Pod Save America - “Lights, camera, impeachment!”

Episode Date: November 11, 2019

Democrats and Republicans telegraph their strategies for the first public impeachment hearings, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg prepares to enter the Democratic primary. Then veterans’ advocate Paul Rieckhoff talks to Tommy about veterans policy and how America treats those who serve.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Later in the pod, we have Tommy's interview with veterans advocate and host of the podcast Angry Americans, Paul Rykoff. But first, we're going to talk about the Democratic and Republican strategy ahead of this week's public impeachment hearings and the latest twist in the 2020 campaign, which is Michael Bloomberg's potential entry into the race. Also, for the first hearing on Wednesday, a few of us here at Crooked Media Will be slacking live In the old group thread

I wrote that out last night Slacking live group thread What has happened You know that thing you use at work that you hate We'll be doing that publicly But anyway we have fun doing it during the debates And now we're going to have some of your favorite Crooked Media characters Doing it for the impeachment hearings on Wednesday Follow along with us You can watch it at youtube some of your favorite Crooked Media characters doing it for the impeachment hearings on Wednesday.

Follow along with us. You can watch it at YouTube.com slash Crooked Media. And you can also check out our brand new impeachment frequently asked questions at Crooked.com slash impeachment. You can also subscribe to Brian Boitler's podcast called Rubicon. Great episode this week. Great episode this week. It really was. It was so good.

Seriously. All the impeachment news that you could possibly need right here at Crooked Media. Tommy, you've got some exciting news. I do, John. You guys might have noticed I've been going to Iowa fairly regularly over the last couple months. It's not just because I am obsessed with the place and reliving glory days. It's because I've been working with Pineapple Street Media on a limited series about the Iowa caucuses. We want to talk about why the Iowa caucuses are first,

how the rules work, how you do well there, and, like, really, is this a good way to pick a president? So the first episode comes out on the 19th. We'll release one per week for four weeks, and then we've got kind of a floating fifth that's going to show up sometime in January, I think. But I'm very excited about this. It's been incredibly fun to be hanging out in Iowa

and not just like with candidates, but with the young field staffers who are the heart and soul of these campaigns, who are just inspiring people. Whenever politics is depressing, you can talk to these folks and get, you know, just remember why we all do this. So I hope you enjoy it.

I am so excited to hear this come out on tuesdays you sent us the trailer which i guess is going out this week too yes um and just listening to the trailer i got really excited for the pod and it's going to be in the pod save america feed it'll be in the pod save america feed you don't have to subscribe to anything else you just have to listen to something new on tuesdays that's pretty easy guys that's pretty easy awesome love it how's the show so Awesome. Love it or leave it. How was the show? So great. Great love it or leave it with Cal Penn, Emily Heller, and Jason Leopold from BuzzFeed who walked us through the documents he uncovered from the Mueller report and how they relate to what's happening in Ukraine, specifically the fact that it may be that Paul Manafort

is the person who told Donald Trump first about the idea of a Ukraine conspiracy. Jason Leopold is one of those reporters who like you don't know what he does for months at a time and he's like ha he got a million documents really interesting really interesting and uh some great rants from cal and emily is a great episode perfect um all right let's get to the news this week the house of representatives will hold the first public hearings to help determine whether they will impeach donald trump on wednesday former acting ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor and State Department official George Kent will testify.

And on Friday, former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch will testify. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff will lead the hearings, which he set up to allow for 45 minutes of sustained questioning by Schiff, Republican Devin Nunes, and their staff lawyers, as opposed to the five-minute rounds of questioning we're used to in these hearings what a delight that is that are annoying thank you guys it's really love the format change love what they're doing this season me too guys why do you think uh democrats chose taylor kent and uh yovanovitch to go first i mean i think it's pretty simple. Taylor specifically kept copious notes, has unimpeachable personal credentials and is going to help lay out the story that Democrats want to tell. He worked for the Department of Defense. He's probably a Republican. And he can speak to the fact that signaled that they're gonna they're one of their big arguments is going to be it's all

hearsay it's all second or third or fourth hand well taylor's testimony is based on what he heard directly from gordon sonland gordon sonland's revised testimony is now in line with bill taylor's before it was in conflict with taylor's and after tay after Taylor spoke and testified behind closed doors, Sondland then revised his testimony. So this whole bullshit that Taylor, you know, did not talk directly to President Trump is just that because Gordon Sondland talked directly to President Trump and now Gordon Sondland's testimony is in line with Bill Taylor's. And here's how Sondland explained it to Taylor. Quote, when a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asked that person to pay up before signing the check. Thank you for that

helpful explanation, Gordon. Yeah, no, I think, um, I think the, these three witnesses and look, and from, um, Yovanovitch, you know, on Friday, we're going to hear about how she was basically pushed out of her post because of conspiracy theories cooked up by Rudy Giuliani and folks at Fox News. And I think that's going to be, and like people said that have heard her testify behind closed doors already, that her testimony is particularly emotional because she is this sort of longstanding nonpartisan bureaucrat who served the country well under both Democratic and Republican administrations pushed out of her job because she refused to go along with an extortion scheme.

It's also just worth noting that one of the 35,000 spin explanations the Trump administration's trying is that he just cares so much about corruption. So he held up this money. She will be able to talk about the fact that what Trump and rudy giuliani and gordon sonlin were doing in ukraine was actually incredibly harmful to any efforts to root out corruption in ukraine i don't think it's like the key thing that's going to influence voters in the u.s but it's just you know these bullshit arguments they stand up we knock down one by one and she will do that powerfully here i think george kent will do that too yeah it's yeah the corruption argument is obviously silly on its face the simple question you could ask is, what's another example of corruption that Donald Trump has ever shown any interest in stopping?

Literally one example. One example. Yeah, I mean, there's a bunch of other explanations. I mean, the other thing, too, is like, you know, first they had this hearsay argument, right? Because, oh, Bill Taylor never spoke directly with Trump. But, of course, now we have Sondland revising his testimony and basically completely reversing himself. And he was in direct contact with Trump. And so I guess they're left with this position of Gordon Sondland as some kind of mastermind pulling all the strings behind the scenes. But of course, that doesn't work because he's getting his guidance from Rudy. And where's Rudy getting his guidance from?

One thing we know about Rudy Giuliani is he is very interested in defending donald trump he is also his uh his cat whiskers uh they're very sensitive they're catching doors on either side of him and the second he feels any hint he feels like he is being hung out to dry he is on laura ingram with a fucking ipad totally rolling through crazy criminal texts every time well it also doesn't matter what rudy Rudy Giuliani decides to do, because in the call summary, we all see that Donald Trump said specifically, do us a favor, blah, blah, blah, asked for the favors and then said, contact my lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to figure it all out. I mean, it's just...

The efforts to get some distance between Trump and Rudy are amazing. I also think that maybe it was Lindsey Graham who started floating the Gordon Sondland is a secret Democratic plant argument. In cahoots. Yeah, so he called them, except he called them Sonderland multiple times. Yeah, so Gordon Sonderland, or Sondland, gave Donald Trump's inauguration a million dollars as part of

a long play for the Democratic Party to do this whole scheme. Well, yeah, we should... Conspiracies run deep. Yeah, you should attack... So obviously that's silly, but you can also attack it more specifically because what Graham is saying is, so Gordon Sondland issued his testimony that was good for Trump. Then Gordon Sondland starts to become quite fearful that he has perjured himself in a way that could lead to a referral to the Justice Department. And so he revises his testimony. And what Lindsey Graham is, I would call it insinuating, except he's just basically saying it out loud is that, oh, the only reason Gordon Sondland must have done that is he was working with the Democrats to come up with a damning testimony to kind of get out of such a referral.

And of course, there's no evidence for that. It's just like Lindsey Graham wakes up every morning just trying to get to the end of the day. Bullshit. So a Democratic leadership aide told CNN, quote, the first hour of a hearing in the first hearing has shit uh so a democratic leadership aide told cnn quote the first hour of a hearing and the first hearing has got to be a blockbuster um do you guys agree with that can we just can we try something new here democrats let's try something called lowering expectations right you're not pitching a fucking jason statham movie right like let's here two things we should do. The facts that we already know are blockbuster. Let's get them repeated on TV by credible people as a way of helping inform the rest of the country to the standard for impeachment is not a criminal act. So let's not

get sucked down that rabbit hole and make it clear that an abuse of power or, you know, helping to rig the next election is actually an impeachable offense. Those are the two big picture priorities I would love to see, which I have a full list after that. That Exodus interview is very funny. It very much seemed like, like, uh, that aid, like did a line of Coke and then pitch Knight Ryder in the eighties. Like it was like very, like very much like, oh man, it's gonna, it's gonna touch your

fucking soul. All right. First, boom, you got Bill Taylor, but then don't worry worry we're coming for your heartstrings with yavanovich and then once that's on the big finish kent's gonna come in we have a third act fucking surprises george kent's gonna save the cat it's unbelievable but anyway don't talk to reporters this is all just stop john that's good advice just stop talking to reporters i it. It's very silly. But it was too much. Look, I mean, part of the reason this blockbuster thing matters, unfortunately, is the primary goal of these impeachment hearings is to communicate the gravity of Trump's abuse of power and the overwhelming evidence directly to the American people, of course. and the overwhelming evidence directly to the American people, of course.

But we also know that probably most people won't be watching these, and they will understand what has happened in these hearings through the filter of the media. And I think over the last couple of days, I started getting a little more anxious than usual that the media is going to fuck this one up. And for a few reasons, and the Blockbuster thing speaks to it, is gonna fuck this one up. Wow, yeah.

And for a few reasons, and the Blockbuster thing speaks to it, one is there is this need for what is new, right? What is new from these hearings? Like the smoking gun happened a couple weeks ago now, right? We already know from when all these witnesses first testified behind closed doors, first there were leaks. That was like the big bombshells and explosive leaks

and all this kind of stuff. Then we all saw the depositions last week. They were less newsy last week, so they weren't as big of a deal. And now the question is, if the expectation is that these are only successful if a bunch of witnesses sort of talk about a whole bunch of new information, then they're not going to be successful. Trump's not going to run in and say, you can't handle the code red. You can't handle the truth or whatever. Like, it's ridiculous. I'm a little I think that's like a fair thing to be worried about. I do think that Schiff has been smart. The articulation of kind of three broad principles for what they're examining. Yeah.

So it was really smart. He's basically got three questions that are going to be asking. And he told the Republicans, I'm not going to accept witnesses that don't abide by these three questions. I don't have to do with anything. One is, did Trump request investigation of his political rival from a foreign government? Two is, did he use his powers to pressure a foreign government to do this? And three is, did he try to cover it up? Right.

So it's very simple. Like, you know, did he solicit foreign interference? Did he try to pressure people to do it? And did he try to cover it up? Very simple, like very important. And I think setting those as the kind of framing questions will allow us to see the Taylor testimony and the other testimonies that follow as did they meet that threshold of answering those questions? And I think he set it up so that the answer will be yes. Yeah.

I would like a couple of things. One, I just want them to make this story as simple as possible. Let's not get wrapped around the axle about what a quid pro quo is or the legalities. Like speak English. Tell people why this matters. Two, just don't get sucked into any GOP theatrics like Matt Geitz might like paint his chest and like shotgun a beer, just ignore him. Three, I think it's clear that they're circling Republicans are circling around an argument that says one, the whistleblower

is part of the deep state and being hidden into all this information is hearsay. We can't prove intense, right? We don't know what Donald Trump really thought. I'd like to hear them preempt that argument, not by downplaying the testimony we have, but saying, okay, if you want to talk about the president's intent, can we make Mulvaney or Bolton or Mike Pompeo available? Because they clearly have spoken to Donald Trump about this. Some of them were on this phone call. So let's hear from them. Why are you hiding them? I think the cover up here is evidence of a crime to the American people. And then last thing, like to your point, John, about the media filter, they, the Democrats need a digital messaging plan, right? The Trump war room and Trump's Twitter feed are going to be blasting every good clip for them that ever happens.

We need to be fighting that battle and not just going through the CNN pundit class. Yes, because guaranteed republicans are going to succeed on this front when jim jordan goes out there and starts screaming about whatever and you know like accuses bill taylor like maybe you were the one who interfered in the 2016 election you know uh the media will report that as well the republicans did get a few hits in because they they caught Bill Taylor off guard by mentioning some crazy fucking conspiracy theory that he'd never heard of until now. Right. Like that kind of stuff will happen. And so I think you're right that like Democrats need a messaging

machine here and need to be on offense because we cannot count on legacy media to do the do what we need to do here. I also think, too,, they're going to try to do the circus thing. That we can kind of expect. And then I also think a significant way in which they will try to create moments that undermine the premise of these hearings is we will see a lot of, so you can't say for certain.

We're all here. We're all gathered here. They got the press corps in the back. They've got lawyers. You've never spoken to Donald Trump. You've never spoken to Donald Trump. And you're going to have us believe we should impeach the president, having you never even spoken to the man.

They want a Brett Kavanaugh, Lindsey Graham temper tantrum. They said it. Yeah, they said that the Brett Kavanaugh hearings are a model. They're fucking casting for it. They're casting for it. They're like, Devin Nunes isn't right for the part. We need Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan.

Imagine bringing in Jim Jordan this week when another person came forward to say that he did not disclose information about sexual abuse on the OSU wrestling team. Oh, my God. Ride or die. Unbelievable. They just don't. No, but you're right. I did like in that same Axio story that someone involved in the preparation said that Schiff has been telling all the members of the committee to be serious as fuck. Yeah, I like that, too.

Which I think is great. Like, I think there's going to be all these antics. The Republicans are going to bring the circus and Democrats not getting caught up in their circus, not arguing back and forth with them, just being very calm. And the other thing you said, Tommy, that I completely agree with and really hope that Schiff does in his opening statement is we now know the arguments that the Republicans are going to make because they've telegraphed them to everyone, rebut them in the opening statement, you know, rebut some of the, like, I think that is such a smart thing to do. You're going to hear this. I mean, lawyers do this, right? You're going to hear this argument. You're going to hear this argument. You're going to hear this argument.

This is why all of these are wrong. Um, so I think that's super important to do. And call Nellie Orr early. It's very important very important just kidding it's a thing that they want to do and andrea chalupa right that's she was on the witness list too she cooked this whole thing up random random dnc staffer uh that they you know i mean we're laughing about it in the right-wing world they think actually she's like they do yeah she's the cause of all the interference in the 2016 election. Go look it up. Or don't. They actually don't. One last thing on Democratic strategy. Two potentially devastating witnesses who will not be testifying as of now are former National Security Advisor John Bolton and White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney,

who are waiting for a court to rule whether they should obey a subpoena from Congress or an order from the White House to defy the subpoena from Congress. Because it could take weeks or even months for that ruling, Democrats defy the subpoena from Congress. Because it could take weeks or even months for that ruling, Democrats have decided to forge ahead without these witnesses. Think this is the right strategy? I don't feel like I feel strongly about an alternative path here. Like, I agree with pursuing the subpoenas through the courts. I, you know, I was, we've talked about this a lot, the fact that there is inherent power in the Constitution to, for Congress to not only issue subpoenas, but enforce those subpoenas. I believe in that power. I'm also very skeptical that it would be politically advantageous for Democrats to use it.

I wish I lived in a world where a few years ago there was a kind of hypothetical conversation amongst Democrats and Republicans. And there was a consensus built to to reestablish congressional prerogatives. And there was a bill passed that said, these are the steps by which you can enforce a congressional subpoena. But those rules don't exist, which means any attempt to enforce them right now will be seen as partisan. And so I don't see a better path. I don't know a better path either, but it really bothers me that they might not testify because we saw this with Mueller. The fact that Donald Trump could to written questions and was never pressed on obstruction really helped their case. I mean, the coverup is ongoing as far

as I'm concerned. And I think, you know, you're seeing someone like Lindsey Graham, again, shameless lying idiot, say that the Trump policy was too incoherent to have been some sort of quid pro quo or extortion racket, right? They said the same shit about Donald Trump Jr. during the campaign, that he was too stupid and didn't understand campaign finance laws and thus couldn't have broken them. And it's absurd on its face. And so, again, what we're hearing these guys talk about is Donald Trump's intent. And now I think that that's a dangerous road for us to go down generally

because we're talking in terms of a criminal statute already. And that's not the bar. That's not the threshold you need to make in an impeachment degree. It's high crimes and misdemeanors does not require it to be a crime. But then we are foreclosing our chance to interview people like Mulvaney and Pompeo and Bolton who understand the president's mindset because they probably had conversations with him. So that bothers me a lot. This is where I'm conflicted because, so what do you want out of John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney? Well, for Mick Mulvaney, he's the guy because he is acting chief

of staff and still the director of the office of management and budget. He's the guy that ordered the freeze on the aid, right? And everyone else in the government, the state department, the defense department, none of them wanted a freeze on the aid so clearly it came from clearly it came from donald trump and omb and so mick mulvaney will be able to talk about and so would his aides at omb why the aid was frozen when it was frozen what donald trump said all that bullshit john bolton his lawyer has said in a letter last week he knows about quote many relevant meetings and conversations so john bolton is playing some kind of a game that's what i was going to raise too so So Bolton has been very hard to pin down through all of this, but that is such a strange thing for his lawyer to hint at. The other piece of it with Bolton too is based on news

reports, he was afraid of Trump getting on the phone with Zelensky because he thought the call would be a disaster. And then it was. Why did you think the call would be a disaster? Well, so my point is, though, like what you were saying, Tommy, if we wait for the court to rule, then the sort of media narrative becomes a little bit more about intent. The Democrats need these witnesses because they feel like they need to prove Donald Trump's intent. And then if the court rules that they don't have to testify suddenly it's oh democrats didn't get the witnesses they need so i worry about that on the other hand you're right like them testifying would be extremely devastating but i think i don't think we need them to prove that donald trump clearly knew what the fuck he was doing clearly was targeting his political opponent yeah he said he said call rudy in the transcript, right? I mean, that should be all we need. That said, like, I just, I don't think John Bolton

is ready to go down with the ship. And I think Mick Mulvaney is an arrogant ass who's as terrible as Trump and will undoubtedly do whatever it takes to cover his own ass. And I really would love to see them. We also might get news reports anyway, like John Bolton might decide that he doesn't want to testify, but he just wants to, uh know, say it in his book. Yeah. I also just sort of like, what are the alternatives here? It's, you know. It's waiting or it's sending out fucking Steny Hoyer with a pair of handcuffs and like, I don't know. But like Mulvaney. I don't even know if that.

But how do you assert privilege over Mulvaney when he went and did like a 40minute press conference at the podium about all the relevant facts and he admitted to a quid pro quo. Which is apparently why Bolton's people are pissed that Mulvaney joined the lawsuit because they're like, they think that Bolton has a legitimate reason not to testify, which he's a national security aide and had privileged conversations with Donald Trump, which is also why I think it's hard to do the inherent contempt there too. So there was also news from the New York Times over the weekend about another Ukraine drug deal co-conspirator. Rudy Giuliani's indicted client Lev Parnas, the co-founder of Fraud Guarantee, is preparing to tell impeachment investigators that at Rudy's direction, he met with Ukraine President Zelensky's top aide last May in Kiev to tell him that unless

they announced an investigation into Joe Biden, Mike Pence wouldn't be attending Zelensky's inauguration and the U.S. would freeze military aid. They didn't announce the investigation. Mike Pence didn't go to the inauguration and the military aid was frozen. Giuliani and Parnas's fraud guarantee partner, Igor Fruman, who was also at the meeting, deny that this happened. How much does this matter? And should Democrats wait for Parnas to testify? I will say only this. I do not believe Donald Trump will enjoy his impeachment proceedings being on television,. I will say only this. I do not believe Donald Trump will enjoy his impeachment proceedings being on television, but I will say the one day that will be his favorite

is the day that Mike Pence is implicated. That will be the day he enjoys it the most. It's just, this is so frustrating. Has there ever been a more open and shut case of fraud? No, like what are we doing here? We're all talking about who should testify. There's like 14 star witnesses here that we're going to hear from.

Also, this is an aside. Prime Minister Erdogan is coming to the White House on Wednesday for a meeting, right after his ethnic cleansing got over with, and Trump is going to hold a press conference with him. What the fuck? You're right, though. It's, I, as we were preparing for this today, I'm like, it's such an open and shut case.

And the story of this impeachment is a story about Donald Trump and the Republican party and what the Republican party is willing to tolerate. It's not about anything else. It's not about whether Democrats are successful in holding the right hearings or getting this out. The evidence is all there. And if Republicans, all of them, decide to protect Donald Trump and say that it's OK for foreign governments to interfere in our elections from now on, then that's what the American people should know and go vote on. That's it. That's all this is about it's how much evidence fuel is required to get fire from the dwindling little bit of spark left in the tiny bits of shame inside of the republican coalition like how how many fucking barrels of tnt nitroglycerin and gasoline do you need to get to get and and billows to get

fire and look from these people. It is useful. It is useful to see finally, even though we've known for a long time for most of them, who all of these Republicans are, right? This is, I keep thinking back to, you know,

Elizabeth Warren's answer in one of the town halls when she came out for impeachment. And she's like, I don't, you know, I don't know that we're going to get them out of office, but these people should be on the record. Every single person who's been elected to office should be on the record.

And that's it. Or people who are in office, like, glad we all know what Nikki Haley is all about after this weekend. Nikki Haley, the dance she is trying to do, where she's trying to be on Donald Trump's side by attacking the people that came to her and said, we think he's dangerously unfit for office. Her response to that was, ooh oh let's scribble down some notes from my book because that'll play well on the mainstream media and it'll play well with trump because i want him to like me because i'm gonna run for president give me a fucking break yeah she's uh it's pretty hey oh hey nikki haley it's so obvious we get what you're doing you're not hiding it well i also just the um you're not hiding it as well as you think you are the uh the

you can't punish someone for an attempted crime is my is truly the it's the sideshow bob defense you know you don't get it you don't get a nobel prize for attempted chemistry i can't believe nikki haley used that amazing you thought that people thought that she was a serious person and she's using the the the attempted crime defense and and she also did she also trot out the uh impeachment as the death penalty yes she did she also trot out the impeachment as the death penalty? Yes, she did. It's not.

It's being fired. Honestly, the death penalty is the death penalty. Yeah, we still have that. The death penalty is the death penalty. It's actually also in the Constitution

under treason. It also is very revealing your relationship to power and what you think about power that you think that losing it is the death penalty. Very revealing about how Nikki Haley sees death penalty. Very revealing about how Nikki Haley

sees the world. Very revealing. All right, let's talk about the Republican strategy, which, as of this recording, is based on the argument that, according to all the publicly available evidence, Trump did nothing wrong. That's basically what it is. And all the witnesses who testified that Trump did do something wrong don't have firsthand knowledge of what happened, which was just, you know, the normal foreign policy of a president who's passionately opposed to corruption. And he's constantly telling people to call his personal lawyer. Right. Even even he's always passionately opposed to corruption, even if that corruption happens to involve one of his potential opponents in 2020.

That was the new one over the, some of them, John Kennedy, the senator from Louisiana on the Sunday shows. Well, there's a difference. Like, yeah, he cares about corruption and it would be bad if he targeted corruption because it was his political opponent. But what if the corruption just involves someone who happens to be his political opponent that's the that's the so it's it but it's it is like it is you know you see what they're doing what they're basically saying is you will be unable through the record be able to prove the opposite right you will it is very hard to show that donald trump was going after burisma because he cared about corruption versus he was going after corruption because he cared about Burisma. That's their theory, that it's hard to make that distinction from the record of Trump's conduct. And that is just very silly because it is very easy. It's very easy to show

that he targeted that company purely because of Joe Biden. And one reason it's easy is he and Rudy Giuliani have been telling us that he wanted to investigate the Bidens for months, for months. Anyway, so to that end, the Republicans asked to call witnesses like Hunter Biden, a bunch of characters that star in right wing conspiracy theories about who really interfered in 2016 and the whistleblower himself, all of which were quickly rejected by Adam Schiff, which he has the power to do. Guys, what else does that list of witnesses tell you about the Republican strategy for these hearings? What was your reaction to the witness list? I mean, I think they're following, you know, the kind of Hugh Hewitt guidance, which is if this is about a specific set

of criminal acts around Ukraine, it looks very, very bad. If we can turn this into a circus about ukraine 2016 russia muller dnc nelly or whatever you want if we can get jim comey lisa page yeah yeah throw everything into the pot their standard is basically that the only people who can speak honestly about anything are uh right-wing Republicans that support Donald Trump. That is the standard. So Donald Trump, the hard thing for Republicans is Trump will only accept you as on his team if you say the call was perfect, he did nothing wrong.

Like that's the standard he wants. He asked for that last night again. On Twitter. The Republicans generally, I think, are going to do what they've been doing forever which is try to figure out all the partisan leanings of the whistleblower or anyone else involved and attack their character call them partisan find some bullshit thing to to just hang their defense on and go from there and then generally even the most reasonable republicans like the will herds of the world who are like generally reasonable people are just going to attack the process as somehow partisan even though impeachment is a partisan exercise it just is it's a political determination yeah right it's um uh if you criticize donald trump you're not on donald trump's team and if you're not on donald

trump's team your criticism can't be taken seriously that's it that's the whole thing and that's the game they're playing at the uh at the end of the day here with the like counting the votes. Right. It's like I keep thinking about Justin Amash. Right. So no one counts Justin Amash joining the Democrats as bipartisan because he was purged from the Republican Party. And he was purged from the Republican Party because he said he criticized he dared to criticize Donald Trump. So if you dare to criticize Donald Trump, you're a never Trumper. Thus, you're not taken seriously. The only people who are taken seriously are the people that are 100 percent on Team Trump.

Now you even Donald Trump said last night on Twitter again, Republicans don't be let into the fool's trap of saying it was not perfect. The call. But it is not impeachable. No, it is much stronger than that. Nothing was done wrong. So he basically Donald Trump saying, I will warrant no criticism of me or you will be on the never Trump Democrat media site. I will brook no dissent. It's also, but it is, you know, it is his, it is the only lesson that he has absorbed from his time in politics and in public life, which is, uh, if you show any weakness, if you admit to any faults, suddenly you're susceptible to political gravity. He's, you know, look, he's been he's been like this from the beginning.

He's been the roadrunner running across the ravine. And his message to Republicans over and over again is if you don't look down, we'll make it to the other side. The second you look down, we'll all fall. And I don't know how wrong he is. No, it's gotten him this far i think the most telling piece of advice i've seen is uh mitch mcconnell is telling his members reportedly according to the washington post that he's just saying calibrate your comments to fit your own politics like just wait say as little as possible kevin mccarthy is saying lean in full defense get his back full brett kavanaugh i just ask you guys whose

political judgment would you trust mitch mcconnell or kevin mccarthy yeah no i mean it's right like mitch mcconnell is giving them better advice here as we say all the time here on pod save america always trust mcconnell tie your tie your boat to the Mitch McConnell cruise line. I don't know. I don't know how to do boat metaphors. I liked it. I do think there's something interesting in both sides, Democrats and Donald Trump, saying over and over again, read the transcript. Because I do think it's telling of where Trump and the Republicans are trying to go to, right? Which is, it's not just, you know, these allegations aren't true.

They made them up. The process is bad. It's the evidence that is publicly available that they cannot refute. They are basically saying, just don't believe it's bad. It's just not bad what you're doing, right? And so I do think one of the things that would help Democrats in these hearings. And I think, you know, we have to carry this case is is explain why this is an impeachable offense. Explain why it is, because, you know, and I heard Ezra Klein on his podcast talking about some poll they did where like a far too high a percentage of people said that presidents targeting political rivals is the usual course of business.

And we've seen this in our polling and we've seen this in other places. People think government is corrupt. People think politicians are corrupt on both sides. We can argue that it's not true. We believe it's not true. We know it's not true. But this is what people believe. And so the hurdle here, not for the Republican base, they're fucking gone, right? Their minds are not going to change by this. But for independents and swing voters and everyone else is why was this so unusual and why does it rise to the level of an impeachable offense? What is the dangers of the president of the United States being able to bully a foreign government into interfering in the election?

It seems pretty obvious, but we got to remind people of that. Yovanovitch is so important. I also just back to the transcript point. I do think it's worth unpacking a little bit the difference between what it means when Democrats say go to the transcript and what Trump means. What Democrats mean is the evidence is as plain as plain could be. The proof is here. We all know it. The Republicans know what the media knows that we all know it. When Trump says read the transcript, it's a bluff. He is saying, read the transcript to people who won't. He is saying read the transcript to people who won't, right? He's saying basically, I know that there's two kinds of people. There's my

backers who will read the transcripts and then lie to the audience. And there are people that take read the transcript as evidence that in the actual materials, there's a sculptory facts, there's proof that he really didn't do anything, that it's all a big hoax. And I will go to Sean Hannity and I will go to others and they will explain to me what's going on here. And they will surely say the same, that the people I trust who look at the transcripts will give it to me straight and they will tell me that Donald Trump did nothing wrong. One is trying to get people to understand the truth and the other is relying on a media echo chamber, a propaganda apparatus to lie to people who do not have the time or wherewithal

to read hundreds of pages of transcript, which is the vast majority of people. Yeah, I mean, but it does it does go back to, you know, Donald Trump's belief here or what he keeps saying, that one of the reasons the transcript wasn't problematic for him is that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden engaged in some sort of corrupt activity in Ukraine. And I do think these three witnesses this week will be helpful in improving that. Again, we've said this a million times joe biden was carrying out the foreign policy of the united states the foreign policy of the european union and basically the entire world by the way the bipartisan foreign policy united states republicans wanted this too in and asking ukraine to fire this prosecutor who everyone in the world believed was corrupt except for the prosecutor and maybe the prosecutor believed was corrupt, except for the prosecutor. And maybe the prosecutor

believed it too. And that by firing that prosecutor, again, Joe Biden was increasing the chances that the new prosecutor would investigate his son's company. Yeah, Democrats are battling the Republican Party. We're battling cynicism generally, that we think all politicians are scum. And we are battling the right wing Fox News, Rupert Murdoch media infrastructure. Ben Rhodes and I talked to former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for Pod Save the World this week. And he was talking about how politics in the US, the UK and Australia are some of the most fucked up these days. And wouldn't you know it, Murdoch has huge media footprint in all of those places. So yeah, no, and again, in our polling

showed this, we talked about this last week, no one should expect any Republicans to change their mind over the course of these hearings, right? Like we I mean, and not only that, we should expect that Donald Trump's base will probably rally around him even more than they they were before. I mean, we saw it in our polling. Like it is what impeachment is doing more than anything else is making the environment even more polarized than it already has been. You've got like 94% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents who are for it and 94% of Republicans and Republican leaning independents against it. That's where we are. And I don't expect that to change all that much. All right. Let's talk about 2020.

Just when we all thought the field of Democratic candidates was finally winnowing, we found out on Thursday that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg might enter the primary after he already declared in March that he wouldn't run. Bloomberg, who's worth over $50 billion, would self-fund his campaign and skip the first four primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina to focus on the Super Tuesday states in early March. Let's start with this. Why do we think that Bloomberg changed his mind? So I was really thinking about that. I was thinking about what has changed. What is he noticing in this field that would lead him to reach a different conclusion than he otherwise

reached? And we should start by saying that he's not Howard Schultz. He's running in the Democratic primary, right? So he's making a decision to say, I'm going to try to fight for my ideas within the coalition that will determine who faces Donald Trump. And in fact, he's promised not to run as an independent third party candidate. So good for him. Good for him. But I was honestly struggling to understand how he could see that there's an opening. I find it I find it really confusing if he thinks he can win. I find it less confusing if he thinks that there's an important point of view that needs to be represented. Because I was looking at, I was thinking like, what's missing here? And I think about what's made some of the debates very frustrating. And I think what it is, is that we see a lot of people talking at cross purposes.

I think we see like a lot of very specific debates serving as kind of watchwords for ideology without having a larger ideological conversation. And we end up with candidates talking past each other. So Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders defend Medicare for all as the bold and brave and morally courageous and right thing to do. And then it's attacked as being as costing too much or Biden has a kind of ghost refrain that's a bit passive aggressive about how it's throwing out Obamacare and not not particularly honest either. And then I think you have a whole bunch of other candidates who have been, I think, Obamacare and not particularly honest either. And then I think you have a whole bunch of other candidates who have been, I think, for a variety of reasons, afraid to articulate an ideological

alternative. They will argue against Elizabeth Warren. They will argue against Bernie Sanders. But they understand that there's a political price they're not willing to pay to actually come out and say whatever they believe, whether it's that Medicare for all is unachievable or too far to the left, whether it's the fact that, you know, decriminalizing the border isn't the right thing to do. Whatever the position is, we've seen a real fear on the part of other Democrats to articulate a center-left consensus-building approach. And, you know, Pete has tried to do something like that without actually articulating an ideological vision. I think Kamala's been afraid to do that. Cory Booker's been afraid to do that. The only one

who has, I think, articulated a version of what Bloomberg would argue for is Amy Klobuchar. And she's at two or three percent nationally and four or five percent in Iowa. What do you think? What do you think changes? I mean, I think that there's a lot of folks who are counting on Biden to be their representative of a more moderate place in this primary. And I think there's probably a lot of people who see Elizabeth Warren's rise as troubling for a lot of reasons. You could argue maybe if you're a billionaire that you're worried about the wealth tax, you could just argue that it's coming from a better place, which is these words she can't win. I don't really know. My gut reaction to anyone jumping in the race at this late stage is to feel a little bit frustrated. I think we have some great candidates. Some have some real weaknesses, but I wish everyone had just done this a little earlier. I also think that I'm a little frustrated that Steyer and Bloomberg can only do this because they have so much money. And I think that's sort of a terrible story about our politics and the party. But, you know, like, look, we should all wait and see if he actually gets in.

We should all wait and see if he actually gets in. Some recent polling suggests that it will be very difficult for him. Bloomberg is also floating a strategy of skipping the four early states, which I guess means just like shitloads of ads to get you delegates on Super Tuesday, which seems difficult. I also think there's no way he's getting in the November debate. To get into the December debate, he needs 200,000 donors and a bunch of 4% in four polls or more. Or like two in an early stage showing 6%, which is challenging. But look, stepping back, Mike Bloomberg has put a ton of money in support of ads for the party. He's been good on climate change.

He's been good on guns. So I'm not going to jump on him yet, but I'm curious to see where this goes. I'm not going to jump on him yet, but like, I'm curious to see where this goes. Yeah. Look, I mean, I've said this before, the emotion that is driving this entire election on the democratic side is fear, fear that Donald Trump is going to win and Mike Bloomberg and, uh, enough other people. Um, and, and, you know, Mike Bloomberg being very wealthy and running a very large operation there, does a lot of polling and is worried that Joe Biden is not going to be able to win. Partly because not because of his stances, but because, you know, we've all seen him in debates not be so strong. And so we've had the same worry ourselves about Joe Biden. But he's worried about Elizabeth Warren because we have over recent weeks really talked ourselves all into believing that Medicare for all is like the be all and end all. And it's, you know, going to be poison in a general election, which, as we've talked about, there's polling that does show that it can be a challenge.

But I think it's overstated what a challenge it is. But again, that's that's one of his concerns. And I think he thinks Bernie Sanders is in that crew, obviously, as well. He's also just very fiscally conservative and doesn't want either of those people to win, right? And I think, you know, Pete Buttigieg, who's been rising in the polls, also might have some, you know, they look at that and they say, well, he doesn't have as much experience and he's having trouble with voters of color, though I don't know that Mike Bloomberg has an easier time with voters of color either. So those are all the reasons, right? So it's like, know that Mike Bloomberg has an easier time with voters of color either. So those are all the reasons, right? So it's like, it's weird. Like on one hand, I sort of get people looking at the field and having some measure of anxiety about winning. We all have it. Let's be honest, right?

Like even though, even if we have candidates who we believe can win, we still have that anxiety. So I get that. The answer to the anxiety for all these people is like, I'm going to jump in, you know, that part I don't get as much. It's like, why are you it's like, I get your anxiety. Why are you the answer? Well, you know, it's interesting, though, I like I'm just trying to find a way to make sense of it. And I do think that Biden has been too inarticulate to defend a kind of center left consensus building practical kind of governing. And Mayor Pete has been too articulate to do it because he understands that that's just not where the mindset of voters is right now, even as he's trying to strike a balance between kind of talking about pragmatism, talking about

unity without seeming like a wet blanket, reigning on the kind of bold progressive vision. And what that means is, and then I think a bunch of other candidates are afraid to have an ideology at all and are kind of been all over the place. And so I do think that no one has been on that stage just saying, just sort of being unabashedly moderate, or a few of them, or maybe you've had them come and go, Bullock came and went, Delaney came and went, didn't do a good job of it. So I kind of understand someone who believes in that worldview, not seeing it faithfully represented. That said, what is the harm of it being represented and maybe being rejected? I don't really know. What is the value of it? I don't really know. But I guess like that to me, 30,000 foot view is,

I think, what someone like Bloomberg would see as missing. Someone smartly articulating his worldview. Yeah. I just think Bloomberg probably has a better claim or better answer to the question, why you, than some of the others. Right. He ran the biggest city in the country. I think it's a little harder for a Steyer or some of these others. Yeah, I do think I mean, just we've done this with all the other candidates. So strengths and weaknesses, you know, on the strength side for Bloomberg money because it does cost quite a bit of money. And also it would be like he against Donald Trump. There would be unlimited cash that he could have and like a ready-made team and a ready-made team uh name id you know he is people

know him um he's a record as a politician who was elected three times and a businessman um he's done quite a bit of work electing democrats fighting climate change trying to pass gun control weaknesses uh he's 77 right doesn't really solve any kind of age problem. In billionaire years, though, that's a normie 62. He's had some extremely controversial and I would say bad policies as mayor, like stop and frisk, which was ruled unconstitutional because it was targeting people of color. He's had some pretty problematic statements about women in the Me Too movement. He is fiscally conservative. And look, there's been a lot of attention on how he doesn't like the wealth tax, but he's fiscally conservative. And look, there's been a lot of attention on how he doesn't like the wealth tax, but he's fiscally conservative. Like when Bill de Blasio proposed an income tax surcharge

on people making over $500,000 a year in New York, and he said it was the worst idea he'd ever heard of, right? Like he's not just like some of these other moderate Democrats were like, I'm going to repeal the Trump tax cuts and raise taxes. I just don't want to go as far as the wealth tax. Like he's fiscally conservative. And I do wonder what the constituency is in the Democratic Party or the country for someone who, on one hand, has a policy like I'm going to take away your soda. On the other hand, but I don't want to raise taxes on rich people. We know pretty narrow constituency. We know the right sort of socially liberal, fiscally conservative people are very popular on the kind of morning Joseph on the right on the kind of elite media conference circuit. They are less extant in the rest of the country. I think like

Bloomberg has to bet. I think that if Bloomberg enters and gets through this primary, then he will have succeeded in making electability case for himself more than he will have had a conversation about any of these other policy areas, Medicare for all or anything else. And I think that would be my bet if I were him. Yeah. And it does, like you said, Tommy, it does sort of just bum me out in general about our campaign finance system that, you know, there's plenty of other moderate candidates out there and you're Michael Bennett's, you're Steve Bullock's. And like if they had 50 billion dollars, maybe they'd probably get more attention. Not like the poor

moderates but just like the fact that both and tom steyer is pretty progressive right but like the fact that tom steyer and michael bloomberg are in this race and getting attention purely because they were successful in life which great for them for being successful but it's like that success then buys you political power right like i know that's not a new thing but it just bums you out tom steyer is able to be a part of the debates because he ran, I think, $50 million worth of ads. Yeah. Yeah. And it's just like that's and he, you know, it boosted himself in the polls a little bit.

It did. And I will say, though, it's also it's it's both Steyer and Bloomberg have another problem, which is, yeah, they've kind of gotten there. They can use their finances to get into the debate. But then, of course, once they're on that debate stage, they will find that their position is very well represented. Tom Steyer sounds a lot like Elizabeth Warren. And his case is you want Elizabeth Warren's policies, but coming from the mouth of a male billionaire, come out and say it. But, of course, you won't. He just kind of articulates a similar vision.

Mike Bloomberg's positions are well represented, I think, by Amy Klobuchar and several others who have not been able to make it onto the debate stage. So it's a bit frustrating that he wouldn't view this as an opportunity to help boost one of the people that shares his worldview as opposed to thinking he has to solve it himself. Yeah, that's right. It will unite all the other candidates around attacking him. We literally already had a New York mayor in this race, and now he's gone. Already have a billionaire, already have a New York mayor. Yeah. One thing before we just go to the interview, today's Veterans Day. And I just,

a personal privilege here, I would just want to recommend that everyone read an amazing New York magazine piece by someone who used to work with named Terry Zuplat. The article is The Endless Recovery from the Endless War. It's about Corey Remsburg, who a lot of you probably remember from the State of the Union speech when Obama lifted up his story and there was a two-minute ovation. But it's an incredible piece about there's no Hollywood recovery from a traumatic brain injury. It is a decade of struggling and challenge, and it's an incredibly well-done, poignant piece.

And Terry is a great person, and Corey Remsburg is an American hero, and everyone should read it. Yes, second that for sure. Well, I should third it. I'm going to sit here and be not should read it. Yes. Second, that for sure. Well, I should third it. I'm going to sit here and be not thirding it. Don't read it. My view,

counterpoint. When we come back, we will have Tommy's interview with Paul Rykoff. I am excited now to be joined by the host of the Angry Americans podcast. He is a U.S. Army veteran, a veterans advocate, and the founder of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Paul Rykoff. How you doing, buddy? I'm good, man. I'm good, man. Thank you for having me. I'm in a bunker behind Penn Station that used to be Jeff Buckley's writing studio.

This is where you guys hooked me up so we could avoid Trump's invasion of New York that's happening right now. So maybe it's a fitting place to do this interview. Indeed it is. Indeed it is. So let's start with the reason Trump is visiting New York today. So today is Veterans Day. So Paul, you served in Iraq. You started a nonprofit that was designed to improve the lives of veterans and their families. You have left that nonprofit now, but it's been a powerful organization for 15 years. What does this day mean to you? And then in your view, like, what's the best way to actually honor America's veterans and their service? America's veterans in their service. Well, I appreciate you having me on, man. You and I, I think, crossed paths a number of times when you were working in the Obama administration, because we were working on stuff like the GI Bill and repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and a lot of work that was really historic and important. And I think that the through line there, Tommy, is that it was nonpartisan. Veterans were generally a nonpartisan issue

that we could drive forward. And Veterans Day is supposed to be nonpartisan. It's supposed to be the day we put our politics aside, that we're all united. We come together in this sense of cohesion and community. And it really kind of represents a rare time on the American political calendar where everybody kind of puts their guns away and we all get together and support and honor our veterans. Today, in typical Trump fashion, that's gone because he decided to show up for this parade in a very political way. And in my view, it politicizes an event that is usually immune to it. So I've decided to boycott the parade. I've been going to the parade ever since I got home from Iraq in 2004 because I don't want to be politicized.

He frequently politicizes the military and our veterans ever since before he got elected. But this is really the apex of it. And it just reeks of politics and I'm not going to have it. So I'm not going to be there. I know plenty of folks will be. Many folks aren't. And I think that cuts to the core of this. Like if he wasn't there today, it wouldn't be an issue. It would be about us. But like so many other things in this administration, it's about him. So Trump will benefit. Veterans will suffer. And the unity of America will suffer very much like most other shit for the last three years since he's been president. So it's my way of taking a stand. But I hope it jumpstarts a conversation about what this means and more importantly, about how he's often tried to hijack us for political purposes. tried to hijack us for political purposes. Yeah. I mean, so to give our listeners a little more backstory. So, you know, there's this parade in New York City, but historically, presidents don't attend because, as you said, you don't want to politicize the event. It's also important to note for folks that there's a lot you can do in and around Washington, D.C.

on Veterans Day. There is a wreath laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery, which I don't believe Trump has attended. So he's breaking a bunch of traditions by attending this parade in New York, but not doing things he could or should be doing in D.C. It's just very it's disappointing. Yeah, I mean, disappointing to say the least. I mean, he's also screwing up traffic and pissing off all of New York City, which doesn't help veterans either. Right. I mean, so it's kind of a trend line here. But importantly, the history of the Veterans Day parade is, I think, important. I mean, so it's kind of a trend line here. But importantly, the history of the Veterans Day parade is, I think, important. You know, Veterans Day started on Armistice Day after the end of World War I. It was on the 11th day of the 11th month. And the parade's supposed to

start on the 11th minute of the 11th hour. So it celebrated the end of war. It was a time of coming together. But then for a long time, especially in New York, it was wrapped up in the politics of Vietnam. So for a long time, Vietnam veterans had to stage kind of a guerrilla march because they weren't welcomed by the city. They famously had to march across the Brooklyn Bridge and past City Hall because the mayor wouldn't greet them. So there's decades of that kind of calcification of politics. And only after 9-11 have we finally made it an event of unity. of politics. And only after 9-11 have we finally made it an event of unity. And it's been that way really for the last 15 years or so until today, which in typical Trump fashion is kind of invaded with the politics and partisanship and tone and nastiness of what has become the Trump

administration's view on a lot of issues. But I think especially on veterans and military affairs, we're not immune to it. You know, we'd like veterans to be above politics, but the reality is they are part of politics and politics are a part of us, just like every other issue in America, and maybe even more central because it's about our values. It's about honor. It's about integrity and it's about our national defense and things like nukes. So the stakes are way higher on everything having to do with our issues, I think, than most others. Yeah, I agree. So I should point out that you're an independent. You know, obviously, people have heard you talking about Trump the last few minutes, but you've also criticized Obama when he screwed up at the VA or on veterans policy generally, or other issues. And that, you know, that's just context. And I think it's relevant, because I

think you're an honest broker on this stuff. And I also think that, you know, veterans policy or VA reforms are not really getting much attention in the election. I guess nothing is except for impeachment and then, you know, the ongoing wrestling and the Democratic side. But, you know, we have two veterans running right now, right? We have Tulsi Gabbard and Mayor Pete Buttigieg in the race. Has anyone proposed policies that you think are interesting that you want to highlight? Or on the flip side, is anyone really like failing to put forward a vision? I think that they're all failing.

I mean, to cut back to the question, I mean, I have been an independent my whole life, really. And my organization was independent. And I think I represent what is a huge part of this electorate, especially within the veterans community. There are a lot of people who are unaffiliated, who are independent. That's what my podcast is about. Angry Americans is about the angry independents, the angry middle, the people who feel unrepresented. In many ways, we'd love for, you know, angry Americans to be for independents and unaffiliated. It's what Pod Save America has become for the left,

because I think we need a place where we can come together and have a sense of community and hold people accountable. And the short answer is nobody's got a vision. Obama, I think, failed in many areas. And I was probably a real pain in the ass to you and a lot of other people who worked in the administration. I think if you look back on the VA, it was an opportunity for him to prove that Democrats could make government work in a very powerful way. And when it works well, it's the GI Bill. When it works poorly, it's the VA scandal at Phoenix and the resignation of Eric Shinseki, the VA secretary, which might have been the only cabinet secretary to resign

in scandal during the entire Obama administration. So I think it's low-hanging fruit that both sides tend to miss. And right now, Trump talked a lot about history today, but he didn't talk about tackling the suicide rate, which is taking 20 veterans every day. He didn't talk about VA reform in any kind of substantive way. He didn't talk about making the VA more inclusive to women. He didn't even talk about really popular issues like cannabis for veterans. So he missed a chance to lay out and articulate a strategy for veterans. And I think the other candidates have an opportunity to do that. I know a couple of them rolled it out today, but I think the Democratic Party has failed to really articulate what is the Democrats' plan for veterans and who is their leader? Like if Trump is the de facto

leader right now for the Republicans on veterans for a long time, maybe it was John McCain, maybe it was others, but now it's Trump. On the other side, who's it going to be? And I think that's yet to be seen. It might be Pete Buttigieg. It might be Tulsi Gabbard. It might be somebody the Democrats are not that thrilled with being their leader on veterans issues. So I think the constant issue, and especially now, Tommy, is going to be that it's a jump ball.

And it could be very politically powerful because veterans are also the ultimate populist issue. If you get veterans right, it can really cascade in powerful political ways. And if you get it wrong, it can be a third rail. We've said for a long time, there's kind of three groups of people in politics you can't piss off, babies, puppies, and vets, right? You got to always do right by babies, puppies, and vets. And if you do right by them, you get a lot of political capital. If you do wrong, you're going to pay for it. And that's what I hope we'll see over the next couple of months and all the way through the election. Yeah. And I would say of your three

categories, only one vote. So, you know, do with that information if you will. But cutting to Trump's like Trump's mastery of this, right? On some levels, he got it right in terms of populism. You know, he really beat Hillary Clinton on this because he just said it over and over again. When I would be out all across the country talking to folks and talking to veterans, they say, Donald Trump supports veterans. And I said, how do you know? And they say, because he just said it over and over again. When I would be out all across the country talking to folks and talking to veterans, they'd say, Donald Trump supports veterans. And I'd say, how do you know? And they'd say, because he says it all the time. And he would.

He would probably say it 10, 20 times more than Hillary Clinton would. And then even in the last couple of weeks, he captures this unique populism that exists around veterans' issues. He tweeted a picture of the dog, the Special Forces dog from the raid on Baghdadi, because that kind of got two out of the three. You got dogs and vets in one shot. But I think it cuts to this, on some levels, a political understanding that he has about the power of veterans and military folks that the Democrats so far really haven't been able to understand or capture or show they can do the same. Yeah. So let's talk about that relationship. So like I sit back and I watch Trump and I see him say he knows more about ISIS than his generals. And I watch him shit on Jim Mattis and he's attacked gold star families. And then his son, Donald Trump Jr. wrote in this new book that visiting Arlington National Cemetery made him think of the sacrifices the Trump family had made. And I hear those comments, Paul, and I think that would be a political death sentence for anyone else, certainly any Democrat. They would get no support from veterans forever. They would be rightly attacked and criticized. It would be over. But that's just never how it works with Trump. Why do you think that he's able to get

past those kinds of comments? And how are Democrats failing to talk to or talk with veterans and connect with them on a level that might earn them their political support? I mean, this is really, really core to politics in our country right now. The fact that he has not been held accountable on so many issues, but especially on the issues surrounding our military and veterans community. I mean, you know, veterans are being deported. You know, the rights of gay veterans and trans veterans are being attacked constantly. But on a very basic level, you know, he abandoned the Kurds, which is, in my experience, the most universally unpopular move he's ever made in the military community. This is very, very different where I hear from

Republicans and Democrats who are universally outraged and upset by that move because we've abandoned our allies. And we've really kind of cut the legs out from under our troops, not just now, but in the future. If we abandon the Kurds, nobody's going to stand up with our guys and gals in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the future. But I think it really starts with having a strategy. And I think Trump has always had a strategy about making veterans issues central. They're not a special interest group to him. They're not a community of minorities in the same way they often are in the Democratic Party. They're central to everything he does. And I think that's a very important and effective

strategy. Then it comes down to who's your messenger. Now, he is by default able to get away with this shit, but he's often wrapping himself in the American flag, sometimes literally, right? And he's got Navy SEALs, he's got dogs, he's got Medal of Honor recipients. He plays the staging of it very well. And on the other side, the Democrats don't seem to have a strategy and they definitely don't have a clear leader. So there's nobody like a Jim Webb, right? The Marine Corps veteran from Virginia who was a senator. There's no John Kerry who's out in front. By default, it's kind of a group of different people.

The chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is Senator John Tester from Montana, probably something most Americans don't even know. And he's not a veteran. And for a long time, the leader for the Democrats was Bernie Sanders, which politically is not exactly a winning hand. If you want to fight on veterans issues and you want to put up a socialist anti-war Democrat in Bernie Sanders, it's not a winning political hand, regardless of how you feel about Bernie Sanders. So they've mastered the strategy. They've also mastered the messaging. They've got key leaders in front. And I think most of all, Tommy, they're first.

Trump seems to always be pressing the tempo, right? Whether it's revealing the news about the Baghdadi raid or attacking Colonel Vindman, who shouldn't be attacked, or just getting to the parade first. If this were a military operation, Trump is always pushing the pace and the Democrats always seem to be on defense. And that goes back to a lot of issues around the Democrats, you know, challenges internally in reconciling anti-war positions and a complicated history in this country. There's a lot that's been written and said by Jim Webb and Bob Kerry and others. But I think this is a chance to turn that page for the Democrats with new faces. And it's got to be people like Tammy Duckworth. It's got to be people like Pete Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard. And the other one we actually didn't mention is Joe Sestak. He's not registering anywhere, but Admiral Joe Sestak was

a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, and now he is still in the race. Seth Moulton was in the race. So if you look across the spectrum, the Democrats at one point had four or five post-911 veterans, and the Republicans have none. I think if you look ahead to four and eight years, it's probably going to be a proxy war on both sides where both parties recognize this political power. But, you know, that's been true for George Bush, JFK, all the way back to George Washington when he first became president after resigning his commission as a general. Yeah. Yeah. You know, I like Seth Moulton a lot and I like Joe Sestak too. I literally just forgot he was running for president. I didn't mean to not include him. You know what? That's a point though, Tommy, right? Because it would behoove the Democrats to elevate the fact that he's running, right? He's a retired admiral. He has

credibility. Yeah, he's not even polling, but I think it does make a case if they want to be seen as strong on defense and they want to be seen as strong on veterans issues, they've got to raise up these leaders, even if they may not agree with them all the time, or even if they're not their best horse. I mean, you could make an argument that Sestak might make a good cabinet secretary and the same could be made for Tulsi or Pete or anyone else. So I think it really is about casting, but I see it all the time. There's no clear leader driving the strategy and picking someone to be out in front for Democrats on these issues. The last time I saw it was maybe when they picked Patrick Murphy, the congressman from Pennsylvania, to be the leader on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Nancy Pelosi chose him, put him out in front, and he became the guy who was carrying water on that

issue over and over again. On every Sunday morning news show, every press conference, Patrick Murphy was the quarterback. And he was picked by the general manager that was Nancy Pelosi to be that quarterback. And it was a winning play you know, the general manager that was Nancy Pelosi to be that quarterback. And it was a winning, a winning playbook and a winning game in the end. I think they would be well suited to go back and look at that again. Yeah. So, you know, you mentioned this challenge that Democrats often have of, you know, these votes in favor of authorizing wars. You know, I think back to when you were in Iraq, right? I mean, the vote to authorize the war in Iraq was seen as you were either with the troops or not.

The vote for the surge was, you know, about cutting or running and supporting our troops. How do you think Democrats should talk about or vote on, you know, matters of war and peace, knowing that that's the political overtone, but also knowing that, you know, we're in Afghanistan 19 years later. I don't know that continuing that operation is supporting the troops, right? I mean,

how do you think about this? I think it's starting to change. I mean, I think you're going to see Mayor Pete is probably the best bet, right? If you want to pick among the candidates, someone who can take this fight to Trump most aggressively, who can embody what it means, who can challenge him on values, it's going to be Mayor Pete aggressively, who can embody what it means, who can challenge him on values. It's going to be Mayor Pete, right? Like he said it before. He said, you know, I was in Afghanistan when Trump was on The Apprentice. He can draw these contrasts. I think you've seen in the last couple of weeks, he's dialing it up because it works in places like Iowa. It works in places like Pennsylvania. And I would argue it's going to work across the

country. I mean, when John Kerry came out for the nomination, he saluted and said, it's John Kerry reporting for duty. I mean, it was a little bit on clay feet because the party wasn't ready for that. And I don't think the country was even ready for it in some ways. That's, you know, my history goes back to when 2004, I came home and approached the Kerry campaign. I approached Bush. I wanted to talk about Iraq and neither one of them wanted to. That's how I first met your colleague, Jon Favreau. I mean, he was a speechwriter in Kerry's campaign back in the day. But back in 2004, the Democrats weren't comfortable really talking about issues of national defense and security. They've come a long way. But I think this next generation really represents the best hope. And it starts like any other political operation. It has to

start locally. It has to start with building a farm team. And whatever party builds the veteran farm team, I think will do well on policy, will do right on policy, and will win. I've called it a camouflage wave. I think there is a wave of candidates from both parties that's going to sweep over our politics over the next couple of years and could define our politics for the next generation. I would be surprised if in the next two or three presidential candidates, both candidates weren't veterans. I think you'll see both parties putting veterans much more aggressively out in front. In some ways, it is a proxy war, but in some ways it's always been the case in American politics. So one person in this race who's a veteran that's been a bit of a mystery, I think,

to the Democratic Party has been Tulsi Gabbard. You interviewed her a couple weeks back on your show on Angry Americans. And I listened to it. And for the first time, I felt like I kind of understood where she was coming from on a whole bunch of issues. You pressed her hard on a bunch of shit I wanted to hear about Russia, about Syria, about support from the right. But I was like, OK, I get it. Like, I get where she's coming from. And then like a day later, she had this big blow up with Hillary Clinton that still hasn't gone away. I just saw a press release come through my Slack where she's

demanding that Hillary Clinton put out a statement saying she supports and admires Tulsi. So I'm just, again, I'm confused. Like, it's clear to me that Tulsi is not really running for president on the Democratic side. Like, you don't go on Breitbart all the time. You don't go on Fox News all the time, if that's your strategy. She's doing something else, but I'm not entirely sure what the end game is. What do you make of it? Tulsi is fascinating and for some infuriating. I did a poll on my Twitter feed after I interviewed her and asked who was less popular right now in the Democratic Party, Donald Trump or Tulsi Gabbard. And it was close in some areas. I mean, she has this unique ability to piss off and outrage many in the party. But

what I've also seen, I've interviewed her on the radio and also on Angry Americans at length, is that she has a very unique appeal to a lot of unlikely constituencies. She does have some appeal to the military and veterans folks. She's also got, you know, Bernie anti-war folks. Now she's pivoting into MMA fighters and CrossFit people. You know, she really is putting together an unlikely coalition that is around a really kind of nebulous identity, which is what has, I think, hurt her at times. I'm not going to be an apologist for Tulsi Gabbard. I asked her flat out. I'm like,

what is up with you? I don't understand you. A lot of people don't understand you. People who love her think she's a superhero. People who hate her think she's a Bond villain, right? And we'll see where she shakes out over time. But I think she is building something different for the long term that will be propelled by places like Breitbart, but are also appealing to many independents and unaffiliated. I see it all the time. And she has worked across partisan lines. I've worked with her in the House. I've worked with a lot of Republicans as well.

She and Brian Mast, a double amputee from Florida and a Republican came together on burn pits, toxin exposure issues for veterans. They came together frequently when we needed someone to go across the aisle. In fairness, Tulsi Gabbard would do it when a lot of other Democrats wouldn't. So, you know, she's pissed off a lot of people. She's very, very unique. She's also taken some pages from Trump. Like the best thing that ever happened to her campaign was for Hillary to, whether it was intentional or not, attack her. She's going to play that card as often as she can. And if someone wants to get an assist on Tulsi ending up on the next debate stage, it's Hillary Clinton.

She wouldn't have gotten to 4% and gotten to the next debate if Hillary hadn't mentioned her name. So I think Tulsi is very shrewd. She's very smart. She's running a good social media and media operation. And she's going places other people won't go, like Joe Rogan. She did a three-hour interview on the very popular Joe Rogan podcast. Might be the only podcast that's more popular than yours. But I think she's going to be fascinating. He has more people, trust me. Yeah, but she's going to be fascinating to watch. And I think vexing. I think that is what Tulsi

Gabbard is, is she's vexing. I have also strongly criticized her for not condemning Assad as a war criminal. He is a war criminal. I asked her why she won't call Putin an enemy. She danced around that a lot. Some of it has to do with philosophical views. Some of it has to do with politics. And I think we've got to continue to press her and every other candidate. yesterday because Tulsi was doing an event in Santa Monica where they did CrossFit on the beach. And it was such a different kind of event in California, which is sort of proving to not be that significant in this early primary process. It was fascinating. If I wasn't such a soft old man, I would have gone out there and done some purpose. You know what? If you want really motivated people who will get out the vote and get out and grind, it's CrossFit people. I mean, like they're like their own political party in and of themselves. And if you can become the candidate of CrossFit, that's like a base for the next 10 years that can propel you through a lot of stuff.

That's right. Hey, Paul, you mentioned the burn pit issue. Can you explain to listeners what that is? Because I think it's really important, but there's not a lot of awareness about the challenge there. Sure. Burn pits are the Agent Orange of our generation. In Iraq and Afghanistan, overseas, frequently when we were in combat zones, they had to get rid of a lot of stuff. It was medical waste. It was military parts. It could be anything. They put it in a giant pit and set it on fire. It used to be like the shit cans in Vietnam. They would literally burn the shit with jet fuel fuel and guys and gals would be seen stirring these big cans. Now, sometimes they're as big as an acre. They're like a giant landfill that are on fire. And that was how often the military disposed of waste all the way going

back to the invasion right after 9-11 in Afghanistan. So for now, over a decade, military folks have been breathing in these toxins. And now we're seeing signs of cancer. We're seeing other signs of respiratory issues. And it's impacting thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands of men and women who've served after 9-11. It's a lot like the symptoms we saw after Ground Zero. I'm a 9-11 first responder, and I've been a part of advocating for the 9-11 first responders and getting them the health care that they need because so many of them are dying. We are seeing exactly the same tread line around burn pits.

And it could take more lives ultimately over the next couple of decades than any enemy or any other issue we're facing in the military. It's absolutely serious. It's deadly. And it's exactly the kind of issue the president could focus on instead of focusing on politics. And the candidates should focus on because veterans care about it, but also the American public cares about it. I hope if you haven't heard of burn pits, use the hashtag burn pits, check them out. We need your help and support. And it's one way we can really unite around a policy issue. That's also very important locally. Yeah, totally agree. Last question for you. So by now, everyone listening has realized that you're

a pretty damn good talker. Tell them about angry Americans. Why'd you decide to get into this dirty business of podcasting? Do you just have a passion for underwear ads? I want to be Tommy Vitor when I grow up. Shut the fuck up. No, I mean, the seriousness is, you know, I have been doing advocacy for a long time and I had to ask myself, how can I take it up a notch?

How can I use my skillset to really drive forward this precarious state of affairs in America? I think America is in a very dangerous place. I think many of your listeners feel the same way. And for me, media was the way to try to drive that conversation forward, bring people together and make change. And I also realized there was no home for me as an independent. There was no home for me as an unaffiliated. I don't love Fox News. I don't love MSNBC. I don't love Donald Trump. I don't love MSNBC. I don't love Donald Trump. I don't love AOC. There's no home for me. So I decided to create one because I think there's

a lot of folks who feel that they are underrepresented and are also just angry. The line that I use all the time is, if you're not angry, you're not paying attention. There's plenty to be angry about in America, and we can all unite around that. It could be burn pits. It could be infrastructure. It could be the New York Knicks suck. There's a lot of reasons to be angry. But I think we can turn that anger into a vigilance and into positive impact. Trump has hijacked anger. I want to take it back. He's also hijacked patriotism. And I want to be a part of taking that back. So Angry Americans is the first podcast to come out of our new media entity, Righteous Media. We want Righteous to be for unaffiliateds and independents what Crooked is for the left.

The middle hasn't had a voice and hasn't had media vehicles and places to come together. We want Righteous to be a part of that. And we think it's going to be good for America, just like you guys. We will support candidates. We will support causes. We will throw punches. We will take punches. We're going to be in the mix because this is about the fight for America's future. And in our view, it's bigger than party, and it has to transcend party. And no matter who wins next year, we've got a lot of work to do. We're going to have to stick together. So Angry Americans is my attempt right now, the first of many, to try to drive this country forward in a positive direction.

Well, I'm a fan. I'm a listener. I have no doubt that you'll be in the mix throwing punches and it will be awesome to watch. And so everyone should check it out, man. Thanks for doing the show. I know it's a crazy day for you. I really appreciate it.

Tommy, thank you. And congratulations to you and the guys. You're really doing a tremendous public service and you're an inspiration. And I'm really, really grateful for you joining my show

and for staying on these issues. They're not always sexy. Thanks, buddy. But you've been on them for a long time and I'm grateful for your support and your friendship. Thanks to Paul Rykoff

for joining us today and we will, we'll see you guys bright and early on Wednesday morning in our Slack channel if you want to see that and then Dan and I

will be doing a pod on Thursday. What time is this hearing starting on Wednesday? It starts at 10 a.m. Eastern, so 7 a.m. our time. Are you fucking kidding me? God damn it, Schiff. God damn it. Someone wake Lovett up.

Nadler wouldn't stand for this. Nadler's not a morning person. End of pod. Pod Save America is a product of Crooked Media. The senior producer is Michael Martinez. Our assistant producer is Jordan Waller. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer.

Thanks to Carolyn Reston, Tanya Somanator, and Katie Long for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Narmel Cohnian, Yael Freed, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these episodes as a video every week.