Pod Save America - “Immunity by congressional majority.”

Episode Date: June 5, 2018

Trump and his legal team argue that the president is above the law, and voters say that health care and immigration are two of the most important issues in the very close 2018 midterms. Then, Rep. Luis Gutierrez calls from Puerto Rico to talk to Jon Favreau about the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Maria.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. On today's pod, we'll be talking to Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who's in Puerto Rico right now. We'll also be talking about Donald Trump going full Nixon. We'll talk about the state of the midterms and how health care and immigration are shaping up to be two of the biggest issues in 2018. Other pods. Tommy, tell us about Pod Save the World last week. I had a conversation with an excellent journalist at The Intercept named Mehdi Hassan. We talked

about how John Bolton and his national security team is hiring some of the most paranoid, Islamophobic, lunatic fringe of the Republican. That doesn't sound like them. It is worse than you would ever imagine. These are people who think there's a secret you know, a secret Muslim Brotherhood plot to have Sharia law in the government. And it's like secret plants everywhere. It is, it's unnerving. But these people are in serious, important positions. Did you see?

So we talked through it. Did you see that the ambassador to Germany, who's also a Twitter troll. Rick Grinnell. He's the worst. Said that he's like going to like, you know, he's sad. He's going to, he's coming out. Good item. That was a good, that was a good item. Glad you guys saw it. Well researched. Good Vitor like you know he's sad he's gonna he's coming out good item glad you're well researched good Vitor Ditar

no Rick Grinnell he's a Twitter troll turned US ambassador to Germany who did an interview with Breitbart London issuing support for like far right parties

that have ties to Nazis so yeah really great yeah who could have seen that coming when he spent just a long time

attacking female journalists on Twitter, being awful. Misogynistic jerk. Awful person. Anyway. Okay. We got tour dates coming up. New tour dates. Well, not new, but our tour in Atlanta, Nashville, and Durham.

Very exciting. In a couple weeks. Can't wait. You can go get tickets at cricket.com slash events. So, go get them. Also, everyone in California, there's a primary tomorrow. Tuesday.

June 5th. Today. It is today. It's primary day. Sorry we're recording this Monday night. But you know, June 5th is the primary. You get it. So, go vote.

Please vote. And check out our voter guide at crooked.com slash crooked8, particularly if you live in one of the three districts where Democrats could be locked out if we don't get enough Democrats to vote. That is the 39th, the 48th, and the 49th.

And look, are there a lot of races you have to vote in, some you don't fully understand? Yes. Do a little research. You call your friend who you trust who has the answers for some of the things you don't know about. Google.

Google. Check out some endorsements. Be a voter. Be a voter. Be a voter tomorrow, today. That's what we learned about people who are going to be commanded to do something. We learned that from Adam Grant on A Quick Conversation. I just finished that.

It was great. People don't say vote. Say be a voter. Be a voter. Okay. Let's start with the latest in the Trump investigation. The president and his legal team are now making two legal arguments that basically make the case that Donald Trump is above the law. are now making two legal arguments that basically make the case that Donald Trump is above the law.

The first is that he can start or shut down an investigation into anyone for any reason, including an investigation into his own possible crimes. Seems reasonable. The second legal argument is that Donald Trump can pardon anyone for any crime at any time, including himself. These arguments were first made in a letter that Trump's lawyers sent to the special counsel back in January, which was leaked to the New York Times in a story this weekend. And then they were repeated by the president's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on the Sunday shows, and by Donald Trump himself on Twitter on Monday. Guys! Big time air quotes around lawyer for Giuliani.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever that guy is. TV spokesperson. TV spokesperson. I also disagree with his argument that if you paint a tunnel on the side of brick,

a train can go through it. Is this what the founders intended, guys? Is this what... When they wrote the Constitution, were they thinking that the president

should be able to start and stop any investigation into anyone, pardon anyone, including himself? We should say the pardon powers of the president are extremely broad. Some legal scholars think that they are almost, you know. Yeah, I mean, the pardon power isn't limited. But the idea that the president can pardon himself is so stupid and wrong on its face. You know, there's lots of things the Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit that we don't view as legal, but the idea that the president can pardon himself, like there's legal experts going off on both sides. And there was a memo in 1974 explaining why the president couldn't pardon himself. And

there can be arguments about what the pardon power intended. But what we're talking about is not just like the law. We're talking about like irreducible questions about the power of the presidency. And if you believe that the framers intended for it, they did all this work. They worked so hard on it, you know, to preserve slavery plus limiting the powers of the presidency, right? Sort of two of the focuses. And the idea that they would leave in this hole, it really is like the hole in the Death Star, right? It's like the idea that they built this big thing where the president can only do this, and he's limited by Congress, he's limited by the courts,

except he can murder people in the Oval Office and pardon himself for it. Because there's no federal... Yeah, I mean, I'm not a lawyer. Jack Goldsmith, the Harvard Law professor who oversaw the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration said, the intersection between the obstruction of justice statutes and the president exercising his constitutional power to supervise an investigation at DOJ

is not sort of settled law, it's an open question. So whatever, right? I guess the legal scholars will debate this. What is very clear is that this is entirely a political exercise. And I guarantee you that Rudy Giuliani and those clowns leaked the letter to the New York Times. That's why they had Trump tweet to complain about it, to try to set the framework before the story posted. And they all went and repeated these charges on the Sunday shows because they're trying to set – they lay the groundwork for this argument now and, and like set the stage for all the MAGA idiots to come out and defend him so that if you know if Mueller finds him uh in legal jeopardy in any way they can deny it my favorite line in the letter was quote having him testify demeans the office of the president before the world yeah that's that's what's gonna do it this is a man who means it's the testifying this is the man who demeans the

office for several hours a day via tweet during executive time like he is neither too busy nor too dignified to do an interview it's he's definitely not too busy well that that was the other thing in the letter they said he's he's very busy and so all of his duties as president and his busy schedule cannot possibly allow for him to sit down for a few hours with Robert Mueller to do an interview. Yeah, no, we all know. We've all seen how very busy he is playing golf and tweeting and watching Fox and Friends. They literally takes up. That's all he does.

That's like 80 percent of his schedule and 20 percent is meetings. That's about it. Yeah. And those are not real meetings. Those are meetings to make him feel better. Yeah, I mean, I feel like, as always, there are complicated parts of this and simple parts. feel better. Yeah, I mean, I feel like as always, there are complicated parts of this and simple parts. There are complicated legal questions around what it means to obstruct justice, how it relates to the president's authority as the person in charge of law enforcement,

ultimately in this country. Fine. There's questions about the nature of the pardon power. Fine. But what's going on here is very simple. They are trying to make sure that they're trying to create an argument that says the president is above the law? And what the argument they're trying to make is the only recourse for presidential abuse of power, lawbreaking, anything the president wants to do, the only recourse is impeachment, knowing that Donald Trump has immunity by congressional majority. And so they are trying to set it up that like, I mean, Rudy Giuliani told the Huffington Post, and this is different than a pardoning investigation. He told the Huffington Post on Sunday

that Donald Trump can shoot, he could shoot James Comey in the Oval Office and still not be prosecuted for it. But so, well, right. Well, that the only remedy is impeachment. He can pardon himself for every crimes except impeachable crimes. So he can be impeached.

So he can shoot. So let's walk through it. Shoots James Comey in the Oval Office. Pardons himself for the crime. Doesn't get impeached or does get impeached. But either way, no jail time for Donald Trump. James Comey is never avenged. And like, so good news.

Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is like, if I was president, my lawyer was telling me I could pardon myself, I'd get a new lawyer. So good. Kevin McCarthy is out there on the shows defending anything Trump says. He doesn't care that Trump, also in this letter, which I'm sure we're about to get to, admits that they've been blatantly lying about who drafted a statement regarding Don Jr.'s meeting with Russian lawyers, who is probably a carve-out for Vladimir Putin. So, you know, it's clearly like they're all good with all the lies, all the corruption that's happened. Since you brought up Kevin McCarthy, let's just talk about him because that was just gross. Egregious. Good for Dana Bash. Yeah. So, I mean, it was a great example of what Kevin McCarthy said.

So basically he said if there's no collusion, it's time for Mueller to end his investigation. And he also said there has been no collusion so far. So now Kevin McCarthy has taken us to the only crime that counts is collusion. This is where the House Republicans are now. It's a good example of, you know, we have talked quite a bit about Paul Ryan on this program and how little we like him. But if the Republicans keep the House, Kevin McCarthy is the Speaker of the House. He is in line for the presidency. And he has decided already that he is going to be even more of a kiss-ass than Paul Ryan. I mean,

we should know this. This is the guy that picked out Trump's favorite Skittles to give him when he goes to the White House. He calls him my Kevin. Starburst, I'm sorry. Only pink Starburst from my Kevin to Don. He calls him my Kevin. And you know what? You are his Kevin.

You are so his Kevin. So I just, I mean, it's another reason why we need to take the House back because if it remains in Republican hands, is there any doubt that the day after the election, Kevin McCarthy and Donald Trump are going to shut down this investigation and we will never hear from Robert Mueller, from Rod Rosenstein, from any of these people again? I mean, it will happen immediately. That will be the end of this. One other thing to note too, which I think is like, oh, only collusion matters.

We actually quite recently had a debate as to whether or not the president can obstruct justice his name was bill clinton and there are many many members of congress and senators who voted to impeach him and then remove him for office for obstruction of justice which now the republican president does not believe is a crime does not allow it forget impeachable not totally totally fine. Totally cool. That's like, why does this matter to people? It matters beyond this Russia investigation. Matt Iglesias at Vox had just sort of a great, very good piece is a very good piece about this. And he said, if this is right, if this legal argument is correct, that Trump can start and stop an investigation into anyone at any time and pardon anyone at any time, including himself.

start and stop an investigation into anyone at any time and pardon anyone at any time, including himself. There would be nothing wrong with Trump setting up a booth somewhere in D.C. where wealthy individuals could hand checks to Trump, and in exchange, Trump could make whatever federal legal trouble they are in go away. And then once you cut your check, you could go commit any crime you want, as long as it's a federal crime, and then Trump would let you off the hook immediately. That's what this means. Look, what the idea... You pay Donald Trump, you go commit, you go on a fucking crime spree,

you do whatever you want, he pardons you. If the pardon power is unlimited, and he is in total control of the Justice Department, D.C. is a lawless zone. A place where you need to look out, because if... It's not just Trump, right? Get out of the way of any Republican you see.

They could take your car. I mean, it really is like this is authoritarian stuff. This is not an exaggeration. It's not that far. It's in the letter. Legal scholars will tell you this. It's not like us just yelling about this. This is real.

In addition to it, I mean, they're saying that he could just stop and start DOJ investigations against anyone he doesn't like at any time. And so when Rudy Giuliani says, well, Trump could kill Jim Comey in the Oval Office and he wouldn't get indicted, like we kind of laugh at him because he's a horrible old crank, but we probably should take it deadly serious if they're talking about literally murdering political opponents and then immunity from prosecution.

It's nuts. These are not, it's not like, these are not hypothetical situations. Donald Trump is issuing political pardons every single day. And this is Donald Trump we're talking about. He talks about how he wants to prosecute Democrats and Hillary Clinton also. And Comey. And Comey.

Like all of them. It's the kind of thing where they're presenting a legal argument. It all feels like something that if a law professor said out loud in his constitutional law class, it would be a hypothetical about how what would happen if we lived under such a rule of law, and it would be bad. It would be bad. You know what I thought when I read that New York Times story on Saturday is, we are, like, there is going to be a reckoning in the next couple months, probably before this election, because Mueller is either going to try to issue a subpoena to Donald Trump to have him testify, and then Trump and Giuliani are not going to participate, or Mueller's going to issue his findings.

Like, this is not going to end in a happy place. It is either going to end with Mueller finding something very bad and Trump just deciding to, like, creating a constitutional crisis, as we're having one right now, or, you know. Well, all these you know well all these republican senators and all these republican house members they're great defenses he's not going to do that i would advise against that and i don't think that that's something the president's going to do even giuliani's like could he pardon himself who knows but i don't think it's likely like all of this is now being introduced as these hypotheticals but we're about to live in a less hypothetical world what happens when he starts issuing pardons to get closer and closer to him

what happens i i don't know, but I'm not optimistic. Well, but we kind of have a sense because what he's doing is he's laying the political groundwork to make it impossible for these Republicans to oppose him because his base, the base is more with Trump than any other Republican president in history at this point. Like the other thing that was sort of, the amount of gaslighting in this letter is really remarkable. Like a lot of it is just a hitch up on Jim Comey. But they also assert that Trump couldn't intentionally have impeded the FBI investigation into Flynn because he didn't know there was one at the time. And they try to paint him as some hero for actually being the guy who fired Flynn.

When in fact, he sat on troubling information about whether Flynn was compromised by the Russians for weeks. And even before that, Obama told him not to hire Flynn in the first place. So this is like a problem of his own making that they are spinning and pretending that none of us remember where we were a year and a half ago. To me, what happened over the weekend simplifies the stakes in this election better than anything else we've seen. The Russia investigation can be complicated. Mueller can be complicated. Like, tying all the strings together is really tough.

Not enough red string in the world. Not enough red string in the world. But this is very easy. The president believes he is above the law. He has stated it publicly. If you want to check on that power, if you do not believe the president is above the law, your only recourse,

which is what Giuliani and the team are telling us, is to vote for a Democratic Congress. Because if you do not have a Democratic Congress and Republicans return to power after November, Donald Trump has decided he would be able to do anything he wants, open any investigation, investigate any person, and pardon anyone. That is what we're hearing right now. Look at Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is an Ivy League lawyer. He is a Supreme Court clerk for Rehnquist. He is a stubborn, uncool dork who has thought about every legal question there is.

And he's asked the question, can the president pardon himself, which is the kind of question law students who are under sex asked each other all the time. all the time. Which I imagine means he was asked and answering this question pretty regularly over the weekends. And he has asked that question and the question, can the president pardon himself, is really quite equal to

is the president above federal law and can he be protected from any federal law he wishes? And he spent 18 seconds in silence and then he said, haven't studied the issue you felt the tension the inside of ted cruz the craven coward person who knows he doesn't gain politically by attacking trump just yet and the law student in him that has talked about that fun question for 30 years and he just said i haven't studied it the other thing just one last little note on this, like this thing is rigged politically because of the points like you just made about Ted Cruz. It's also a reminder that

Rod Rosenstein edited the Comey termination letter, which makes him really critical to the president's defense. And yet he's not recused from all this. He's still overseeing this whole thing. So like, no one should feel good that this is going to be judged on the level or on the merit. He's apparently told, he said that he's talked to Mueller and he told Mueller, if it gets to the point where you need me as a witness, I will recuse myself

from anything, whatever. But it is very bizarre that the person overseeing the investigation now, because Sessions recused himself, is also a potential witness to obstruction, since clearly the reasons that Rod Rosenstein wrote in that letter for firing Jim Comey were not the reasons that Jim Comey was fired. And we know that because the president has told us many times publicly. Also, it's part of this, too. It's just always good to remember. Like, we're doing a lot of speculating. We have to write like, what's Mueller going to find? What's going

on? Why is Rosenstein still in there when it seems like he should recuse? Is there a tactic there? But there are rooms full of people who have all the information about Mueller's investigation and where it's leading. And you do feel a sense that there's a logic to why Rosenstein has not recused himself and why he hasn't been called. And it does suggest a kind of undergirding thought or principle or idea around protecting the investigation that we don't fully understand.

Yeah, fingers crossed. But hold on. No, I definitely do. Important breaking news update. Justin from Reuters. U.S. Special Counsel Mueller says ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort has attempted to tamper with potential witness according to a new court filing. So that is breaking. Which witness? Literally

as we're recording. I don't know. He was tampering with the president. He was alright, I'm done. A lot's happening. He sent texted and sent encrypted messages to two people in February to influence their testimony and otherwise conceal evidence according to the FBI. Yeah, it doesn't seem like things are going to go well for these people. Manafort needs a backup

plan for that pardon. The other thing that I love, it's like you're so right that there's so much information we don't know that Mueller does know. But as these reports are coming out, there's also things we're finding out now for sure that we always speculated about. And Tommy, you alluded to this. In that letter, the lawyers, Donald Trump's lawyers admitted that the White House lied when they said that Trump had nothing to do with the statement about Don Jr.'s meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower. But they also said, well, lying to the press is not a crime. And that's true. And they're correct. But also think about where we are that the president and his legal team has admitted that they lied to the press.

So we now know they lie. The letter says that Trump dictated the statement to the press about Don Jr.'s meeting at Trump Tower with this Russian lawyer who's a carve-out probably for Putin. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said he certainly didn't dictate it. Jay Succo said the president was not involved in the drafting of the statement. That was unequivocal. The president didn't sign off on anything, Succo told NBC. So, look, all these people

who went to work for Trump knew what they were getting into, right? And they deserve no sympathy for anyone. But it probably does speak to how hard it is to be his lawyer or his spokesperson. Because you, I can imagine him lying to their faces and then they have to go out and repeat the lie. Even though they know, Hope Hicks,

who's just like revered by the press, everything's been worse since she left. But she's like, she was on all those calls when Trump was dictating these statements about Don Jr. But um, you know, he's like, there's just, if I were a reporter, I would ask her that question every single day until I got an answer. And if I was sitting next to the reporter who asked that question, and they get skipped, I would follow up. Or I'd walk out of the fucking briefing because she's useless. He's a liar. It's not an opinion that he's a liar. It's a

fact. It's not Democrats say he's a liar. He is a liar. We have it on record. They admit that they lie. And now we have someone who lies all the time in the O.L. office who's also made a legal argument that he is above the law and can do whatever he wants. That's where we are right now. It's also really interesting that they're admitting to it.

Really. Well, it also goes to show that that letter made me think, and that letter was back in January, so think of all the shit that's happened since then. Right. That's not a letter you write when you feel pretty confident about your case. No. When you're down to the president can probably pardon himself and open whatever investigation he wants and shut it whenever he wants. When you're down to that legal argument, it seems like you're having some trouble. All right, let's talk about the midterms. A new CBS News YouGov Battleground tracker poll found that if the election were held today, Democrats would have 219 seats in the House, just one more than they need for a majority.

It's about a 25, 26 seat gain, I think. The Democrats are leading the generic ballot by five points in that poll, which is fairly close to the real clear politics average of 3.2 and the 538 average of six points. Our usual caveat on this podcast, polls are a snapshot in time. They are better for measuring trends than they are for predicting outcomes. But right now, the trend is that the race has gotten a bit tighter over the past few months. How much tighter? We don't know. But all of the polls show that it's gotten a bit tighter. Does anyone want to hazard a guess why? I don't want to say that this is why, because I don't think we know. I will say, as just a consumer of the news, it feels as though we have not talked about policy in a while at the national level. Not since the tax cuts were passed. Which were hugely unpopular.

Hugely unpopular. It's been a long time since the last ACA fight. Also hugely unpopular, repealing ACA. And those fights that you just mentioned matched with when the Democrats had double digit leads in the generic ballot. That is true. But and and it was also a time, though. But the reason I don't want to be totally causal is it was also not just a time when Democrats were taking positions more publicly that voters liked, but they were also fighting like hell. And right now, I don't I don't really like right now we're just in this morass of Russia and corruption and Trump's scandal again. And we need to get back. I mean,

look, Chuck Schumer standing in front of a gas station, maybe that'll help. But we need to get back into a debate about the big issues facing people as part of this conversation about Trump corruption. What do you think about how hard it is for like Democrats to break through these days? There was, you know, some Twitter commentary over over the weekend how there was like no Democrats, zero elected Democrats on the Sunday shows. There's all these New York Times stories that don't have elected Democrats like on the record responding.

Do you think it's like hard for them to break through in this environment? I think it's yes, but it's also hard to pull these seats probably in this environment. Like one, there's no national democratic leader. So, you know, there's not going to be an obvious messenger or someone filling the void that is left when you're not in control of everything. I also think I think this poll is probably a good reminder for people that, you know, you see Trump's approval rating and you think of it in a zero sum terms like, oh, we're going to win.

But really, we have to win so many seats that it puts the odds at about 50-50. And everyone just needs to know that and get real comfortable with this thing being a coin flip that will be won or lost based on how hard every single person listening to this show tries. The poll was very, very instructive when you look at some of the, you know,

sort of inside some of the demographics, like Democratic women are pumped to vote for female candidates. That is awesome. The party's done a great job of nominating and hopefully electing a lot of great women this time. People are, they want to hear candidates talk about healthcare. They want to hear them talk about jobs and wages. And that's true across the political spectrum. Now, you know, that's that can be a little misleading. Like maybe Republicans want to hear you talking about tearing up the ACA. But the other thing that we all need to be mindful of is that immigration is a huge defining issue where these parties are split.

And even an independence in this poll overwhelmingly think that immigration has made things worse in the area where they live. 13% said better, 61% said worse. So it's a reminder of why Trump is out there tying everything to MS-13 and doing these like weird events all the time. So, you know, message for candidates is don't talk about Mueller ever because nobody wants to hear about it. I think it's important to understand the backdrop of the election and that's sort of the fundamentals of the election, which is one of the things I think, because Trump seems like such a bad candidate and such an awful person, we sort of forgot about in 2016, is that 2016 was always going to be because of the economy, because a Democrat had just served two terms as president, and it's hard for a president to get a third term in office, or for the president's party to have a third term in office, there was always going to be a fairly close election in 2016, no matter who the candidates were. And I think in this midterm environment, because of gerrymandering that happened in 2010...

I believe it's pronounced gerrymandering. That's right. We heard about gerrymandering. Oh, yeah. We learned that recently. Yeah. That it's always going to be... Democrats are going to have a tough hill to climb, or do have a tough hill to climb in

this election. And also, I didn't realize this, Harry Enten tweeted this out over the weekend, the largest margin in a midterm election dating back through the last hundred years or so has been eight and a half points. And so the idea that there's going to be these double-dig digit Democrat wins is just not something that has a lot of historical precedent. So it just goes to show that if we need to win by seven or eight points to win the House back, but that's like that's the high end of what a party has out of power has won in midterm elections. That look, we really have to get everything right here. Yeah, I think that's right. I think there's good.

There's value, I think, to people being chastened. Yeah. That, you know, there can be a blue wave, there could be a blue, I don't know, little ripple, you know, a little skip crossing across a pond controlled by Republicans. This was a stone skipping across a pond. This was Democrats winning the generic ballot by 5% and winning 25, 26 seats. That's a, that's a blue wave. I know it's only winning the House by one, but that's a lot of seats. A lot of seats. The other thing too is

we're about to have primaries across the country. And there's a lot of districts where you have Democrats trying to choose who's going to be the person who's going to be on the ballot. A lot of the key places, a lot of the places where the news is going to come from, races where we can make up a lot of gains.

And then those people are going to hit the ground running and they'll be out there campaigning every single day. And they may not be in every national news story, but they'll be on the ground and they'll probably be talking about Trump and corruption, but they'll also be talking about healthcare and they'll also be talking about jobs and they'll also be talking about the tax cuts. So I also think that there's just process that we're in the middle of too, that will help us get out of this rut of feeling like we don't know how to drive a message with Trump standing there. Yeah. So one important thing this poll

said is that healthcare is the top issue for midterm voters of both parties. Two thirds of all voters want to hear, quote, a lot about health care from candidates. Only 10 percent of all voters think that Republicans in Congress have helped their coverage and their costs. Twenty five percent think they made it worse and half, I guess, don't think anything at all. So the question, how do we, how do Democrats keep health care in the news? Do we have to keep it in the news or is it enough to just run your individual race and talk about health care in your ads and on the stump all day? I would do, I would run on it hard. I mean, there's a bunch of states where there are ways to do it. Like Virginia just voted to expand Medicaid access.

And I think Utah, it's on the ballot in Utah. They're fighting for it in Idaho, Nebraska. It's on the ballot in Idaho. So there's places where it will sort of be built into the broader campaign messaging. I do think you guys should be, they should be holding healthcare events all the time when people's premiums go up in any chance they have.

You know, it's critically important. I also think this is the kind of thing where we need to do both, right? Canada's on the ground, I don't know what it means. A House candidate making news, it's local news, they're getting their events covered. They should talk about healthcare. They should do healthcare events. I think that's exactly right. But it's actually one thing that will be helpful to those candidates is national figures, whether it's Schumer or Warren or Bernie or Mark Warner when he's on talking about impeachment or whatever the hell we'll be talking about in the fall. Those people, it is going to be up to them to help keep the election focused on more

than just the Trump minutiae. You know, you see all these, it comes, healthcare, like the more people we need to get out, the further outside of people who look at politics every day, who pay attention every single day, the more we get to whatever people will deride as low information voters, but just people for whom participating in politics is not an everyday event. And if you're not, Trump is causing a lot of pain in a lot of people's lives. But for a lot of people, we need to vote. Trump takes up as much space as you let him, in your mind and in your world. And if for someone who is not allowing Trump to take up that much space, we need to be there with something more than a story that they're not totally paying attention to, which is health, which is the details and the minutia of this investigation, which are incredibly important, but not necessarily to people who aren't watching every day of news as it unfolds.

The other thing that I thought was interesting that I took away from this poll is that convincing Republicans that Trump is bad is a completely lost cause. They like everything he does. And I do not think that's going to change unless major GOP figures turn on him or Fox News turns on him, which basically means that the direction he's likely to move is to the right, if anywhere at all. So we should just work on getting our people out and getting those independents. 83% of Republicans and 84% of conservatives say they mostly like Trump policies. What's interesting here is just 56% of Republicans mostly like how he handles himself personally. So this is the argument with a lot of the never-Trumper conservative pundits in D.C. the never-Trumper conservative pundits in D.C.

Because they say, you know what? Like a lot of Republicans, they just don't like how Trump handles himself personally. And so that's what you should go after. But it's like, no, because they clearly love the policies. They're clearly willing to overlook his behavior and his comments and things that they don't like as Republican voters because they love what he's doing. They love his policies. They love his agenda. They are all bought in.

It is his fucking party. There is no doubt about that anymore. And I think that Republicans who just think that Donald Trump is a vulgarian and they believe in free markets and tax cuts and stuff like that, they live in Washington, D.C., and they are Republicans in cities like New York and San Francisco and L.A., and they do not represent most of the Republican base at all. That is not the party anymore. Also, here's the thing, though. They are right. I know. I'm not saying you disagree with that. But but one thing that I've been thinking about a little bit lately is just that I think we're trying to solve a lot of 30 year problems in a year. Like, I think they're absolutely right. That it's important that it's a shameful display

that so many Republican leaders have signed off on the decorum of this this disgusting person. And it's shameful. And we should stand against it. And people should campaign against it. In the same way that I think when Democrats go after the media for not using the word lie, they're not wrong. The media should use the word lie. But we're living that we're living in the culture that had the weaknesses that made Trump possible. We're still in it. We're still in it. And so we just I want to win on those terms, but we're not going to win this election on those terms. That's an argument to have, but it's not going to be central to what we do, because if it was, Donald Trump wouldn't be fucking president. Right. I mean, we look, the Clinton campaign test is out in 2016.

I was one of the people that thought it might work trying to peel Republicans off from the party. They all came home at the end because they're all watching Fox News. They're all in a media environment that tells them Donald Trump is great and that lies to them all the time. And you're right. That's a huge problem. But we're not going to solve it in one election. There are things we can do. We're going to solve it by looking at this poll and saying that most voters want to hear about the time. And that's, and you're right, that's a huge problem, but we're not going to solve it in one election. We're going to solve it by looking at this poll and saying that most voters want to hear about healthcare and talk about healthcare. And to those, and to Republican, and to people that point out this issue, which is fair, like the, the, the, that, that the question

isn't why aren't more Republicans taking a stand against the ways in which Trump is morally crass and vulgar? The question is, how broken was our culture that people stopped caring? And how can we make people care again? Because they don't care. This poll tells us they really don't. They don't. The other big issue, Tommy alluded to this, that came up in the CBS Battleground poll was immigration. This is the top issue for Republican voters. Health care is important to them, too, but immigration is the top issue for them. And here's the two numbers that tell the whole story. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans say immigration has made the area where they live worse.

Sixty-seven percent of Democrats say immigration has made where they live better. But the independent number was almost as bad as the Republican number. I don't know of an issue that's more polarizing than that. Yeah. But it's a very big cautionary. You look at't know of an issue that's more polarizing than that. Yeah. But it's a very big cautionary. You look at the independent number there. It's a big cautionary tale. Well, it's interesting because it also explains the trouble that many Republicans in Congress are facing right now. enough votes for something called a discharge petition where they would basically join with all the House Democrats to force the House to vote on a bill that would protect the Dreamers because Paul Ryan has refused to call it up. But you can if you have enough votes, you can get

this discharge petition and get a petition and get a vote on the floor. Obviously, most House Republicans are petrified of this. Some think that Paul Ryan might lose his job over it if he can't sort of quell this uprising, which it doesn't look like he's going to be able to. Will Paul Ryan be able to use all his acumen to prevent this sudden outgrowth of compassion? And will he get fired if he fails to stop the compassion from taking hold? But it's interesting that these Republicans are so terrified in the House that if this passes the House and voters know, Republican voters know,

that the House, controlled by Republicans, voted for a bill that would protect the Dreamers, that it would depress turnout so badly. And it's also interesting that some of these Republicans have joined to sign on to the discharge petition because clearly they're the moderate Republicans who live in areas where people believe immigration has made their lives better, that they're more Democratic areas. And probably those Republicans aren't going to be around in 2018. If we all do our jobs. Well, they're like the first ones off the list, you know. So like what do we think about this? What do you think about the discharge petition in the House?

I mean like is it going to matter because will it go anywhere else? I don't know. I mean I'd love to see it come out. I'd love to see it. I'd love to see us force votes on this. And I'd love to show the activists who are out there have been fighting to get the DREAM Act passed for decades and to save kids from getting deported that they matter to this party and they matter to us. I mean, I think another immigration specific thing that happened recently with Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley went down to try to view this center where, uh, children were being held this fucking converted Walmart in Texas and they wouldn't let him in. And they call the cops on him. Uh, even when he told them that he was a U S center, he just wanted to see where kids were

being held. And he tried to go through proper channels. He was rebuffed. So he showed up, I think like doing an event like that, that shows the horrific conditions that children are being held in, that shows leadership, that raises awareness on an issue. It's really smart. I'd love to see a bunch of these 2020 Democrats taking similar steps to like highlight some of the worst things Trump is doing. Cause I think that could change impact public opinion. So I agree with that but I'm interested in what you just said before this which is that independent number of all these people who think that immigration has not made where they live better. Like do you like because my first instinct when I saw the Jeff Merkley thing is every fucking democratic senator should be with him and should be highlighting this awful awful inhumane policy where they're

tearing children apart from their parents. But you you know, Steve Bannon's out there saying, and clearly Stephen Miller and Donald Trump agree, that he's like, Republicans will lose 40 House seats if they make this election about how the economy is improving. What we need to do is make it about immigration every day for months at a time, and Donald Trump in September should shut the government down over Congress not funding his wall. Now, what do Democrats do about that? Do we play on that issue or we try to talk about health care? I think there's a distinction here, though, between what Bannon wants to talk about and what Merkley was trying to highlight, which is broader immigration policy general, like conversations about amnesty or allowing Syrian refugees or building the wall.

building the wall. It's like one set of sort of boogeyman, strawman arguments that these Republicans make. Ripping kids away from their families on purpose as a deterrent to prevent legal immigration is another thing. I think we should highlight his horrific handling of that element of the policy to make people understand that he's not doing a good job writ large. And particularly because, and to let people know that these are families that are being ripped apart who are seeking asylum. We're not trying to come here and sneak over the border here. These are people who are trying to flee violence to come to this country. Lovett, what do you think? I think we should do everything we can for the Dreamers and fight for any opportunity we have to make that case.

I agree on highlighting the policy of ripping children away from their parents. policy of ripping children away from their parents. I think one thing that is chastening and is an argument for actually to talk about immigration more and not less are these polls about just how bad the issue is doing around independence. And I think part of the reason is so much of our immigration policy right now is defined by what we're doing to stop Trump. It is defined by being against what Trump is for. And we should be against what Trump is for. But, you know, on health care, I think I know the undergirding truth of what Democrats are for. We're for health care for all. I think we're getting close to being for Medicare for all as a party, but we're for health care for all. On taxes,

I know we want a more progressive tax code where the rich pay more and middle class people pay less so we can fund the things that help people have an opportunity. Whatever. These are simple truths. What's the Democratic position on immigration? The closest thing we could go back to is Barack Obama saying we're a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. Democrats are afraid of this issue. They are afraid to say, here's what I'm for on immigration, not just on pieces of it, not just on DACA, not just on children being ripped away from their parents, not just on asylum, not just on pieces of it, not just on DACA, not just on children being ripped away from their parents, not just on asylum, not just on refugees, but what is our immigration policy as a party? How many people should come in? What should we do at the border? What should we do with people who are undocumented? What should the policy be? How long till they can get on the path to

citizenship? All that stuff, we have walked away from it basically completely in terms of what we talk about every single day. And it means that the only argument out there is the Trump argument and the anti-Trump argument. But that is a fraction of the complicated conversation we need to have about the fact that our immigration system is totally broken. Yeah, look, I think the moral question of whether we should talk about this and fight on this issue is easy. And I think most Democrats agree, of course, we should. But even the political question of whether it's smart or not, I do not think that Democrats can just hide from this issue. No, we don't have a choice. We don't have a choice. Like you can, you cannot talk about it forever, but Republicans are running on it. And so they're going to be out there making the argument. And so they either make the argument

into the void and have this big megaphone to talk to people about it. And we say nothing, or we join the argument. And I think you're, you're right, Lovett we say nothing or we join the argument and i think you're you're right love it that we have to join the argument not just with what you're doing is bad but here's how we would fix the immigration system like we think that ice is a bunch of fucking maniacs right now who are being cruel and inhumane to a whole bunch of people in this country but what does do we do we want deportations at some point when undocumented people are in this country do we want any like how you like how many what are the quotas how many people do we want inations at some point when undocumented people are in this country? Do we want any? What are the quotas? How many people do we want in this country?

What's the immigration system look like? We used to have plans on immigration that we talked about a lot. And now because Donald Trump has been so horrific on this policy, we're just sort of out there yelling or saying nothing. There are going to be ads saying that every Democratic congressperson, virtually every single one, every single Democratic candidate in a competitive district is going to likely face a campaign saying that they are going to be soft on MS-13. And for a lot of those candidates, is their position on immigration? No, I'm not. Is that it? I'm not soft on MS-13? Is that the extent of your convictions on immigration? you need to have something more about what you actually care about that seems real, that seems like something people can latch onto,

so that you can talk about the other issues you care about, so you don't get sucked into an endless debate about immigration when you need to talk about healthcare and jobs and taxes. That's it. That's right. Well, we will talk more about these issues with our guests today, as well as Puerto Rico. Congressman Luis Gutierrez is there in Puerto Rico. He's been making a lot of trips, and we will talk to him next. On the pod today, Congressman from the great state of Illinois, Luis Gutierrez. Congressman Gutierrez, how are you? I'm doing well. I'm here in Puerto Rico. I'll be heading back tomorrow back to Washington, D.C.,

but making my ninth trip out here and getting ready to get back to work in D.C. tomorrow. So what was the purpose of this trip to Puerto Rico? I know you've been going back and forth quite a bit, and what do things look like? As you know, after 26 years, I'll be leaving Congress. And one of the biggest reasons is because I really want to dedicate more time. I don't believe that I and others like me, who want to bring Puerto Rico to the 21st century, can live in the United States and urge the Puerto Rican community and other communities. I think we need to make Puerto Rico our base. So I and others, we're going to move here and we're going to live here in Puerto Rico starting next January so that I can go back to Florida. And John, it's really simple for me.

that I can go back to Florida. And John, it's really simple for me. I don't believe as long as President Trump is president of the United States, Puerto Rico is going to be completely healed and be able to reestablish itself and the people will stop fleeing. So I want to be able to go to Florida, organize in Florida and make sure Florida is in the Democratic. And to me, it's simple, yet it's a very dynamic situation. How do we get the 1.1 million Puerto Ricans who live in Florida to see the future of their country, that is, Puerto Rico? Remember, now New York no longer has the title. If they did West Side Story today, it would not be in Manhattan, right? It would be in Orlando. That's right. Because that is where the largest concentration of Puerto Ricans are.

I'm here, and sadly, I have to tell you, John, there are tens of thousands of people that spent the day with no electricity in Puerto Rico today. Still. There are still tens of thousands of people living on the tarps. There are still tens of thousands of people that have no home to return to. So it is still a pretty devastating situation here. What do you think Congress can do right now to help? I mean, what do you think that Puerto Rico needs the most right now? And can it be done through Congress, do you think? Or is it all sort of private charitable contributions at this point. It can, but what it needs is a president who loves the people here, who cares about the people here, who doesn't go around giving himself a 10, you know, and giving himself a grade and comes and then leaves and then removes.

Look, we need a president that cares for everybody, and we don't have one. And that's going to be a pretty big – that's going to be one hurdle that we're going to – in the interim period, look, there are funds, but insufficient funds. I'll give you an example. My colleague, Bishop, he's the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee. He came down to Puerto Rico in the last month, and he comes down here and he says, oh, the electrical grid is damaged, but I know a way to save money. What we have to do is change petroleum for natural gas. Well, if you're into fracking, yeah, that's the way you see the solution. How can you be on a tropical island, on a tropical island where 331 days out of the year the sun's going to pop up for the most part all day,

where you have the wind coming in. I visited Iowa. Half the electricity of Iowa is generated through windmills, and we know how much more can be done. So those are not the solutions. We need modern solutions. We need solutions that, to be quite honest, people who are not climate deniers

are going to provide to the island of Puerto Rico. So, look, I'm going to be here. I'm going to work here. And I want to make sure in the next presidential debate, just like very important decisions, you know, and issues for Americans, such as women's right to choice and reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights and immigrant rights, that we also have the right of the people of Puerto Rico to go back home to their island of Puerto Rico and to live in a society of the 21st century. Yeah. So a lot of people have been talking about the new Harvard study from last week that estimated that the actual death toll from Hurricane maria could be more than 4 000 people obviously the government's official

count so far stands at 64 um what what do you think about the discrepancy here and what do you think needs to happen to get a full accounting of the the true human devastation in Puerto Rico? Well, here's what happened. As most of your radio listeners and others tonight are going to remember, this was President Trump that came to the island of Puerto Rico last and for a very brief, didn't spend the night here, didn't see what happens when the sun goes down on the island of Puerto Rico,

and he threw paper towels and went and gave himself a tan and an A, and tried to quiet and silence the voices of dissent, which he does continuously, like the voice of the mayor of San Juan, Carmen Jolín, who was really out there saying, look, people are dying. Remember when Carmen Jolín said that, John? Remember when she said, people are dying? It's a long time ago. And they wouldn't listen, would they?

They criticized her. They demeaned her. They did everything they could to destroy her reputation. Guess what? Harvard University has confirmed what the mayor of San Juan was saying. People were dying by the thousands. And what did our government do? And you know what?

This is on us. This is on the American government. Because yes, people did die, John, because of the wind and the rain and because of flooding. People did die because of that. The immediate right aftermath of that vicious, terrible, very strong hurricane, 140, 150 mile an hour wind, unprecedented on this island. People died because of that? Yes. But you know what? People also died because ambulances couldn't get to people, because roads were shut down, because hospitals didn't have generators, because people couldn't go get their dialysis, because they were senior citizens with no oxygen, right? Because people weren't getting medical treatment, because people were, with no oxygen, right? Because people weren't getting medical treatment.

Because the American government didn't send the armed forces, the greatest, best armed forces anywhere in the world, and say, you know what? We're not invading Iraq, but we're going to send people in there to go and help the people of Puerto Rico. They didn't do it. We are the most powerful. We are the most, how would I say,

sophisticated technological nation in the world. And we didn't bring that technology to bear here. And that's why people died. People did die because of the hurricane and the immediate impact of nature. Yeah, Mother Nature. But it wasn't in the nature of this president to fulfill his promise and his commitment and his constitutional responsibility to the people of Puerto Rico. Your colleague Ruben Gallego tweeted over the weekend that if Democrats were in control and he were to be able to exercise committee oversight, he'd be holding field hearings right now. Do you think we need a 9-11 commission style investigation into what happened in Puerto Rico? Do you think that would be a useful exercise? Let me just say this to John. I saw the Catholic Cardinal of

Chicago on an airplane on one of my trips. I was bringing food and supplies and medicine with my wife, and I saw him. And I asked him, why are you going to Puerto Rico? You know what he told me? He said, the Pope, the Pope from Rome asked the Cardinal of Chicago. He didn't ask, remember, the Pope didn't ask any Cardinals to go down to Florida or to go down to Texas. He only asked them to go down to Puerto Rico. Why? Because things were different here, right? Because the response was different here. because the response was different here. And so I do think it would be wise to look at this. You want to know why? Because, how would I put this, John?

This is going to happen again, right? Puerto Rico is also that hurricane, and the changing of environmental changes are going to bring more hurricanes to Puerto Rico. We're going to suffer from global warming here in Puerto Rico. There are going to be more, and there are going to be... And so let's prepare the island so when it comes the next time, there aren't sink roofs and there aren't wires going from one pole to the next that can be simply stripped down. Because as we speak tonight, John, I want you to know tens of thousands of people on the island of Puerto Rico don't have an electricity. And the electricity that some of those

do have, right, the rest do have, it fluctuates. It comes and it goes. So we really do need to take a really serious look. Otherwise, you know, there's going to be another. If you know that there are going to be hurricanes coming, just like the one that came, if you know that the global warming is causing shifts in your environment, and you know 4,600 people died, you know that. That's science. And you don't do anything, you're responsible when the next 4,600 people, because you did nothing, nothing to provide safety for the people of Puerto Rico and to protect them.

Yeah. I want to talk about immigration for a second. You've been one of the strongest immigration rights advocates in Congress. You know, you even you criticize President Obama's deportation and detention policies in the past. deportation and detention policies in the past. What concerns you most about this administration's new zero tolerance policy approach to border enforcement where children are being separated from their parents? Well, here's the strategy of Donald Trump. He beats up on Latinos and immigrants, but it's really a political strategy for the fall of 2018 elections, right? He's trying to fire up his base. All this talk about MS-13 and border security is a smokescreen, right, for politics. So what's happening in Puerto Rico was wrapped in lies and hidden away from the cameras with little oversight.

And he's doing the same thing at the border. He's doing, look, those children that are fleeing, they have rights under the law of the United States of America, right? They're not illegal aliens reaching our border. They're coming from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, and they're coming fleeing. And I just want to say this. Look, we also have a responsibility because those societies are weak and the states are debilitated because of the drugs and the drug cartels that have established themselves there.

And we have a responsibility as Americans for the consumption of those drugs, because once we eliminate our consumption, they have a chance. So you see how what happens on one side of the border is particularly impactful on what happens on the other side, and we each have responsibility. But what Donald Trump is saying, I'm going to rip those children away from their mothers. These are people that have come 1,500 miles under horrendous conditions. They finally reached. They're asylum seekers. They're fleeing. You know, if they got on a boat and were leaving Fidel Castro's Cuba to Florida, you would see everybody in Miami reaching out to them and embracing them. But they're leaving societies in which there are no protections for the people there.

And the children are vulnerable. The women are vulnerable. And we need to understand that they have rights as asylum seekers, and it is inhumane for someone to come to your country's door and say, I need your help, because that's how America was established. That should be something that gives us pride, to come to your door with their children saying, I need your help. I'm in danger. My life is in danger. You know what you do? You process them under the laws of the United States of America. And if they qualify, you give them

the asylum that they seek and the protection that they seek, because that makes us a stronger and a better nation. Yeah, you mentioned rightly that, you know, Donald Trump is using this issue as a political weapon. He intends to do so in the fall. There's rumors that, you know, he's going to maybe shut the government down again in the fall over the border wall. How do you think Democrats should respond on this issue of immigration? Because as you know, some of your colleagues, especially some of your colleagues in the Senate, who were up in 2018, and some of the redder states have been a little skittish on this issue. They were a little worried about shutting the government down over DACA. How do you think, what's the best strategy for Democrats

on this issue? Well, here's what I think. Democrats need to understand that the American people and the voters that we can rely on, right? The voters that believe in common decency and justice and fairness and extending a hand, those are our voters. And when we turn our back on immigrants, we turn our back on our core values. So this is really about who we are as a nation. We shouldn't mix the politics with it, right? Because once you put, and then you're you're saying oh you're no better than republicans you're making political calculations on the basis of people's lives so here's what i would say but i gotta tell you uh democrats have come a long way a long way i mean 193 members of

the house signed that discharge petition right so that we could get a vote on the DREAM Act. That's unanimous, right? You saw what the Senate, do you really think that Dick Durbin and that Elizabeth Warren and people like Mr. Booker, the senator from New Jersey, and those senators put $25 billion for a wall? I know why they put the $25 billion for a wall. I know why they put the $25 billion for a wall. Not because they believe in Donald Trump's damn wall, but they believe that they wanted 2 million DREAMers to escape the uncertainty and the brutality that comes with living in a country and then being deported from the only country.

So look, they demanded a huge ransom for the DREAMers. So Democrats have been ready and willing to sit down. But you want to know something? It's never been about the wall. The wall is a pretext and an excuse. They want to end legal immigration to the United States of America. They want to say that someone like my mom and my dad that came to the United States in the 1950s with an elementary school education. They couldn't speak English.

Those aren't the immigrants of today. When those Republican congressmen look at those who came before them in their own families, they will find people just like my mom and dad and just like the immigrants of today. So that's what they want to do. They want to stop family reunification. Now, the only one who believes that families should have a job, whether it's in the federal government at the White House or at the company back at home, is Donald Trump. Well, guess what? Families are what makes so many of our small businesses the strong entities that they are today. So I would say to Democrats, those who have come here to be joined with their family members,

that that's the American tradition, right? That's the tradition of the pilgrims, right? They didn't come like the Spaniards as conquistadores in search of gold. They came to establish their new America with their families, with their work ethic, with their dreams, and with their new aspirations. Let's not change that, ever. Congressman Gutierrez, thank you so much for joining us from Puerto Rico, and thank you for everything that you're doing in Puerto Rico. Thank you, John. I appreciate it. Keep up the good work, guys.

You too. You too, Congressman. Take care. Bye-bye. work, guys. You too. You too, Congressman. Take care. Bye-bye. Can I just quickly endorse Michael Cohen for mayor of New York? I think Michael Cohen is here in studio, and I don't know if he'd like to make his own endorsement. What's your platform? Mr. Trump!

Can we just do two minutes on what? I think that taxi medallions ought to be bought for a lot of money by the city as soon as humanly possible. That's my first position. Uber. Second, I'm going to do to your head NPR what the Eagles did to a football. Patriots suck. Are good.

I got lost in it. I liked it. This is terrible. Well, guys. This is over. That's all for today. Is it? Yeah. This is the outro. That was the outro. That makes a lot more sense. This is terrible. Well, guys, that's all for today. Is it? Yeah, this is the outro.

That was the outro. That makes a lot more sense. That makes sense. Do we have any other loose ends? Well, we didn't talk about the Eagles, which was just breaking right before we got here. Yeah. Yeah, Trump wants to talk about racially divisive issues.

We get it. He has a message calendar. This would be nice here's MS-13 here's I'm going to go after the NFL again if the Eagles want to spend time with a bunch of Trump supporters maybe they can beat the Patriots again

how did that work? Is that true? it would be good if the broader press corps would just realize what he's doing which is trying to raise a racially divisive issue no one really gives a shit if a fucking sports team goes to the White House or not so let's move on don't give him what he's doing, which is trying to raise a racially divisive issue. No one really gives a shit if a fucking sports team goes to the White House or not, so let's move on. Don't give him what he wants,

which is to have this be the thing we talk about for four days like fucking Roseanne. That's why this is in the outro. Maybe only 30% of you are hearing it. 30%?

Maybe 70. That's a cool third. I think by now it's less. All right, we'll see you guys on Thursday Thank you.