Pod Save America - "Fascist cosplay." (LIVE in Boston)

Episode Date: April 12, 2019

Trump embraces lawlessness on immigration, congressional Democrats press for Trump's tax returns, and the 2020 candidates hit the trail in an economy that is growing while growing more unequal. Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins joins Jon, Jon, Tommy, Dan and Demos's Heather McGhee live on stage in Boston. 

All right. What's up, Austin? Good to be home. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Heather McGee. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor.

I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Later in the show, we'll talk to the groundbreaking, history-making district attorney of Suffolk County, Rachel Rollins is here. We'll play some games, we'll have some fun, but first, let's talk about everything that happened this week in the burgeoning banana republic we call America. So here's what went down this week. First, Trump purged the leadership of the Homeland Security Department because they told him his extreme immigration proposals aren't legal. And while he was in California, he actually personally ordered Border Patrol agents to ignore judges. Then the president had his Treasury Secretary prevent the IRS from giving Congress his tax returns,

which the law clearly states they are obligated to do. And finally, Trump's handpicked attorney general admitted to Congress that Robert Mueller did not ask him to make the final decision on whether the president obstructed justice and repeated Trump's conspiracy that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign, something that the attorney general now says he's looking into. So the attacks on the rule of law or institutions have stepped up this week. Heather, how alarmed should we be by these actions? And what are the consequences?

Why should people at home actually care about this? That's a really good question, because I think in a lot of democratic circles right now, there's like, we shouldn't be paying attention to all of this corruption, the Russia stuff, the Mueller report obviously didn't go our way because, you know, Olivia Pope,

a.k.a. William Barr, handled it for the president. But it's extremely important. I mean, let's just take one of these issues, right? His tax returns. Now, I don't think that Democrats should, you know, sort's just take one of these issues, right, his tax returns. Now, I don't think that Democrats should, you know, sort of Mueller report eyes the tax returns, right, this idea that, like, we look at the tax returns and it'll show that, like, Putin gave him all his money. Like, that's not going to happen.

We got to. But, you know, the other thing that happened this week is that his sister resigned. It happened a couple months ago, but it, you know, broke. His sister resigned, it happened a couple months ago, but it broke, his sister resigned from the federal judiciary so that an ethics investigation into the patently illegal tax shenanigans that had been done in their family to give him and her sister and brother, Donald Trump,

about half a billion dollars tax free, it was coming to get her. And so she resigned instead of, you know, face the music. So these are the kinds of things that, of course, it matters. Yeah. It's like, who did she participate in that scheme with? Her brother, the president. But he's fine. Yeah, exactly. I'm amazed they get along. I just think the one thing that's the most shocking is that there wasn't like a multi-de-long fight over Fred Trump's estate. It seems like these people wouldn't have been able to solve this.

It seems like there was enough to go around. There was enough to go around because when he was three years old, he was getting paid by the Trump Senior Corporation $200,000 a year when he was three years old. He was a millionaire by eight. Self-made man. But of course he's a self-made man. old. He was a millionaire by eight. But of course, he's a self-made man.

Dan, what's the ultimate goal of Trump and Stephen Miller and senior White House advisor Lou Dobbs on immigration? Because it doesn't seem like Trump's goal here is to just deal with the influx of asylum seekers at the border. It seems like there's something broader going on here. You think? So I think there's a long-term goal and a short-term goal. The long-term goal, to be very clear, is a whiter America. It's like, Stephen Miller is a white nationalist, Trump has run on a white nationalist agenda,

the goal is to make America as white as possible. And we see this from the proposals, right? They want more immigration from Nordic countries, from places like that. They don't want immigration from Africa or from South America or in Central America. Like, turn on the live stream of the Trump cabinet meeting,

and by that I mean primetime on Fox News, and that's exactly what they're arguing for. Now, the short-term argument, the short-term goal here is to create a sense of crisis and fear about immigration in this country right now that will help animate the Republican base for the 2020 election. Yeah, I mean, I couldn't be happier that Kirstjen Nielsen got canned this week. Trump owns every piece of his immigration policy, but she wasn't particularly well-qualified for the job, and she oversaw the family separation policy, which was an abomination,

and she will live with having overseen that until the day she dies. And lied about it. And lied about it. But, I mean, it's also, we should just note that they, he lopped off the top five most senior people at the Department of Homeland Security. That is crazy. That is like Nixonian. And it's crazy not just for immigration, right? I mean, it goes beyond. The Department of Homeland Security does more than immigration.

He fired the head of Secret Service. We have no idea why. And so the stated reason is that he needs people to get tough, or he wants people to get tougher. But we should be crystal clear with what John said earlier. I mean, what he means by tough is he wants them to break the law to keep immigrants out. He literally said in front of a press pool spray that he wants the U.S. military to rough people up, women, children, desperate people coming across the border as they're trying to get into the country.

He said there was someone in the White House who was quoted on background attacking the DHS general counsel as a, quote, a chicken shit lawyer. I mean, they're doing this all in the open because there is actually a migration crisis that's happening. There's 100,000 people coming every day. But it's getting worse because of Donald Trump's policies and rhetoric. The New York Times had a piece today where they talked about the fact that in Central America, smugglers are running radio ads with talking about Trump's policies, saying if you don't leave now, you can never get in the United States because he's closing off all immigration.

So he's exasperating the problem, like Dan said, I think on purpose to foment a crisis at the border and help get reelected. And let's be clear about why he thinks that a crisis at the border or just the issue of immigration at all is going to help him get reelected. Because it's not like obvious, right? Because so many of his supporters are working class people, working class white people, particularly white older men. And he's saying the reason why you don't have that manufacturing job is not because GM, which is highly profitable, just decided to cut plants anyway to look for cheaper labor. It's not because of, you know, the tax and trade policies of the Republican Party and often of the Democratic Party. He's saying the reason why you're not as secure as you used to be is because of brown people over here and brown people over there. And that kind of divide and conquer is

the only thing he has because his economic agenda is a mess. And it's been, you know, huge tax cuts for the rich and a botched trade policy. It's also, yeah. And, you know, one of the things that's come out of research of Trump voters is a lot of them tend to be people that did a little bit better in parts of the country that were doing really poorly. people that did a little bit better in parts of the country that were doing really poorly. And there's a quality to what Trump is doing. It's fascism cosplay. It's a signal, right? It's for people that, whether they face economic hardship

or just feel put upon by a changing America in some way, that Donald Trump goes out there and says, we should rough him up, don't listen to the judges. It's a signal that he's on their team and that he's for a kind of politics that will protect them against liberals, against brown people, against modernity, against uppity women, restaurants with salads on them

that don't make sense, like, you know, new kinds of dressing. Salads don't make sense. New kinds of lettuce. Oh, there are lots. Iceberg all the way. Yeah, it's not a wedge. You know, you're sitting there in an olive garden. There's goat cheese sneaking in.

That's liberals' fault. Like, every restaurant's got beets, walnuts on a bitter green, and that's not what I grew up with, and I don't like it. Where are my bacon bits? But I think it actually, you know, it is for the cameras, because it's amazing that he'd want to make immigration his centerpiece and that he'd want to foment this crisis. He's been president for two and a half years.

This is his problem. This is his border. This is his growing asylum crisis. This is his failure to contain the mess. This is his failure to build the wall. And I think his assumption has to be going into this that as long as he makes it enough of a fight, as long as he makes enough of a noise, as long as he picks the right villains and acts tough enough and blames enough people, he can get away with the fact that it's a crisis he owns while claiming he's the one that's going to solve it. Well, so, broader question on this. Are Democrats doing enough to check Trump's behavior,

and what other options do they have? Clearly we have seen, you know, he's bulldozing rules, he's bulldozing institutions, he is attempting to skirt the law, I guess is the kindest explanation, if not outright breaking it in others. What should Democrats do here? Because it does seem like they have sort of put impeachment aside. Okay, we've got a House chairman over here. He shouts impeach all over town. I saw him outside that hideous city hall of yours earlier today.

Unbelievable. Hideous. I mean, I'm fine with Pelosi icing impeachment talk for a while because I think she's smart in literally everything she does, and she's probably hearing from a bunch of moderates that they don't want to deal with talk impeachment in their districts, so let's just hold on that for now. But I do think that all the other committees should be going full bore in all their investigative capacities

starting now. So obviously we have the sort of William Barr, the Attorney General, is just, you know, playing goalie for Trump. He's going to try to prevent the release of the Mueller report, so we should go ham on trying to get that thing back. But there's also ways and means should be able to get a copy of Trump's tax returns. And if Treasury and Steve Mnookin, who got so pissy at Maxine Waters

about having to sit through a hearing, he just huffed it. He's like, I have an important meeting. There's some two-bit economic minister from the UAE. He's such a fucking tool. I want to just say something that I'm going to cut from the podcast. This is the most unfuckable voice I've ever heard in my life. Leave it in.

Leave it in. Title? Sorry. It's okay. There's been a couple, there's been some interesting pieces written about how New York State has to keep copies of tax returns. So the Ways and Means Committee could subpoena the tax returns from the Trump, the Trump organization,

the Trump family from New York State officials, or state legislators in New York could decide that anyone who lives in New York who's a statewide elected official or higher has to release their tax returns. So the governor releases his, the mayor. So there's a lot of creative ways we could get at these tax returns. Because the story you mentioned earlier about Trump's sister resigning her post was on A19 of the New York Times. There's so much going on in this world that shit, that is like a huge flashing signal that there is something there. And we got to figure out what it is. Well, Heather, what do

you think? I mean, do Democrats, do they have to walk and chew gum at the same time here? Or like how much emphasis should be placed on the investigation side on all these stories that we hear about Trump? And how much should Democrats be thinking? Democrats be thinking, because I'm sure a lot of consultants, a lot of polling is telling them what real people care about is their jobs, their wages, their healthcare. All this stuff is a distraction. And yet, there's part of me that says,

okay, we can do that and win an election, but are we setting a very dangerous precedent here by ignoring this and saying, okay, it's okay for this president and potentially future presidents to just do whatever they please, hire attorney generals who are going to engage in a cover-up for them,

and that's okay because we've got to focus on the issues. So I think it's really important for the sake of American standing in the world for there to be accountability for this president. And I think that's the job of the U.S. House of Representatives. And I think that, fortunately, right now, U.S. House of Representatives. And I think that fortunately right now we've got a lot of Democrats. We've got 20,000 running for president. And all of those fine men and women can and should talk about health care and the economy and jobs and debt-free

college and education and Medicare for all and climate change, but the people who run the committees in the House, they're not passing any legislation that's going to get through the Senate. Their full-time job should be making sure that we know every single crooked thing that this president, his campaign, and his administration have ever done. So the thing I would just...

Like, my personal view is that when the founders were thinking of the impeachment clause, they were imagining someone like Donald Trump. That's right. And that's like... I'm not even kidding in the sense that what they're imagining is a figure who wants to be a monarch

who is lining his own pockets at the expense of American people. That's right. So impeach him, indict him, 25th Amendment him, I don't give a shit. That's the right thing to happen. But here's the problem, and this is why, this is my response to our friend in the, out there, who's yelling impeach at every stop, is like, let's play this out, right? So let's say the Democrats start an impeachment hearing. They have the hearings, we uncover a bunch of stuff, the House votes, it's a tight vote, some moderate Democrats don't do it, but we squeak out an impeachment if Trump out of the hearings. We uncover a bunch of stuff. The House votes. It's a tight vote.

Some moderate Democrats don't do it, but we squeak out an impeachment if Trump out of the House. It goes to the Senate. Mitch McConnell allows the trial to happen. Then the Senate gives a not guilty verdict to McConnell, probably bipartisan, because our friend Joe Manchin decides

he wants to burnish that both sides cred. The New York Times writes a headline the next day, in bipartisan vote, Senate says Trump not guilty. And I know that's what happened because that's just what happened with the Mueller report. So when Nancy Pelosi is resisting it, I don't think it's just moderate angst at the weekly lunch. I also think she's played this out to the end.

And we don't know how the country will react to Trump being impeached by the House or what they will discover in that. But we do know how Republican senators and the media will treat that event. And I think that's what Nancy Pelosi is thinking. And I think part of the purpose here of all these Democrats doing these investigations and making sure that all this information comes out is so

that when the American people go to the ballot box in 2020, they know exactly what their president, they know the choice, it's part of the choice that they're facing, right? You can continue on the road with this president who has broken all kinds of laws and bulldozed all kinds of norms and institutions in order to enrich himself and his friends, or you can go in this different direction. I mean, it seems like that's part of the choice that we're... And beyond the election, it's just their fucking job. Right.

Right, that is what they get paid for. But so that's, I think, I think there's a, I think that there's a gap that can be closed between impeachment and this sense that they're kind of moving slowly. And I think there's, I think that there's good reason to say, hold on, let's play this out. Let's be strategic about what we get for impeachment. I think that there is no longer a justification for giving the administration time to meet their requests voluntarily. We should just skip that phase.

I think there's like a little too much Ned Stark and not enough Littlefinger. There just needs to be a little bit more of a presumption that these people are operating on terrible motives. So don't give them two weeks to comply before you do the subpoena. Don't worry about the both sides press that might be negative for that. Treat people as if their motives are unpure and be surprised if they meet your demands without being subpoenaed, but don't wait. Because the other thing about impeachment is it takes time. All these investigations take time. Time is Donald Trump's friend right now.

First one he's ever had. True. Okay, we will have more news in a little bit. But first... Now it's time for a game called Okay, Stop. We'll roll more news in a little bit. But first... Now it's time for a game called OK Stop. We'll roll the clip. The panel can say OK Stop at any point to comment.

John Kerry. Hello. Massachusetts native. Brutal. Do a little better for your guy, John Kerry. Earlier this week, he testified before a House committee on climate change when Kentucky Representative Thomas Massey decided to question John Kerry's credentials. It was wild.

Let's take a look. It was wild. Let's take a look. It sounds like you're questioning the credentials of the president's advisors currently, but I don't think we should question your credentials today. Isn't it true you have a science degree from Yale? Bachelor of Arts degree. Is it a political science degree?

Yes, political science. So how do you get a Bachelor of Arts in a science? Okay, stop So Not not the answer he was looking for although what was It's a member of Congress Pay him every one of you pay his salary I also want you all to know something, because we're here in Boston. Did a little digging on this fellow.

He got a degree at one of your mid-tier schools here in Boston called the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This man's a goddamn scientist. That is an MIT grad? Every time. Shame on you. Ben Carson hits the national stage, I discover that brain surgery is easier than I thought it was. Howard Schultz runs for president, I discover running Starbucks is easier than I thought it was.

What are they doing over there at MIT? Well, it's liberal arts education and degree. It's a bachelor. Okay, so it's not really science. So I think it's somewhat appropriate. Okay, stop. Vietnam veteran John Kerry

wants to serve his country even more. He gets a political science degree but it's not science I mean poor John Kerry sitting there Vietnam veteran, senator presidential nominee secretary of state

and now I'm explaining to this douche bag what a liberal arts degree is. Because he doesn't understand what a bachelor of science is. John Kerry has faced down the Viet Cong, President Bush. Now he has come eye to eye with stupid. Now he's a college counselor for a fifth year senior on the lacrosse team. Trying to figure out what the hell he wants to do with his life.

With a pseudoscience degree is here pushing pseudoscience. Okay, stop. Listen, I do think it's fair to call a political science degree from Yale pseudoscience. We gotta play it straight. Alright? I don't like where

he goes with it. I don't like his aims. I don't like this guy. I'll be honest. Well, we can tell the truth about a BA in political science. If it were as a BA in American studies, even a little wishy-washy-er than that, I think if he had said a BA in economics, we would say that's a dismal science. It's made stuff up. Political science is, I think, something he should respect as a politician. Every time he looks at his campaign's polls, that's part of political science.

Okay. Our committee today. I want to ask you, are you serious? Are you serious? Okay, stop. He gets so pissed. Now you applaud for John Kerry. I know.

John Kerry's like, that's the line I should have used at that debate. That is the funniest John Kerry has ever been in his whole fucking life. That's the rudest thing a Boston Brahmin has ever said. It's so harsh.

It's also a pent up, are you serious? It's also a pent-up, are you serious? I think he's meant to say, are you serious, since he was swift-voted. It's just like, are you serious? Are you serious, all of you? But it's not science. You're not quoting science. Well, you're the science

expert. You got the political science degree. We now know that definitively, at no point during the least the past 800,000 years has atmospheric CO2 been as high as it is today. The reason you chose 800,000 years ago is because for 200 million years before that, it was greater than it is today. And I'm going to say it for the record. Yeah, but there weren't human beings. I mean, that was a different world, folks. Okay, stop. That's so good.

Really tripped up the MIT grad, didn't he? It's, um... You tripped up the MIT grad, didn't you? We're going to boil alive on this planet. And it's all time we make preparations. No, I think it's also like, I don't know this Massey fellow. I don't know what led him to public office, to a career of serving his home, but I don't think Massey believes he's a tool of a large corporate propaganda effort designed for moments just like this. Like, an entire apparatus of propaganda has been built over decades to lead to this moment of John Kerry faithfully and honestly trying to relay science to an engineer who wants no part of it. To a lump of coal come to life.

Yeah. Come a congressman. No, but it's just a reminder, too, that so much of this is not about persuasion of someone like this. That there's nothing John Kerry could say in this moment to persuade this someone to believe the truth. John Kerry could say in this moment to persuade this someone to believe the truth because his entire career, his entire livelihood depends on making sure his job is to act embarrassed on behalf of John Kerry. And that's 2019. But there's a broader point here, which is there is a connection between this gentleman serving in Congress and asking these questions, Donald Trump being president, and Fox News's dominance on the right, is it has created an incentive for stupidity,

Fox News' dominance on the right, is it has created an incentive for stupidity. Right? There is not an argument to be made. It is to basically act as dumb as you possibly can, and that will get you plotted retweets, cable spots from the dumbest people in America who currently run America. Right.

Yeah. Not a great situation. It's not good. Oh, he's still going. It's a 2,000 parts per million if we humans weren't here because there were all kinds of geologic events happening on earth which spewed did geology stop when we got

on the planet Mr. Chairman this is just not a serious conversation your testimony is not serious ok stop I heard you oh my Your testimony is going to be serious. Okay, stop. I heard you. Oh, my.

That's here for John Kerry. Kerry did great. That's here for John Kerry. That was good. John Kerry. John Kerry putting a big win on the board, and that's okay. Stop. All right, let's get back to the news.

I don't know if anyone saw this, but this morning, our president proudly tweeted a screenshot from Lou Dobbs' television program where a new poll showed that 55% of Americans hold a favorable opinion of the president. But just this once, Lou Dobbs made an error. And the poll actually says that 55% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of the president, and only 40% hold a favorable view.

But there's more to this poll. The poll also confirms what almost every other poll has found. One of Trump and the Republican Party's biggest advantages heading into 2020 is that a majority of Americans, 58%, approve of Trump's economic performance. And they also side with Republicans over Democrats on the issues of the economy and job creation. This is despite the fact that we have record inequality, stagnant wages, and huge Democratic advantages on issues like health care, education, even immigration and taxes. So Linda Lake, the Democratic strategist who conducted the poll,

says that if the party does not rectify this problem soon, quote, it will find itself in serious jeopardy for the 2020 election. Heather, what do you think explains the paradox here? Democratic advantages on healthcare, education, Republican advantage on jobs in the economy? So I think that for the past 40 years, there has been a concerted, coherent narrative from the right that has not just been from the right. It's on CNBC. It's sort of the sort of mainstream story of the economy. And that is that the free market is best and that government should just get out of the way. And that's something that Democrats have often stumbled into parroting as well. And so when you have a Republican in office who's a business person who did the things that most people

expect Republicans to do on the economy, which is cut regulations and cut taxes. There's just a sort of deep level of common sense, if you're an American steeped in this story, that like, yeah, that's the right thing to do. At the same time, 40% of American families would go into debt or sell something if they got a $400 bill on their doorstep because they couldn't pay it. So what we need is an alternative story of how the economy grows, who it works for, and it's a story about power. The fact is the government has always played a massive role in creating markets, creating rules for markets, creating public investments. And I think there aren't that many Democrats who are willing to tell that story in a way that isn't just about a government program, but is also about what government can do to make the economy flourish for everyone. I think there's also something here

that is really depressing in the context of how Americans see America. Which is for a very, very long time, the Americans view of the American economy was aspirational. Right? It's that I can, I have a chance to get to the next level up. Whether that is to working class or to middle class or even above that. to working class or to middle class or even above that. It's one of the reasons why Americans have generally been less sort of aggressive towards wealthy Americans or corporations in the past. But the combination of decades of wage stagnation,

of growing inequality on top of the trauma of the 2008 financial crisis makes me worry that people are willing to accept something less in their economy, which is my wages haven't gone up, but I have a job. I probably have two. Or two, but it's stable, right? Like after 2008, where everything got turned upside its head,

where people were losing their homes, losing their jobs every day, is that this has become a new normal, and Trump is benefiting from that because it's like, well, this is better than what we had just a few years ago, Trump is benefiting from that, because it's like, well, this is better than what we had just a few years ago, so we'll accept that, as opposed to aspiring for something more.

And Democrats have to give people, they have to paint a vision of something people can aspire to that feels tangible, and not just pie in the sky. Yeah, I mean. I think there's probably a couple reasons for his numbers on the economy. One, I mean, there is consistent job growth month over month.

Unemployment is low. And so that gets reported out. And that's the mood music of economic news that people see. Two, he says how great the economy is all the time. He drives it into our head and he drives a news cycle. And Democrats have absolutely not figured out a coherent message to push back on that. I do think that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are circling around one. They have formulated one, but they're one of 250 people running for president. If one of them is the nominee, then they'll go head-to-head,

and we'll see how that goes. I spent too much time in 2016 telling myself things I wanted to hear about why we're going to be okay, and I don't want to do that anymore. But Harry Enten, who's a really smart data scientist reporter for CNN, made the point that he doesn't think that Trump's economic numbers are going to be a huge help for him in 2020, because they haven't been a huge help for him any day leading up to today, right? So his economic numbers are doing well, but his average approval is still 42%.

So that doesn't give me hope, but it's context. I also think, like, there's no way in hell this fucking guy is going to run a disciplined economic campaign, right? He's going to be out there saying crazy shit about everybody, screaming slurs about, you know, Warren or whoever it is. That's going to be the campaign. So we should be ready for that and have our message

and be disciplined when he's not. Yeah, so that was my next question, which is basically he had the same exact advantage on the economy in 2018. All these polls showed the same exact thing. It did not accrue to his advantage at all. He didn't take advantage of that because all he did was talk about the caravan,

the invasion, and stuff like that. That was to the Democrats' benefit because the Democrats talked about healthcare the whole election and Donald Trump talked about immigration and this invasion of a caravan. Therefore, he didn't make the election about the economy. Do you all think this

might change in 2020? What might his economic argument sound like if he or even if it's not Donald Trump if it's like all the aligned Republican super PACs right because you can't trust him to be on message but there's going to be billions and billions of dollars spent on super PACs they're not just going to be talking about how this is a wonderful economy with low unemployment they're going to be talking about those Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Democratic proposals. What are they going to be saying?

What are we going to hear from them? And then sort of how do we counter that? So we don't know. But I think that there is this, I think you start to see with what Trump's doing now, I think you start to see the shape of what we're heading towards. And I think you can look at it as three things. One, it is this anti-immigrant base play to make sure his people turn out. The second is just tearing the Democrat down, whoever it is,

just trying to make the kind of non-voters who would traditionally maybe help us win, who didn't show up enough in 2016, right? Try to make sure people stay depressed, stay confused, stay home. That'll be tearing Democrats down, attacking Democrats. But I think this, I think you start to see with what he's talking about the economy is it's almost like, it's this little whisper he's putting in people's minds. And it's this little idea of like, you don't like me. I don't like me. And the news is crazy. It's all very noisy and there's all kinds of shit out there. But am I so bad? You look outside your window and it's sunny.

You have a job and there's a car in your driveway. The economy is doing great. I'm saying so. The news is saying so. Do you think this soothing cough medicine ad is his message? I think that implicit in the way he is talking to people is an argument he is making, the same kind of argument that was implicit in his case in 2016,

which is hold your nose and vote for me. You may think I'm an asshole, but these people are fucking crazy and the economy is doing fucking great. I think that is in there, and I think it will be something he is putting in the minds of the kind of white voters that he's thinking will put him over the top, the kind of people that we could win but could lose because they're like, my life's great. I'm racist. I'm in.

I mean, Lovett's point is right, which is every re-election is about the battle between displeasure with the status quo versus fear of change and how that plays itself out. And so that is what the socialism attack is about. That's what getting rid of airplanes and hamburgers and all of that is about. He wants to do that. What we have to do as Democrats, both in the primary, right now, during the primary, and with our nominee, is make the argument for change. Trump wants this to be about how the economy is right now. We want it to be about how the economy could be.

And we have to put forward policies and rhetoric to do that, but we also have to define what the economy is right now. Trump says it's doing great. Why does he say that? Stock market's up, corporate profits are up. What has Trump done? Cut the corporate tax rate by 14 points. Your wages have barely gone up. Democrats are going to do something about that.

That's the message we have to have out there. Yeah. Well... gone up. Democrats are going to do something about that. That's the message we have to have out there. So I think, Lovett, you're right, but in addition to everything's great, it's not so bad, they will add this socialism argument to it. So not only are things pretty good, but what those guys are going to do, if they win, is it's going to be socialism. Let me tell you what socialism is going to mean. They're going to raise your taxes. They have all these plans.

They're going to raise your taxes. And they're going to, yeah, all the Green New Deal scare tactics and all that stuff. You're going to lose your private insurance. 180 million people get kicked off their health care. Yeah, 180 million people are going to lose their private insurance.

So they're going to have not just things are going great now, but this is what the future is. They're going to try to, Trump's going to try to make it a choice, right? It's not just, did I do well this last four years? It's here's the choice. So what do you think the Democrats' counter argument to that is? And do you have any concern about any of the proposals being floated or is this just purely a messaging issue that we can get through? So I think on the substance, this version of the Democratic Party is the best version of the Democratic Party

we've seen since the New Deal. And that's exciting to me as a Democrat who was raised in Reagan and then came into political age in Clinton and has just been looking for a Democratic Party that calls out who it is who's rigging the economy, calls out who's betraying the American dream, and has some answers that are as big as the problems that we face. And that's what this Democratic Party is doing.

That said, I think the Green New Deal is a phenomenal idea. I think it's what is needed. I think it's ridiculous to think that we can do what we need to do on the climate without addressing inequality and joblessness and insecurity. We have to do it all at the same time or else there will be no political will to transform our economy just on climate and not also on inequality. But we have not defined it, right? Fox News is probably our biggest problem. Like, let's just be very clear about that. It is a network that is bought and paid for

by corporate special interests and racist demagogues. And that's this unholy combination. And they plucked some of our great stars and ideas out and said, you know what we're going to do? We're going to define them to our public who may actually be interested in those ideas if they'd ever got a fair hearing. We're going to define them quickly as ridiculous. I think they did that with Elizabeth Warren. They're doing that with AOC, with the Green New Deal. But the good news is, for example, Warren's wealth tax is popular

with the majority of Republican voters. The idea of the Green New Deal, of transforming our economy and a job for everyone who wants one, who can't get one in the private sector, is popular with 80% of Americans, including the majority of Republicans. But we are losing the air war because we're letting the right wing define our stars and our dreams as terrible, scary things.

And we just have got to be more disciplined all the time, saying what it is that our vision is and not letting the right wing define it before we can get out there. I totally agree with you, and it scares the shit out of me. I mean, so Bernie Sanders re-released his Medicare for All plan today and actually made it more generous. But I was sort of reading through the fact sheet he put out on it and somewhere in the fact sheet it said, and ultimately he'll transition everyone off of, or he'll sunset Medicare and Medicaid and put them into this new thing. And my dark, twisted brain went to Bernie Sanders is going to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, right? Like that's the Trump ad. And so we should never base who we vote for or our policy beliefs based off of what the worst Trump lie is going to be. But I do think we should

think through the worst thing you could say about some of these policies just as we formulate them. Because, you know, 70% of people in this country like the private insurance plan they have. It may scare them to hear that they will lose private insurance altogether and be put onto a system that the government provides. And so we'd have to think about how we message that to them. But I also, like, I think every day about the way Fox News plucks out and elevates people within our party

and demagogues them, right? Like, this week, it's Ilhan Omar, who was giving a speech, and she was talking about being a Muslim during the 9-11 attacks, and how some people did something evil, and how like, you know, she and her family and her friends had to sort of deal with that fact. And these monsters acted like she was downplaying or dismissing the 9-11 attacks, and not talking about the trauma that you would feel as a Muslim American, watching that unfold in the country you love and being blamed on it

because you wear a hijab or have black skin or you came from Somalia, right? So like, they're doing this demagoguery every day. And it's not just that we need to be careful. It's that I think that we need to figure out how we're going to defend people like Ilhan Omar, because you can be pissed off. I think that the stupid, lazy, frustrating thing we do in our political system is she said some things about, you know, AIPAC and how maybe support for Israel is based on donations, or there are questions of whether she's suggesting dual loyalty. And reasonable people can find those things offensive. But we can't do that thing in politics where we say,

oof, you said some things in the past that got you in trouble, so now this thing you said today, which is completely reasonable and being twisted out of context, that's on you for screwing that one up too. That's not fair. And we're stuck in this dark place, and it's driving me crazy. I also think that you can't win a fight that you don't have. You can't win a debate that you don't join. And there are obviously political vulnerabilities

around the Green New Deal, obviously political vulnerabilities around Medicare for All, but the worst reaction that Democrats can have to those political vulnerabilities is to say, okay, I'm not going to talk about those things. What you have to do is just win the argument. You know, and you have to look at, like,

we have 10 years to do something about climate before it's too late. And there are about 100 companies that emit 70% of the pollution. Why don't we make those big corporations pay for it? And why don't we use the money to create jobs and economic opportunity for the rest of the country, right? Like, yeah, is it scary to move over

from your insurance plan to a Medicare plan? Maybe, but do you like the way your insurance company treats you now? Do you like the fact that your insurance company and your employer can tell you to get rid of your plan whenever they want? They can move you off your insurance whenever they want? Or do you want to have a guaranteed healthcare plan

where you can see any doctor you want and not pay premiums and deductibles? Because that's what we're offering, right? So like, I do think, and look, and then we can make the fight. And if we lose the fight, we lose the fight. But at least we, at least we made the argument, you know? I think this just, Heather is so right about discipline and repetition here. So it's like, we have a hundred people running for president. We have a lot of other Democrats who are not running for president, but still may. And every one of them are talking to voters, are talking to reporters. They are out there. Every one of us is talking to our friends and

family about politics. So let's just do it this simply, which is under Trump, corporate profits are up, corporate taxes are down. Your wages are stagnant. The cost of your health care is up. The cost of your food is up. The cost of college is up. If you elect Trump, that problem will get worse. If you elect Democrats, we'll fix that problem. Like that, we should fight for the Green New Deal. We should fight about Medicare for all.

But we have to define what his vision of the economy is doing for us. If it is a referendum on the state of the economy, Trump may win. If it is a battle between two different visions for how an economy should work, we have a chance to win. Still waiting on you to start that super PAC, Dan. Alright. Next, we'll have Tommy's interview with Rachel Rollins. And we're back.

John used up all the superlatives in his intro, so I will just say our guest tonight is your Suffolk County District Attorney, Rachel Rons. Sir? How are you? Great to see you. I'm glad you did. Thank you so much for being here. I am so excited to be here. It's great to be home. It's great to meet you. Thank you for doing the show. So I just want to start with some basics. Your job is so, so important. And I think that a lot of people don't realize how much impact a district attorney can have when it comes to increasing or decreasing mass incarceration locally or across the country. Can you just explain to listeners and the folks here tonight how much discretion you have when it comes to handling a criminal case? So I think a lot of people that aren't

lawyers think that the system is super fair, right? Prosecutors and defense attorneys have the same amount of power. Judges sit there and are sort of the referee. And I am sorry to ruin your life, but that is just simply not true. Prosecutors, we hold so much power with respect to what it is you're charged with. That can't be appealed, right? What we charge you with can't be appealed, that decision. We hold virtually all of the evidence

that we then have to turn over to the defense at any period of time. But if you plea, if you decide like, goodness, I'm poor, let's say hypothetically, and you charge me with something and I'm in jail, for example, and I can't afford my bail, I'm more likely to plea out without even knowing what the evidence is against me. So what I can tell you is in certain neighborhoods, certainly in Suffolk County, who your DA is is way more important than who the governor is, the mayor is, your state elected officials, or your federal elected officials. And there are certain neighborhoods, I know you're from Norfolk, I did a little research,

but there are certain neighborhoods, you know, Dorchester, Roxbury, Mattapan, Jamaica Plain, Chelsea, all parts of Suffolk County, where they, you can't go, you know, 10 houses without touching a family that has been impacted by the criminal justice system. What I'm really proud of is not only, you know, by the way, I'm a BBN girl, so we're going to argue about this. Yes, who is out there? Yes, I see you. Anyway, so I am fortunate with my background, but, you know, I'm the oldest of five. I've been a federal prosecutor, had a really wonderful opportunity to learn as a lawyer, but I have a sibling that's incarcerated right now.

I'm the mother of a 15-year-old, but I have two nieces that are in DCF custody due to the substance abuse disorder of one of my siblings. So I come to this job with a lived experience that I think that's why we were successful in this campaign. lived experience that I think that's why we were successful in this campaign. You mentioned plea bargains. I think when people think of the criminal justice system, they think like, dunk, dunk, right? Like juries, judges.

Yeah, exactly. Law and order. Law and order. 90% of cases are resolved by plea bargains. Agreed. Does that worry you? I mean, you mentioned how much power that the DA and the cops have versus a defendant or their attorney. Do you ever worry that plea bargains are inherently coercive? Agreed. Yes, they are. They're incredibly scary, right? And for anyone that has actually touched the criminal justice system, you are sort of in a situation where you're making determinations without all of the information, right? So as we said before, if you're poor and when you get arrested, you can't afford your bail, that adds, you know, 100 pounds to your

shoulders with respect to, look, we've charged you with 13 things. We'll knock off 11. If you just pleaded these two, you can be home in 40 minutes, right? Remember, my job as the DA, I'm the check and balance on the police, right? Ultimately, your motion to suppress is where we determine what the police made decisions about was that lawful or not. What I get really nervous about is pleas are entered into every day without criminal defense attorneys, whether public criminal CPCS lawyers, bar advocates, or... Wait, was there a CPCS lawyer out there? I heard you. Congratulations, right? They make these determinations without seeing all the evidence where they might not have

pled in the first place or or done something different so yes pleas are incredibly important and we we hold virtually all the information we have we can see the entire deck of cards while you're trying to make this decision um you wrote a 66 page memo outlining the ways your office plans to reduce racial inequality, uh, and reduce mass incarceration. Yeah. I happen to have this right here. First of all, no memo needs to be 66 pages, but that's just showing off. Can you just, can you talk about like some of the specific changes in that bad boy and the incredibly supportive, enthusiastic response you got from Governor Charlie Baker's office?

Oh, yeah. I mean, the governor and I are going away together this weekend. We're going to be... You know what? So why I needed it to be 66 pages is anyone can just sort of mandate something. I wanted there to be data. I wanted there to be things supporting what it was we were saying. It took a little longer than maybe Court Watch had wanted, or I promised within 30 days. If you run for office, don't ever promise anything, by the way. But I will tell you, what I'm really proud of is I am sitting here as the Suffolk County DA,

and I am exactly who I said I was going to be when I was a candidate. And we just memorialized it. And I think there's a lot of people that are nervous about, my God, you put it in writing. And I'm like, correct. So we can be, A, held accountable, and, B, if you are in West Roxbury, you get the same treatment that you get in Roxbury. Right. Right. But what I will tell you is I'm excited about the conversations we're having right now.

Whether we disagree or whether there are flare-ups or whether, you know, whatever happened in the last week, you know, it's not even like I really remember any of that stuff. But what I will tell you is we are now moving forward and we're talking about change. And we're talking about the people that come into contact most often with the criminal justice system are feeling hopeful because there is someone in this role and overwhelmingly DAs are like tough on crime and whatever. We're smart on crime. We are looking at how we can reduce impacting people's lives for low-level, non-violent, non-serious crimes and focus on the very serious crimes that we have in Suffolk County. We have 1,000 unsolved homicides in Suffolk County, right? We have a 10% to 15% solve rate,

and I'm not for non-fatal shootings. I am not good at math, but that is not a very good percentage, right? Are you right? No, I'm not good either. Me neither, right? But 15% solve rate, non-fatal shootings? No. I want my money there. When we incarcerate people for low level misdemeanors, and they are in the Suffolk County House of Corrections, which is Nashua

Street or the House of Corrections, $55,000 a year, it costs taxpayers to send people there. thousand dollars a year it costs taxpayers to send people there overwhelmingly with misdemeanors these are mentally these are people with dsm-5 diagnosed mental health disorders right substance use disorder um or poverty just plain old poor people right and i want to get them the services they need instead of sending them away. Period. It's just, it's so rare in politics to hear someone talking about an offender in a compassionate way. You know, and like, so I worked in campaigns, I worked in the White House,

and I feel like you see this across our political system. Like, diplomacy is seen as weak and politically hard, but like beating the drum of war is very easy. Trump's immigration policies are an abject failure, but ideas that work, like giving more aid to Central American countries to create a better life for people there so they don't want to migrate, those are politically toxic ideas. there so they don't want to migrate. Those are politically toxic ideas. Criminal justice reform might be the most, or this criminal justice system might be the most egregious example. I mean, this is the state that brought us the Willie Horton ad, you know, but so I guess, I mean, you have figured out a way to win elections talking about more humane criminal justice

policies, not miniatur minimums, three strikes, you're out. Like, how did you do that, and how can we replicate that kind of success? Yeah, I mean, what I did was I said, let's start with the fact that no matter whether you are going to have a first-degree murder charge and you get natural life without the possibility to parole, I've explained to my office

that the Commonwealth versus Rollins, Rollins is part of the Commonwealth. And then their brain exploded, right? Like, what? And I'm like, well, wait a minute. So we represent, of course, the Commonwealth, but we have to understand that the defendant, who is often a victim themselves, like, and I mean, literally and figuratively, we represent their family too. We have to treat people with dignity and respect in the process. Part of what I love about my job is I not only meet with survivors of crime, family members that are picking up the pieces after a loved one has been, you know, murdered, for example. But I also have pledged, if I'm going to send people away to a place,

once a month I visit a correction facility. And I choose not to go to the ones that are like, oh, this is great. It's two minutes from our office. This isn't that bad. No, I'm going to MCI Norfolk, which is a full hour drive. And then I go through the process and I sit with people that are overwhelmingly serving natural life without the possibility of parole. And I have to believe that they are people, right? Like if we start with the premise of they are not defined by their worst act, and many of them have had significant impact with the criminal justice system. It's just, it's a mindset where when we explain to people that might not understand all of the failures that some of these people have interacted with in their

lives, right, we don't choose who we're born to you know like you popped out and we're like awesome i'm going to milton academy right like i'm a pretty good looking guy you know i'm gonna do pod save america shout out to my mom is here shout out to mom and dad right that's right mom and dad we love you i don't know if she would describe it as popping out but no but i'm whatever you get it you're popping but my point is is that due to no fault of their own they might have been born in a neighborhood with you know horrible schools public houses like all these different things and i am believe me you know since january 1st of this year we've had 11 homicides we've had had two kidnappings in Suffolk County. Luckily,

we found one of those women alive. But sadly, we found Jassy Carrera, you know, murdered. And we've had hate crimes. I mean, we've had any number of things that have happened. What I'm proud of is when you see women standing up or first-time candidates standing up. I am so excited that as I stood in a sea of men at the Jassy Carrera press conference about the federal government taking that interstate kidnapping resulting in death case to say, oh, no, no, no, we're not going to talk about what Jassy was wearing on her birthday or what her friends were doing. We're going to tell, we're going to tell men to stop kidnapping and murdering us and tell people to start raising their children to talk about consent, right? So those are the things for me, whoever is out here,

get involved. Like part of what I'm so excited about is there's a new set of lungs that are talking about issues that we understand. Virtually every woman in this audience knows what it feels like to have been either harassed or some circumstance like that. And many men have as well because they've experienced the same situation.

But I'm excited about the fact that we are speaking out loud about it now. Amen. So speaking of getting involved, we have two former prosecutors running for president. We have Senator Kamala Harris. We have Senator Amy Klobuchar. Yes. So both have taken some shit for things they did as prosecutor. Senator Harris had, in particular, an anti-truancy program that targeted the parents of kids who skipped school. I'm curious what you think of those criticisms, and if you think a former prosecutor from, you know, just not that long ago can run for president in a Democratic primary in 2020. Yeah, I mean, I think what I'm excited about is as long as they understand that the landscape has changed, I was a federal prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney's Office. I was not the U.S. attorney,

but I was an assistant United States attorney. The policies were very different than what I'm running on now. I'm happy that they're capable of adapting and realizing that, you know, maybe they were not the voice that we are today, but they're recognizing that the landscape has changed and this is the right thing to do. What I think is really hard for people today is to see, like, was I wrong 20 years ago, right? Like, was I involved in mass incarceration? I have so many judges. I was fortunate under Governor Patrick to be appointed to the Judicial

Nominating Commission. There are lots of judges now that were former prosecutors that believe in what we're doing now, but we're the very ones that were sort of tough on crime and, you know, significant sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, for example. So I'm excited that they're willing to recognize that there has been a seismic shift into what we need to do. And as long as they're getting on board now, I'm okay with that. All right. long as they're getting on board now, I'm okay with that. All right. Um, last question for you. Uh, you recently did an interview with Jonathan Van Ness from Queer Eye for his podcast. Yes. Now I assume you're a fan of the show. I am such a fan. Do you think it's a crime that one guy has to fucking redo a house and Karamo is like, be yourself.

That's on my do not prosecute list, actually, so no, it's not a crime. All right. Yes, I do think it's a crime. Some of them are working

way harder than other ones that are like, your hair looks great, but let's part it on the other side. I think Karamo just drives mostly. I think that's sort of

like his thing. Yeah. Anyway, thank you so much for being here tonight. You're amazing. Rachel Rollins. And we're back. Now it's time for a game.

Boston. The City of Lights. New England's Philadelphia. Boston is a city that said the same thing to bootcut jeans that Bob Craft recently said on camera. Yes, please. But Boston is about more than a handsome quarterback with a red hat and lips made for kissing.

His son. I don't care. You guys are like, how do these Republicans, how do they support someone like Donald Trump? The shit you tolerate from your fucking teams in Boston. It should teach you something. from your fucking teams in Boston.

It should teach you something. But Boston is so much more than everything I just said. It's also, believe it or not, home to some of the most important moments in the American Revolution. But it can be hard to separate the myths of the revolution from the actual historical record of what took place. We can barely do that with what happened yesterday, and we had cameras yesterday. So let's look back at those heady days in 18th century Boston in a game we're calling

The Revolution Will Be Televised, but in 200 Years by Ken Burns. And until then, wow, a lot of these war poems are not accurate. And how long is it going to take us to learn that you just can't trust poetry? Would anyone out there like to play the game? Hi. Hi. Hi. What's your name?

I'm Megan. Megan, how's it going? Great. Are you from Boston? I am. Whereabouts? Ten minutes away. Just...

I want you to know something. Somebody last night told me to tell Tommy three words, and I'm doing it right now. Dedham is in Boston. That's what they told me to tell you, and I waited until right now. I know. Of course it's not.

Are you familiar with the American Revolution? I think so. Great. We're going to read you some questions. You'll answer them, okay? Here we go. Question one. Which of the following is the real story of Boston hero Paul Revere?

Is it A? On a clear Boston night, April 18, 1775, Paul Revere was standing centric when he spied two lanterns burning in the lighthouse, a signal that the British had arrived. Revere wasted no time. He hopped on his trusty steeds burning in the lighthouse, a signal that the British had arrived. Revere wasted no time. He hopped on his trusty steed and rode through the night, through Boston and later Concord, issuing those famous words,

the Redcoats are coming, the Redcoats are coming. Or is it B? This one's near and dear. Paul Revere was the quintessential Bostonian. Though he was a genius at math, he worked as a janitor at a college. One day, a math professor noticed that he drew amazing math shapes on a blackboard and said he should do more math and see a therapist, Robin Williams, to help him be less of an angry Boston guy.

We call those math holes. He did, and it worked. In the immortal words of Paul Revere, how you like them apples? Or is it C, Megan? Paul Revere was one of about 20 riders. He also never finished his ride because he was captured. His role in the ride was so minimal

it wasn't mentioned in his obituary. Revere's most noteworthy contribution to the revolution was his role in the Penobscot expedition, an embarrassing naval disaster that killed hundreds. Revere was placed under house arrest and charged with incompetence and subordination and cowardice. He languished in obscurity until Longfellow's poem gave him all the credit for that ride.

Or is it D? Before I read this answer, I would note, like, love it. I don't have a Boston accent. You know what? I'm excited. Or is it D? Paul Revere? I haven't heard that name in ages.

Paul used to hustle tourists doing three-card Monty outside the bubble gum. Haven't seen him around, though. Word is he's using again. Who's asking? I think we'd like to hear that with a Boston accent. Would somebody here with one of the worst ones raise your hand? That woman has a look. Can I just see that card?

There we go. You just come here for a second. Call this audience participation. Hi. I want it real thick. Okay. Paul Revere. I haven't heard that name in ages

Paul used to hustle tourists doing the three card Monty outside the bubble gum haven't heard him around though word is Travis he's using again who's asking yes thank you very much Who's asking? Yes! Thank you very much.

She was great in The Departed. That was amazing. I'm really glad we did that. Megan, do you remember the question or anything about it? I'm sorry I don't have a Boston accent, but I think it's A. Yeah, what was it? Oh, I'm sorry.

It's C. It was C, but you know what? You meant C. You meant C. I didn't even know anymore. Great job, Megan. Question two. Two? Holy shit.

Benedict Arnold attempted to turn over West Point to the British. How did his plot get foiled? Is it A? In large part, thanks to Agent 355, a member of the Culper Ring who was not only one of America's first spies, but also happened to be a woman. Agent 355 wrote a letter in invisible ink detailing Arnold's plans.

The letter was delivered to General George Washington himself. As a result, Major John Andre was captured and executed and she was so good at spying that to this day, we do not know her identity outside of her codename. Or is it be. When he finally got George Washington right where he wanted him, trapped in the West Point control room,

he made the mistake of giving a long speech about his evil plan. You're never going to trust me. I have all the silly ones. While Benedict Arnold was laughing maniacally and staring out a window, George Washington, a ropes expert, untied himself and managed to reprogram the laser to destroy the supercomputer the moment Arnold typed in the key code he stole from Benjamin Franklin. Or is it C? He accidentally locked the keys inside of West Point.

Or is it D? Are you so sure it was foiled? You ever wonder why this is America? Yeah, we're all speaking English. Black Mirror? Netflix? Think about it. Makes you think.

Wow, that was deep. I think it's A. You got it. Megan, question three. Which of the following is the true story of Boston hero John Hancock? Is it A? John Hancock is best known for his large signature. After he signed the Declaration of Independence,

Ben Franklin remarked, what the fuck is wrong with you? There's not even room for me to sign it now. Thomas Jefferson agreed, calling Hancock an asshole and offering to sign a new declaration. But Franklin, chill as hell, said, no, let's get this over with. It's no skin off my kite if King George thinks Hancock here is a dipshit. Or is it B?

John Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in Boston who made his fortune smuggling. Hancock instigated and bankrolled the Boston Tea Party in 1773, but it probably wasn't about a high-minded principle. The Tea Act allowed the East India Company to sell tea at even lower prices than the tea Hancock was currently smuggling. And Hancock didn't participate in the protest himself, blaming bone spurs. The Boston Tea Party also didn't have universal approval at the time.

In fact, George Washington personally condemned it and said those responsible should have to pay for the damaged property. Or as it's seen, he signed his name in giant letters with lots of squiggles because he spent all sophomore year practicing it in his diary. Right next to the part where he kept saying how cool George Washington is and how he really, really, really, really wanted to be his friend with an intensity Hancock did not have the words to explain. It's all autobiographical by the author there.

Or is it D? I could tell you who John Hancock is, but it's more fun if you wait to learn all about him in Hancock, Lin-Manuel Miranda's next hip-hop musical on Broadway. Here's a taste. Anyone have a pen? Hey, Megan.

Hi. Wow. Okay. I'll go with Heather B. Is that right? Yeah, she got it. Megan's like, I did not know the game would be this long. Or is it? Oh, question four. When we tell the story of the Continental Army, what's one part of the story history teachers often fail to include?

Is it A? All the kinky stuff. The Continental Army was actually an active community for sexual boundary pushing, with one young man from Missouri famously inventing the concept of safe words. Who knew? Or is it B? The part where everyone must have been so uncomfortable and smelly all the time.

I mean, thick wool coats, pulling on and off those unwashed tights. Let's finally tell the truth. Being a person was incredibly and unacceptably disgusting until body wash was invented. Or is it C? The role of indigenous armies in many of the major battles. A number of tribes formed alliances with the Continental Army, but particularly relevant to Boston was the Stockbridge Mohican

from western Massachusetts. The tribe hoped that in exchange for their help, the American rebels would recognize their sovereignty. The Stockbridge Mohican fought alongside the rebels in Lexington and Concord

in the Siege of Boston. In addition to building fortifications around Boston and patrolling the city's defenses, a member of the tribe was even among those killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill.

After the war was won, they still lost all of their land in the state to shitty white settlers. Or as it did. Historians rarely discuss the meager provisions offered to the starving Continental Army, especially at breakfast. But this is how Continental Breakfast came

to mean, hey, hey, here's an old muffin in a fruit salad that's just honeydew and grapes anyway. What do you think, Megan? Sounds yummy, but I'm going to go with C. You got it. You've won the game. You've won a parachute gift card

and a butcher box gift card. Thank you so much for playing. The Revolution will be televised in 200 years by Ken Burns, but until then, wow, a lot of these war poems are not accurate, and how long is it going to take us to learn that you can't just trust poetry? All right. We have time for three questions.

Travis, right there in the, what did you call that sweatshirt, Cadbury? No, no, no, no, no. Lavender. I think we're going to call it lavender. Cadbury is more of a blue-gray. Travis will come to you. Just raise your hand and shout things at him. You guys are terrific. Thank you.

Thank you for such a great question. Does anybody else have any questions? I'd be interested to hear your comments about Nate Cohn's article in The Times today and just is the blogosphere leaning left and misrepresenting where the Democratic core is? Sure, I'll take it. Yes, so what Nate found, and he looked at this study that was done about people who use Twitter. The people who are overrepresented on Twitter are liberals, white people, and higher income folks

are overrepresented on Twitter. Who's underrepresented on Twitter, and it's also social media in general as well, but especially Twitter, underrepresented are people of color, moderate Democrats, and lower income people. So, you know, we say sometimes, you know, Twitter is not real life. I mean, Twitter is real life, it's just a certain segment of people.

And so, what you need to know about that is, like, you know, you should not... Twitter, I think, is warping our political reality. If all you do is pay attention to Twitter, then the opinions you see on Twitter, what people say about politics on Twitter, is not necessarily representative not only of what Democrats in general think, but what the voting population thinks at all. That said, Twitter is also an important place for activists, for diverse voices, for people who haven't been heard, who also many times have an outsized, have outsized influence over political outcomes, over media coverage. So there is an important role that Twitter plays, and it's important to get in the conversation there. But the danger is that if all we do is think that the rest of the country matches the opinions that we're seeing on Twitter, then we will be led

very astray. Anyone else have? Well, this is why I'm really glad that the Democratic primary isn't actually happening on Twitter. It's happening in Iowa and South Carolina and New Hampshire and Nevada. And so, you know, there's like the back and forth about this person's getting this kind of coverage

and then we all react to that. It's actually not what's happening, right? This politics, for better or for worse, is still very retail. It's diners, it's town halls, and that's where quietly these candidates are making their case and connecting with people on a very different level than the sort of Twitter takedowns that are happening. Amen. I think the problem with Twitter, one of the problems with Twitter, there are many. Nazis. Nazis, yes.

You can get the news, but you have to get yelled at by racists and misogynists as the panel is the subscription price. But is that a small percentage of Americans are on Twitter, but 100% of reporters are on Twitter. And what happens then is it shapes coverage that people off Twitter then read. The impressions that are delivered on Twitter about whether it's Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris or Beto O'Rourke then show up in the newspapers of the people who are in the diners in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. And that comes from two things. One is laziness on behalf of some reporters who treat Twitter as a man-on-the-street interview, which is you're just doing a man-on-the-street interview

in the meanest, worst street in America. But also digital advertising being the revenue driver for digital media. Dan, doesn't sound like you've ever been to 4chan Avenue. Yeah. Is it around the corner? With a magic door where a Russian mob just runs down and pummels you every once in a while. The dangerous thing about the intersection of media, politics, and Twitter

is it's not that what leads to news trends on Twitter. It's what trends on Twitter leads to the news. And that has to be reversed if we're going to have the same conversation about politics. I've seen New York Times pieces, analysis pieces, that are written entirely based on five tweets from people in Brooklyn. And that's a problem unless it's one of our tweets. Yeah. Then it's cool.

But so, like, this is all, I mean, there's what it means and there's what each of us can do, right? And I think, obviously, because we're all pundits now, that makes those things get combined. Like, Twitter is a great way to learn about politics. It's a great way to hear from disparate voices. It is worth remembering that I think put aside ideology, put aside the exact people that are there and what they represent, it's a mean place and it's a place that encourages meanness. And just the meanness alone makes it different

from how politics is actually practiced and makes it, I think, a corrosive force. You know, one thing that was happening in 2016, it's happening now, is people had a very positive view of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They did. But you wouldn't know that on Twitter.

And that isn't just because of representation. That is because of the medium itself. The medium is the message. And I think one thing that comes out of Twitter is it seems to be an emergent property of the form is cruelty. And it's worth keeping that in mind in all of our interactions in that space

that at some point in the future they will use Twitter to recreate you via AI. And you really want to be a good version of yourself because this is how they're going to know you in a thousand years. It's more you than you realize. Keep that in mind. On that hopeful note,

we'll take another question. Hey. So I have a question that has to do with the other side of social media. So we have Twitter, but then we also have places where fake news pliffer. It's like Facebook. Good slip. Pretty slip. What kind of answer do we have to that besides whatever tools,

like Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, what tools do we have besides what they create to control that do we even answer to that how do we respond to that yeah i mean one you know you we all here can vote for lawmakers who understand what the internet is uh and can like regulate them people People like Thomas Massey. Tom Massey, Ted Stevens. It's not great when you see Mark Zuckerberg go before a committee and someone asks him how the company makes money. And he says, Senator, we have ads. You should probably get briefed on that going in.

So we can have smarter lawmakers to make smarter ads. Two, they respond to bad headlines and their bottom line. So if people organize and protest and hold press events to call them out for some of the shit they're doing, that's incredibly important and valuable.

And, you know, it's not just that there is this culture, there's this weird proliferation of fake news that happens on Facebook in a very dangerous, pernicious way. There's also just the fact that a lot of the way they keep you on these platforms

is radicalizing sort of inherently. Like, I went through a weird phase where I was really into whales, and I was looking, and my wife and I saw some whales, and I thought it was really neat. I'm going to get through this. And all of a sudden Instagram discovery started showing me whales getting killed and then animal, like it's like increasingly violent, radical things. And that is true whether

you're searching for political content or anything else. Like they need to fix that because their goal shouldn't be to keep us hooked on the line and enraged and engaged as long as possible. That is a deeply fucked up business model. The last really important vehicle so far has been the courts. Alex Jones was kicked off a lot of platforms, the guy who runs InfoWars. Truly, truly, I mean,

he is mentally ill. There's something very wrong with him, and he has this huge platform that's seen by millions of people. He got kicked off the platform, his influence greatly diminished, but nothing has diminished him the way that having to have his words thrown back at him in the legal system has cut him down. So I think that's an avenue. It's not libel, per se, but there are ways through the courts that I think people are going to start targeting

people like him. So I have two more things on this. I've been sort of in the back of my mind sort of workshopping a grassroots campaign to try to convince Mark Zuckerberg to shut the timeline, the Facebook news feed down for the last 60 days of the election.

It used to be in Pre-Citizens United, outside groups could not do electioneering 60 days before the general election. So you can't by law do that, but if you could put advertiser pressure, political pressure on Mark Zuckerberg to take that out, he probably would never do it. I think France has a lot like that. In the United Kingdom, because they do public financing like any fucking rational democracy would, you can't advertise on television. The campaign is shorter. Second thing is, everyone always asks this question. It's like, what can you do about Facebook?

And you means politicians, regulatory agencies, the courts. The question is, what can you do, right? Like, every... I know a lot of us have deleted Facebook and all of this, and I get the incentive to do that, but here's the problem. All of your fucking uncles are going to be on Facebook sharing a bunch of bullshit for the next 18 months. So instead of just like getting mad about that, get on there and engage. Every one of you has the ability to push back on the fake news narrative to, as trusted, like the most important

validation that people get about facts in this day and age is relational, right? They may not believe it's the New York Times or CNN or Fox News, whatever, but they may believe it if their friend, their cousin, their classmate does. So get in there, call bullshit on your uncle, post factual rebuttals to things, and engage because the right wing is engaged in a massive campaign from the Koch brothers to your uncle to distort the political conversation in Just America via Facebook. And they are doing that because not just Democratic politicians, but Democratic voters

are sitting in that conversation now. So we need everyone to engage. You have agency here to make this situation better. And then we take power and then we break up Facebook. All right, one last question. What do you got, Trav? Hey, so I'm from Madison County, Indiana. And so for those of you who don't know, Mike Pence was my congressman.

So I'm in fifth grade, growing up in a post, 9-11 post, NAFTA, Indiana town, and sometimes it feels like the White Walkers are going to win. So is there any hope? Like what hope, you know, you guys laid out some actionable things we can do, but can the good guys win? Because it feels like the White Walkers are going to win sometimes. I'm going to take this one. So after 2016, a lot of progressive activists who were from places like Indiana, good friend of mine from Kentucky, another good friend from West Virginia, were like, we need to go home, actually. Because what we've

done is we've self-segregated to, you know, these urban clusters. And because unions have been systematically murdered across the country, there are no more places that are organizing rural people, particularly around any kind of political awakening about their circumstances that would be a counter to the scapegoating and the demagoguery of brown people and immigrants and Muslims. And that's what's necessary. We have to organize. It's a really weird thing.

We're in this moment where tech is mediating everything that we do. But every single pse-scientific political science study that goes back and tries to find out what actually changes people's opinion, right? We're so divided, but there are still ways to change people's opinions. And you know what it is? It's organizing, which is a really basic principle. It's a human being showing up, asking you what you care about, getting to know you just a little bit. This thing can like happen on the doors. It can happen in church basements. It can happen in the workplace. Asking what you care about, connecting a story of the world to that thing that you care about and then giving them a way to take

action. It's like a very simple formula, but it still works on issues like, you know, like lots of different issues that are very controversial. Like there's a really famous door knocking study about trans rights, right? Very controversial. People are like, I've never met anybody who's trans and yet someone comes to their door and talks to them about their values. What do you value? I value love and fairness and commitment, and then transposes the issue that is, you know, that you're door knocking on to that. So the problem is we just don't have enough social infrastructure. We try to do it through elections, and it's this huge partisan, you know,

sort of blitzkrieg that happens on, you know, on swing states and small towns, but we've got to do it year-round. And so if I were George Soros or whomever, or like, you know, the 50,000 people who are going to be tech billionaires tomorrow when, like, Instagram goes public, you know, I would spend that money on organizing, empowering people like you and people like us to just go door to door. I mean, hell yeah. Can't improve on that answer. No, that's the best answer I've heard on that. I will have one last plug before we go. There's been a lot of reporting recently on first quarter fundraising totals

among the different Democratic candidates. And, you know, despite what they've raised, you hear about how much cash they have on hand. And it's $10 million, $12 million. It's somewhere around there for some of the leading Democratic candidates. Donald Trump ended last year, 2018, with $129 million in his reelection account.

He was in Texas this week, he did two events, he raised $6 million in a couple of hours. We are gonna have a very long primary where the 40,000 Democrats who are running are all trying to raise money from everyone. They're all trying to battle each other and whoever the nominee is, is going to enter the general election with an account

that is going to be at zero, basically. So, what can we do? If you have a candidate that you already love in the primary, great. Donate to that candidate. But, if you don't or even maybe aside from this, we have partnered with our friends at Swing Left

to start a fund called Unify or Die. And, oh, there it is. And what you can do is you can contribute to this fund, and whoever the Democratic nominee is, once they claim the nomination, they will get all of the money that's in this fund right now. So encourage everyone to go. You can go to votesaveamerica.com slash unify and you can donate and then make sure that our nominee has everything that they need to beat Donald Trump in November of 2020. Thank you to Rachel Rollins

Thank you to Heather McGee Thank you Boston Thanks for coming Thank you Boston We'll see you next time. you