joe civility rules i like that answer very much um quick to turn to some foreign policy if that's okay i'm ready okay so there is a humanitarian crisis in venezuela um people are literally starving to death hospitals don't have like gauze or band-aids, like the most basic supplies. The Trump administration has recognized the National

Assembly President Juan Guaido as the president and encouraged a bunch of other countries to follow suit. And frankly, what was a pretty impressive diplomatic play by them. He also sanctioned Venezuela's oil industry, which is a major step, which could cut off all their supply of dollars and their ability to have an economy. Do you agree with those two steps, recognizing Guaido and the sanctions on the oil sector? And if so, I mean, how do we back up a step as bold as saying, there's a new president, and it's this guy that we named, especially given our history in Latin America? So I want to broaden this one out just a little bit. Start with the fact that Maduro is obviously a dictator.

He's terrible. He's stolen this election. It's a nightmare. It's a nightmare for the people of Venezuela. So that's part one. Part two, this notion of using our diplomatic tools, I'm all for it. I think recognition, I think getting our allies to do it, it's a way to bring diplomatic pressure. Economic sanctions, yeah, I support economic sanctions, but now we're going

to start, we've got to turn the dial some here. We have to offer humanitarian help at the same time. We can't let people starve. It doesn't matter that Maduro is willing to let his own people starve. So for example, let me pick one that's at least a little easier to deal with. A lot of people are fleeing the country. And that means they're loading up around the borders, the countries around the borders. The social services are under enormous strain. Refugee camps are springing up. We should be leading the international community to get help to those people, to make sure that they've got food, they've got medicine, they've got care.

And frankly, that makes it easier for people who are in Venezuela. They have fewer people dividing the resources, more people seeing an option that if they get out of the country, at least for a period of time, and that puts more pressure on Maduro. of time, and that puts more pressure on Maduro. The part you didn't talk about, though, and I just think it's worth mentioning here, Trump did something else besides doing the diplomatic recognition, because I'm all for the diplomatic part of this. He also did a lot of saber rattling. And given America's history in South America, frankly, our history all around the globe now. I think rattling sabers when we should not be considering a military intervention is a real mistake. I think that it causes the president to burn the credibility of the United States and to remind everyone of times when we have intervened that were not only bad for our

government, they were sure bad for the local folks. So I think that our focus should be on diplomatic and on humanitarian relief. And I just have to emphasize this part again. I said it, but I want to let it just go in passing. Working with our allies. This is why we need allies. This notion now that Trump cozies up to Putin and Kim Jong-un and Xi and can't get along with Canada. I mean, who can't get along with Merkel? Everybody likes Canada. Exactly. Like Justin Trudeau. likes Canada. Exactly. The Europeans that are allies. These are the times that we should be working with our allies, our European allies, our Canadian allies, our Asian allies, to move in and

support together. That increases the pressure on Maduro. It helps with humanitarian relief. And it undercuts any notion that the United States is big footing around South America or any other part of the world. There's a reason we need our allies. And this is one of those times. We need to work together. We'll have a lot more diplomatic and economic power if we do that. Agreed. The first bill that the Senate put forward was a bill called S-1, which did a whole bunch of stuff. It was military support to Israel. I think it was some policy towards Jordan, some additional sanctions in Syria. But then there was a really controversial provision that would allow state and municipal governments to punish companies that boycott,

divest from, or place sanctions on Israel, the so-called BDS movement. The BDS. Why did you oppose S-1? So I oppose the boycott, but I oppose a law that permits punishment of people who want to support the boycott. This is one where I stand with the ACLU. I just don't think we do that in the United States. I'm opposed. I opposed it when it came up earlier. I've spoken out against it.

I've written letters on this. I don't think that's the place we go. I know that Israel faces real challenges. So do the Palestinians. I think the way we can be a good ally to Israel is we can push again toward a two-state solution, toward a long-term solution in this area. And look, I get it. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world. It's a liberal democracy. We don't have a lot of allies over there that follow the liberal democratic traditions. But a good ally urges friends to get together and work out a solution. And the Palestinians and the Israelis need to be back at the negotiating

table. The United States should not be dictating terms. We should not be putting shits on the table or taking them off, but we should be pushing them to negotiate a two-state solution. So totally agree. And President Obama spent a lot of time pushing the Palestinians and the Israelis to try to negotiate a Middle East peace process, a two-state solution. But, you know, one major sticking point in that peace process has been Israeli settlement construction. And, you know, we put a lot of, there were a lot of carrots. There were a lot of things offered to Netanyahu, some that haven't even been reported in terms of military hardware and other incentives that come to the table.

And they, to their credit, the Israelis did have some settlement freezes and the Palestinians refused to engage. But, you know, at this point, we're at a point where a lot of members of the Likud party, President Netanyahu's or Prime Minister Netanyahu's party are talking about annexing the West Bank. And it feels like the chance for incentives to bring them to the table for a two-state solution or to end settlement construction are unlikely to work. And I'm curious if you would consider a pressure track that included some sort of punitive approach that might force them into negotiations or to stop settlement construction. So let me say, I think we have to stop to acknowledge what has changed during the Trump administration. The pressure toward a two-state solution obviously has gone away. And in fact, the whole publicly naming Jerusalem as the capital and moving our embassy took one of the things that should have been decided by the parties. It's not our decision.

It's their decision and how they wanted to handle that. It made it very clear we're standing on one side in these negotiations. And the problem with that is it doesn't encourage negotiation. In fact, the Palestinians refused to talk since that happened. That's exactly right. To Jared's magical plan. There you go. Plus, the Israelis now have less incentive to talk, right?

That's a part of what's happening in this. So the way I see what you're talking about, as you said, we have pushed it this far under the Obama administration was never going to work, that you couldn't keep pushing harder. Because over time, realities are bearing down on Israel, demographic realities, births and deaths, what the region looks like. And I think that this is a moment, not while Trump is in there playing the game that he's playing, but that the opportunity soon to get Israel back to the table and get the Palestinians back to the table. If we, the United States, can be an honest broker and can encourage, again, other nations, other allies to help support that. I actually have just a little spark of optimism. Let's call it a glimmer. Can we start with glimmer?

I'm pro-hope. I'm pro-glimmers. I'm pro-Hope. I'm pro-Glimmer. But I mean, when I look at Israel, I look at Bibi Netanyahu putting up campaign signs that feature big photos of him and President Trump. This weekend, he released a TV ad attacking his opponent, Benny Gantz, and accusing him of colluding with Obama behind his back. And it had this grainy, darkened image of Obama. And I'm just wondering, does it worry you that such a close ally has fully aligned

with one political party, the Republican Party? Yes. No, this is the part. That's why I was talking about the difference between the administrations. Yes. And honestly, I don't think this is good for Israel. I mean, I think this is terrible for Israel and that that's the direction he's going. Of course, also remember, you know, he is under investigation, others in his administration, in his family. Are we talking Netanyahu or Trump? Oh, I'm sorry. Which one were we talking about? Yeah. Sentence applies in both places, doesn't it? But I think that is part of the point. Trump is not forever and neither is Netanyahu. Mm-hmm. Good point. Switching gears a little bit. So I know your brothers all served in the military

and one flew combat missions in Vietnam. Did their service shape how you view, let's say, the use of force or the use of the military as president? And I guess, is there a post-World War II conflict that you look at and you think that was a right, justified use of military action? That's an interesting question. Let me tell you how it shaped. I think it undoubtedly did. That I grew up, because my brothers are a lot older than I am, I grew up in the shadow of a family constantly worried that one of my brothers wouldn't come home. That Don Reed flew in Vietnam was obviously the main one. 288 combat missions. That's- Wow. 288 combat missions? 288 combat missions. That's incredible.

Yes, it is. And to this day, I feel my heart flutter when I say that. I lived watching my mother always checking the mail. It was always there. both of the incredible bravery and sacrifice of those who say, I'll put it on the line. My brother John was stationed in Morocco. It was much safer. It was at a different time, but still. He was far, far away, couldn't come home for a year. There was some shooting.

And they have agreed. That's what they've agreed to do. David, my youngest brother, trained as a combat medic. Now, it turned out he never had to be sent to combat. So the first part of it for me is the reminder that it is an extraordinary decision to sign up for military service. And that means there is a moral obligation incumbent on those who would send our military into harm's way to make sure that it is done for well thought out reasons when truly our security and safety are on the line. Not just for politics, not just that it's got to be real. And it's hard to find a place where that's been the case. Right. I mean, I think that's sort of a driving. I mean, we all know now that Iraq was sold to the United States under false pretenses. But, you know, if someone I loved had served in Vietnam and it would piss me off that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 64 was forced through Congress under false pretenses.

And when Johnson and the administration figured out that there were those false pretenses, that was never real to the American people, and they continue to use that authorization. So I'm just curious if— Well, it's when McNamara said. Right. He knew that we'd lost, but he didn't pull out. And thousands and thousands of people continued to die. Young Americans, 18, 19, 20 years old, had been sent over.

And he later claimed as part of his great confession that he knew it was lost, great confession that he knew it was lost and yet he kept sending our our brothers our sisters to die over there yeah i mean that would piss me off yeah and well it's you know it's this defining moment in our history i mean obama was sort of a post-vietnam president but um i think for a lot of people who are in the military there are some who who feel that Vietnam is an instance of where we should have gone all in earlier and didn't have the backbone to win the war. Right. Like you hear that from some parties. Others, I think you think, how could we possibly trust our government when they tell us why we're going into war. And I'm just curious, like, if that experience, especially how personal it is for you, maybe makes you distrustful of some of the claims that might be made for why we could go to a war in Iran or whatever the next thing might be. So I think of it as surely we have learned our lesson that we need to ask the question once, ask the question twice, look at the evidence over and over and over before we move in. And obviously,

during the George W. Bush administration, the whole weapons of mass destruction was just made up. It was just a lie to the American people. I think of this just a little bit differently. And I think of this just a little bit differently. And that is, if we're going to use military force, that we need to be a whole lot more thoughtful about what exactly we think military force can accomplish. You know, there's a big toolbox out there. And there's a lot of diplomatic tools in there. And there's a lot of economic tools in there, and there's a lot of economic tools in there. Why military? Okay, on the front. And then the question is, what's the back end of this look like? So the military do X and then what? And what do we expect to have happen? Is it the military going to go this far and then

economic support is going to move in and it's going to cause something to happen or a lot of diplomatic help? So for me, I think what frustrates me, and it has in virtually every discussion about using military force since I've been old enough to follow it, is there's always a lot about the front end. And nothing about the middle and the back end. And that that's how we end up in the endless war of Afghanistan. That's how we end up. Yes, that's exactly right. And that can't be right. That cannot be our approach going forward. We are running out of time, but you and Congressman Adam Smith recently introduced legislation that says, quote, it is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons

first. Yes. Close quotes. A very brief, but very important piece of legislation. And I think a conversation that, again, unfortunately, isn't just academic. Everyone knows we use nuclear weapons in World War II, but that didn't swear us off using them, right? I mean, Truman debated using nuclear weapons during Korea. Eisenhower was telling Johnson to use them in Vietnam. Westmoreland was talking about it with a working group. We are planning to spend a trillion dollars on nuclear weapons to upgrade our arsenal. Why did you think it was important to put this policy forward? Because you also noticed you put it in

your foreign policy speech, and it was, it jumped out at me. That's right. In fact, I didn't hide this. Yeah. This is right out front. And I'll tell you exactly why. It's because we're having a conversation in the U.S. Senate right now. I sit on Senate Armed Services about usable nuclear weapons. Tactical, strategic nukes. Yeah, you can use all those fancy words because they're euphemisms. And it's, oh, we want nuclear weapons so we can totally blow up a city, but not the entire country around it. And that would mean usable, just by definition means more likely to use. And that that's been the push from the Trump administration and the

Republicans jumping up and down for this. I think that we need to have a conversation about nuclear weapons, and I think we need to make clear there is a real risk to that kind of conversation and that kind of wrong in the next big crisis and someone miscalculates a signal that we've sent or missiles that are conventional weapon that we have sent, that we have increased the odds of a nuclear holocaust. Global annihilation. Yeah. Yeah. Final question for you. So Massachusetts, our home state, we've produced a lot of winners. We have. We have the Patriots, we have the Red Sox, we have the Celtics, even the Bruins. Everyone in the room now hates me. We've had less luck with presidential candidates, Dukakis, Kerry, Romney, Ted Kennedy, kinda, and 80.

Excuse me, can I just stop you right there? John F. Kennedy. I know, I know. If we go back a little further, we had one serious badass. But why are you the Massachusetts-an, I guess, Baystater? Baystater. Whatever we say. Who can put it over the top? Look, for me, this isn't about politics. It just never was. This is my life's work. And it grows out of who I am. I am the daughter of a janitor who got a chance to be a public school teacher, to be a college professor, to be a United States senator, and now to be a candidate for president of the United States. Because America invested in a college education for a kid like me. Because America set the minimum wage at a place where my family could survive and didn't lose its home and get tossed out on the street. I believe in an America that recognizes the value of every kid. That's our best statement of who we want to be. I look around and see this government that just works great for those at the top.

I want to make this government work great for everyone else. That's why I'm in it. All right. Senator Warren, thank you so much for coming. I won't tell the other guys that you said Luca is the best, and we can clearly hear Pundit barking as the interview careens to a close. Yes, well, Bailey loves it all. Oh, Bailey. He's a dog. Thank you again. He's a good dog.

He's a very good dog. Thanks to Elizabeth Warren for joining us. And we'll see you next week. Yeah, I'll be in studio next week. We've got a special episode. Oh, we have a great set of interviews next week yeah i'll be in studio next week we got a special episode oh we have a we have a great set of interviews next week it's gonna be really fun all right i'll see you down here next weekend all right bye Bye.