Pod Save America - “Hot tub crime machine.”

Episode Date: December 10, 2018

The Department of Justice effectively accuses the President of directing an illegal scheme to manipulate the 2016 election, Mueller uncovers more connections between the Russian government and Trump��s campaign, and the President struggles to keep his Administration staffed. Then Congresswoman-elect Ilhan Omar talks to Tommy about Democratic plans for the new Congress, and her support for the BDS movement.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Later in the pod, Tommy's conversation with Congresswoman-elect Ilhan Omar, who will soon be representing Minnesota's 5th District as one of the first female Muslim members in the history of Congress. Very exciting. Yeah.

Lovett, are we leaving this back? Lovett, are we leaving this back? There was a musical performance? Yes. The Women's Center for Creative Work, their community chorus, came by and sang the 12 Days of Healthcare about open enrollment, which you can check out. We also had Mitra Juhari,

Jen Statsky, Hayes Davenport, one of my favorite episodes. I did a particularly strange rant about falling asleep on the couch that was not about me. Okay. It was about other people's issue.

I believe it is back. Check out that video of everyone singing of the choir. It's excellent. And also, open enrollment deadline is December 15th. Go to healthcare.gov. Sign up. Tommy, what's on tap for Pod Save the World this week? This week in studio, we will have a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro. Oh, yeah.

We all worked with Dan on the OA campaign. He was in the National Security Council for a couple of years before heading out to be our ambassador. He was like a mini celebrity over there. He's a really thoughtful, nice guy. And he can talk about not just our friend Bibi Netanyahu and the U.S.-Israel relations, but Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudis, the whole thing. Outstanding. We're having a good time. And, Lovett, I believe you have

some Love It or Leave It touring to talk about. Love It or Leave It is going on tour. Woo! We'll be in all the best places, all your top, top places. Top tier markets. We're going to put out all the dates on Tuesday. The pre-sale starts on Wednesday.

The code will be crooked. And come check it out. Get those tickets. Get those tickets. All right, guys. It's time to get to the news. Oof. To sum up where we are right now, I just want to start with the lead from the New York Times

on Saturday. Please sum it up. Quote, the latest revelations by prosecutors investigating President Trump and his team draw a portrait of a candidate who personally directed an illegal scheme to manipulate the 2016 election and whose advisors had more contact with Russia than Mr. Trump has ever acknowledged. The prosecutors effectively accused the president of defrauding voters questioning the legitimacy of his victory. Not great. So the Times is referring to a pair of sentencing memos filed by the Southern District of New York and the special

counsel's office on Friday that recommended substantial prison time for former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, as well as a court document filed by the special counsel's office that detailed how former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors earlier this year after he entered into a plea agreement and promised cooperation. Let's start with the Cohen memos. How serious are these crimes and how do they implicate Donald Trump? Well, for Michael Cohen, they're pretty serious. I mean, I believe they outlined four crimes, four pretty substantial federal offenses. So Michael Cohen is in some trouble. He will likely get significant amounts of jail time. Some of those crimes were his own personal crimes, did on his own time.

Yeah, private time crimes. I mean, well, the problem for Cohen is that Michael Cohen tried to half cooperate, which means when it comes to the Southern District of New York, he wouldn't sign a full cooperation agreement that details every crime he committed or offer details about all the crimes others committed, presumably because who has that kind of time? You know what I mean? When there's that many crimes, it's like you got to remember them all. You got to get out your black ledgers where you write down the Russian money.

It's like when a clown is taking a handkerchief out of his nose. Exactly. Just keeps going and going. He probably thought to himself, maybe I can serve out my time in jail, and that would be shorter than talking about all my crimes. All my crimes. But we do know that Michael Cohen met with Mueller seven times, and that Mueller, from the special counsel's office document, was satisfied that he helped him out with a whole bunch of stuff. So this is a big problem for individual one Donald Trump, who conspired with him to commit campaign finance crimes. Yeah. Yeah. It seems like there there's how, how Michael Cohen

was cooperating with the Southern district and there seems to, and there's how Michael Cohen was cooperating with the special counsel. Those don't things don't totally align. It seems like maybe Mueller was a little bit more satisfied with him than, than the, than the U S attorneys in New York, but we don't really fully know. But the way that I was thinking about it was that, you know, we've been waiting to see for so long these three different paths that it can go. There's the obstruction of justice path, there was the collusion and blackmail path, and there was the rampant criminality and corruption path, right?

We've kind of been watching all three, and they seem to all coalesce in the mind and actions of this below-average New York City grifter, taxi medallion scammer named Michael Cohen. Yeah, I mean, the government believed that Trump was personally involved in a federal offense. Right. And I think that's a big deal. I have to say, I think the SDNY prosecutors did a fantastic job in this memo of laying out the story of

the crime the campaign finance crime and why it was so significant I thought there was a great section in the memo while many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors toiled at phone banks or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard Cohen sought I mean, can SDNY do some messaging for the Democrats? That sounds about right. I think, John SDNY do some messaging for the Democrats? That sounds about right. I think, John, what you mean is better deal. No, but that's what you see is that there are, you know, career prosecutors, law enforcement officials, nonpolitical people who have been investigating Michael Cohen and through Michael Cohen, Donald Trump, the Trump organization.

And what they are, what you see is that they are shaking with fury. They're, they're angry about how they're being derided by the president. They're angry about how one of the two political parties is diminishing these crimes, not because they have the interest of Democrats at heart, but because they're in it. They know more than we know and knowing more than, and, and there is, there are a few people besides Devin Nunes who know more than we know, who have not come to staggering conclusions about this administration. It's just funny. All this time, we've been focused on Bob Mueller and the special counsel. And it feels like Trump's JV idiot lawyers have too. And now there's this giant looming SDNY case coming down the pike. And we know that Cohen helped out and gave additional information about

others who might have committed crimes along with him. Which means that, I don't know, Don Jr., Ivanka, the CFO of the organization, is in some serious legal jeopardy too. Which means, while Michael Cohen might not have wanted to spell out every terrible thing he ever did, there's some other people in some serious legal jeopardy that very well could be. And like, what's fun, fun. What's interesting about all these reports is like all of this was documented in news reports for a long time. And there have been a whole bunch of other crimes in plain sight. They were in the Washington Post about the misuse of the charitable organization. Those all the other, all these other things that are very likely to become, you know, put him in legal jeopardy. And it is true now that the crimes are starting to have a theme.

Who is it? Whether the Russia crimes and the campaign finance crimes, which is Donald Trump and his associates broke the law and cheated in order to win an election. And, I mean, it's a very simple story here, whether it was the campaign finance crime or what we're seeing as a Russia conspiracy. Like the reason we have these federal finance laws at the heart of those laws is transparency.

If you are a candidate, you can spend as much money on your own race as you want. That is not the issue here with whether Trump spent the money or Cohen spent. But you can spend as much as you want. You must disclose the money that you spent. Not only did they not disclose the money that you spent. Not only did they not disclose the money that they spent, they actively tried to hide the money that they spent to

shut up Stormy Daniels and Carrie McDougal. And they did that by creating a shell corporation and engaging in fraudulent bookkeeping. And they also induced another company, the National Inquirer's parent company, to commit a crime by spending to an influence election and not being transparent about spending it. Dragging the National Enquirer

into this mess. Yeah, I mean. Those fine people, minding their own business, making up stories about John Travolta's plane. And that boy. Yeah, I mean, Cohen is in trouble for willful tax evasion, false statements to a financial institutionful tax evasion, false statements to a financial institution, illegal campaign contributions, false statements to Congress. That's a tough basket of problems. But on top of that, I mean, you know, I don't even know where to transition because there's so many crimes here. But we also know that money was, is, and remains a massive motivator for Donald Trump up to during and through the campaign because his organization is run by idiots.

He's a broke idiot who got all of his money from his father through various tax schemes, and they desperately needed a couple hundred million from the Russians to get a Trump Tower going because he's broke. They're grifters. So, and you know, you don't have to take our word for it about how serious this is. Fox pundit Andrew McCarthy, longtime Trump defender. Drifters. So, and you know, you don't have to take our word for it about how serious this is. Fox pundit Andrew McCarthy, longtime Trump defender. He's been defending him, thought the Russia investigation is stupid, been defending him through this whole thing.

Former SDNY prosecutor said, he wrote a whole piece about this over the weekend, quote, the president is very likely to be indicted on a charge of violating federal campaign finance laws. So credit to Andrew C. McCarthy for actually admitting that. I also just think Andrew McCarthy is the final hook that a lot of Republicans will hang by before letting go and admitting what they're seeing. I don't know what this analogy is really doing. letting go and admitting what they're seeing. I don't know what this analogy is really doing, but that he is the sort of, I would say, the serious intellectual conservative who has given a lot of cover.

I think sincere cover, right? They've allowed them, they believe Andrew McCarthy, they trust Andrew McCarthy, who has tried to diminish a lot of what's come out of these investigations. And now I think it's why there's a lot more quiet this weekend, because the ones they're looking to to help them out of this are locking the doors. You know, I would say, though, like,

give them a minute. I think they'll find a way to be even more craven. I mean, you're already seeing people. I think Rand Paul was out there saying that people commit campaign finance violations all the time. I mean, he's kind of right that a lot of campaign finance violations occur and they're paid for after the fact with fines and handled this way. But this does seem to be a whole other ballgame in terms of conspiring with your aid to cover up a hush money. But other Republicans are drawing a line and saying, what I need to see is evidence of collusion with Russia. And I haven't seen that yet. And until that happens, I'm with him. Well, let's take the campaign finance violation argument, which we're going to hear a lot from people like Rand Paul. And we heard this morning from Donald Trump.

He was tweeting this morning about how Democrats can't find a smocking gun with regard to collusion guns. So now they're focused on what he calls a simple private transaction, a civil case, really. And also, by the way, it's all his lawyer's fault. How is this different than a usual campaign finance violation like what, for example, Barack Obama's campaign paid after 2012? Like so many campaigns are found that they're guilty of a civil infraction that they have to pay back. So campaign finance law is a morass. It's a thicket of hard-to-follow rules that have been built over many years, pulled apart by different political reasons, partisan reasons that have played out inside of these regulations and these laws. And so campaigns have to employ lawyers and accountants to go through everything and make

sure everything's clear, and sometimes they make mistakes. Then you have cases where campaigns play fast and loose. We see one kind of abuse going on all the time where people will post huge amounts of video footage on YouTube because it's technically illegal to coordinate with a super PAC, but they want to get the video out there. You see a lot of gray areas where people get brushed back. The federal regulators are pretty toothless. Then you see people like John Edwards who get in trouble for having made payments to keep a mistress quiet in a way that on the surface does look similar to this. that need to be played out with fines and arguments and good faith actors on both sides. None of that can explain the clear as day case of a campaign saying we better cover up these affairs because if we don't, he will get in trouble in this campaign and it might cost him the election. And as we cover up these affairs, let's make sure we do it as secretly as possible,

not just by paying off women, but by creating shell corporations and then engaging in fraudulent booking so that the FEC doesn't find out about them. Like, trying to, that is why it's called defrauding conspiracy to defraud the United States, right? They are basically saying this is the law of the United States, they want to know what you're spending your money on and we are purposely not doing it. Other campaign, like Obama's campaign was, you know, there were campaign donations made over the legal limit and they reported them, but they reported them like a week late. And so you get nicked for that kind of stuff. So there's like all kinds of infractions, right? Keeping screw-ups

are very different. Right. But what I really enjoyed about the incident with Michael Cohen is that when all was said and done, he went to the Trump org CFO, totaled up all the crime committing he'd done, all the money he'd spent. They rounded up, they slapped on a bonus, they made up a fake retainer to pay him all out. I mean, they couldn't have created a more clear paper trail of their fraudulent activity if they had tried.

Look, I've said this before, but these people were not ready for national criminal scrutiny. They were ready for some county level. Off-Broadway crimes. They were ready for some county level. Off-Broadway crimes. These were off-Broadway crimes. All right, so this is one set of felonies.

What more do these memos tell us about a potential conspiracy between the Russian government and the Trump campaign? They tell us that Michael Cohen not only continued to meet with various Russian officials throughout the campaign about potentially creating a Trump Tower in Russia,

but that he lied about it to Congress. And very interestingly, that someone gave him help in preparing his testimony in which he lied to Congress. So that seems like something you do when you're awfully nervous and your boss is too. You're awfully nervous and your boss is too. But like in stepping back, we also know that every time Donald Trump was soft on Putin, didn't condemn him during the campaign, changed the platform at the convention to take out arming the Ukraine, he had in the back of his head that he was trying to get a couple hundred million dollars out of Russia. And then when he became president, every time he went into a secret meeting

about covert action against Russia, a meeting with Putin, whatever it was, he knew that they had something on him because they had been publicly lying about their contacts with these bozos. And by the way, that's not just us putting this together. Mueller lays this out in the memo, which is very interesting.

He says, you know, the candidate, individual one and Cohen in the campaign, stood to gain hundreds of He says, you know, the candidate, individual one and Cohen in the campaign, stood to gain hundreds of millions of dollars from this real estate deal, which is notable because it was happening at the same time as the Russian government was seeking to interfere in our election, and that was well known.

So he's basically like, you don't draw that connection in the sentencing memo if you're just going to sort of leave it there. Like, there's clearly something. By the way, the Russians don't need a P-tape to own Donald Trump. I mean, let's be real for a minute. We already know that he liked to get spanked with a magazine with his face on it, right? So like this guy's humiliation is complete.

All they needed was to know that he had been publicly lying. That means you own him. You own his aides. And also like it's not just Michael Cohen's testimony that is clearly saying this because they wouldn't have put it in these – they wouldn't have put the charges in these documents unless they had corroborating evidence says every legal expert out there. That's very important. This is not just Michael Cohen's word against anyone else's. Who's a bozo, admittedly. They have emails.

They have messages. They have phone conversations. They have phone records. They have all this kind of stuff. records. They have all this kind of stuff. No, I also thought it was funny that Cohen had been approached by another Russian national back in 2015 to talk about political

synergy between the campaign and Russian government. And he ended up turning the guy down because he'd already had Felix Sater and the other Russians on the real estate deal. So he's like, I'm sorry, I already have enough. I'm drowning in Russian connections here. I've got too many to deal with. Turn down the random weightlifter because he had the guy with links to a pop star.

This is so dumb. They're so dumb. Headline from the Washington Post over the weekend. We now know that Russians interacted with at least 14 Trump associates during the campaign and transition, and all of them lied about it. 14! It's really... If you step back for a minute, it's like they didn't care about the country. They didn't even care about the...

They didn't even care that much about the pro quo of the whole thing. They wanted the fucking buildings. They wanted the money. That's right. They're like, oh, you're going to fuck with Hillary Clinton? Yes, sweet. Great, sure, yeah. We're going to lose.

We want the building. I need the money. I want the fucking money. Want me to change the platform? Great. What's the big deal? I'm going to lose, and then I'm going to get the fucking money. It's interesting. That is very

possible that they wanted the building more than they wanted the election because they maybe didn't think they could actually help them with the election. That's sort of what I always keep coming back to. They come in and they hand them a file and say, here's what we're going to go take Hillary Clinton apart. Like, okay, great. So I'll lose by eight. Fine. Can I get the fucking building? Do you understand

what my brand is? My brand is that I'm rich. My business is fake Can I get the fucking building? Do you understand what my brand is? My brand is that I'm rich. My business is fake. I need the money. You want me to change the platform? I don't care. Put nukes in Ukraine. I don't give a shit.

Yeah. Russians interacted with at least 14 Trump idiots during the campaign and transition. They offered political help, Hillary's emails, business help, dirt on Hillary. They were pushing on an open door. And what's funny is this shouldn't be news to anyone because right after Trump was elected, a top Kremlin official said on the record that they'd had a bunch of meetings and they trotted out Hope Hicks to deny that there was any communication during the campaign or any foreign entity, which is obvious and stupid. I mean, like it feels so long ago, but I remember where I was in my own home when I read that Jared

Kushner tried to set up a secret private channel to hide from U.S. intelligence. It all makes sense. What is a group of Trump idiots called? It's like a murder of crows, a lacrosse. I don't know. What would you call it? A medallion? Send us your ideas.

Send us your ideas. Yeah. So we talked about the campaign finance crimes. We talked about the potential conspiracy with Russia crimes. There's also, of course, the obstruction of justice case that Mueller seems to be building here. We had some more information about that from these memos. I think you mentioned this, Tommy, already, that Cohen was possibly coordinating his false testimony with somebody in the White House. Either they approved of it, they knew it was a lie and didn't care, they helped write it. Possibly coordinating his false testimony with somebody, someone in the White House.

Either they approved of it. They knew it was a lie and didn't care. They helped write it. Any one of those is bad and potentially illegal. We also know that our friend Paul Manafort, one of the ways that he lied to Mueller and the special counsel's office is he he was in contact with Trump officials, White House officials, during the time where he had already been arrested. And he was in jail. He was just talking to them. What was he talking to them about?

He was also lying about his contacts with a former business partner who is an asset of Russian intelligence, Konstantin Kilnick. And we don't know a lot about that because there's a lot of redactions, too. So there is also seems to be like parallel here. There's a lot of redactions too. So there is, also seems to be like parallel here, there's an obstruction of justice case that's building as well. We also got more details from Comey. Comey's testimony.

Comey back blast from the past playing his greatest hits. I'm great and it's not my fault by James Comey. Mueller also interviewed Don Kelly about an obstruction case we found out last week. Yeah. What a fun job Chief of Staff is.

The Manafort contact with the White House also comports with Donald Trump's extensive public obstruction of justice, which he's constantly referring to the fact that Manafort has guts because he's not going to be a rat like these other guys. Which is like, again, like Donald Trump is picking this up from fucking Goodfellas. Yeah. Tweeting it. Like Mueller has a lot of information we don't know. And there could be a lot of bombshells. I think the area of crime where there might be the fewest bombshells is in the obstruction of justice.

Like, I don't know how he's going to do this. He's going to write it up in a memo. But most of it's just going to be like, you all remember that tweet. Yeah. You all remember that thing that was reported. You remember when he sat with Lester Holtz and obstructed justice on national television? Like, I don't know. Maybe it would be, but I don't know that that part would be the biggest surprise.

All right, let's talk about what happens next. The Democrat who will soon be in charge of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, said this weekend that the Cohen memos describe impeachable offenses, but, quote, whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question. What do you guys think he meant by that? So he's getting a lot of heat for saying that, or at least I think people are confused by it. And it's sort of speaking to, like, are the Democrats too timid or they're not handling this properly? I think it is a I think the answer is yes. But the it is a, I think the question, the answer is yes, but the, it's a

reasonable question to ask. We have to not just make a case that Donald Trump broke the law. We have to make a case that what Donald Trump broke the law in such a way that rises to the level of impeachment, that, that, that someone, that, that, that, that this is a high crime or misdemeanor and that it, that it meets a standard that says this is worthy of removing the president. You know, Rand Paul, I think is very cynical. He is diminishing these campaign fines violations when he says like, what's going to happen? It'll become a banana Republic. We're going to impeach every president. We're going to have to remove every president. They'll go to jail after they leave office. I don't think he's right about that.

I don't think Donald Trump is the test case for that, but I think we have to answer that concern. We have to say these crimes are so significant that it isn't just a case of criminalizing politics. This isn't just a case of finding something that we could use to remove Donald Trump from office. But we have to make a cogent political argument that says Donald Trump cheated to become president. His presidency is illegitimate. His crimes rise to the level of impeachment, and I think that is a political case, and he's right to ask that question. But you just made the case.

But he didn't say it's not. He's asking the question. Remember we had Cass Sunstein on, and Cass was very careful about talking about, and he wrote a book on this, what rises to the level of an impeachable offense or not, and one of the things that Cass points out is gaining power, gaining

the office of the presidency through corrupt means is one thing that is clearly that the founders had in mind as an impeachable offense. And what we're seeing now, both with the Russia conspiracy and specifically this campaign finance violation, is that he cheated. He cheated and broke the law, broke the campaign finance laws in order to win an election. Whereas if voters had known the information that they kept from them through illegal means, perhaps the outcome of the election could be different. I mean, I can't read Jerry Nadler's mind, but I think that there's a constitutional case and a political case. And I think it's obvious that what he did is an impeachable offense and that they should pursue it. But then they're going to have to send it over

to the Senate. And there's no way that a bunch of Republicans are going to vote to pull him out of office. So there is a legitimate question to be asked politically, whether that will help or hurt Donald Trump during this period of time. We know that Bill Clinton's approval ratings went up during this process. He was reelected and all the Republicans were mad that they went down this path. So I don't know. But look, if it were up to me, I would absolutely be pursuing these charges in concert with Mueller because I think it's the right thing to do. And I think there's a whole lot of smoke and we're finding fire every day. I also think that I think they have to not just because it is the politically smart thing to do in the short term,

though I could make a case why it is politically smart. I mean, let's say that the Senate, as we expect, acquits him on these charges because we couldn't peel off 20 Republican senators. We're still going to go through an entire impeachment hearing in the House where crimes that are clearly much more serious than what President Clinton committed, which they had him on perjury, we have him on campaign finance, whatever happens with Russia, everything else, will be sort of laid out for the public. They will be witnesses.

Then there will be a trial in the Senate that John Roberts would preside over. There would presumably be witnesses there. Mueller would probably testify and all of this stuff. So think about a couple of months of letting the American public know what we've seen in spurts over the last couple years, all of the crimes that he committed to win his election and how he did them, right? So I could make a case that it would be good politics, but I also think there's a precedent you set here where if the Democrats say, because we're worried that it might not be good politics and we're worried that the Senate will acquit him, so we're not going to bring these charges. What does that say to future candidates who can say, okay, well, as long as I have my base with me and as long as I have enough people in my party who can acquit me of these charges, I can commit any crime I want on the way to the

presidency and while I'm president? Yeah, I think that's right. But I also think it's almost like this is even this, even the political question is not where we're at. Even if you believe, even if you want to end up at the place where the Judiciary Committee is pursuing these impeachment article, pursuing articles impeachment, regardless of whether they can win in the Senate. The question is, what should the position, the current posture be of Democrats in the House? And I don't, there's a good argument to make that seeming serious and being deliberate and saying, I'm not yet sure if this rises to the level is the right thing to do, even if one month from now, you know, Nadler is out there saying this has met the threshold. I guess what I would advise Democrats to do is, I don't think there's a question of whether this rises to the level of opening an impeachment hearing. I think this

clearly does. But I'm fine with Democrats saying, oh, well, Mueller's got to finish because if we're going to bring impeachment hearing, impeachment proceedings, we might as well get all the crimes at once. You know what I'm saying? Like, I totally agree with like, hey, we want a crime in nine saves time. A crime in the hand is worth two in the book. Yeah, right. Like, I want them to know that, like, if Mueller doesn't find anything else, what we know so far rises to at least opening impeachment proceedings. But it's totally fine to say, hey, there's a whole bunch more stuff out there,

and we might as well get it all at once before we start going down this path. I think that's fine. I think Adam Schiff has had, like, a really good posture publicly about all these issues. Every interview he does, he is serious, he is sober, but he is not mincing words at all. He just describes what the facts are. The facts

are what are on our side, and just describing the facts and taking the facts seriously and letting those lead you towards your conclusions, I think is the best thing. And the fact that he stated over the weekend is the day Trump leaves office, he could be indicted. So I wanted to talk about that. Yeah, he could be indicted. Well, yeah.

No. So I want to talk about that. Yeah. He said there's a very real prospect that that that on the day he leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him, that he knew the first president in quite some time to face the real process of jail time. If Trump knows that reelection is a guarantee that he'll avoid potential jail time, what does that mean for 2020? Yeah, this look, I mean, I would say that

when Donald Trump became president, there was a there was something that that terrified me more than anything else. And it was the period of time between Donald Trump believing he will no longer be in power and the day he actually is office. That period of time has always, to me, been the most frightening. And it's starting to become clear that we are maybe inexorably driving towards that moment and with incredible legal jeopardy hanging over his head. Yeah, I would tell everyone to check out Brian Boitler's a great piece on this on cricket.com today about this, because it is it's like we know Donald Trump's going to act crazy to try to stay in office anyway in 2020. And if he has the prospect of jail time hanging over his head. Yeah. I mean, this is partly why.

Literally lock him up might be a real thing. Yeah. And it's, you know, Donald Trump is not disciplined. He's all the bad things we know that he is. But he's also a survivor. And, you know, I look at the outcomes of where we're heading. Right. He that That he can resign, he can be impeached and removed, he can be defeated in election. And I don't know which of those three we're heading towards. But to me, I try to remember that the single most important

thing is removing him from office. And it's not removing him from office with justice at the end of it. That I look at this and I see so many outcomes. And to me, the least likely is one in which everything wraps up with a bow. And I think of Mike Pence and I see him and I just feel looking at him that he's a person who was put on this earth to pardon Donald Trump, that his every choice and every decision has led inexorably to the moment where he's confronted with that moral choice to make the wrong one. And honestly, I look at what we're facing and I do sometimes think that it is perhaps the best and safest thing for our country, that the case becomes so clear, his odds of win re-election become in doubt. And by putting the information out there,

putting pressure on Republicans, we can get some sort of corrupt fucking deal between mike pence and donald trump and get this guy out of office and it will be so unsatisfying and it'll be some so awful but the most important thing is removing him before he can destroy the country to save himself and uh it's very dark but i just look forward and there are no safe or rewarding outcomes to me. Good times. Fun. Good times. So let's talk about all the people that work for Donald Trump. In the wake of the Department of Justice implicating Donald Trump and multiple felonies, again, something that happened. I think we just have to keep repeating that. The President's Chief of Staff

and Vice President's Chief of Staff both resigned from their jobs over the weekend. And it's also not a big story. I know. Trump announced this weekend that Chief of Staff John Kelly would be leaving the job by the end of the year. And then when Trump offered the job to Pence Chief of Staff Nick Ayers, Ayers turned him down. Politico is also reporting

that other potential candidates, OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnookin, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, are also sending out signals that they aren't interested. Time to try ZipRecruiter. It's like applying to be a pilot of the Hindenburg after the announcer has screamed about the humanity of it all. It's like, humanity where? We've hit the iceberg. Will anyone helm the Titanic? We're looking for a cellist to round out the string quartet here aboard the Titanic. Do you like a horrible work environment

and enormous legal jeopardy? We've got the job for you. Let's start with Kelly. Why is he leaving and what is John Kelly's legacy? I mean, Trump has been trying to fire him for how long? Almost since he started. I can't remember where I read this, but it might have been the Times said that he was going to, Kelly was

going to announce his departure on his own terms after a negotiation with Trump on Monday to the staff, but instead Donald Trump, in one last fuck you, decided to announce it before the Army-Navy game on Saturday, just to like stick it to him before the couple hours he might have found joy in this world going to this phenomenal amazing

tradition that america gets to watch i mean just like i was one of the people who allowed myself to get like a little tiny bit bought into the kelly of it all just because you know he'd served for 45 years a marine honorable and what like i just I wanted him to be better. He was awful. He was awful. He was just as extreme as Trump on immigration. His handpicked successor oversaw family separation. He was one of the crew that scuttled DACA in a deal for the Dreamers. He was bought in, you know, the way he bungled the Rob Porter fiasco cannot be overstated. He sat on knowing he committed domestic violence for months and months. He lied about Federica Wilson.

Praise Robert E. Lee, for God's sake. Like, good riddance. The only thing John Kelly did that was worthwhile was firing Omarosa, Seb Gorka, and Steve Bannon. Like, he shoved some awful people out the door. I'm glad he's a little miserable. I remember that line from the Bob Woodward book when Kelly said, we're in crazy town. I don't even know why any of us are here.

This is the worst job I've ever had. It's also like John Kelly was supposed to be the guy that knew how to keep the trains moving and he was going to right this ship, discipline. And a lot of the story is like, in Donald Trump, John Kelly finally met his match. And I find that very frustrating. There have been reports in just even the past few days that John Kelly and Donald Trump aren't even speaking and haven't been speaking for some time.

We've worked at the White House. The idea of a president not on speaking terms with the White House Chief of Staff is so extraordinary and so dangerous it's literally the first person you speak to and the last person you speak to

before you leave at night is your Chief of Staff it's wild they organize everything yeah but the Chief of Staff he speaks to is in the TV set it's Sean Hannity

yeah Sean he's talking to him Sean Hannity's talking back to him through the TV I hate when my TV dad and my real life dad are fighting. It also, though, speaks volumes that his, you know, the guy he wanted is this dude, Nick Ayers. Some reports say Trump thinks looked like him when he was younger. So that's, you know, he wants whatever.

Nick Ayers is like 36 years old. He's just a total political hack who came up working for like Sonny Perdue. But interestingly, interestingly, his disclosure, his filings, what the hell do we call it when you put your stuff? Financial disclosures? His financial disclosure forms that you have to file when you enter the White House showed that he has made between 12

and like 54 million dollars doing political consulting. At 36? Woo! I don't know any political consultant that has made 54 million dollars. He must be At 36. I don't know any political consultant that has made $54 million. He must be so good at being a racist. He must have really good racist ideas for ads. So you have to imagine that he was very worried about the increased scrutiny that might come from this job with Democrats in charge of the house and everything else. I mean, look, it's an awful job. Maybe he does really want to go home and see his kids.

I don't believe any of these, you know, super whatever. The other possibility is he never really wanted the job for obvious reasons because it's fucking crazy to take this job and it doesn't matter. But he thought to himself, well, I'll let my name float out there because now when I go back to the private sector, everyone will say, oh, Nick Ayers, the chief of staff that almost was, but turned it down, right? So it could be a little brand building there. I think these guys are power hungry and they do want the job until they can't get it. I mean, there's been a dynamic that's been at play in the Trump administration from the very

beginning. That's, I think, in stark relief right now, which is the Venn diagram of people with the competence, grace, intelligence, and skill to successfully work in the White House and the people who would be willing to work for Donald Trump doesn't overlap. No. And it especially doesn't overlap now. Being White House Chief of Staff is one of the hardest and most demanding jobs in the world. And to look at this White House right now and say, I want in, is to reveal yourself

to be unqualified. As we're headed towards potential impeachment hearings. Who wants that fucking job? And it's also not like, look, did Donald Trump make some mistakes? Sure. Sure. Is he good at the job? No.

But he's also interpersonally one of the worst fucking pricks on planet Earth. I mean, does it matter at all who takes this job next? The new rumor this morning is Mark Meadows, Freedom Caucus member, Mark Meadows, who John Boehner once called an idiot. I find that one funny. I love that one. I also just, I appreciate Mark Meadows looking at the financial landscape and deciding that there's more money in being an ex-White House Chief of Staff than being an ex-Congressman, because I assume that that is 100%

the reason he's seeking it. No, but if it's Mark Meadows or a fucking pet rock, like I don't think it makes much of a difference who takes this job at this point. I don't think it makes much of a difference who takes this job at this point. I don't think it makes any difference. A picture of Roger Ailes on a scarecrow? I don't think it makes any difference in terms of Trump's agenda

and, like, getting things passed. I think if a really impressive person went in there, you might be able to then hire all the slots in the legal team that you couldn't fill, hire some competent press people, build an infrastructure that might begin to combat the nightmare that they're about to go through, but it ultimately doesn't matter. He's going to tweet whatever he tweets.

I don't think there's any person who could come in there and say, because John Kelly couldn't do it, right? John Kelly was the one who went in. Yeah, but that was all bullshit. John Kelly had no political skills. That's why you don't put a general into the White House Chief in. Yeah, but that was all bullshit. John Kelly, like, had no political skills. That was the, that's why you don't put a general into the White House Chief of Staff job because, like, you need some political ability.

Right, but he sent the message that we're shaping up, we're going to be a serious place, come work for us, we're going to do it better. And he didn't do it. And I don't think anybody after John Kelly is going to be able to convince people

that now the Trump White House is going to run successfully. He's terrible. So Trump also announced on Friday that he'd be nominating as Attorney General William Barr, a former Attorney General from the George H.W. Bush era, and a skeptic of the Russia investigation. What a fucking surprise. Some legal analysts have commented that Barr was among one of the least crazy choices Trump could have made.

Yahoo News reported that Trump once approached Barr about being his defense attorney after he wrote an op-ed arguing that Trump once approached Barr about being his defense attorney after he wrote an op-ed arguing that Trump was right to fire Comey. Again, huge surprise. He's criticized Mueller for hiring too many prosecutors who donated to Democrats. He's cast doubt on the conspiracy with Russia. He's defended Trump's calls for a new criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton. He counseled Bush, George H.W. Bush, on the pardons in Iran-Contra.

So, I don't know. It sounds pretty bad to me. Are we just setting the bar too low here, saying it's one of the least crazy choices? It's funny. It's just like, we're trying to improve on Hot Tub Cry Machine, and so, I don't know. Who cares? Who fucking cares? Alright, we got our title. Finally.

It came to me, and I was just like, I'm just gonna hand it. In lieu of a point about bar, I'm just going to say a funny title. I'm going to say hot tub for Eugene. I know. Barr, I mean, everything you described, he sounds terrible. It's like I just haven't been able to summon the outrage yet. And Democrats are saying that he might be a reasonable pick.

Are Democrats saying that? Someone reported that. I don't know. I mean, I was going to ask, like, is there anything Democrats can do about it? Because, you know, we have only 47 votes in the Senate right now. And so if all the Republicans are on board with this guy and maybe they'll say they're on board because they'll ignore everything that I just said and be like, well, he was a George H.W. Bush guy and he's very respected in the field of Bob. And they'll do the Washington thing that they do with so many fucking establishment goons. And then and then he'll sell right through.

I think right now that we have this, it's a hard thing to think through, in part because we're in this place where we have so little transparency on how the Justice Department is being administered right now. We don't know enough about Mueller's independence versus hot tub crime machine. We don't know what Mueller. It seems as though Mueller has been able to freely do his job, yet we don't know if there are things we're not seeing, reports we're not finding out about, sealed indictments that whatever,

there's a lot of information we don't have. So it's really hard in this space where it seems as though Trump has corrupted the Justice Department and yet Mueller has successfully been able to release a lot of important information, how a new attorney general sits on top of this, what Rod Rosenstein is up to, what these guys are up to, who's technically running

the day-to-day of this Russia investigation. So there's just, I feel like it's hard to wrap your head around because we're so in the dark. And hopefully, whenever these hearings might be, we will also be having hearings run by Democrats to get some answers to some of these questions. Yeah. Unfortunately, it won't happen in his confirmation hearing because it's the Senate. No, I know.

But at least we'll be having conversations. On the other side, yeah. Richard Schiff will be taking over. Nahantor will be taking over. Yeah, I don't know. I like Richard Schiff from the West Wing. Did I say Richard Schiff? Yes.

I do that all the time. Honestly, I'll take Richard Schiff over Devin Nunes. I'll take Richard Schiff. I'll take anybody over Devin Nunes. I'll take a guest star. I'll take Mark Schiff over Devin Nunes. I'll take Richard Schiff. I'll take anybody over Devin Nunes. I'll take a guest star. I'll take Mark Harmon, you know? So, I mean, in the old world of confirmations, like I think you would probably say that, you know,

your president gets to choose their cabinet and he's done the job before, so that's relevant. But then, you know, so. Maybe not while a criminal investigation is going on. I'm not supporting him. Like no one tweeted me that I'm being soft. But, like, then you look at Heather Nauert, who was just named to be the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

I was going to ask you about that. She was the spokesperson at State for like a year and a half. Before that, she was the host of Fox and Friends. Fox and Friends! Not even Midday Fox. Fox and Friends. Not even primetime. Just a reminder, I mean, George H.W. Bush was U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Henry

Cabot Lodge, Samantha Power won a Pulitzer Prize and was a senior director at the NSC. I mean, it's like they're, sounds like they're officially downgrading the position itself from cabinet level to not cabinet level. So I guess you downgrade the person in the job. But I mean, they're treating this job like it's a joke. I was going to say, how serious is that? She might be a nice person. She might be smart. I don't know her, but come on. Yeah. Like Heather and I were to side,

are you concerned about downgrading the job to a sub-cabinet position? Do you think that's a big deal in itself? I mean, it's significant. It's, it's signals that you care a lot less about diplomacy and you care a lot less about the UN, but you know, Mike Pompeo is out giving speeches, attacking all these international institutions anyway, and, you know, threatening to pull out of them, whatever else we do. Right. It's almost like, oh, it's like so much of the work post-Trump will be about rebuilding the integrity and reputation of the institutions, regardless of who inhabits them.

Like, I don't, you get some, you get some whatever. I mean, I'll squeeze to take this job instead of Heather Nauer. It doesn't fucking matter. It's still going to be a disgrace to have been participating in this administration. When we come back, we will have Tommy's interview with Ilhan Omar. On the pod today is Congresswoman-elect Ilhan Omar. She will be the U.S. representative for Minnesota's 5th Congressional District. Congresswoman, thank you so much. Congresswoman-elect, I already got it wrong. Thank you so much for joining the U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th Congressional District. Congresswoman, thank you so much.

Congresswoman-elect, I already got it wrong. Thank you so much for joining the show. No, you got it just right. That's fine. It'll be Congresswoman in just, what, a few days. That's exciting. Thank you so much for having me. And hello to your listeners.

Well, they are thrilled that we had you. I can assure you of that. First question, I mean, one, congrats on winning. I mean, how does it feel now that the election's a few weeks away, you've gotten a few weeks of orientation under your belt, and you're closer to getting sworn in? I mean, what has this experience been like for you? experience. It's been a long journey, an overwhelming journey, and I'm really honored to have the opportunity to serve the people of the fifth and make good trouble in Washington. Yeah. What does good trouble mean to you? Good trouble means that we are finally going to have people who are really awakened from the complacency of their day-to-day life. We're going to have folks who are grounded in their communities. communities. And good trouble means shaking things up in Washington and having our processes and our policies be representative and reflective of everyday folk.

That's right. And if you're a listener right now and you want to learn more about some good trouble, Google John Lewis and good trouble, and you will learn a whole lot of very important history. one of those really bizarre things to walk into Congress for training and run into a living icon that you will soon call a colleague. I mean, allow me to geek out on that for a second. Like, what is it like to walk into a room and to see John Lewis there? And he's your colleague. I mean, that must be just mind boggling. We were at one of those, you know, welcoming dinners. mind-boggling. We were at one of those, you know, welcoming dinners, and I was sitting, and then I saw him walk in, and I don't know what got into me, but I got up and rushed towards him, and there were all these people, and as I was getting closer, I started getting choked up, and I said to him, you know, sir, my name is Ilhan Omar and I'm a member elect from Minnesota.

And I'm like, sir, I read about you in middle school and now I get to serve with you. And he laughed and he said, well, I'm excited that you get to serve with us. Welcome. That is amazing. And it is one of those really surreal, surreal moments that no one ever prepares you for. I can't even imagine. So when you think about what you hope that House Democrats can accomplish in the first 100 days, what kind of priorities are you identifying for yourself and for your district? I mean, I've noticed that you and some of the more progressive new members are already pushing leadership in very interesting ways to adopt a more progressive agenda. Is the House Freedom Caucus a helpful model to follow in that regard?

Oh, no. They really were, you know, I think the antithesis to what we are about. They came to obstruct and we are coming to rebuild. And so for us, we're really focused on pushing for legislation that restores hope in the democratic process, one that creates a democracy we can believe in, one that is transparent and accountable to the people. And second, I think for us, the Progressive Caucus and the members of the Progressive Caucus, we are interested in making sure that people recognize that we are the soul and the conscience of the American electorate. In a time where our country really is at a dangerous crossroads

just to resist. They're also sending us to insist on a set of values to make sure that we take this opportunity to get Medicare for all for folks, to make sure that people have access to education, that we are freeing students from the shackles of debt, that we have investment in infrastructure that allows for us to move towards investing in 21st century infrastructure, things like expanding broadband, and making sure that we have folks like myself who don't have blind spots when it comes to what a humane immigration system looks like, are in the forefront fighting for that and reminding folks here in the United States the ideals that this country was formed under was formed under to make sure that we are a country that is inclusive, welcoming, and one that guarantees justice for all of its citizens. So over the weekend and last week, we learned a lot about the vast web of crimes committed by Trump and his cronies. Over the weekend,

House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler raised the prospect of impeachment. Adam Schiff, Congressman Adam Schiff, said that the day Trump leaves office, he could be arrested, which was stark. Do you think that the House should start the impeachment process? Is that the right use of time and priorities? So this weekend was really an eye opening, I think, for a lot of people. And I don't even think that most people comprehend how detrimental some of the things that came to light were. I think it will be important for us to move as fast as we can once we have all of the facts on the table. and to provide the balance as members of Congress to this presidency and this administration that really isn't one that is serving the interests of the American people.

So is that a TBD on impeachment, do you think? That's an okay answer. There's a lot to learn. So I have said long before we even had the full details that an impeachment was quite possible for us because you could see where we were headed. And I think we are getting closer every single day to really believing that that process needs to start. And we need to make sure that we are holding the interest of the American people and getting this president who is corrupt in so many ways, to not be the face and the leader of our nation. Yeah, speaking of ways we would like him to no longer be the face of our nation, I want to get back to your personal story for a minute.

Because as a young girl, listeners might not know that you and your family fled the Somali Civil War and spent, I believe, four years in a refugee camp in Kenya before arriving in the U.S. in 1995. What did that experience teach you about the way the U.S. treats immigrants and refugees? And how would you want to change U.S. refugee policy? So, you know, when we were coming to this country, and I think it's a little known fact, maybe it's something that right now everybody is paying attention to because I talk about it so much. But the United States, when folks are going through the process of relocating here as refugees, as part of that process, there are orientations that take place. as there are orientations that take place. And in the orientations, there are videos that people get to watch about the life that they are to expect once they arrive here.

And as part of that, there is stories and images of happy families at dinner tables where there is an abundance of food, images of happy young children running off to their school buses, images of beautiful homes, white picket fences, images of a country where people are happy and are leading a life that is prosperous. And so when you are in these orientations and in the process of leaving, you know, within days to come to the U.S., you are really looking forward to, right, like life as you see it on that screen. And when we first landed, I remember seeing, you know, panhandlers on the side of the streets.

They're being trashed everywhere and graffiti on the side of the walls. And I remember turning to my father and saying, well, this doesn't look like the America you promised. And, you know, my dad's natural response was, you just need to hold on, we will get to our America. And for me, that surge of that America that I saw has been part of the driving force in my activism in trying to make sure that the current reality that people live in, where we are seeing young children worried about where their next meals are going to come from more than I was worried about it in that refugee camp, or living in an America where there are homeless people sleeping on the side of the streets or an America where there are people who are afraid to seek medical attention because they're afraid to file for bankruptcy,

an America where you can access the justice system equally because you are born with a different race or a different gender or into a different class. That isn't the America that I heard about. That wasn't the America that I watched. And so I want to make sure that I am fighting for the America that I believe in and the America that I know we all deserve. And that is one, right, that has justice within our criminal justice system. It is one that recognizes that, you know, housing is a human right, one that guarantees health care to all of its people, one that makes sure that education isn't only accessible to the privileged few and it isn't supposed to be a step back, it's supposed to be a step forward. And an America where folks who are living in dangerous parts, hopeless parts of the

world, look to know that there is hope there. And that is the America that I heard about, the America I dreamed about, and the America that I am going to fight to make sure it's accessible to every single person. When you talk to members of the Somali American community in the US or abroad, and you, you have to explain to them how the President United States could implement a Muslim ban, a ban of all religions, you have to explain to them why you need to change the rules to be able to express your religion appropriately on the House floor. Like, what is the reaction to that? that sort of cruelty from our leadership?

It's disbelief. You know, like I said, we do a really great job here in the United States exporting American exceptionalism to every part of the world, and we fall short of living it out ourselves here in the U.S. Oftentimes, the messages I get is to say, what is happening? I don't understand. How is it in the United States where there is supposed to be no religious tasks to serve in public office that you have to have this rule change in order for you to serve.

People don't recognize the America that we are talking about when they see us have conversations about, you know, black and brown bodies who are getting shot by the police. The people are confused when they hear us fighting for, you know, wage theft, against wage theft, or fighting to make sure that there is paid sick and safe time. People are confused when they hear about gender bay gap in the United States. Oftentimes, my friends across the world or people who are connected to me through social media who are living in different parts of the world oftentimes are confused about the

things that I advocate for because they don't associate those challenges with the United States. People imagine that here in the U.S., regardless of what race you are, what class you were born in, what gender you are, what faith you might believe in, that you have equal rights. believe in, that you have equal rights. And so when they hear that there is still struggle to have that equality realized by everyone, that we are talking about collective liberation for everyone, people oftentimes ask, like, what country are you living in, Ilhan? It doesn't make any sense. How is this part of your agenda that you're not just talking about, right, like taxes and the economy and the natural things that people think that we should be talking about here? They don't understand the injustices that exist, you know, socially, rac say, look, for so many years to everyone

around the world, this is who we said we were. Now it's the time for us to actually be that person, that nation, and that society. One interesting recent position you've expressed support for is the boycott divestment and sanctions against Israel or BDS movement. And so for those listening, BDS essentially says we should boycott Israeli businesses and travel until it withdraws from the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights, which are considered occupied territories by the United Nations, Gaza and the Golan Heights, which are considered occupied territories by the United Nations, provide equal rights for Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel and allow Palestinian refugees the right to return. Can you talk about just why you believe the BDS movement is important or, you know, what you might say to those who believe it is inherently anti-Semitic because it sort of presupposes solutions to what are considered final status issues? So I am a believer of there never being peace without justice. And in the Middle East, we can never really look to have a process of peace if we are not advocating for justice and equal status for

everyone. You know, we think of it as the only democracy in the Middle East. And as such, we have to make sure that we are holding it to that standard. We need to make sure that it is a country that doesn't have human rights violations, that it is a country that really has justice a state for Israel and a state for Palestinians to make sure that the advocacy that needs to go into that is one that also steers up pressure to make sure that we have that process taking place. You can't only have discussions with the conversation beginning and saying, you know, this is a country that is furthering democracy, and so we can't criticize it. We can't talk about it. This is off limits. And talk about how in the United States we are allied with this particular country without talking about how our allyships also mean that we hold people

accountable, that we use our opportunity for allyship to bring about change. And for me, what the PDS movement does is that it awakens people from this complacency of thinking everything's fine. It allows for there to be a discussion about the everybody in that region deserves the right to self-determination. Everybody in that region deserves for their babies and their children to live a safe and prosperous life, and that there is not one human life that is worse more than the other. And there are lots of wrongs that we've looked the other way for so many years. look the other way for so many years. And it is time for us to balance out power and to make sure that there is justice for both of those communities. And so do you think that the sort of the end goal to the BDS movement to pressure Israel into

back into negotiations on a two state solution? or is it different than that? I think the goal, the way that I see it, is to make sure that there is light that is shed on the injustices that are taking place. And to make sure that there isn't an opportunity for conversations to continuously get shut down. It is one that I believe allows for power to shift so that there is an ability for folks to feel like they can express themselves. I mean, oftentimes when we are having a discussion about this region,

there is one way, one side of the conversation that is allowed. the conversation that is allowed. And anytime you are talking about Palestinians, you have to, in the context of what is permissible in the conversation around what the Israeli administration decides is permissible. And what the PDS movement does is it says we can have a counter-conversation, that it is okay for us to hold Israel and its administration accountable for the injustices that are taking place. It is okay for us to leverage, you know, economic and social pressures onto Israel to make sure that we are able to bring them to the table, to bring them to the table, not as the head of that table, but as a member of that table. And I think for me, it is important to always make sure that we are fighting with oppressed people and recognizing that

when you are fighting for liberation, that the tactics that you use, everybody might not agree with it and it might not seem wise or strategic to everyone, but it is one that allows for you to utilize every voice, every ability, every power, every right that you have so that you can fully recognize your humanity and your power.

Well, Congressman-elect, thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us. Congratulations on your election. It is exciting to see this dynamic, savvy, young, dare I say cool, group of individuals going to Congress to support democratic value. So thank you again for everything you're doing and best of luck. Thank you so much. I'm really excited about this new majority. We're going to throw it down. All right. That sounds good. Thank you again. Have a great day. Sounds good. Thank you again.

Have a great day. Thanks to Ilan Omar, Congresswoman-elect, for joining us today. And, you know, we'll see you guys for some more crimes on Thursday. Thanks to the good lawyers in the Southern District of New York and the Special Counsel's Office providing us all kinds of grist for the mill. And I'm just saying, Democrats in Congress, look at that memo. Look at that messaging about the people, the rich and greedy people like Trump and Cohen, deceiving the American public and ruining the integrity of our elections. Use some of their messaging. Unless you're afraid of Rudy Giuliani currently grappling with his toughest case of his life, finding happiness.