Pod Save America - “Get The Pardon Started.” Live from Oakland!

Episode Date: June 20, 2022

The guys head to the bay area with cohost Melissa Murray and discuss the January 6th committee exposing Trump’s pressure campaign and pardon list. Then Congresswoman Barbara Lee joins to talk about the hearings, Juneteenth, and reproductive rights.  California Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks then tells us how the state is preparing to be an abortion sanctuary. And the New York Times' Mike Issac tells us about Elon Musk’s first sit-down with Twitter’s employees.

🎵 What's up, Oakland? Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. And I'm Melissa Murray from Strict Scrutiny. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. We have some fantastic guests with us tonight. Technology reporter Mike Isaac from the New York Times is here. We'll also be joined by a couple

of Democratic leaders you know pretty well, your state representative Buffy Wicks, and your congresswoman, the legendary Barbara Lee. And we are lucky again to be joined by Melissa Murray of Strict Scrutiny, the best legal podcast on the planet. And I am so happy to be back in Oakland, back home in the town. You look good with four rings, so yes. That's a sports reference. I've picked it up from the video. All right. Let's get to the news. The January 6th committee will hold two more hearings this week after some fairly heavy testimony last Thursday

that the lead of the New York Times summed up perfectly. Quote, President Donald J. Trump continued pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to go along with the plan to unilaterally overturn his election defeat even after he was told it was illegal. Mr. Trump's pressure campaign led his supporters to storm the Capitol, sending Mr. Pence fleeing for his life as rioters demanded his execution. Not great. So the hearings' two witnesses were former Pence lawyer Greg Jacobs, who testified that Trump was told in advance that his attempted coup was illegal. Go figure. And retired federal appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig, an extremely conservative Bush appointee who advised Pence not to go along with the coup,

and warned the rest of us in his testimony that, quote, Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy. So Melissa, the Times had another piece over the weekend that basically argued federal prosecutors may still have a difficult challenge proving that Trump knew his actions were illegal. What do you think about that? And like, what would the government have to prove here? So I think that's right. I think it is going to be difficult

because you have to remember that Donald Trump is an inveterate and unrepentant liar. And when you start with that, someone who lies consistently and changes a story repeatedly, when you have to figure out what his state of mind was at any given time, like he's just constantly shifting. You can't really be sure that what you think is a state of mind or what you think evidence is pointing to as a state of mind is actually true in that moment. And they actually have to make out a pretty clear case that he not only knew that he had lost the election, but that he knew that the steps that he was taking and the things that he was doing was with the intent to overthrow a legitimately elected president. And if he's

constantly changing his story, constantly shifting, I think that's harder. And some of this is coming closer to that, showing that he did know, but he keeps changing his story. Like, yeah, I told her that I lost to Biden, but then Rudy talked to me and we decided that I hadn't actually lost to Biden. So he's constantly shifting. And I think that's the problem for federal prosecutors trying to make out a criminal case. Yeah. So that was, there was some news that Alyssa Farah, who was their White House communications director, has said, told investigators that Donald Trump turned to her and said, can you believe I lost to this guy right after the results? But I did thought that, you know, John Eastman, who is the Trump lawyer who came up with the whole Mike Pence can unilaterally decide who the president is scheme, said in front of Donald

Trump, I think this is not legal. And so Trump knowing that it's not legal isn't enough? Well, so first of all, let's just say John Eastman is giving all law professors a really bad name. He is the Alan Dershowitz of Jonathan Turley's. So specific for people. You had a really good LSAT score and I know you know what I'm talking about. I did, and I do. So Eastman says, I'm not sure this is legal, but he also goes forward and says that the law dealing with the Electoral College and the reporting of Electoral College results is, in his view, unconstitutional. And that might give Donald Trump the view that what he is doing is actually permissible because the underlying law is unconstitutional,

which creates another wrinkle for the prosecutors. And also, didn't Eastman also say in one of his many attempts to find a winding path to overturning the election, like, oh, actually, Congress has been breaking the Electoral College Act this whole time because technically the debate time

is breaking the rules in some small way, right? He's been sort of finding paths around this. But one question I had about this is, look, if there's a vault filled with money at a bank and you have said for months that you believe it's yours, despite there being no evidence you've ever had any claim to it, you're still a bank robber. You still broke into the vault and took the money, even if no one ever heard you admit that deep down you know it isn't yours. So, yes, I think that is correct. In case you're getting any ideas. I'm telling you, this whole prosecutor thing

is going to work out for you. You know, deep down, I believe I would have been an extraordinary lawyer. I know you would have been. I would have been delighted to teach you. Like, you would have been that guy. Yeah, we would have had fun. That guy.

In a good, in the best way possible. In the best way possible. So, but again, I think we have a DOJ that's proceeding very deliberately, very cautiously. It's headed by a judge, someone who is known for being very deliberate. This would be an unprecedented prosecution of a former president. And I think they want to make sure that every T is crossed, every I is dotted, and they're not going to move forward unless they're absolutely sure. And I think a lot's going to have to come out. Is there lots in here for other kinds of suits,

like civil suits, for example, which we may talk about with Representative Lee? Surely. But a criminal case where you have to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, I think that might give them pause. I want a jury made of people from New York and D.C. What about Oakland?

Oakland would hang him in an instant. I'll tell you. We got so much stacked against us With the electoral college and the senate But the one thing we got is that the trials happen In New York and D.C. That rules And Oakland

We can trim this down Love it I thought one of the more damning And ultimately memeable revelations From Thursday's hearing can trim this down so love it i thought one of the more one of the more damning uh and ultimately memeable revelations from thursday's hearing uh came from an email that john eastman sent to rudy giuliani which said i've decided that i should be on the pardon list if that is still in the works as someone who's not a lawyer but but a high-achieving LSAT person. So embarrassing.

Does the existence of a coup pardon list seem like that would be a problem for Eastman and Trump? First of all, Eastman, again, speaking to his skills as a lawyer, seems very comfortable discussing his law breaking in text. He puts it down in text and tweets. He talks about it all the time. It's pretty damning to be asking for a pardon. Now, they put out this one sentence and that's damning enough, but actually people have deciphered the blurry text around it. And what comes next is, I know this will taint me, but, which I think is really funny. Yeah, I think he's pretty fucked. That's your legal analysis. The other thing that's important, right, is that first there's the White House counsel was like,

hey man, you're breaking the law. You should get a criminal defense attorney. This is illegal. What you're discussing is illegal. Stop talking to me about this. It's illegal. And it seems like there were a lot of people on John Eastman's call sheet who were not saying, I love this idea of the vice president for the first time in history singularly in charge of choosing a president. There's a lot of people on the line who are like, no, this is criminal and bananas. Dan?

Yeah clearly. He knew he was committing a crime. He asked for a pardon and that's where we are. And he didn't get one. And he did not get one. And yet here we are. So the Times also reported that

according to his advisors Trump has been really pissed off watching the hearings because he can't tweet through it. Do not demean Truth Social like that. He's truthing his ass off. He's truthing his way through this whole hearing. He's doing truths and retruths.

He's not been getting the amplification that it deserves. His 12-page rambling statement from last week has not been getting the amplification it deserves. deserves his 12-page rambling statement from last week, has not been getting the amplification it deserves. So after two hours of testimony about how he nearly got his own vice president assassinated because he refused to go along with his coup, here's how the 2024 GOP frontrunner responded at an event on Friday.

Mike Pence had a chance to be great. He had a chance to be, frankly, historic. But just like Bill Barr and the rest of these weak people, Mike, and I say it sadly because I like him, but Mike did not have the courage to act. So I said to Mike, if you do this, you could be Thomas Jefferson. And then after it all went down, I looked at him one day and I said, Mike, hate to say this, but you know, Thomas Jefferson.

For those listening at home, we're watching a Newsmax clip, and halfway through Trump basically describing his entire criminal enterprise, an ad for a gold coin pops up. You can text Trump to 65532. Unqualifying orders. There is a disclaimer. So, Dan, Trump also said in the speech that January 6th was a, quote, simple protest that got out of hand. And he promised to pardon the January 6th defendants if he becomes president again. What do you make of him responding to these hearings by doubling down?

Good legal strategy? Good political strategy? What do you think? Well, apparently you can get away with anything if you can sincerely believe it's not a crime. So I had no idea. No, look, I I very much like this question because in this clip, because it is backs up my theory that Trump has lost his fastball. Because if you think about think about the polling on this, which is 70 percent of Republicans believe some version of the big lie. Right. That Biden's an illegitimate president, there was fraud involved, whatever that is. But only 20% of Republicans support what happened on January 6th. Even fewer of that 20% think those people should get a pardon. So what there is actually sort of a shift in Trump, which is in 2016 primarily, but also to a certain extent in 2020, his campaign was a campaign where he was the person fighting on behalf of other people's grievances.

But in 2020, in 2024, this is a campaign entirely about his grievances, what happened to him, what people did to him, not what he can do for other people. And it is, I have no idea if it's a good legal strategy or a bad legal strategy. Generally, I imagine admitting to all the crimes you're accused of is a bad legal strategy, I assume. But it's a terrible political strategy. Melissa, thanks for joining

us on Positive America. Your job is to defend the wall and Merrick Garland. I'm just spelling out the facts. Yeah, I know, I know. But so he has picked the least popular part of a very unpopular issue. And it is, I think, if he is going to,

I think he is legitimately vulnerable in an actually contest Republican primary if what he's going to do is focus on defending the violence in 2020. If he's going to promise to give pard the violence in 2020. If he's going to promise to give pardons to the people who committed that violence, he's going to make all of the campaign about what happened to him in the past, not what he will do in the future. There is absolutely an argument to be made for some Republican challenger to Trump in a primary that Donald Trump, you know, served this country well, that Republican will say, but he is obsessed with the past

and obsessed with this election. And we need to focus on the future. And thank you for your service. But let's like put him in the past. And he just keeps because he just keeps going back to 2020 every single chance he gets. I mean, he's pretty lucky that Merrick Garland's approach to prosecution is similar to Judge Ludwig's approach to finishing a sentence. I mean, I think the real

argument, not that we're out here to give Ron DeSantis free advice on how to install his authoritarian state. I'm sure he's listening. Huge front of the pod. He's a big pod fan. But I think the real argument is that Trump's a loser. Couldn't beat Joe Biden, right? Like the entire

right-wing media. Don't clap for that. Stop it. That's not something to clap for. The problem is they've all conceded the big lie. Like they all missed their chance, right? Because as you pointed out, most Republicans believe the big lie and these Republicans have gone along with it. They missed their chance to call him a loser. They had their chance to say he lost to this guy fair and square. We need somebody that can win. But they haven't been able to do it. I mean, does that, Melissa, what you just heard from Trump, does that sort of add to his legal jeopardy? Or does it not matter at this point? I mean, every time he opens his mouth, he adds to his legal jeopardy. I mean, the lies, he's lying.

I mean, again, I think it really comes back to, can you pin all of this together to show that not only is there conduct, but there is a state of mind to do something with the intent to commit this crime? Like, that's what he intends to do. And I think that is harder. And I am no Merrick Garland apologist, right?

I mean, guy needs to get his suits fitted. I don't care if he indicts him in a trash bag from Joseph A. Banks. Do you think the problem is that Merrick Garland is like a hunt and peck typist? I think he's, again, if you had put Sally Yates at the head of DOJ, I think we would have seen a lot more happening. I mean, like, he's a judge. That's what judges do. They're deliberate. They're purposefully deliberate.

We need a DOJ that will do to Trump what that bicycle did to Joe Biden. Just take him out at the knees. Oh, we're not ready to talk about that yet very ableist to mix the legal with the political I have wondered what happens if the DOJ indicts Donald Trump and then Donald Trump gets off and what that means politically that like they could not

bring the case against him and then Donald Trump is suddenly running again as like I'm exonerated you miss all the shots you don't take. No, I know. I'm just saying. Only if you're Boston. It's something to consider. Tommy did the right

thing by missing this. I just want you to know that I came anyway. Tommy would be here today. Couldn't even come. Alright, so I think one of the most important moments of the hearing on Thursday, or the whole set of hearings, was Ludwig's warning at the end that I mentioned earlier, which is that Trump and his allies remain a clear and present danger to democracy. I just talked to a senior Democratic strategist the other week who spends a lot of time looking at polls and focus groups. And he said, you know, the good news is a lot more people than at polls and focus groups and he said you know the good news is a lot more people than he thought are paying attention to these hearings and um they're

really having an impact on on public opinion but he said the real challenge is so much of it is a focus on trump and trump's crimes and there's not enough focus on all the MAGA Republicans running right now who may try to overturn the next election if it gets close. What do you guys think about that? Like, is there too much focus on Trump in the past in these hearings? Is that just inevitable? Dan, what do you think? Can we just talk about the fact that you just used an anonymous source? I mean, no one's going to know who it is. It's just, you know, I'd be a nerd. All right, Maggie Haberman, is. It's just, you know, I'd be a nerd. All right, Maggie Haberman. It's Ginny Thomas.

Look, I'm a real journalist. It's Ginny Thomas. So she was texting me. I got a few texts that were meant for Mark Meadows. As she does. Yeah, as she does. What do you think, Dan? You just wrote a book about this. Thank you.

I did, yes. Setting you up here. Thank you for that one person who cheered. We appreciate you. That was Holly. Yeah, it was probably Kyla, my daughter, who's in the audience. That's Kyla and Holly. I think the way we have to make this forward looking,

and it is sort of unfair to ask the hearings to be the people who carry the weight on this because their task is to investigate what happened. And they were trying like it took real courage and maybe not great stagecraft to ask judge ludic ludic to answer another question at the end where it's like it was when they at the end of that hearing they've been through everything the clock's running out they're like can you answer this we're gonna ask you a question that could take a normal person seven minutes to answer yeah but i think that it falls on all of us to make the case about the danger going forward. And I think the way to make that real is to take it out of 2020 and take it out of Trump and explain to people why this radical extreme minority in this country is trying to take power

and what they're going to do with it. Because there is a way to tie together what happened on January 6th, what the Supreme Court's about to do to Roe v. Wade, why we can't pass common sense gun control in this country, why gas prices keep going up and oil companies keep getting giant tax breaks. All of that is tied to the fact that there's a radical, extreme minority who is power hungry and do anything to take power in order to put in place their extreme right-wing agenda book bands attacking trans kids all of those things these deeply unpopular things and so we have to you have to i think a conversation about how democracy a political theory and system that we've never perfected or really realized in this country

is under danger is esoteric and we have to bring it into real people's lives and why it matters yeah love it no you agree i mean yeah i agree i yeah no ditto i thought about this i thought about this over the week uh over the weekend because uh we saw that the Texas Republican platform came out. And they have in the platform that not only that Biden's victory in 2020 is illegitimate, they have in there that homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice. They call for the repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the GOP platform, and that there should be a 2023 referendum on whether Texas should secede from the union. So that's the, now we're clapping for that. That's the Texas Republican

platform right now. But I do think, and look, I do think the committee is starting to do this too. Adam Kinzinger gave interviews today where he talked about how like he and his family were just sent a death threat that someone wanted to kill he, his wife, and his five-month-old son. They're turning on Dan Crenshaw. Dan Crenshaw was attacked by the Pride Boys the other day. The threat of violence is ongoing and real. And I do think that is, it sort of hangs over the hearings, but I think it needs to be a little bit more explicit. And there's not some rule that only the people on the January 6th committee can talk about the danger here.

Like every Democrat has a platform to do that. Yeah. I think one of the problems with the hearings, and this isn't the problem, I think, solely of the committee. I mean, they have a limited role. But making the case that the so what or the now what to the public. Like, okay, yes, there's a clear and present danger to democracy. Now what do I do about it? And connecting that to the midterms, like, you know, the idea that it's not just voting, but like getting everyone who normally sits these out to vote as well,

because you're going to need to get all the secretaries of state, because that's part of the plan to overturn the 2024 election. like really showing people like this is what you need to do and that part's not coming through i think everyone gets it donald trump is a criminal and he's surrounded by criminals but so what now what and you know who understands how critical voting is and running for all these offices uh is the other side because they are running for like secretary of state county county recorders, that all these, like, school boards, right, Republicans are doing that. So, which is a great segue to, again, our pitch always to go to votesaveamerica.com and sign up for Midterm Madness.

You can also sign up to be a poll worker with our partner, Power to the Polls. But we really need people to sign up for Midterm Madness. And again, we want to keep MAGA Republicans not just out of Congress and out of governors' mansions, but state legislatures, offices like Attorney General, Secretary of State, County Recorder, all these offices that have something to do with our elections. And it's really, really important that we get involved and that we make sure that doesn't happen.

So again, votesaveamerica.com slash midtermmadness. votesaveamerica.com slash midtermmadness. And we'll be back with more news in just a bit. Now it's time for OK Stop. Here's how it works. We're going to play a video. We're going to say OK Stop to bust the video's chops. To set up this clip, Rudy Giuliani

has just been asked by a reporter to respond to former White House counsel Eric Hirschman's January 6th testimony that Giuliani himself told Hirschman that Vice President Mike Pence didn't have the authority to block certification of the election results. Let's roll the clip. Eric Hirschman just testified before the once January 6th committee that you told him that Pence did not have the authority to block certification of the election. Is that true? I shouldn't really talk about that. Okay, stop. When Rudy says I shouldn't really talk about that, what he means is ask me again after five.

If the January 6th committee does nothing more than get Rudy Giuliani to shut up they've done a national service do you think this shot and this message was on the uh Andrew Giuliani for governor message calendar do you think this was what they were hoping for that day just yeah I want to dress my dad up like Danny DeVito from the penguin and and have him ramble about his crimes for 15 minutes in front of a van. These guys have this stagecraft of an elementary school. That's an insult to elementary school. Where the teachers hate the students.

I don't know. I ran out halfway through. Look, they could have campaign signs and they could have a van or they can have both. I'm just glad they're branching out from Four Seasons. Yeah, that's...

I'm asking you about his testimony. I'm not going to comment on his testimony. I'm going to tell you that the committee is a witch hunt. Okay, stop. Master pivot. Yeah, it's subtle. The deaf touch.

Moving on, a specific credible allegation of breaking of the law to a Newsmax talking point from three years ago. I'm going to tell you that the committee is an extension

of Russian collusion. It might as well be Russian collusion, too. How dare those people who accused the president of Russian collusion were lying about it? I was telling the truth. The president was telling the truth. You don't think they're lying now? What, what, how did they change it all of a sudden?

Shifty shift all of a sudden changed? Okay, stop. That is my favorite movie, Russian Collusion 2. Electric Boogaloo. Yes. Yes. The New Hope. Yes.

The Search for Putin's Gold. Yeah. The Search for Putin's Gold. I'll tell you something. This is an aside, but I will tell you the moment I was disillusioned as a human being for the rest of my life. I saw an interview. I loved City Slickers when I was a kid. And I saw Billy Crystal give an interview

where he said, this is the rare sequel that's better than the original. And I ran to my parents and I said, you won't believe it. City Slickers 2 is the rare sequel that's better than the original. And they're like, uh-huh. And that was how it became this.

A straight line. So, I would say you want to look at the January 6th committee? So are you accusing Eric Hirschman of lying on the road? I'm not accusing Eric Hirschman of anything. I'm not commenting on Eric Hirschman. I am talking about the committee. And I will not comment on anyone else. I like Andrew. I like Eric Hirschman. He's a colleague. He's a friend.

Okay, stop. Some of my best friends are Eric Hirschman. I like Eric Hirschman. He's a colleague and a friend. He has this laugh that lights up a room. I can't stop thinking about him, and I don't hate that. I can't stop thinking about him, and it don't hate that. I can't stop thinking about him. And it makes me happy even if nothing happens between us. That's how strong the connection is. That's how good of a colleague and a friend. Maybe it's crazy. Maybe nothing can or would or should ever happen. Look, I hope he doesn't get murdered mysteriously somehow at any point in time.

Here's the thing about, here's why I love Eric Hirschman. He has my balls in a vice. Wow. And if I say even one bad word against him, he'll turn the crank. Too much? I'm not going to comment on his testimony one way or the other. I shouldn't do that. And they shouldn't be leaking.

If they were a legitimate committee interested in anything else but hanging President Trump, they wouldn't be leaking information. Okay, stop. The leak happened on national television during the hearing. That was the leak. They're leaking the Super Bowl these days. They leaked it. They leaked it.

They leaked it they leaked it well it's really funny right because he's confusing what he said in a in a here in a in a deposition that we haven't seen yet and what eric herschman said on camera on every network right he seems to be accusing the committee of leaking something that he admits to saying under oath, but not realizing, because maybe he doesn't have full control of his faculties at this moment, because it's a day. He just skipped the hearing, though. He was sleeping. He was, I don't know.

It was 10 a.m., so. Rudy has a saying. It's always 10 a.m. somewhere. It's not funny. The man's in crisis. Shame on all of you. That's not our problem with Rudy Giuliani. We don't...

The drinking isn't causing the problems. The problems are causing the drinking. Life is a shambles. Is that the end of the clip? And what a way to end it. And that's OK Stop. Joining us now is someone that you know very well, Oakland. She has been representing the 13th District of California since 1998.

She is the highest ranking black woman in the Democratic leadership. Please join me in welcoming Congresswoman Barbara Lee. So first, let me say I love this outfit. I think we have to get one of these for Merrick Garland. All right. So thank you so much for being here because you have had a busy day already. I have had a very busy day. But let me just say something.

First of all, I have to say this. Welcome back home to the most progressive 13th congressional district in the country. And I want to... Okay. And happy Father's Day. Happy Pride Month. Happy Caribbean American Heritage Month. Happy Juneteenth.

And congrats to the warriors. You know, we have to be joyful in this moment. We don't have a lot of that in our lives. So today is a day to celebrate. So thank you. And I'm glad to be home. I am so glad to be home, too, because I lived in Oakland for 12 years before I moved to New York. And one of the things I miss the most about living in the Bay Area, besides the perfect weather and lack of precipitation, is being represented by you, having you speak for me. So, all right. So you've been all over the country recently,

but you were just in Galveston this morning celebrating Juneteenth. And your family is from Galveston, which I don't think I knew. They're from Texas. They have roots in Texas. So what does this tradition of Juneteenth mean to you? And what does it mean to have a federal holiday commemorating this important moment in African-American history? African-American history? Well, Melissa, I was born and raised in El Paso, Texas, but my grandfather was born in Galveston, Texas, and he helped raise me in El Paso. And my great-grandmother was born in Galveston, enslaved. But I have never been to Galveston until yesterday. And so this, for me, was quite remarkable because there are many of my ancestors who are buried in Galveston. I've done my genealogy and I know where they are. And we

celebrated even in El Paso, Juneteenth, all of my life. And what it was about is freedom and justice. And the people of Galveston, I mean, it was remarkable to be there because the spirit of our ancestors, the spirit of liberation, the spirit of not only recognizing the past, but moving forward so we can correct and repair the damage of the past, which means reparations, HR 40, right? That's what it means. Speak on it. And so we have to fight. As today, Juneteenth, what it means to me is, yes, finally, after 10 years, I mean, we've been working on this legislation for 10 years. And Ms. Opal Lee, who I had a chance to meet, who said, let's walk two and a half miles because it was two and a half years before enslaved Africans knew that they were free in Galveston. And so I had a chance to meet

her and she's still, she's probably 95 years old. And she was there when President Biden signed the legislation. But can you imagine? It took 10 years after introducing the legislation just to get it signed as a national holiday. And so now more people, and the meaning now is more people are beginning to understand the history in this country, the real history of African Americans and the struggles and what took place, but also how resilient we are and how we fought for freedom and how we're going to continue to fight, how we built this country, how we built it on slave labor, and how these institutions, they owe us a debt that has not been paid.

So that's what it means. So Juneteenth is a federal holiday, meaning that federal workers get the day off tomorrow on Monday, but only 18 states have actually passed the necessary legislation to make Juneteenth a state holiday that would allow state workers to have the day off as well. So many of the states that haven't done this have argued that it's too costly to give workers the day off. And then they also say that this is a holiday that no one really knows about anyway. What do you say to that? Well, first I say our state has to get with the program also.

Right? The state of California. Secondly, at least here in California, Shirley Weber and the great people of this state passed the commission to study and develop reparations as it relates to African Americans. So California is the first state to do that. So we're leading the rest of the country, and hopefully that'll spur H.R. 40 to help us get that through the House. And so we've got to correct that. And I'm hoping that the state of California and the states

that don't have this on the books as a state holiday will do so very quickly. We have been talking a lot about the January 6th hearings, which I assume you've been following pretty closely as well. I've already been outed as something of a Merrick Garland apologist, which I am not. But let me ask you, do you think the Department of Justice is going to move to indict the former president and those in his inner circle over the events of January 6th? Well, personally, I hope so. But that's why I hope so. That's my, I hope so. And I believe what is taking place now, and you're beginning to see what actually took place, and the truth is coming out about January 6th, that there's no way that the Department of Justice can't hold these individuals and this mob accountable for the attempted coup.

Well, this was almost a violent overthrow of our government, of our democracy. And there's no way I think that they can get away with it. Now, let me just tell you, I'm the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against Donald Trump, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers. in a lawsuit against Donald Trump, the Proud Boys, and the Oath Keepers. We're doing this with the NAACP, and let me tell you, the Trump crowd tried to get this lawsuit dismissed. So we had an entire day of hearings, right? And the judge, several months later, said no way. And this was unprecedented that a case such as this involving a prior president would move forward. So now we're in the discovery period. And I'm sharing this

because we're dealing with this on a variety of levels to hold them accountable because this can this is not over this democracy is very fragile and I think what we're seeing now and what you're seeing through January the January 6 hearings is that we almost lost it I was sitting there on the floor right there when this took place and it was terrifying but we were determined later to come back and make sure that we made sure that the Electoral College was certified so that the president could be sworn in as President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. So we were determined to do that. But it was very dicey.

It was very dangerous. And this committee, the January 6th Committee, is showing you even in a more profound way than I ever thought that the Republicans, people who were advising this man, were telling him don't do it, that it was almost illegal, that it was wrong. It was. They're telling him that. But, you know, we have to see, and I think the Department of

Justice, I wish they'd move a little quicker, much quicker, but. That is the most generous way to put it yeah but they're being very methodical and i'm not defending them but you see some have been uh you know charged with treason already and sedition that's a heavy duty charge and and the department of justice did that and so hopefully they're looking at this very carefully so that when they bring these cases forward, that they're going to be substantial and they will hold and these people will be held accountable for almost destroying our democracy and violently overthrowing our government. So I love the point that you made. Sorry.

our government. So I love the point that you made. Sorry. That's what they almost did. Still trying. Still trying. I love the idea that criminal liability isn't the only weapon in the arsenal to hold these individuals accountable. And I love that you are the lead plaintiff in a civil suit. So the law professor in me wants to do a deep dive. Why a civil suit, right? So what could a civil suit do that a criminal prosecution could not, or how could it complement a criminal prosecution in ways that would be helpful for promoting accountability? prosecution in ways that would be helpful for promoting accountability? Well, a civil suit will also bring forth the culpability of these criminals. With a lower standard. Right. But they would have to pay up big time. So are you going to bankrupt him? They'd pay up big time in a civil suit. Are you going to bankrupt him?

I hope so. Let's hope so. What if they offered you the opportunity to settle this suit? Would you say like, hell no, we're doing this? I want this suit to move forward to the court. I want people to hear more of what took place on January 6th, and also who these people are, because it's not only the crowd that mobbed and almost destroyed our democracy at the Capitol, but we're talking about people and groups all over the

country. We're talking about white supremacists. We're talking about domestic terrorists. We're talking about white supremacists. We're talking about domestic terrorists. We're talking about some very, very scary organizations that are still out there. And so I think the civil suits, criminal suits, the January 6th Commission, every tool we have in our toolbox has to be activated now. Because this is a very dangerous moment, but it's a moment that I know will survive and move forward. But everybody here, you all have to help and you all have to push really hard to make sure that your voices are heard and that everyone understands that we're not going to let this go. Some are saying, oh, that was then, this is now. No. No. We have to keep this in front of the public until justice is done and until we know it will never happen again. So I read an interview that you did with the 19th where you mentioned that on the morning of January 6th,

when you went to work at the Capitol, you decided to put on tennis shoes because you had a bad feeling about what was going to happen that day. You didn't know, but you had a bad feeling. So one, believe black women. bad feeling. So one, believe black women. Stay ready so you don't have to get ready. What was it like being at the Capitol in your sneakers knowing that you were running for your life? Well, first, let me tell you, being black in America requires you to keep your antennas up all of the time. Secondly, I shared with you that my great-grandmother was enslaved. And so my antennas and my DNA tells me that I have to be ready all the time.

Now, having said that, there had been many security briefings, many security precautions taken, but I was listening and reading some of these right-wing organizations and these blogs. And I knew, let me just share this, I was sitting in the Capitol on 9-11 and had to evacuate. And we were told a plane might be coming in. I had on heels that day. And it was hard running up Pennsylvania Avenue in heels. So I swore that if I ever had any inclination that something would go down, I wasn't going to wear high heels. And so listening to all of what was being put out there by the MAGA people, I said, no, I don't know what's going to happen. I have no idea. But I do have a clue that something's going to go down. So I wore my tennis shoes. And I'm glad I did. Because... So you were reading MAGA blogs?

Yeah. I have to read everything. Listening to the press. I kind of have to know what's going on. On all fronts, you know. I mean, you're a better man than I. I mean, not that I... I mean, I just have to know.

That's why I wore my tennis shoes. Not very few members wore their tennis shoes that day because they didn't. They learned. They learned. So it was very scary. A lot of movement in the Capitol. When I saw the Sergeant-at-Arms take Speaker Pelosi out, when the chaplain came up to the podium to pray, You'll see how when the chaplain came up to the podium to pray, when we were told to get our gas, yeah, we have gas masks on, you know, pull out our masks.

We may have to put them on or we may have to hit the floor, one or the other. And so you can imagine what's going on. And I'm looking at my cell phone, people telling me what's happening. And I'm hearing all this noise out there, and I couldn't figure out if my mask was backwards or forwards, so I had to ask somebody. It was Congressman Eric Swalwell and Sherry Boosters. We were all three together on the floor trying to figure out if we were putting our masks on backwards. That's a good squad for that. That's good. Yeah, yeah, it was good, and we had just a few seconds to get out of there. And then we went to this undisclosed location. But the other scary part that was in the height of COVID and very few Republicans had masks on. I'm shocked. So I'm like freaking out because it's like, oh my God, I'm in this

closed area walking like this and COVID is everywhere. In fact, several members contracted COVID on that day. And so you can imagine what it's like trying to survive, fight for your life on a lot of fronts. And, but that's what we do. And that's kind of the dangers and the risks that we constantly face, but it's worth the risk because we've got to fight for what is right, fight for this democracy, fight for the people and make sure that we do the job

that you send us there to do. So I'm getting a signal that I'm going to wrap up this black girl magic in a minute. But one last question for you. In September, you testified before a House committee on reproductive rights and justice and threats to reproductive justice. And you testified about your own abortion story. And then there were a lot of discussions from experts. I testified there about threats to reproductive justice as well. What I thought was so interesting about this hearing was how many Republicans talked about the idea that abortion is a form of eugenics. And they were so worried about all of these aborted black fetuses. Can you explain to me how your Republican colleagues are working to help black children

generally outside of this space? No, I can't because they are not. When you look at their voting records, they don't do nothing to help black children. Zero. And so, you know, that, and I'll just share this because I had never talked about this because it was my personal private decision when I was a teenager between me and my mother. And that was the way it was. And the stigma and all of the issues that so many people have around coming out, talking about issues that are very deeply personal. But after Mississippi and after Texas and after all of these laws started getting passed, I took a deep breath and said, look, you've got to stand up and speak out. And so I did and told the story of my mother. I was living in California by then, and I got pregnant, and I didn't know

what to do. And I went to Catholic school, so you can imagine all of the confusion and emotions that I had. But my mother and I talked about it and made the decision that this was the right thing for me to do. And so my first airplane ride actually was from California back to El Paso. My mother had a friend who recently passed away who said that she, and she worked with her, and she was a wonderful Latina. She said she knew a doctor in Mexico. Now, remind you, abortions were illegal in the United States and in Mexico, and that she would send me to her. First airplane ride cost $200, and I'm still, it's still so clear in my mind. And she took me over late one night, like 1030, 11 o'clock. It was a back alley, really dark,

walked in there and it was a dark clinic, but there was some lights overhead. And the doctor had on a white coat, and the rest is history. But let me tell you, I survived, and I was terrified. So many black women didn't. The main cause of death during that period among black women were septic abortions. So I knew I was terrified, and I also knew I could be put in jail because it was illegal. And so I didn't know coming back across the border if I was going to be arrested. Still, I don't know about the statute of limitations. It's Texas. But I share that because right now I'm so concerned about the criminalization of people who are going to find a way to make sure they have abortion access. And so this is about reproductive

justice, reproductive freedom, and it's about making sure that everyone has their democratic rights over their bodies. Yeah. We're going to fight like you will not believe. Yeah. We're going to fight like you will not believe. So, Barbara Lee, thank you for speaking for Oakland. Thank you for speaking for the Bay Area. Thank you for fighting. Please give a warm Pod Save America applause to Barbara Lee. All right, it's time for more news.

Since we're here in the Bay Area, I thought we would talk about what fresh hell your tech oligarchs have wrought on America. Here to help us do that is New York Times technology correspondent and the author of the best-selling Super Pumped! The Battle for Uber, Mike Isaac. There we go. There's a proper hello. Thanks for joining. Thanks for doing this. Thank you for having me. Thanks for joining. Thanks for doing this.

Thank you for having me. So you just wrote about the latest developments around the richest man in the world buying one of the world's most politically influential social media platforms, unfortunately. So for the first time, Elon Musk spoke directly to Twitter's employees during a 90-minute Q&A that you listened to where he said, quote, I want Twitter to contribute to a better, longer-lasting civilization where we better understand the nature of reality. So my first question is, did that line get any laughs? What were your other big takeaways from the call, and do you think Elon Musk wants to close this deal?

First, it reminded me of Joshua Tree last summer. So just like, that's kind of... No, I think he wanted to close it a few months ago. But like now, Dan and're talking about about this backstage he literally bought the company at the height of of the market like the worst possible time the world's best best uh innovator bought at the worst possible time for 44 billion dollars and now he's been doing this thing where he's essentially trying to renegotiate the deal in public, basically, by saying Twitter hasn't given me enough information, you know, there's all these bots on it.

And so I think, like, he would have loved to have bought this company a few months ago, but now it looks like kind of a bad deal. And also, there were a lot of Slack jokes about this guy, who was casting, by the way, from, like, a hotel room from his phone, like, very bootleg mode. And so, yeah, I think Twitter employees are a little skeptical. Do you feel like he assuaged their concerns?

Someone, there was a Slack comment that said, if you were to take a shot for every question Elon answered throughout this call, you would be totally sober right now. Which I thought was totally accurate. Can I ask a question about this? So here's my 30,000-foot view of this, which is that it is not possible for someone who has done what Elon Musk has done to be as stupid as his public persona would seem.

It's also not possible for someone to be as smart as Elon Musk thinks Elon Musk is. Sure. So the answer is somewhere in between how he presents and what he's actually capable of. But in listening to Elon at any point, have you gotten any sense that he has a more sophisticated grasp of what Twitter is beyond this nonsense of it being some kind of a public square? Yeah, no, I mean, to be totally fair, I do think he has been a at the right place, right time and a lot of different moments in history, you know, particularly during the Obama administration and sort of riding Tesla to new highs.

And I think he's not a stupid guy. I think a lot of this positioning in public right now is very intentional, especially around the deal. But like, I think his understanding of policy in general and like what he wants to do as far as speech in the public square is like super flattened. It's not at all nuanced. It took Twitter's policy teams like years to come up with,

for example, you can't talk about, you can't be pro-Nazism in Germany, right? That's literally illegal there. So you have to take that off of Twitter. And, you know, he just doesn't really appreciate that. And Twitter is a product used by people all over the world. And I don't know if that's like a feature or a bug, you know, he just doesn't really appreciate that. And Twitter is a product used by people all over the world. And I don't know if that's like a feature or a bug, you know, like that part of part of me thinks he's like, I don't care. I just want all of it out there.

And only the snowflakes are going to be offended. But I really do think he believes that the more speech, the better in that regard. And you do think that he really wants to close this deal and is not just sort of playing around here for it? I think he wants to close it at a lower price. Like, I think he really fucked up on the price. Like, it's, the market is, he paid $44 billion. He signed a contract saying he was going to pay $44 billion.

Now he's saying, oh, I didn't know, blah, blah know blah blah trying to get out of it so i do think he wanted it at a certain point but now i think he's trying to more renegotiate it so yeah it's like guy that bought a condo at the peak of the market and is like trying to get squeeze out of the inspections it's like every no matter how big how rich these people get it's the same same like shit negotiations the It's just Trump arguing about countertops. I had a very different midlife crisis than he did, I think. So, apparently

one employee asked how Elon's political views will affect the company. He said he's a moderate who voted for Democrats in the past, though in the last few weeks, he's also said he's leaning towards Ron DeSantis for president. Yeah, some DeSantis for president. And that...

Yeah, some DeSantis fans. Weird. Sometimes we get these really pro-DeSantis crowds. Yeah, I thought we were going to get some applause there. He also said that he voted for Mayra Flores, a Republican congressional candidate who's used QAnon hashtags and urged people to buy more guns just a few days after January 6th. So that's cool. Dan, how much do we all have to care about Elon Musk's political views now? Is it time for everyone to return their Teslas? What's going on? Don't say that. I got to get hold of this event. You see it on

Twitter. Look, I think it's safe to say we all probably care way too much about Elon Musk, full stop. We're spending way too much about Elon Musk, full stop. We spend way too much time talking about him. Hence us talking about this here. Because you asked the question, I think there are ways in which how we care about it matters a little bit. I think it is not a good thing for the world that the world's richest man, someone who could outspend every penny the Kochs spent over 40 years in politics without really batting an eye, is thinking of supporting Ron DeSantis for president. That is a problem. We've seen the damage that Peter Thiel has done in American politics. Donald Trump would

not be elected without Peter Thiel. J.D. Vance would not be the nominee in Ohio. And he has fueled some of the most dangerous strains in the Republican Party. Elon Musk certainly could do a similar thing. He has the pockets to do it, and we're watching his radicalization happen before our eyes, and I think that is alarming. In terms of what it means for Twitter, I think we should just presume that these companies, whether it is Elon Musk or someone else, it's Mark Zuckerberg or someone else, are always going to do the wrong thing. And this idea that the way that we're going to make these platforms work is we're going to have well-meaning billionaire tech moguls in charge of them is like a deeply naive view of the world because ultimately,

they're responsive to a market. And so if we're going to want Twitter to do the right thing, if we're going to want to get Facebook to do the right thing, it's going to require rules and regulations that affect their bottom line if they don't do the right thing. Now, because, as you know, I am an optimist. I'm a silver linings, glass half full kind of guy. Famously.

Famously. Famously. I do concede there is one upside to Elon Musk's new Republican persona. It is not a bad thing for the world that the world's most prominent electric car manufacturer, solar panel distributor is a Republican. distributor is a Republican. And that, like, there is a, like, I don't want him to have that, but the fact that there is now some Republican out there who actually does not think that electric cars are destroying the world

or wind turbines cause cancer or any of those things, that, like, if you wanted to, like, find that silver lining in there. Which you always are looking for. Which I'm, like, look, I'm known for that. I, every day I wake up, I try to find the positive, and so that would be the positive. Dan's watching Star Wars like, they'll known for that. I, every day I wake up, I try to find the positive. And so that would be the positive. Dan's watching Star Wars like, they'll never destroy it.

It's not possible. It's too small a hole. So Elon also said during the call that he wouldn't allow criminal acts to be carried out on the network. Thank you. That's wonderful. He's previously said that under his ownership, Twitter would allow all speech that the First Amendment protects and that he's, quote, against censorship that goes far beyond the law. Melissa, Mike was just talking about this. Like, is it a good idea to have content moderation policies track the First Amendment?

So this is a great question. I feel like to answer it, we just sort of have to get something out of the way that, like, Facebook are not the government. They are private entities and they aren't governed by the First Amendment. So just a PSA from your law professor. Thank you. The whole question of whether the policies to track the First Amendment, I think actually opens up the door to a wide range of speech that I think people who use Twitter would find problematic. Take, for example, the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, where neo-Nazis were marching through Charlottesville saying things like, you know, you will not replace us and racist and anti-Semitic things. Charlottesville could not stop them because of the First Amendment. It was protected by the First Amendment. So imagine opening Twitter and,

you know, you have all of these Nazi screeds, you have anti-Semitic screeds, you can see beheadings, you can see pornography. All of those things are protected by the First Amendment. And so Twitter is not a public square. It's a social media platform that has a profit motive. And you could imagine that if that kind of content was available, people would leave. They don't want to see it. So I don't know that Twitter wants something like that. I don't know that it would be a good idea for Twitter just because all of the content would, again, what the First Amendment allows is actually quite vast and probably more alarming than we even recognize. So again, that's sort of the danger of it.

And I don't even think the Republicans realize that. They just want to stop the limiting of conservative viewpoints. I don't think they realize it's really a Pandora's box. Yeah, and every time you listen to Elon give an interview about this, it does not seem like he's thought this out. No, what he'll discover is, oh, I'm not the only smart person in the world. There's some other smart people who have been trying to grapple with these very difficult questions this entire time

and landed at these very uncomfortable compromises between the balance of allowing people to say what they will and the fact that humans are broken and fallen. Yeah. Sort of a core problem. And that buying the world's complaint department may not have been the best use of his fucking time. That buying the world's complaint department may not have been the best use of his fucking time. He's also, he's running a business and no company wants to put their ad next to the white supremacist screed. Like that is ultimately becomes the problem.

My pillow might. My pillow might. Yeah, my pillow. Right. Well, they have truth social covered. Right. But I mean, it is like that. They have these content policies, not because they care passionately about doing the right thing.

You just can't sell Coke ads if your Coke ad might run next to a KKK tweet or whatever it is. Are you tired of Jews or are you just tired? Too soon. Too soon. Oh, my gosh. All right. I do not want to make this segment only about Elon Musk, so we're going to talk about some of the other tech oligarchs out there.

Even if you don't care about their politics, unfortunately, they do care about ours. This was a CNET headline from Friday, quote, Big tech CEOs push Congress to oppose antitrust legislation. The bill in question is called the American Innovation and Online Choice Act. It would prevent tech platforms from giving preferences to their own products and services. On one side are the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, and Google who hate the bill.

They've been at Congress. They've been lobbying. They've spent a lot of money trying to defeat this bill. On the other side are senators ranging from Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Massey Hirono to Chuck Grassley, Lindsey Graham, and Josh Hawley. Now you don't know what to think. Love it. Who are we supposed to root for here?

Love it's going to decide. Yeah, I'll... Love it. Is it Josh Hawley or is it the Amazon CEO? Look, here's the thing. Once in a while, Josh Hawley points his fist in the right direction. Oh, my God. Jesus Christ.

A broken fist is right twice a day. This is a very modest bill. It's going to bounce Amazon Essentials to page two of the results, and they're throwing up a fit. First of all, I do think that there's this problem when we say tech, and it includes Apple, Amazon, Google,

Metabook, Twitter. These are extraordinarily different companies. If you had a bill that addressed gun manufacturers and factory farmers and truck makers, you'd be like, wait a second, these are not one thing. So I do think it's more complicated. It requires some nuance. But fundamentally, these are all companies

that have very much enjoyed using their bigness to both build platforms and then sell products or push services on their own platforms. And they enjoy the privileges that come from controlling the pipes and pushing stuff through it. They have these concerns. They've lost, I think, the credibility to be listened to. This is an incredibly modest bill that would make some very small changes,

and they act like the sky is falling every time, and any time there's even the hint of a potential regulation, it's, we're going to lose to China. You're going to destroy American competitiveness. This isn't about the size of our companies. This is about us. This is about the great Sino-American conflict to come. If you do this, you're going to cut us off at the knees and put us at a disadvantage. We're going to lose the AI fight. We're going to lose every fight. The drones. The drones. The drones are coming. Who will think of the drones? I think it is important that we, as a society,

stop taking these kinds of the sky is falling threats seriously. We need Congress to put in place some common sense regulations, yes, against these companies' ability to use their bigness and platform to privilege their own services, but also for privacy is another place where we could make some difference. And also just forget privileging their own products. Amazon having

basically using the data they collect to destroy their own small business retailers that use the service and to replace their goods with their own goods. Like that is wrong. That shouldn't be allowed. And so, you know, we need Congress to do, we need Congress to take these reasonable,

very small steps forward. We need to kind of empower agencies and give them the funding they need to actually take on antitrust. And then we need to kind of take on the ridiculous ideological right-wing judicial philosophy that has allowed these sort of companies to run amok and face no consequences for anti-competitive practices and basically kind of made it almost impossible for us to regulate these people because they're enamored of this idea that if you can, basically, if it reduces prices for consumers, you can't stop it, no matter the harm it does,

no matter the consolidation it causes. The silver lining is that this is the first time Josh Hawley has been for choice. Which is certainly notable. Yes. Certainly notable. Don't tell the Missourians. Mike, if this is such a modest change to the law from this bill,

why are they spending so much money and why are tech companies so against it? Is it just they're greedy? Is it that they're worried that it's a slippery slope that will lead to more legislation? What do you think? First of all, it's funny to hear them say in public for a very long time, Zuckerberg has said, we want to be regulated. This is something that's great for us. And then there's been record amounts each year on more sort of backroom lobbying

and pushing back against it. Yeah, it's like he wants to be punished, but he's very quick to his safe word. Wow. Wow. Wow. Okay. I'm sorry. Which is, no.

Yeah, right, right. But I think the, I think one of the big, I'm sorry. It's just never leaving my mind, that thought. I think one of the big things, though, is that they had at least a decade where they didn't really have to worry about changing any of their products, right?

Like, there was an FTC that really wasn't pursuing... And you could argue, like, did they were uh there was an ftc that really wasn't pursued and you could argue like did they know how influential some of these companies were going to be did they know that let's say the instagram acquisition was going to be as giant now in retrospect as as we see and so like i think now just even the the hint of of not being able to privilege their own stuff is very scary to them. And what they like to stand behind is we want to provide the best products, right? And not just something else because it's a different name.

But I think consumers haven't had a choice in the first place for a very long time. So just putting that out there is something new. Well, Melissa, we have now an executive branch that's for stronger regulation of these tech companies. We now have a bipartisan majority potentially in Congress. What do we know about how the court has looked at these attempts to regulate tech companies, this court?

So the Supreme Court moves pretty slowly with technology. They only recognized cell phones a few years ago. So that's the first. And Ginny Thomas led the charge on that. The Ginny tonic is going to be the refreshing drink of the summer. There you go. So there was a case a couple of years ago where Justice Kennedy wrote for the court saying that, you know, social media platforms were kind of like the space for speech. Like this is where people communicated. And then a few years ago, 2018, there was a case called Halleck where Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, but made clear that just because something is a platform, in this case, it was a public television station that was actually operated by private entities. The fact that it was a platform didn't turn it into a public space regulable by the First

Amendment. So, you know, there's sort of uneven precedents here that point in different directions. So, you know, there's sort of uneven precedents here that point in different directions. Just this month, though, there was an interesting shadow docket case dealing with a law out of Texas, which was about content moderation. And the Fifth Circuit had basically not only allowed the law to be in effect while the constitutionality of it was being litigated, they sort of expressed approval of it. This was something that was permissible under the First Amendment. And the court, in a shadow docket decision that was a five-to-four decision, we only know it was a five-to-four decision because there's no signed opinion, but there were four noted dissenters, the court stayed or enjoined the law from being in effect while its constitutionality was litigated,

suggesting that maybe there's some play here andigated, suggesting that maybe, you know, there's some play here and they don't think that a law like this, at least while it's being litigated, should go into effect. But the lineup was really strange. So Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissented, as did Justice Gorsuch. But then they were joined by noted conservative Elena Kagan. Interesting. Very interesting.

Again, no opinion here, so we don't really know what the court thought about this, but they at least wanted the law to be held, to be enjoined while its constitutionality is being litigated. Well, it sounds like since both the politics in Congress and the ideological scramble in the court are sort of up for grabs on this. Maybe there's room for progress in regulating big tech. I don't know. Check your text messages from Ginny. Yeah, yeah. That's all right. That's what we'll end up with. All right. When we come back,

Dan will talk to your state representative, Buffy Wicks. Huge news, guys. Huge news. Crooked Coffee is here so we can finally stop talking about how it's coming soon and start talking about how it's arrived. Our first blend, What a Morning, is available in delicious medium and dark roasts. I'm a dark roast guy. I love them both, but I think I'm just a huge fan of this dark roasts. I'm a dark roast guy. Medium for me. I love them both,

but I think I'm just a huge fan of this dark roast. I want you all to know something, that we had so much coffee come to different people at Crooked so they could all test different kinds of coffee so they could pick out a really good one. They worked very hard to pick out a good one. People are really seriously too. A lot of comparisons, a lot of talking about coffee.

We worked hard with coffee experts to make sure our beans are top shelf quality. Don't give us any shitty beans over here. Top shelf beans. You got to get on a stepstool to get these beans. And of course, you know, we're Crooked Media. It was important that the coffee was ethically sourced. And very importantly, we're donating a portion of the proceeds to the organization Register Her,

which will help millions of women across the country vote. There are people out there that said that a media company couldn't launch its own coffee brand. We're here to say we're going to prove you wrong. Bezos. Haters. Because we got coffee now. Go to crooked.com slash coffee to get your crooked coffee now.

We're excited to have our old co-worker from the Obama White House, our longtime friend and California State Representative, Buffy Wicks. Buffy, welcome to the stage. This is how we always thought it would end, right? I was just thinking, the last time I saw you was at the stage of the Commonwealth Club when I was interviewing you for your book. That's right.

Yes. That was two books and one pandemic ago. Buffy and I have known each other for 15 years now. We worked together in the Obama campaign, the Obama White House. She's gone on to much bigger and better things, as we can see. But we have you here, and we have an audience here in the Fox, but also around the country listening to it. California is both a progressive laboratory for policy ideas and also the right wing's favorite punching bag.

So let's talk a little bit about some of the issues that are sort of dominating politics in California and how they may apply nationally. So let's start with crime. Just a couple weeks ago, there was a recall election in San Francisco where the DA was overwhelmingly recalled. That was taken by national political pundits as a huge warning sign for Democrats in a rebuke to the idea of criminal justice reform that really dominated a lot of the party, particularly since 2020. What is your take on what, you know, what that election says, what's happening here in California and what lessons Democrats should take from it? It's a good question. and what lessons Democrats should take from it? It's a good question.

I mean, I don't think that the recall of Chessa was a canary in the coal mine for all Democrats around the country. I think a better indicator of where we're at on the issue is you look at someone like Diane Becton, who, thank you, a little woo for Diane Becton over there. She's a progressive DA in Contra Costa County. She handedly won her reelection. You look at someone like Attorney General Rob Bonta, some woos for Rob Bonta. And I served with Rob when he was in the

legislature. And there are a few people who have run more progressive criminal justice reform work than Rob. And he won handedly in this election. And, you know, I think his message is one I think is important. It is we can do the reform work that we need to do because we know that there are deep racial inequities within our criminal justice system. We know that it is discriminatory. We know that it hurts brown and black folks more. But we can also keep our communities safe. And we can do both of these things. And by the way, our black and brown communities also want to be safe, right? And so I think how he talks about this, and frankly, how the governor's talking about it, and the work that they're doing, I think is,

it's demonstrated in the polls that it's what people want. And it means that we can have our cake and eat it too. We can have reform, but we can also have safety at the same time. So another issue here that we talk about all the time here in California is housing and homelessness, which two intertwined issues. Housing is incredibly expensive here. You have been working on this issue for a long time in the state legislature. What are we trying to do here in California to address that? And how is that potentially a model for what the nation can do? Yeah, so do we have how long to answer that question? It's a big one. And you look in

California, right? We are 2.5 to 3.5 million homes shy where we need to be, depending on whose data you use. We have 100, at any given moment, 163,000 plus or take a few unhoused people in our streets in California every single night. We have growing encampments. We have rent burden that is beyond anything that most people can understand. We have people that can't afford their mortgage. It's a massive problem here. And you talk to older folks who want their kids to come to come back to California after going away to college or something and raise their kids here they can't afford to live here you have folks artists who are leaving because they can't afford the cost of living here the issue is it's huge it's the number one issue that polls amongst voters every every election cycle both

the housing and the homeless issue and the reality of the matter is we've made it very difficult to build housing in California. Building, that's right. And building multifamily mixed income housing is illegal in almost 80% of the state of California. So we have to make it easier to build housing. We have to subsidize low income, very deep affordable housing here in California. We have to buildize low-income, very deep, affordable housing here in California. We have to build all of the above market rate. We have to build housing, but with that also

comes investments in public transportation. So. Clearly they've been on the couch. I know they've, yes. They're taking BART now again, post-COVID, hopefully. Cheers for post-COVID. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. And, you know, we've done a lot of the last couple of years, we've done a lot of work in the space in the legislature, but we do have to make it easier to do. And frankly, there's a lot of cities that don't want to build. You know, we have to have some real tough conversations with those cities and make it easier.

But that is absolutely what we need to do is build more housing. So you have a specific bill. They would speed up the building of affordable housing on commercial land. But it's gotten pushback from trade unions. You know, and you are a, you're a former union organizer. You're as good a friend to labor as there ever has been.

Explain how you deal with that sort of cross ideological pushback. Because this is not, it's not as simple as like rich landlords or rich people or nimbyism. It's we have like members of our own coalition pushing back against these bills. The housing issue is the one that I find politically the most interesting because it's not just sort of Democrat versus Republican, right? It's like three dimensional chess. So yeah, I have a bill that would basically allow more residential housing in commercially zoned areas. And I've been working with the Carpenters Union, who they build the majority of housing in California,

to craft a bill that would create the strongest workforce protections that we have. The other thing in the housing industry is it is notorious for wage theft and exploitation of workers, and particularly they tend to be immigrant communities who come in and take these jobs. So we have to wrap our head around that so that we're creating good-paying jobs and helping to create the middle class while at the same time streamlining the housing. You know, the bill that you're referring to, AB 2011, for the housing nerds in the audience, is sponsored by the Carpenters Union.

As I said, it has support from SEIU, CSEA, which is the School Employees Union, the Service Sectors Unions, and many others. And it's currently opposed by the Building Trades Union, as you mentioned, because they have a different standard that they want to use for housing production. But the difficulty with that issue is that we don't have currently the union workforce across the state to build the housing that we need to build. So what I'm trying to do is thread a needle here, create the highest standards that we can while still streamlining housing so that we can build the union workforce. We have an apprenticeship component in the bill that helps to build more good union-paying jobs in this industry, and I think it's a win-win-win

if we can create that workforce and streamline the housing. So that's the goal of the bill. Any day now, we expect to get the Supreme Court's opinion in the Dobbs case, which would, based on the leaked opinion, overturn Roe v. Wade. Here in California, you and your colleagues are working very hard to push back on that because abortion would become a state issue. And there's an effort to, 13 bills right now that would help make California an abortion sanctuary state. Can you explain what that means and what's going into that work? Sure. And before I get into that, I also want to say,

I have spoken publicly about an abortion that I had when I was 25. And it was after actually the 2004 election cycle because we run different teams in the 2004 election cycle. And I was living in San Francisco and I was in between jobs and staying on a friend's couch. And I had an unplanned pregnancy. And I went to Planned Parenthood. And they welcomed me and they welcomed me with open arms, with information, with respect and frankly love and helped me make this decision. A decision that for me at that time in my life, I was not prepared to have a child. I now have two beautiful girls who are the light of my life.

They're the cutest. And, you know, I think about that moment in my life and what that meant for me to be able to make that decision for myself. And. able to make that decision for myself. And, you know, and then I got to go work with you and others and I got to help elect the first black president and got to work in the White House and come back here and I met my husband and I ran for office and I got to do all of these things because I was able to make that decision. So the work that I do in this space is deeply personal for me. That was an empowering decision for me. I want to make sure that my daughters have that same choice if they need it.

And frankly, all of America. Thus, we are doing 15 bills here in California to really fast track and make sure that California is a reproductive freedom state for all in this country. And so, I won't go through every bill I could, but it's two main buckets. One are the legal protections. So I have a bill right now that is to ensure that no one in California is criminally prosecuted for any pregnancy loss. And there's a lot of applause lines in this. So it's going to take a second, which is great. We have a sympathetic audience. But in California, a couple months ago, a woman named Adora Perez

was just released from prison. She was there for four years. She was prosecuted for a crime that doesn't exist in California called murder of a fetus. She had a stillbirth. And she was criminally prosecuted and was in prison for four years in California, was released a couple months ago in 2022. So this still happens here. So my bill would make sure that that is not possible and that someone like Adora could get recourse and sue the DA that put her there. But we're also working on making sure that privacy is protected so that if people have abortions here in California, no matter where you're from in this country, if you come here, that your privacy can't be violated by other states

who want to know if you had an abortion here. So there's a whole bunch of legal protections. We're also working to make sure that if doctors prescribe through telehealth the abortion pill to other states, they cannot be criminally prosecuted or extradited. So there's a whole bucket in that space. And then on the infrastructure side, just making sure our providers are prepared, we expect a 3,000% increase of folks seeking safe and legal abortion in California. That's what we're preparing for. Right now, it's about 46,000 abortions a year.

We expect it to be about 1.4 million. And so making sure that our providers are prepared for that. We are developing a fund that's going to be run through the state, but it's seeking philanthropic funds to help people who are coming from other parts of the country, a website with helpful information for those folks that are coming. We're making sure our workforce is diverse, that we have a diverse workforce to make sure we represent everyone who's seeking abortion care. We're doing a number of things. We have a budget ask of about $125 million this year to make sure that we're prepared for what we expect to happen.

And this is not something we want to do, of course, but it's something we feel morally obligated to do to make sure that we are a safe haven for people who need care here. So last question for you. You are someone who has gone on the journey that we hope so many of our listeners go on, which you started out, became an activist, turned politics into a career,

became an operative and one of the best organizers in the Democratic Party, and then you went and ran for office and have stayed in the fight this whole time. And so I was wondering if you could just maybe give a message to the people listening who maybe are feeling a little bit down about what's happened in the world or disengaged or that it doesn't matter anymore,

why it's so important to stay in the fight right now. I mean, I think now is the most important time to stay in the fight given what's happened in this country, you know, and I was, I was an activist and I remember the two during the first or second Iraq war back in Oh two Oh three. I was the girl with like the bullhorn and like the multicolored hair and the

nose ring and shutting down the Bechtel corporation in downtown San Francisco. Um, you know, and I worked for many causes of the labor movement, as you said, and Howard Dean and Barack Obama and many others. And I will say, you know, I was struck by the work recently. I did a bill two years ago that would open the statute of limitations for those that had been victimized by an OB-GYN at UCLA who had been sexually assaulting women for

about 30 years. And there was a class action lawsuit because of the bill I did that opened up the statute of limitations. And there were hundreds of women who were able to seek recourse. And while they will never be made whole by that experience, they feel a little bit better. by that experience, they feel a little bit better. And it's important to remember the work that we do and the impact it has on individual people's lives, right? And I just think every single person in this room and who's listening has the ability to change this country for the better.

and whether you're doing it by giving five dollars a month to your favorite organization whether you're doing it as someone who volunteers 20 hours a week or whether you're someone who's contemplating running for office you know I never thought I would run for office ever and then in the 2016 election I was pregnant with my oldest daughter, and she was due election day. And I thought she was going to be born the day we elected our first woman president, and it was going to be very serendipitous, right? And then Trump happened, and she was late, and so the whole thing blew up. But I just got really pissed off at what happened in 2016 and decided to run for this seat when it opened up.

And I do think there are a lot of women who run when Trump happened, right? And that's part of his legacy is the work that we are all doing now to right those wrongs of what was there. is the work that we are all doing now to right those wrongs of what was there. But I think, honestly, I don't mean to be hyperbolic about it, but our country depends on this. Our country right now is at risk of falling apart. I mean, honestly, democracy right now is in peril. And I hate to sound so like dramatic, but I truly believe that. And I think the only way we can fix it is if we, all of us decide that we are going to fix it. And so take whatever that next leap is. You know, if you're thinking about running for office,

if you're thinking about, you know, volunteering more, about donating more, all the things that you can do, do it and do it now and do it wholeheartedly and think about the people's lives who you will impact with that work. Buffy Wicks, thank you so much for joining us. Please give it up for Buffy. If you're here, if you're listening at home, you know what we're about. I guess I can sit. We breathe, we sleep politics.

Our nutritionists are horrified. Our lungs are shot. No amount of melatonin can fix what's wrong with us. You too probably find yourself sucked into the 24-7 political news cycle, but here's the thing, there's a great big beautiful world out there that has nothing to do with how incredibly slow Judge J. Michael Ludwig talks and whether or not we feel okay about making fun of that. We don't know. We don't know.

I think we do. Which is why I'm challenging my co-host to a game we're calling Everything But the January 6th Hearings. We want to find out what, if anything, they learned from this week in the news outsideth hearings. We want to find out what, if anything, they learned from this week in the news outside of politics.

But we need someone from the audience who thinks the algorithm from on high knows in their hearts they're also open to some sports and science news.

So our producer, Leo, is out there. Would someone like to join us? We're going to split into teams. I can't see Leo. Oh, there he is. He's over there. Over here. Leo's going see Leo. Is he over there? Leo's going to pick somebody.

Somebody out there want to play who feels like they're a well-rounded news consumer. They're going to come around. So Melissa and Dan, if you wouldn't mind moving over here, you're going to be this team. We're going to call you the team... Team...

I didn't think of team names. Well, I was going to say because you're from the Bay Area. But this other person's probably going to be from the Bay Area, too. I was going to say Warriors Celtics. Yeah, that's great. Warriors versus the Celtics.

That's a great setup. Has Larry Bird retired or is he still playing? He's He was a Celtic Someone's coming around Come on on stage, hi what's your name? Hi I'm Kara

Kara where are you from? I am from Oakland We got an Oakland native Nice to meet you Thanks for being here and being on John's team. He'll need the help. He reads what he reads. I know nothing.

I know nothing but the... So here's how it works. We're going to go back and forth. I'm going to ask you questions about the news, and we'll see who wins. All right? You guys ready? Here we go.

I'll start. Can we confer? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it's a team game. Talk it through. You didn't really explain it well. I wasn't saying it. It sounded defensive. Yeah, it did. It did. I'm so sorry. Okay. Yeah, it's a team game. You talk it through. You didn't really explain it well. No, I wasn't saying it.

It sounded defensive. Yeah, it did. I'm so sorry. Okay. Apology not accepted. Edit that out. All right. And everyone can confer.

Talk it through. All right. Here we go. First question for Melissa and Dan. This week, Microsoft retired what web browser? Internet Explorer. Yes, that one. But what number?

Oh, come on. They retired all of them. All of them. Yeah, Internet Explorer 11. I'll give it to you. Okay. Nice. Kara John, a VHS copy of what beloved 1985 film sold for $75,000?

1985. Confirm the mics, please, Cara. Is that too early? You can't just talk. You have to be in there. Cara, use your microphone. Can I play Ghostbusters? It's a podcast.

Come on. What do you think? 1985. I would say Ghostbusters or Back to the Future. Ghostbusters. Can we steal? Yep. Back to the Future. Oh, we were going to? 1985. Ghostbusters. Can we steal? Yep. Back to the future.

Oh, we were going to say that. They stole it. They stole it. We had it. Wow. We're introducing steals. Melissa, Dan, what foul-mouthed canine was arrested in the U.S. Capitol while filming with staffers from The Late Show with Stephen Colbert?

What was it? Triumph. Yep. Triumph, the incel comic dog. I didn't miss that. Oh, Triumph, yeah. Oh, oh, oh. I couldn't hear you.

That was basically a generic expression. You couldn't hear me? My God. No, yeah. I don't think I should be louder. Burger kings in Japan have temporarily pivoted to serving their burgers with a side of ramen noodles due to a shortage of what?

I'm assuming fries. Yeah. Potatoes? Yeah, assuming fries. Yeah. Potatoes? Yeah. Potatoes. Petco is opening stores for a whole new family of animal customers. Horses, cows, sheeps, pigs, and what? If you say so.

I don't know. Well, I don't know. Go for it. Like, does anyone have a pet llama? Llama? Alpaca? All right, give us a list again. Give us a list again.

It's animal customers, horses, cows, sheep, pigs, and what? Goats. Goats. Goats. Yes. Yes. See? Yes.

There you go. Okay. All right. Cara John, what legendary stoner opened an art museum dedicated to preserving and celebrating Chicano art this week? Cheech. Hey, hey. We're going to go with Cheech.

It's Cheech. Nice, nice. All right. Okay. Naomi Osaka unfortunately had to pull out of what tennis tournament due to an Achilles tendon injury? Is it French Open time? I don't know. It's not Wimbledon.

Is it French Open now? Shut the fuck up. Excuse me. Say that again? Keep yelling. They said Wimbledon. It's not Wimbledon. Okay.

Yeah, well, maybe it is Wimbledon. Can we steal? Let's go to Wimbledon. Okay, Wimbledon. Guys, hey, hey, hey. Wimbledon, yes. I know this is the Bay Area. I know this is the Bay Area. All right, this isn't about,

this isn't getting your kids into college. We don't cheat. Wimbledon. Wimbledon is correct. What bankrupt electronics chain turned cryptocurrency platform tweeted from their official account tweets like, who else is high as fuck right now

and congrats on the landing of your new giant metal cock Elon? Oh, I think I know this. It's RadioShack. I think so. RadioShack. Correct. Melissa, Dan, the internet reeled at a photo

of a bleach blonde Ryan Gosling as what classic children's toy? Ken. Yes. Ken. Ken. I printed one and put it in my locker. All right, here we go.

What is the name, John and Kara, what is the name of Drake's new album? Can we steal? Never mind. Never mind. Wrong. Honestly, never mind. It goes to Dan.

So close. John, I'll give you a follow-up because that was close enough. What country was Montana Governor Greg Gianforte vacationing in while the state suffered catastrophic flooding? Italy. It's Italy.

I'm going to... That's political news. That's sort of politics. That's political news. Half a point. Severe weather, Melissa, has created a shortage of this popular hot sauce. Oh, it's sriracha. Sriracha.

Correct. Correct. You'd all be ejected from front. This isn't The Price is Right. This is Jeopardy. Final question. You have to get this

and you'll probably still lose based on the feeling of it. John and Cara, Beyonce announced the upcoming and you'll probably still lose based on the feeling of it. John and Cara, Beyonce announced the upcoming arrival of her new album on July 29th. What is the name of that album? Fuck. Oh, man.

All right. Renaissance. Renaissance. Renaissance. Renaissance. Renaissance. I hope you're proud of yourselves, Oakland. The winners of the game are everybody on stage.

You all lost, except for Kara. Kara wins. Who's the winner. That's the game. Yeah, for sure. We obviously won. Kara wins. Who's the winner. That's the game. Yeah, for sure. We obviously won. We won. And also, you did better. You did win.

You did do better. Now we're doing steal rules. We introduced the steal. Melissa introduced the steal. It's fair. You couldn't stop the steal. Prices right rules apply with the... Maybe you should have stopped the steal.

You think about that? Prices right rules are in effect. You helped them a lot. You failed to stop the steal. John, end the show as soon as possible. That's our show for tonight. Thank you to Melissa Murray, Barbara Lee, Buffy Wicks, Mike Isaac. Go to votesaveamerica.com.

Thank you, Oakland. Thank you, Oakland. guitar solo Hot Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein. Our producer is Haley Muse, and Olivia Martinez is our associate producer. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineer the show. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Sandy Gerard, Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn,

Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montouf. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash crooked media.