Pod Save America - "Mike Pence, you sleep like a horse." (LIVE from Cleveland)

Episode Date: October 9, 2017

Senator Sherrod Brown and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Connie Schultz join Jon, Jon, Tommy, and Dan in Cleveland, where the crew talks Trump's North Korea tweets, the Harvey Weinstein scandal, Bob Corker's newfound freedom, and how Democrats can win in Ohio.

🎵 Hey, guys. Hello. Hello, people. That is the exact right level. Is it? The right level. You feel good about it? Like all good out-of-state Democrats,

we are pandering. Thank you to... I'm embarrassed to know you. Dan thinks we're idiots. I want you guys to know that I put a Michigan hat on in Michigan because I knew those people

would fall for it. But when I was handed the Ohio State shirt, I thought, thank goodness I can sort of be myself. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett.

I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. We have a great show for you tonight. A little later, we'll be talking to one of the best senators Ohio has ever had. Third round. to one of the best senators Ohio has ever had, Senator Brown. We promised Senator Brown we would make this quick because I know there's an Indians game right now. We apologize for the scheduling. Okay, let's talk about the news, guys.

Okay. So, I want to start with uh an alarming tweet from donald trump which is uh doesn't narrow it down john which is something i could have said every day for the last eight months basically uh so yesterday he said presidents and their administrations have been talking to north korea for 25 years hasn't worked, making fools of U.S. negotiators. Sorry, but only one thing will work. No explanation beyond that. So for a little Pod Save the World segment here, Tommy.

Look at this branding. Subscribe, rate, review. So my first question is, are we all going to die uh eventually yes uh at the hands of donald trump or kim jong-un remains to be seen no i mean i don't i don't want to be too alarmist it's if trump's stated goal is to keep uh the north koreans from having a nuclear tipped ic ICBM missile that could strike the United States. He's basically got two options, some sort of military strike or a diplomatic negotiation of some sort. And when his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, went out and said,

we have multiple channels of talking to the North Koreans, he undercut him on Twitter and said, you're wasting your time, Rex, who we later learned Rex thinks he's a moron. And maybe they're related. Please quote Rex correctly. He's an effing moron. I'm looking at some of the younger friends of the pod in the audience, Dan. They knew they brought their children to an Arboretum podcast. It is 2017.

Trump is president. They've heard all the words. Okay. So where were we? North Korea. I don't know that we're all going to die, but you have a leader in Kim Jong-un who doesn't like to be humiliated on the world stage. It doesn't help to call him Rocket Man.

It doesn't help to talk down to him and treat him like a child. It doesn't make the Europeans or the Chinese or the Russians want to help us in this effort to denuclearize the Korean peninsula. So everything he's done is self-defeating at best, if not childish and stupid, you know, self-evidently. Yeah. Well, so I saw some people say, well, you know, it's very possible he's just bluffing here, but bluffing what? Aren't there consequences? What are the consequences to the U.S. president bluffing with the North Koreans about possible military action? Like, that doesn't seem like it's cost-free.

No, it's not a good idea. I mean, anyone who spent 30 seconds reading about this knows that we have 28,500 troops in Korea. We have hundreds of thousands of Americans. So a military conflict would lead to tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths in the first minutes of the conflict. I mean, it would be a horrific, horrific event. So in some ways, that option is off the table. So some sort of diplomacy is necessary. Some people think that we just have to deal with North Korea being a nuclear state and that we need to sort of reorient our focus around that.

It's not a choice Trump has made. But that's why when you hear him talking about ripping up the Iran deal, it's so ridiculous because there's an international consensus and a process around minimizing that risk. And there's no such process on the Korean side. And it is just spiraling out of control one tweet at a time. And it's dangerous. Can I ask you something about this? Because it seems like one of the problems is, whether you think Kim Jong-un is crazy or a rational actor, decades of American policy have created a set of incentives, and those incentives lead someone like Kim Jong-un

to look at the world and say, a nuclear weapon that can hit the U.S. is a key to my survival. Is there anything we can do to change that calculus? I mean, one idea that's been floated, I think it was by Henry Kissinger, so take it with a grain of salt or a war crime or two of salt, was cutting a deal with the Chinese where we say essentially that we will pull all troops out of the Korean peninsula if they denuclearize. Some way that would seem to say to North Korea, you getting rid of your nukes

doesn't mean we're going to storm in with tanks the next day. And it says to the Chinese, if the peninsula reunifies and North Korea and South Korea are allied again, that they won't have an American ally even closer to their border, which the Chinese don't want. So I mean, that's one option that's being floated.

All of these are very challenging. And you're right. Obama didn't solve this problem. Clinton didn't solve the problem. Bush didn't solve the problem. This is not Donald Trump's making. It's just, this is, that doesn't mean he's approaching it in a rational way.

So it does seem that Trump has been hinting for a week or so now that we are moving towards some kind of action. I mean, he did the whole, this is the calm before the storm and you'll find out. Now he's doing the one thing. What are the range of possibilities for action that he might take or he might have the military take that are short of all-out war

or all-out attack in North Korea, but a little more than what we're doing now? Are there other things we're not seeing here? There's covert cyber actions to try to do something to take out their nuclear program. I mean, I don't really know what the details of that would be or their missile program. There's other sort of covert action that you can take that would again be secret. There's not a minimal military option because most people think that the North Koreans will view any military action

on our part as an all outout war, and they'll respond with overwhelming force, which will just decimate Seoul. This is uplifting. So, sleep well, everyone. I'm having a great time. Are you playing the Indians game for this? I'm wearing an Ohio State shirt, bringing everybody down. So, let's talk a little bit about because we haven't had a chance to yet on stage Harvey Weinstein another uplifting topic so over the last week media reports have detailed numerous allegations of sexual harassment

and sexual assault against the movie producer Harvey Weinstein including on the record statements from a number of women including actress Ashley Judd and others it seems like every day there's more that's coming apparently it just broke that he was fired, which is good news. Next stop, prison. Yeah. So it seems like this is the latest in a series of sexual assault allegations that have finally come to the surface after years of being hidden.

I think of a lot of the senior management at Fox News. I think of our current president. I think of going back a couple years, the Catholic Church. I mean, this happened over and over again. We see that men who are committing sexual assault are sometimes protected by powerful institutions, and a lot of the reasons they're protected is because men don't speak out. Because the men who commit the assault, they have power and influence and they are able to protect themselves.

And because sometimes, you know, it's hard for journalists to uncover these things because there's threats of lawsuits and stuff like that. Lovett, you've worked in hollywood uh briefly john i believe there was a cult classic called 1600 pan what was the name of the show what was the name of the show you got on the air it's uh it's called pot save amer. We're here right now. Have you, did you ever, did you ever notice, not notice these kind of things,

but did you, people are saying it's an open secret in Hollywood. Did you see this type of thing in Hollywood? And how do you think we start, we break the silence here, break this culture of silence? Yeah, I'll be honest in saying that, like, I don't feel like I had access

to these kinds of stories or rumors. Like, you know, I don't know the first time I heard that Harvey Weinstein was more than just sort of a boorish guy who treated people terribly. I don't know. You know, you've seen this effort to kind of politicize this, but of course, nobody has a clean house. It seems like there's something inherent in a lot of institutions that allows powerful men to get away with this. It's both the fact that they're protected by other men, that there's a fear of coming forward, that for too long women weren't believed when they spoke out, and that

there wasn't enough of a connection made between hostile work environments for women and far worse conduct once the door was closed, which I think is what you see from Weinstein to Fox News. And, you know, it's great to see that whatever the power structures that used to be in place are starting to crumble, but for every Harvey Weinstein, there are many others that are still being thought of. Like, I, you know, because these stories have started to break, there are other names that are circulating right now, you know, other open secrets, other powerful executives, where there are similar rumors and similar whispers.

And so we're at the beginning of something. And I think that's really important. And I guess the question for us as four guys sitting on stage is sort of what the role of men have in all this. And I think, to me, it's that connection between a culture of women not being seen as equal, not getting the job, not getting whatever, the promotion, not being part of the club, and what men feel free to do when they invite a colleague for a drink or what have you. And speaking out when you see other men do that, right? So you mentioned the politicization of this, and I wanted to talk about this because I have to say, my first reaction

when I saw the news was, a fucking monster if this is true and I did not think like oh he's on the democratic team and so we have to be I was just like no this is awful to say I don't care who it is I don't care if you're a democrat I don't care if you're a republican I don't care if you're in Hollywood I don't care if you're in politics like it's just wrong and it just seems obvious that everyone

should just say it's wrong right but so applause applause applause I guess it speaks to the times that we're in that almost immediately after the news broke, the debate in political and media circles shifted from the sexual assault itself to whether Weinstein is a problem for Democrats since he was a huge donor.

And we've seen at this point a number of high-profile Democrats have returned their donations, along with the DNC. I cannot find a single Democrat who's defended him. Tommy, why do you think we're having this debate now? Why do you think the debate shifted so quickly? I think that Roger Ailes going down probably sent a signal to people that no one was immune to this kind of conduct becoming public. I don't know.

I mean, I think you also have a Harvey Weinstein sort of power waning. I mean, I think that's a little more of like a sad, but true piece of the puzzle. But I mean, more broadly, like I agree with you.

I just, I think one thing Democrats need to do is when this stuff happens with someone that's affiliated with the Democratic Party, there are no kid gloves. There's no giving them a pass because someone knew them and he seemed like a good guy. He's a disgusting person. Return every dollar. His PR spin is that he's going to help

Democrats fight the NRA. We don't want your help, you scumbag. I would like us to launch a campaign to find the one fucking person that that worked on. Dan, why do you think this work that we got this debate right away about politicization, and it does seem like a lot of the Republican partisans that were attacking Democrats over this were maybe not doing it in a good faith way. What? I know.

I reject the premise of your question. It seems surprising, doesn't it? Look, I think there are a couple things. The reason it has gone right to politics is because this is a complicated, uncomfortable issue, and we always default to the horse race. Now, the reason the Republicans have done this is because it's pretty simple. It's because the President of the United States, the Republican, has bragged about sexual assault and been accused by no less than 12 women of engaging in sexual assault. So they're clearly trying to deflect. But if we put things in perspective, Harvey Weinstein has given the Democrats $1.4 million

since 1990. And I think every Democrat who's still in office who has that money should return it. We had Debbie Stabenow on stage in Ann Arbor the other night. She told us she was returning the money she got. Roger Ailes, who was the head of Fox News, longtime Republican consultant and the head of Fox News for years, has given Republicans the equivalent of $1 trillion in free ads. The most powerful donor of all time. Yes.

There was such a frustrating aspect of it, which is seeing people say, oh, Democrats aren't quick enough to renounce this or basically you know people you know five minutes after the news broke five minutes after we're like a couple days out of yeah it's a few call the offices if you want to if you want a statement yeah it takes a second to figure out who gave what and when and you know even as democrats were starting to return the money and all the rest there was such an instinct to to go after democrats on this and that's fine but there there was this connection drawn. There were people out there saying, denouncing Harvey Weinstein, and great. And then saying, hey, let's not forget

that some of these people pointing out that Harvey Weinstein was donating to Democratic and liberal causes, and fair enough. We're failing to renounce Donald Trump or Roger Ailes or Bill O'Reilly or all the rest of them. Denounce them both. That's all anyone has been saying. No one pointing out that Donald Trump has problems too is making less of the fact that Harvey Weinstein deserves to be denounced just as strongly. The idea that this reveals some deeper flaw within Democrats versus Republicans is ridiculous because both sides, you know, look, straight shooter. Of course. Of course. So rare.

But, you know, it's so rare when you actually get to say a pox on both our houses. Like, absolutely. From, you know, from Fox News to Monica Lewinsky to Harvey Weinstein to Bill O'Reilly to all the bullshit that's gone on on Capitol Hill for decades among both parties. Dennis Hastert. Good God. Foley. Rarely do you get to say that this is not a partisan problem. This is a problem of despicable men empowered by a broken culture that has took a

long time to get to the bottom of. And politics is just beside the point. Well, I was going to say, it also stems from this cynical view of politics that a lot of these Republicans think, oh, you guys only attacked Donald Trump for that Access Hollywood tape so you could win an election and beat him.

And it's like, no, we attacked him for the Access Hollywood tape because it was fucking disgusting. And we don't like sexual assault. We actually believe that. Yes, we were running a campaign. Yes, we're trying to win campaigns. We're not going to pretend we're not. But we actually believe those things.

That's why we said them. Let's not let Donald Trump get off easy because that's been the response of Republicans. Oh, he just bragged about possible sexual assault. Well, if that's your defense, you're in big trouble. But there are 12 women who, we have not heard one word from the media about since the election, but 12 women who

accused him of sexual assault. And so the utter stupidity of the press conversation about this is appalling, and the hypocrisy of the Republicans who defended Trump and stand with Trump every day, now saying Democrats who are denouncing Harvey Weinstein with every breath are not doing it enough. Oh, Sean Spicer,

man. Do you remember who you worked for? What is this new... You're unemployed, man. Go to St. Bart's or something. What are you spending all day? What are you running interference for this story? Is this a hobby now? Being a shitty press secretary is now your fucking hobby?

You're not even getting paid for this. What is your problem? You're like, give me a break. Do you remember any time in our recent history where Republicans criticized the moral failings of a Democratic president? It's never happened. And rightly so.

And also the idea that you're going after the liberal media, that he's like, the New York Times. Like, the liberal media has been all over this. That's what made this story happen. That's why you know about it. I don't think Sean's getting invited back to the Emmys. No.

Enjoy your Harvard fellowship. Good job, Harvard. Good job. Okay. I want to talk about the little spat this morning between Donald Trump and retiring Tennessee Senator Bob Corker. You guys, you've heard about this. Something fun. You've heard about this.

This is nice. This is nice. We're lifting it up now. This is nice. This is all good. So, Trump goes on this, it's like three tweets, four tweets. I don't know. He's learned how to thread the tweets now.

He's, watch out. I think it's important to note that when I saw you at breakfast this morning, you got up to get coffee. By the time you'd come back, Trump had attacked Bob Corker seven times. I was like, I'm getting my Starbucks. What happened? Trump tweeted that Corker begged

him for his endorsement and decided not to run when Trump refused, which according to Corker's people is the opposite of what happened. Wait a second. I know. Donald Trump. Exactly. No evidence for that whatsoever. So then Corker in one of the better Twitter

burns of the year said it's a shame that the White House has become an adult daycare center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning. Bob Corker, man. Guys, I'm learning about that right now. Lovett took a red eye last night.

This is a cool tweet. Hey, Bob Corker, what is it about deciding you're not going to be in the Senate anymore that lets you, like, it's ridiculous. Tommy and I were talking about this.

You go back and forth on it. Good for you, Bob Corker, for doing this. Would have been nice during the campaign. You don't get as many courage points when someone attacks you personally and it makes you feel bad and you stand up for yourself versus when they attack Muslims, women, people of color, and you don't say a damn

thing. That's the brave thing to do, Bob Corker. I'm happy Bob Corker did this too. Bob Corker has been actually in people of color and you don't say a damn thing that's the brave thing to do bob corker like i'm happy bob corker did this too bob corker has been actually a growing voice of reason he's talked about the chaos in the white house with trump like he's been sounding off about some important things and actually pissing him off is going to really screw up trump's efforts to you know roll back tear up the iran deal and all these things he wants to jam through congress so it's a stupid legislative decision well i was gonna say dan like what what kind of trouble could no fucks left to give Bob Corker cause the White House at this point?

Well, there are a couple ways to look at this. The first is that there's obviously stuff on the Iran deal and other foreign policy things that Bob Corker will be standing in the way of. He's the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate. So Trump theoretically needs him if he knew what he needed. Secretary of State. Yeah, he may need a new Secretary of State

since Rex Tillerson has privately joined the resistance. And, you know, maybe one day if Bob Mueller finishes his job, Trump's going to need a third of the Senate to tell him that, of the Senate plus one that he gets to stay in office. So you don't want to anger all of those people all the time. It's like in a court case, you don't piss off the jurors. Right. Yeah. Well, very specific example, tax reform, right? So just like with healthcare, Trump can only afford to lose two votes from two Republicans to still pass a bill in the senate if he loses three then that's that's it and corker has already said if this tax bill adds to the deficit by even a dime um then i will not vote for it so news news for news for you bob corker john is 1.5 trillion dollars over 10 years more than a dime five i think it's like five trillion

i don't think that's happening but like so obviously trump as usual is playing um legislative genius um so yeah no so i i think that pissing off corker like it might be fun to to tweet him like that but um i think he you you've got ran paul who you know is a republican who sunk the health care effort along with collins and Murkowski and McCain, and now you've got Corker, too. So it is going to imperil the agenda a little bit. The other thing that's so funny is people always are like, so-and-so's playing chess, Trump's playing checkers.

That is an insult to checkers players. He's not playing anything. So there's also a report that Steve Bannon has been encouraging Blackwater private security contractor Eric Prince to run against... We got the hisses again. Love it. All right, we talked about the hissing. They don't know about it.

We didn't put that out yet. It's the wrong vibe. We vote for booing. Love it has a hiss. Yeah, thank you. There we go. Yes, that's booing. Lovett has a hint. Yeah, thank you. There we go. Yes, that's booing. You got it.

I wasn't sure if you knew what it was. So he wants Prince to run against Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso in a primary. So Lovett, Barrasso is one of the most conservative members of the Senate. So it seems like maybe Bannon's crus is one of the most conservative members of the Senate. So, it seems like maybe Bannon's crusade here in the Senate is not about ideology. What do you think is going on here? You know, Bannon... Is he just trying to break shit? It seems like it's a combination.

I think that it's a desire to just break shit. It's a desire to please his billionaire funders with their strange personal relationships and desires that Eric Prince is certainly locked up in, tied up into. Bannon has sort of tried to present himself as some intellectual with a kind of philosophy, but none of these decisions in primaries... How's that going?

Yeah, well, none of these decisions, like there's the connection between like Eric Prince and Roy Moore is like sort of hard to draw other than the fact that they're both fucking heinous. Like it's like, there's no real like,

you know who the third one is? Michael Grimm, who went to prison and just got out. That's the other guy Bannon wants to run in New York. So it really does seem mostly like,

like kind of a joke or like, like burn it all down, you know, turn. Is there a submarine in here? Michael, come here. Hunt for Red October. One ping, Vasily.

Crazy Ivan. So there doesn't seem to be a lot of logic in it other than to just put the knife in the Republican institutions of Washington. That if you can fuck with them in every primary everywhere, you mess with Mitch McConnell, you mess with the RNC, you mess with the NRSC, you force them to spend money, you delegitimize them, you make them weaker. you make them weaker, and that provides more power to institutions like Breitbart and Infowars and others because Bannon well knows that his power doesn't really carry into the general as much as it exists in the primary. Yeah, and when Bannon actually had a chance to govern in the White House, he decided it's much more fun to burn down the barn. Bannon is an anarchist, but he's a well-capitalized anarchist because he's friends with the Mercer family, who are these crazy billionaires who are conspiracy theory lunatics who fund everything he does from Breitbart to Milo to name the rest of the creeps.

He wants senators that he can own, right? He will own Roy Moore. He will own Eric Prince. I want to talk about the Democrats, too, even though our party is basically perfect in every way. There's a piece in the Washington Post today by longtime Bill Clinton strategist Doug Sosnick, and the piece is entitled, Trump is on track to win re-election.

Sosnick, I know, get scared. The amount of shock in this room is impressive. So Sosnick's basic argument here is that even though Trump's base voters aren't enough to win him an election in a two-person race, there is a high likelihood that we have one or two third party candidates run in 2020 who split the anti-trump vote because not everyone gets excited enough about the democratic nominee stop me if you've heard this

one um he he also mentions that trump's approval ratings and this is true are higher higher in swing states than they are nationally. So when we see national polls, they're usually in the high 30s, low 40s. In a lot of these swing states, it's low 40s to mid 40s. Dan, what do you think about this? Well, I think that Doug's a very smart guy, right? He was Bill Clinton's political director for many years, and he writes these memos periodically where he sort of lays out the state of politics. And he is not wrong in the

sense that incumbent presidents usually win. It's only happened two times in the modern era that an incumbent president has lost, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. And in both of those cases, one of the main reasons for loss was a third-party candidate. But we've had third-party candidates on the ballot forever, right? Gary Johnson was on the ballot in a number of states and Obama in 2012. Nader was on the ballot in 08. And it didn't matter because the Democratic nominee and then the incumbent president was inspiring enough to Democrats that it was able to unite the party. So we can't worry about whether Gary Johnson's going to run again, whether Jill Stein's going to run again, whether Trump's going to get a primary from the middle or the right.

All we can worry about as Democrats is nominating someone who can unite the party. And if Trump's numbers are where they are now in 2020, and we have a candidate who can get the sort of amount of the Democratic base vote that Barack Obama got and Bill Clinton got before that, then we will win. So this brings me to my next question, which is, we have talked a lot on this pod about the need for our party to have a fierce, real, honest debate about who should lead us, who we should nominate in not just 2020, but in 2018, we should run 2018, and there's going to be fights between all these different wings in the party. And that's important on one hand, but on the other

hand, it seems like it's fairly important to unify as a party at the end to stop just this from happening. So how do we sort of balance between those two things? Yeah, I was just going to say two things. So first of all, the headline of that piece was designed to get clicks. The headline says he can track, but the story says he can win. And it's important to always know, of course, Donald Trump can win re-election. We are a divided country. The media is broken. All the problems that made it possible for him to win have not been solved. So of course, Donald Trump can win re-election and we can make fun of him and we can point out all the ways in which he has no business having the job, but that was true before and self-evident before, so of course he can win. Two things. One, it's always good to

point out the sort of pernicious idea that what America needs is sort of a third-party candidate that's often floated by people in the media claiming to be unbiased, because in this case, it is dangerous, right? If one of these billionaires gets it in their head that they should run it as a third party, it is plausible that they could divide the anti-Trump vote and give Trump a second term with 45% of the vote. Could happen. So nipping that in the bud and making clear that what we have to do as a country

is make sure that the Democratic Party nominates the right person who can unite both the kind of whatever, the center-left reform-oriented part of the party and the more left-wing liberal part of the party and the more left-wing, liberal part of the party, and come together and win. To your question about, you know, what do we have to do? I think we're having an incredibly positive debate. You know, you have Bernie Sanders introducing a Medicare for all bill. You have Chris Murphy introducing a bill to give access to Medicare for all. That being sort of the axis of debate for healthcare,

I think is exactly where the Democratic Party should be, basically falling between anybody being able to buy into Medicare or more people having access to Medicare and whether we should slowly transition to a single payer. And that's a conflict that doesn't need to be resolved. It's an argument that we should have in primaries and have in good faith and ultimately could have come together. I think the single most important thing about how we have that debate is having it in good faith and not once again falling into the trap of assuming the worst motives, whether it's attacking Bernie Sanders supporters for not being Democrats or for Bernie not being a Democrat, because who cares? Or saying that every, whatever, for lack of a

better term, establishment Democrat is a shill of Wall Street when they would be so much better for the country and would certainly make life harder for people on Wall Street. I think the most important thing is knowing this debate is never resolved. It is the Democratic Party. That is the conversation. And everybody's welcome, from Joe Manchin to Bernie Sanders. I mean, that just has to be how we are right now, because division within the Democratic Party is the only thing that can stop us from winning.

I think whoever the nominee is, whoever the nominee is, whoever the nominee is, is going to be their job to unite the party, right? And the people who lost will hopefully do what it takes to encourage or support his move over. But I also think that the environment to do that in will be easier in 2020 than it was in 2016. Because we're out of power now.

Well, when we're out of power, the idea of Trump as president was theoretical. It's now very rare. Very bad things happening every day and very scary tweets and everything like that. We've seen the scary. And I think if, this is a painful thing for us to say,

but if people had thought Trump might win, some of those votes would have gone differently. Right. People felt this security and think, I don't know anyone who said Hillary couldn't lose. We don't know those people, but... Predictions are stupid. Don't listen to those Keep It at 1600 guys.

I don't know what they do. That brand is dead. Not familiar. Love it was still writing in Hollywood at the time. Love it was on the Bernie campaign. Never heard of it. There was this safety in thinking you could vote for Trump or vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein

because Hillary was going to win anyway. Turns out that wasn't the case. We failed to learn that one year after year after year. We'll get there. All right, guys. I think we have a little bit of a game from one of our favorite shows, Love It or Leave It.

That we're going to play. Now for a game we call OK Stop. Here's how it works. It's very simple. We watch a clip, and as we go, we say, OK, stop, and we talk about it. I believe this clip will be self-explanatory, so let's roll the clip.

You're talking about the urgency to have a conversation. Okay, stop. No, just stop. Where has she been? She was on my TV like every day. We had this deep relationship. I saw her. She called to me.

I talked back to her. I attacked her on Twitter. And then they hit her for like three months in the basement of the White House. It's Kellyanne Conway, for those who could not pick the voice out from...

Oh, you're good at this. Yeah. From the five seconds of her voice. And it is true that it seemed like her job was to go on television and then she's just gone on television left.

But it's never clear what she's doing in the White House. She's in a room somewhere not addressing the opioid epidemic or something. Sometimes she's on a private jet with Tom Price. That's true.

You and your network have felt an urgency about Russia and some phony baloney collusion. Okay, stop. Yeah. Point Favreau. Chris Cuomo was all of us right now. For those at home,

Chris Cuomo's face says, oh, come on. Pony baloney Russia. Just a reminder, the President of the United States is under federal investigation for obstruction of justice. Also, you didn't see it it but the question was about gun control

calendar year nobody says it's phony baloney nobody who's investigating says it's phony baloney by the way well the republicans included do you know the air time that you have spent you know the graphics do you have any graphics on bump stocks? No, you don't. You have graphics on Russian... Do you have any graphics on bump stocks? Well, the little known fact that the thing that has been stopping gun control measures from passing is lack of CNN graphics. This is... It's such a strange thing.

Is this the only time a pundit has ever gone on CNN to complain that they don't have a graphic? Also, you watch a shitload of cable if you know what graphics they do and don't have. I've been through your graphics. It's also that, like, it's such a strange interview because she comes in so hot, right? She's so defensive. Like, the question, like. He's like, Kellyanne, what should we do about gun control? Russia!

Russia, you phony baloney fucker! Fuck you! You have graphics on palace intrigue. You have graphics on impeachment. You have people, you have panels, seven versus one against the president. It's the first time we've seen it used. Which hasn't been true in years. It's the first time we've seen it used in a mass murder.

What are you talking about? It is the first time a bump stop has been relevant in the discussion. But it's not the first time. Is it the first time that there's been a mass shooting in this country? Why has Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren not talked about? Every time I look at Chris Cuomo, I think he's going to demand to know how much I bench. He's just such a meathead. The other thing is the Kellyanne Conway.

It's like beating Hillary Clinton was, every person on the Trump campaign was prom king and queen. And it's been a few years, and they didn't get the jobs they thought they'd have, and they've gained some weight, and they're not super happy in their home life. And they're just like, do you remember?

We were fucking legends. Not Momstocks, but this issue this entire year. Why the obsession with Russia? They're approximating CNN coverage. They probably didn't know what they were. They were never relevant in this story before. Is that your bar for success? We just know that legally he could mass an arsenal and attach something to his weapons

that allowed them to rain down fire, which he never would have been able to do if he didn't use something that was legal and easy to get. Legal in 2010, the Obama administration's Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau said they wouldn't regulate that device. Okay, stop. I just want to... First of all, again, there's no reason for Kellyanne Conway

to take a mass shooting in Las Vegas personally. It's deeply strange and fucked up. But also... It is. But ATF ruled that they weren't allowed to ban that because it was technic because of the way in which congress has spent years making it impossible for regulatory agencies to act on gun control without an incredible amount of political blowback and all

the rest but the next part is oh the next partake in 2010. Why don't you fix it right now? No, I'd like everybody to be involved in the conversation here, because that was seven years ago. So the Obama administration did a regulatory act in 2010. Why don't you fix that since you're the president now? Okay. Okay, well, I just want a conversation. He could fix it. He could do it tomorrow. Maybe.

...for a different president. Donald Trump is busy being a successful businessman....for a different president. Donald Trump is busy being a successful... Nobody's blaming the president. No. No. He is not being a successful president. Continue. Nobody's blaming the president about what happened.

No, we're really not. That game's fun. Now for a game we call OK Stop. Here's how it works. Our friend and yours. We wanted to do this because there is an Ohio angle. let's roll the clip

okay stop only two weeks i never thought i'd hate him more when he took off the bow tie but i do it's tucker carlson in the nfl preseason already many of the league's richest players have gone out of their way to let you know how much they hate your country on monday a dozen members the cleveland browns refused to stand for the national anthem because racism or something. Why is this a big deal? Why is it in the end dangerous for this country? Well, for the same reason we sing the national anthem in the first place so often and stand for the flag, used to say the Pledge of Allegiance, all those other slightly silly civic rituals that liberals have long despised and sneered at. Why are they important? Okay, stop.

Liberals don't hate the pledge. We don't hate the flag. We don't hate the pledge. What are you talking about, man? How do you argue in these ludicrous, extreme terms? It's in his contract at Fox. The chyron is the thesis, and I think this thesis speaks to how broken this is. The chyron says, Tucker, love of country

is all we have. No, it isn't. We have a lot of stuff. I think this thesis speaks to how broken this is. Chiron says, Tucker, love of country is all we have. Also, hashtag Tucker. No, it isn't. We have a lot of stuff. We have a lot of things that we love and care about. Also, maybe love of country is perhaps more than the national anthem. Oh, right. Perhaps they're doing it because they do love their country

and they want to make it better. Free expression. Dissent. Not be killed in it. Maybe, you know? So we had this. We should talk about this now. We had this clip today before Mike Pence's little quick trip to Indiana.

So just in case you thought that this just stays on Fox News all the time, the vice president today was in Vegas, I believe. Yes. And then was going to a fundraiser in Los Angeles. And on the way, he decided to go to Indianapolis. Not the right direction. Yeah, not the right direction. For the geographically impaired.

So he goes to the Colts 49ers game. And he, knowing that because it's the 49ers, that some players will kneel during the national anthem and as soon as they kneel, he walks right out of the stadium. And then, of course, then he said, I did this because the players disrespected the flag in our country.

I was so offended. And the troops. And the troops. He won't stand for someone disrespecting the troops. By the way, he said soldiers, which doesn't refer to all service members, if we're being technical. So if you're going to be a sanctimony prick, get it right.

Why does Mike Pence hate America's sailors, airmen, and Marines? What about the coasties? What about the coasties? And then after Mike Pence said that this is the reason he made this patriotic gesture, Donald Trump tweeted, he left because I told him to. But let's just say, I think because the Trump team is dumb, they couldn't even pull off this cheap political stunt without being obvious

because Pence brought the press with him and when the press went to get out they were going to get out of the van and go hold in the stadium the Trump staff said just stay in the van he's not going to be there long it's a great it's a great example of Trump of the of the so they do this dumb stunt then people are like this seems like a stunt and then conservatives on twitter are like you you want to call this a stunt and then trump's like it was a great stunt really happy with it also pence is like i can't stand anyone who would disrespect the troops it's like well then you shouldn't talk to the guy who put you on the ticket because he fought with a gold star family and attacked John McCain. So like,

talk about people. It's also like, it's not about the troops. You're just making that up. You're just making it up that they're attacking the troops. So maybe it's, maybe you should never sit down. Maybe anytime you sit or kneel,

it's against the troops. Maybe you need to stand 24 fucking hours a day because the next time Mike Pence sits, let's say he's not standing for the troops. This was when we told you to stand for the troops. This is also a reminder... You look like a horse, Mike Pence. This is also a reminder that Mike Pence, also bad.

So we're all rooting for Trump impeachment. It doesn't get much better when he leaves. Yeah, slow your roll. All you need to know is that, you know, today at that game, African-American athletes knelt to protest the fact that in 2015, police killed nearly two unarmed African-Americans per week, which was five times the rate of whites.

And that's why they knelt today. And last night, Richard Spencer and a bunch of his goons held another rally in Charlottesville as a bunch of white nationalists. Who Richard Spencer? Mike Pence. And this is what the White House focused on today, and they didn't say a word about that. Fine people on both sides, I've heard.

Fine people on both sides. Okay, when we come back, we will have Senator Sherrod Brown. And now, your great senator, Sherrod Brown. Welcome. If you're going to say we're funny, can you say it into the mic?

You guys are funny. Yeah, good. Thank you. By the way, my wife, Connie Schultz, is here. And you all, I know you all think that, you think that seat should be for her or this seat should be for her. And she's very funny, as you know, but it's not my choice. Go for it. Can she, Connie, can you wave at least?

Connie, come on up. Just give him a wave. Just give him a wave. Just give him a wave. Sorry to hijack your show, but just give him a wave. Yes! Yes! Pulitzer Prize winning Connie Schultz Thank you for joining us

I can't believe he did that I just took over their show I want all of it in the mics It's all such good content You don't want this in the mic So thank you for being here I have to admit I'm a little biased

and I owe you a debt of gratitude because you are the reason that I met my wife Emily Black because she was part of your senate office so my mother-in-law Marnie Black is here tonight in the audience too

hi Marnie and you also also we thank you for Marnie Black is here tonight in the audience, too. Hi, Marnie. I want Marnie to come up here, too. Also, we thank you for our head of content at Crooked Media is Tanya Sominator, who was in your office as well. We have all sorts of connections. Tanya gave us a great thumbs-up from offstage. Tanya's trying to get your attention a little earlier. I know, I know we tried. Okay.

So I want to start with one area that has not gotten a lot of media coverage, but something that you've been focused on, which is Donald Trump's efforts to gut Wall Street reform and gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So it seems like he doesn't have the votes in Congress to undo Dodd-Frank, or at least we hope he doesn't. But even if he doesn't have those votes, how do we stop him from sabotaging the law and sabotaging the agency, much like he's trying to do with the Affordable Care Act?

What are some of the things that you've been focused on? Well, this year, this week, we brought into the Banking Committee the CEO, the new CEO of Wells Fargo, and their company had terrible problems defrauding the public, literally millions of customers. They signed them up for accounts they didn't even know they had signed up for. They then forced on them arbitration clauses, which simply said, you can't sue us class action. You can only take us to an arbitration panel. And nobody does that. Then, yes, then the next day we had the outgoing CEO who just retired

from Equifax. Both of these, Connie and I start, Connie and I live in the city of Cleveland. And when I look at these Wall Street issues, the first thing I think about is we live in zip code 44105 in the southeast side, south of Slavic Village. And that zip code in 2007 had more foreclosures than any zip code in the United States of America. So, I mean, I don't, in some ways, I take what these, what Wall Street did to my neighborhood and to my city and to my state, I take it personally because every day when we drive home, we see the blight from these foreclosures. We're doing a little bit better. We're not doing well enough. So when Equifax, when, you know, Equifax gathers all of our data, really pretty much unbeknownst

to us, the job of the CEO at Equifax is to protect that data, our financial data. And he simply didn't do his job. 145 million, as we know, 145 million people had their personal data breached. And so if a Cleveland State University graduate paying off her student loans forgets to pay one month, she gets her credit dinged. She's accountable. Or if someone in Garfield Heights or Westlake doesn't pay his mortgage for a couple months, he gets his credit dinged. But there is not, there's no accountability for these CEOs. Nobody goes to prison. They all come to the committee and they say, well, we're giving our bonus back. Well, they already were

making $12 million a year in their compensation. So they're giving, yeah, it's really nice they're giving the bonus back. So I think that while Trump won after another nominee that he puts on the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or he's going to put on the Federal Reserve, they're all way too close to Wall Street. I mean, I heard what Bob Corker said about the president's, about the White House. What I say is that the White House looks like a retreat for Goldman Sachs executives. And that's why shining a light. I mean, shows like yours are so important, John and Jonathan, to do that, to shine a light on what Wall Street's doing. Is that good?

That's great. Yeah, very good. Not just this show, but Love It or Leave It. Wow. You got a message. I heard a Jonathan, and now it's just for Senator Brown and my mother. And I think that's good. Jonathan, and now it's just for Senator Brown and my mother, and I think that's good.

But I think it's important that we keep shining a light on this kind of malfeasance and shine a light on who these regulators are. They pass because virtually every Republican, I don't want to make this partisan, but virtually every Republican in the Senate will confirm almost any nominee Trump sends up, And it means that these regulators, they come from Wall Street, they'll go back to Wall Street, they clearly will side with Wall Street on far too many of these issues. And I know what Wall Street's done to working families in my state, and it's criminal in many cases. So I was going to ask, are you worried that the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, who's done such an amazing job in that role,

he may step down to run for governor of Ohio. Are you worried that if he does that, then Trump gets to appoint the new head of the bureau, and it's obviously going to be someone who's not Richard Cordray and who wants to try to gut it? Does that worry you? Yeah, of course it does. And Cordray's term, Richard's term, ends next year. He may or may not serve it out. He may leave early and run for governor. That's his decision to make. I know he stayed so he could get the forced arbitration rule out so that companies can't basically take away your day in court when you cheat them, like Wells Fargo, like Equifax, one after another after another. He wanted to get this payday lending rule out. Ohio, in many ways, Ohio's the wild west of payday lending. $500 million, last year, $500 million in fees were charged

to Ohioans by payday lenders. And people that go to payday lenders, you know, it's the people that can least afford to pay those fees, obviously. Almost nobody goes to a payday lender and gets one loan, because then what you pay back isn't too egregious or isn't too, it's burdensome because they're not making a lot of money. But what happens is you take one loan, you can't pay that back. Two weeks later, you take another loan a month later. And typically, the average number of loans someone will take that goes to a payday lender is at least five or six loans. So you end up paying more in fees and interest than you pay for the loan, than you borrowed to begin with. And it just means that if your car

breaks down and you've got to get it fixed, because you've got to get to work where you're making $11 an hour and barely keeping your head above water, tough luck. You've got to borrow from a payday lender, and it just starts this downward spiral from which you can't escape. And that's really the legacy of that industry in far too many cases. One other issue you've been focused on is health care. You put forward a plan to allow people near retirement, 55, and over to buy into Medicare, something that should have been in the Affordable Care Act,

but as I often point out, was killed personally by Joe Lieberman. One vote. By Joe Lieberman, which would have lowered premiums for everybody and helped basically every American with insurance. At the same time, there's this larger debate going on. There's been a proposal of a public option so everyone can have access to Medicare. Bernie Sanders and several other Democrats have gotten behind a single-payer plan. Where do you come down in that debate? And stepping back, there's this debate going on about what Democrats should be

fighting for in the coming election, whether we should just be pushing for how to reform and fix the Affordable Care Act versus a larger vision of how to make sure more people have access to Medicare. Where do you fall on that? Well, 10 years ago, 12 years ago, I guess, when I was in the House, I co-sponsored a Medicare for All bill. Since then, we've passed, obviously, we've passed the Affordable Care Act, and Republicans aren't giving up going after that. I mean, it really is their billionaire, the Republican money, the far-right money base, the billionaire contributors that keep the NRSC, the National Republican Senate Committee, in business, that keep pushing them. They know the public doesn't want it. They know in Ohio, for instance, 200,000 people right now in Ohio get opioid treatment

because they have insurance under the Affordable Care Act. You've got a lot of elected officials that dress better than this most of the time. You've got 48, 49 elected officials in the Senate and 200 and some in the House that get health insurance paid for by taxpayers that are willing to take it away from 900,000 Ohioans. Governor Kasich's a Republican. I'm a Democrat. We stand together in this. You just don't do that. So the important thing to me is that Democrats stay together because the Republicans are going to come after it again. They're going to go after Medicaid. 600,000 Ohioans now have Medicaid insurance because of the Affordable Care Act expansion, 20 million around the country. Those are real people that simply can't make it without that insurance. They'll end up in the emergency room. They'll end up not getting treatment. They'll end up, their four-year-old daughter will have hearing loss because she waits to go to the emergency room instead of having a doctor and go early and get a $60 antibiotic prescription. All of those things we will lose if, so to me, it's continue

to push back on that. And then let's do something we can rally around, like the, while they want to raise the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 or 70, as the former secretary of HHS, Price, before he did all his flights around the country. But he was advocating raising Medicare age to 67 or 70. And tell me that a barber in Garfield Heights or a construction worker in Euclid or a Medina worker at a Medina diner or a Cleveland manufacturing worker can work till she's 70. You know, many people that are in the Senate and the House, we can work till they're 70 if the voters allow it, but so many can't. And that's why the freedom to buy into Medicare at 55 really begins this process. We'll eventually have, I think, Medicare

for all, but the way to do it is you start by giving people the freedom to join at 55, and then that's the time. I mean, it's people my age, not my wife's age yet, my age, not people your age that are starting to have health problems. It's people that are 58 and 60 and 62. They're more likely to lose their job. They see their plant close. They see their insurance get too expensive. They're getting sicker at that age. That's why Medicare at 55, giving people the free to join matters, and that's what the debate should be about. I want to add one thing about Sherrod. He's never going to say this about himself, but when we first started dating in 2003, I found out, I looked up his voting record before I go out with him. I wish all women could do that.

before I go out with them. I wish all women could do that. As an aside, he had to be 100% on two issues, right? Gay rights and choice. And he was. But the other thing about Cher is when he ran for Congress, when he ran for the House in 1992, he promised never to take the congressional health care plan until all Americans had health care. And when I married him in 2004, I made him get on my plan because I said to him, look, you're older and it's a trend. You're going to keep getting older. And this plan you have really sucks. So I put him on my plan. And we did not go into the exchange.

He did not accept that health care until the Affordable care act was passed and i want people to know that first of all i love the idea that you received an a rating from connie schultz you know which is actually actually it was a plus it was a+. That's good. No, it wasn't. It was B+, but then I got up to A- after. Okay. We'll leave it at that, all right? This is good. It got loose.

I'm glad you came out. Yeah. He's wearing my shirt, by the way, because he couldn't find his. I can't find my shirt. Senator Brown's wearing a Cleveland Indians sweatshirt. It's not the nothing top of the third. The fact that Senator Brown is here during the Indians game, which I believe they're playing the Yankees, and is it the playoffs?

I don't know. They're playing the Yankees? It is baseball. It is baseball. Here's how much I hate the Yankees. It's something we can all agree on. I grew up in Mansfield, Ohio, and my mom and dad,

we used to go to games six or eight times a year, often Sunday doubleheaders. But my dad never took me to, I never saw the Yankees play until I was old enough to drive or to go with my friends because my dad didn't want Mickey Mantle to get 15 cents out of his ticket.

So that's how much he hated the Yankees. I grew up going... I grew up a Mets fan in a Mets household and for me, rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for Microsoft. I don't fully... And I'm a Red Sox fan, so this is an easy one for the whole stage.

We're all in agreement here. Thank you. That's nice. So you, and I'd love to hear what both of you think about this. Senator Brown, you usually run ahead of national Democrats in Ohio. In 2016, Trump won the state by nine points. Democrats lost badly throughout the state. You're facing a tight race with Josh Mandel in 2018.

They're on the fence. I think we're okay. I love this audience. That's great. Do you think that the politics of Ohio are changing or was 2016 an aberration? I think if we don't change that we could see in 2020 the Democrats winning the national popular vote by five million instead of three million and still losing the electoral college unless we change because of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin. I think that the other three states are a little easier than Ohio, but it comes back to me. Politics, to me, it's never left right, liberal, progressive moderate, conservative and you've got to

win the people in the middle, it's ultimately who's side are you on, it's not a spectrum of left to right, conservative, liberal, it's who's side are you on in politics and to me because elections are about contrast I mean you start with Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Care Act those 200,000 Ohioans that get opioid

treatment could lose their coverage our answer is I want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those 200,000 Ohioans that get opioid treatment could lose their coverage. The answer, our answer is I want to give people 65 and older, 55 and older, the freedom to buy into Medicare. Republicans are going to cut taxes on the largest corporations and the wealthiest people in the country. I think we should pass our legislation on the Patriot Corporation Act.

Those companies that pay a living wage and pay their, pay their, and provide health benefits and retirement benefits and don't outsource their jobs, they should get a lower tax rate. But those companies... But those companies that pay

$10 and $11 so that their employees get food stamps and get Medicaid and get Section 8 housing vouchers, those companies should pay a corporate freeloader fee because taxpayers have to subsidize those corporations' wages. So I have no doubt, John, that come election time next year when voters, including some Trump voters, people that voted for Trump in 2016, when they look at that contrast and they see somebody fighting to take on Wall Street and

the damage they did to this state and to this country, the position on Medicare, the position in making the contrast on taxes and corporations paying their fair share, that's an easy path ultimately. I also want to talk for a moment about the narrative that we're moving forward with. I don't think it helps anyone to mock Trump voters. And I hear from, as a columnist, I'm hearing from Trump voters all the time. I have family members, I come from the working class, as you two know, and many, I have family members who voted for him. And ridiculing them or talking about, you know, we love to toss around that phrase, voting against their own interests. Well, that's really arrogant for us to assume that we can tell

them what their interests are. And when I try very hard to listen to Trump voters, particularly so many of them of a certain age, and let's keep in mind, plenty of white rich rich people voted for Donald Trump. We have to remember that, as always. What was the average income, or was it to me, it was $70,000? So that's not exactly your working class voters to begin with, right? But we have so many of them in Ohio. But they feel invisible. The people I come from feel invisible. Women my age in America, most of them feel invisible. I think of, what was her first name? Williams, the book we read, Working Class, Joan Williams. She said something in that book, wrote something that has really stuck with me. We kept talking about breaking the glass ceiling. Most women, that's not where their world is. They're not thinking about breaking any kind of, they're not in management. They're not aspiring for the

coroner office. They want to be able to send their kids to college, right? They want to see their husbands not feel emasculated by what's happened to them in this economy. You'll hear that a lot from working class women. They love their men and they see what's happened to them. And some of them, some of, you know, when you are economically stressed, some homes see a lot more violence. They see a lot more depression and alcoholism. Well, why would we make fun of that instead of communicating in every way we can? I feel this way as a liberal.

I see you and I hear you. And it starts there. Wow. That is a great place to end. Sherrod Brown and Connie Schultz, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. I'm glad you did.

That was so great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Guys, give it up for Senator Sherrod Brown and Connie Schultz. And we're back. We're going to introduce a new game tonight. It is a game called Breitbart or Josh Mandel. Now, you remember Breitbart.

Now, you remember Breitbart. It's an institution funded by lunatic billionaires seeking to mainstream some of the worst and most toxic ideas in human history that have caused more violence and destruction than anything known to man. And you know Josh Mandel. Josh Mandel. They're learning not to hiss love it. And we appreciate that. Because it's 2017 and not 1936.

Basically. Here's how it works. John, Tommy, and Dan, my handsome bros, my heteronormative bros, they each have quotes in front of them. They each have statements in front of them. Some of them describe things that Josh statements in front of them. Some of them describe things that Josh Mendel said or did.

Some of them describe things that Breitbart said or did. It will be someone in the audience's job to figure out which is which. Who in the audience would like to play Breitbart or Mendel? I'd like somebody in merch. Someone from... Oh, yes!

Someone from Cleveland she's right there and she's a fan I can just tell hi what's your name? Ann I wanted to make sure we talked to somebody from Cleveland because in Madison we ended up with someone from Minnesota

and in Ann Arbor we ended up with someone from England. So we're learning as we go. I'm really from Cleveland. I actually gave Sherrod Brown and Connie Schultz their marriage license. That's cool, man. Cool. That is a great anecdote. It will not help you in the game.

I went to college with Josh Mandel, too. Boo. Do you have any good stories? No. Actually, I do, but I won't say. But it puts a lot of pressure on you to win the game because you actually know Josh Mandel. Let's play the game.

Okay, sorry. John will read the first question, and it will be your job to decide whether it was from Breitbart or Josh Mandel. Okay. Who promoted a tweet that said, I stand with Israel and my Judeo-Christian culture, and I find Islam offensive?

Anne? Josh Mandel. You saying Josh Mandel? Josh Mandel. It is Josh Mandel. saying Josh Mandel? Josh Mandel It is Josh Mandel You got it right Do I keep going? Nailed it

You are one for one Okay But they will Get easier Tommy you're up Okay In a conversation about sexism in the tech industry Who said

There's no bias against women They just suck at interviews? Breitbart. Nailed it. You're two for two. Don't get cocky, Ant. This is where it gets complicated. Dan, you're up.

All right. Who came to the defense of an alt-right misogynist behind Pizzagate where the Anti-Defamation League called him out as a bigot? Josh Mandel. We got our ringer here.

That is shocking and despicable. And you're three for three. Dan, that's your number four. Who posted an unsubstantiated three-year-old story about kids getting beaten at an Ohio mosque for failing to read the Quran? Who is spreading anti-Muslim bigotry, fear of Sharia law,

and other bullshit? I feel like it could be either. That's the game. And you're getting it. You nailed it. Breitbart? You're wrong. Josh Mendel did that.

You're three out of four. Sorry. And again, they're going out of four. Sorry. And again, they're going to get easier. Tommy. Who called Gabby Gifford's quote, the gun control movement's human shield?

Brian Barrett. Correct. Got it. Five out of six. And I want you to know that this question, number six, is for all of six. And I want you to know that this question, number six, is for all of it. Am I winning something?

It's not clear. But this is it. We haven't gotten that far. We haven't thought that far ahead. You have gotten four out of five. In order to win the game, we don't know how many you need to get right. And we don't know if there's a prize.

The stakes could not be lower. Are you ready for your sixth and final question? Who labeled a Republican candidate for Senate a class act after he said pregnancies from rape were, quote, something God intended? Senate a class act after he said pregnancies from rape were something God intended. Josh Mandel? You're correct.

That is correct. And thank you for playing the game. I want you to know that you have won Breitbart or Mandel. Thank you. Your prize we have decided at this moment, is a trip to the merch store.

Go pick something. Have a good time. Thank you very much. And if the subtlety was lost on anybody, some similarities there. Maybe don't make him your next senator. Yeah, maybe don't make this guy your next senator. Don't elect the comments section from the internet.

And that's Breitbart or Mandel. When we come back, get some Q&A. All right, guys. We have time for a few questions. If you could all line up in the aisle right here. Rissa, I'm from Erie, Pennsylvania. I just have a question with regards to the whole birth control situation right now where employers don't have to provide it. Is it okay to use a more median means

to get a more progressive end? The debate right now is kind of like, well, I see people on Twitter saying, oh, birth control is used for all these other uses, but really, why can't we just say it's because women don't want to get pregnant I think it's simple I think one, it is absolutely right and necessary

to point out that hey, men making these decisions you don't really know what women use birth control at all it's a medical necessity as much as it has to do with sex and also it's okay that America everybody, people fuck. And men like sex and women like sex and birth control. You know.

We're the bros. I'm just saying. Alright. But I'm just thinking like, sexual health and family planning are, you know, it's part of the whole operation. I'm going to work on these talking points.

John, you're up. We agree with some of what you said. I think that's a perfectly good argument to make. We talked about this in the last couple shows. Because the Trump administration made this decision so ham-handedly, it seems like the ACLU sued right away.

And the Trump administration, what was it? They're supposed to wait a number of certain days. There was a comment period when you make a rule change like this, and they didn't let the comment period pass. So because of their incompetence around this, there's a good chance that the court may stay the decision, which would be great. So then we can live to fight another day on this one. Right.

But what that means is we've got to fight. We've got to fight. We've got to organize. This is just like ACA repeal all over again. Got to call members. Got to show up at offices. Let them know you people care a lot about this. And hopefully we know we can stop it.

I also think long term, we need to stop talking about women's health as a subset of health. It's separate in part. It's just health. So if Republicans don't want Obamacare telling you how to get your health care, why do they want to dictate how to do it for women? It seems like they're hypocritical. It's a pattern.

It feels like a pattern. Thank you. Thank you. Hi there. My name is Elliot. I'm from Northern Virginia, but I go to the University of Cincinnati. Yeah. Alright. I

was just wondering, love it, specifically. Hello. No, I just know that for me personally, Judaism is something that really got me involved in politics with the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism doing like a lot of political, yeah, I don't know. So I was just wondering if or how sort of being Jewish had sort of shaped your being political from one queer Jew to another.

That's a great question. That's a good question. I'm not sure. I mean, you know, I grew up in a Jewish household. I was bar mitzvahed. I'd be lying if I said that I haven't, I'd be lying if I said I've been a very good temple attendee. But I think that there is a truth to growing up in a Jewish community. And, you know, my grandfather fought in World War II. He had an encyclopedic knowledge of Jewish intellectuals, Jewish senators. At any given time, he could start at the top of the list and run from top to bottom of every Jewish member of Congress,

every Jewish baseball player. That was easier. Every Jewish senator. Sandy. And, you know, he, from the time i was very young like talked to me about politics all the time and he was an old school jewish liberal and like that's i think where i get it and so i think i'd be lying if i said that i got it from a rabbi, you know, but I do think that there's something about, especially like sort of, you know, immigrant Jews, people that came, whether

before the Holocaust or during the Holocaust or after the Holocaust, from Russia and Poland, that brought with them that kind of community and desire to do good, and I do believe that that's there too. Thank you. Hello. Hi. So I guess I just want to take this opportunity to say that I just finished working an event for Sherrod Brown. So I want to remind everyone to vote November 6th in 2018 for the Senator. Excellent. Great. I'm sorry, I just have to nerd out for a second. No, that's good. So I guess I also want to apply my internship to Planned Parenthood to my question. It's actually faster to get a gun than it is to get birth control. So I'm wondering how we deal with this legislatively.

Like, why is it that I have to wait like two weeks to get birth control, but I can just like skip a background check and walk into a gun show and get a gun? How do you think we as civilians should deal deal with that god that's insane yeah our gun laws are terrible yeah i mean it's also it's harder to get pseudofed right than a gun in a lot of places um i think we've thought about talked a lot uh about gun control and what democrats should do and think about the issue in the wake of Las Vegas. And it's one of those issues where it just, it feels so frustrating as a progressive because you see these images on TV and you see 59 people dead and 500 wounded. And you just think,

how is this still divisive? You know, how can you see little children shot and still think that this is an issue where people tell you now is not the time for debate. Let's not politicize this. It's exactly our jobs to be talking about political solutions to major public health problems that are killing more people in some states than car accidents. So I do think like there are senators out there like Chris Murphy, like Jan Schakowsky in Chicago, people who have been pushing hard on the NRA for a very long time. And I do think looking to those leaders and following their lead

and not fearing the NRA. They're not as big and bad as they want you to think they are. Their membership is strong and they're listened to a lot. But I do think there is more room there to push them than we sometimes give ourselves credit for because people have grown up in this culture of just being scared to death politically of the NRA.

There's two ways we can apply pressure here. This president and this Congress are obviously useless on this issue, and so number one is elections, right? So we've got to get involved and we've got to make sure we elect candidates who have, and Lovett was saying this the other day, what is your plan to reduce mass shootings?

What is your plan to reduce gun violence? And every candidate should be asked that. So that should be number one. Number two, you know, there is some hope on the state level. And, you know, Shannon Watts, who founded the group Moms Demand Action and joins every town, Watts who founded the group Moms Demand Action and joins every town. She was tweeting after Las Vegas because there was a lot of negativity and skepticism and how are we going to go through this again and we're never going to get anything passed and it seems like there's this cycle and she said look since Newtown there's been about a dozen laws passed that strengthen background

checks in states all across the country, red states, blue states, and they've passed all kinds of other laws. They've stopped the NRA from passing a whole bunch of laws. So there's a lot going on in states right now. And so I think this is one of the reasons we always say, don't just focus on Congress and the presidency, focus on state elections, state legislatures, local races. This is where we can have a real impact on it. Thank you. Hi, my name's Adrienne. I'm a college professor. I actually teach Jewish studies,

and I think Lovett was right on. I study Jewish social justice movements, so there's a connection. My question, for my college students, they want to be involved. They want to do something. They want to be where you are someday. They want political careers.

What can they do while they're still in college to help and to get there? Intern for Sherrod Brown. Sorry, Dan. I mean, this always seems like a, like it should be a complicated answer to how, how do you end up working in the white house or how do you end up having a podcast or whatever,

but is weird, Dan, or how do you end up having a podcast or whatever, but is... Weird beer, Dan. But it is go find the candidate you're most excited about and go work for them, right? Check out Indivisible. They're a great organization

that is providing people the tools to figure out how to get involved politically. We did a video with them recently. Tanya wants me to mention it. Crooked.indivisible.org. Thank you, John. Thank God for Tanya. I only said that because I read Tanya's lips. A bunch of prosanya wants me to mention it. Crooked.indivisible.org. Thank you, John. Thank God for Tanya. I only said that because I read Tanya's lips.

A bunch of pros up here just nailing it. And, by the way, just go to crooked.com. There's a bunch of options for how to take auction. That's a great thing to suggest. But like... But seriously, kids always ask me, like, how do I get your job?

I'm like, do you really think I knew my elbow from my asshole at 22? No one has a plan for this. Go do the job you want to do. Do a campaign would be my first piece of advice for anybody. Point to your elbow. This one. It is so much fun to do a campaign. You get years worth of experience in months.

You move up quickly. You learn things by osmosis. You meet great people. It's invaluable. That's what I would do. It's the best way to pretend that you're still in college. What he said. Thank you.

Thank you. First of all, thanks for coming to Cleveland. We really appreciate it. My name is Caroline, and I'm a grad student at the Cleveland Clinic. And as a scientist, I'm overly frustrated how people just ignore facts or don't even look at facts or don't even consider them in making their own opinions in voting. And I just, sometimes it's overly frustrating to communicate with these people and try to tell them why candidates are

bad or good or why we should vote for them. How do you feel like we should be able to talk with these people and convince them? Because at some point when you just ignore the facts, people don't really listen anymore. So, yeah. I think, first of all, I think

sometimes it's hard because I think we get the order backwards. A lot of times, you know, people don't come to a conclusion because they've looked at a bunch of facts. They'll interpret the facts because of the biases and feelings and emotions they bring to the conversation. I think so. I think a lot of times this sort of desire that the notion that if everybody just had the correct information, everybody would vote the right way. I don't think that's right. But for someone like you who is in science, I think there's incredible value for people with expertise to talk about how, why scientists think the way they do about certain things. And, you know, we talked about this, the way science is taught, the way it's treated in

the press. I think people don't have an appreciation for what the enterprise really is. You know, science is a boring class you took and then forgot for a lot of people. That's just true. It's unfortunate, but it's true. And I think talking about the enterprise of it, the fight and the work and the disagreements and the way the truth is slowly revealed over time and how hard it is and how hard people work on it that when you tell someone that climate change is real and the storms are getting worse and this is why there are forest fires or this is why sex ed is more effective than abstinence or whatever the issue may be, you're not saying it because you're smarter,

you're not saying it because you're speaking from on high, but because a lot of people, regular people, worked really hard to figure out some answers, and you should open people up to that enterprise. That's what I think. One way a scientist can help. Who was that? We talked to this brilliant climate scientist, Catherine Hayhoe. She is able to, you should check out her work. She's a climate scientist, but she's able to talk about climate change and climate science

in a way where she tells a story, and she weaves in sort of like moral and religious and all these different themes that I think has helped her connect with people in ways that is sometimes we don't do a great job of when we're talking about sort of like the level of degrees Celsius raise X amount over Y period. And I think sort of working with people who are experts in science on communication and how to sort of reach people in terms they understand is also an invaluable part of this. Awesome, thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Danielle. Wow, that's loud. Thank you all for what you're doing. I think it's doing a lot of good during this time. My question has to do with, I think, like a lot of people, especially in Ohio, I have close family members who quote-unquote reluctantly voted for Trump, and I feel like they're starting to recognize

some of the buffoonery that's been going on um recognizing with like yeah saying little rocket man's probably not the best idea um the thing they keep falling back on is uh the economy the economy is doing so well uh they can't identify anything that like trump's done specifically to help it but they keep kind of falling back on that. So what can we say to people who are maybe starting to kind of see some of these red flags, but keep kind of falling back on that? That's so interesting. Why do you think they say that? Is it because he's always tweeting about the stock market? Is it something they're citing? Fox? I don't know. That could be the answer to basically anything.

There's this amazing tribalism in how people think about the economy. When Obama was president, the Democrats overwhelmingly, regardless of how they were personally doing the economy, approved of how the economy was going. And Republicans, many of whom were

doing quite well in the stock market and other places, dramatically disapproved. Election day happened. The next time they did the survey, it flipped. And so what I think is you do not have to convince your relatives about how they feel about Trump in the next 24 hours. I think it is worthwhile. Maybe Thanksgiving should be your drop-dead time, but I think it is worth listening to them and trying to understand what it is that's giving them pause what's keeping them there and because that is a very useful thing that we don't get enough of right is to be if you are closer to someone so much of the the trump non-trump conversations country just everyone yells at each other and then doesn't speak for a long time if

you're in the place where you can have a rational, reasoned, civil conversation with a man about Trump, listen, right? And I think that'll help you figure out what to explain to them, how to make them understand. Thank you. She's got a clipboard. Yeah, we got a clipboard.

Hi, guys. Thanks for coming to Cleveland. Go Tribe. Okay, so I know you guys aren't in the prediction market, but I'm going to ask for your opinion. How's that? Okay. We are in the opinion market. Okay.

I'd like to know your input on the gerrymandering case that was just argued at the Supreme Court and if it fails, which I hope it doesn't, what implications would it have for our democracy? And then also

as a side note, Ohio is trying to put an issue on the ballot to end gerrymandering in Ohio, so I have I have petitions, so see me in the lobby afterwards. see me in the lobby afterwards. See her in the lobby afterwards. Yes.

What's your name? Anna. It's super hard to read the tea leaves when you're looking at what Supreme Court justices say in any kind of argument. I've done this many times during some of the Affordable Care Act cases, and you start picking through every word, and you start following every legal scholar on Twitter and seeing what they say.

It seems like everything around the gerrymandering case pointed to Justice Kennedy's swing vote, seeming that he is very much in favor of—he's not going to strike. I mean, he's going to go the good way. He's going to rule the way we want. Do the to go the good way he's going to rule the way we want to do the thing that's good to rule the way we want so but we don't know if it fails i think you go we have to start passing laws in state legislatures again we have to start locally and that's what happens if you you know and virginia is going to be a big race in 2017 governor race there and then there's they're electing a legislature there and if we flip that democratic that's that's a place that when 2020 when redistricting happens it's going to

have a huge difference and there's states like that all across the country and so we have in ohio too and so it has to start at the grassroots level i think it's actually good not to try to count on the courts to get us out of this problem i think it has to start with organizing on a local level which is why people should see you in the lobby. Gerrymandering is a cancer on our democracy, so good for you. Hello, my name is Isosa Osa. I'm currently running a campaign here in Ohio's 7th district

for Ken Harbaugh. Yeah! We love Ken. We know Ken. My question is I was raised in Dayton and I care so much about the issues that are affecting not only Ohio, but the entire Midwest. And in a moment in time where we're all so personally affected by things like the opioid epidemic, by things like the health care debate, by things like immigration,

the healthcare debate, by things like immigration. I think it's extraordinarily important to not forget about the incredible national security risks that our country faces today. And to be working for a candidate like Ken, who was a Navy pilot for nine years. It's an incredible honor. But how do you guys recommend that we can effectively make an argument that folks here who are dealing with so much already should care about where we're sending our ships in the South Asia Sea, should care about North Korea, should care about what's happening in Syria, should make national security a kitchen table issue since it affects every single year, it seems like, fewer and fewer members of Congress,

fewer and fewer folks in the Senate, fewer and fewer average American families. Good question. I was going to say, every campaign comes down to one simple question. Who do the voters think is going to fight for them, right? And so in this case, I think the national security biography, I mean, one, Trump has made national security a very ripe issue for Democrats by being terrible at it. And seeming, but seeming, like, these are very complicated issues, whether it's North Korea or Iran or other things that happen in the Middle East. But he, through his own irrational, weird behavior, he makes it seem very present in people's lives because he makes it seem so dangerous. And so having that biography is, will give your candidate a better platform.

That will be an opening for voters to hear that from them. But I think national security has to be part of a broader story about how the candidate is going to fight for people in Ohio while the opponent is fighting for special interests in Washington or carrying the Trump agenda, whatever it is. But you've got to take it and make it feel local to them that's going to affect their lives, and it's a character test on the candidate. Yeah, Ken flew... Did Ken fly P-3s?

Ken flew very... Spy planes? Very impressive Navy planes. Right, right, okay. I think we know where you're headed at. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The P-3's not even a plane. He was testing you.

Ken flew a very impressive, very specialized mission. Very impressive guy. Spent some time with him a long time ago, well before he was running for Congress when he was running service organizations. Team Rubicon Global. That's right. I think at the presidential level,

it's easier to make a national security argument. I think it's going to be a lot harder at the senator congressional level, except for the fact that two things. One is sort of a judgment question. And I think like sort of having the judgment to make the right decision to do things when they're hard is very important.

And then there's like a character and service question. And that's where I think people like Ken and Seth Moulton and all these veterans that are signing up to run on the Democratic side this time around is really important because I do think it's important that we try to take back patriotism and service and military action for the party.

It's not going to fully inoculate us. It did not inoculate John Kerry for being unfairly attacked for his service, but it is something that I think that we've... You know, saying you won't kneel at a football game is not patriotic. You know, it's guys like Ken who are fighting for a country are patriotic. I would also say that

one thing we saw when Obama was running in 2008 was that voters cared a great deal about America's image in the world. And one of the reasons that Obama won is because he campaigned on promising to restore that image in the world. And you're seeing again in polls now, one of Trump's biggest weaknesses is people are embarrassed about how we look to the rest of the world. So that is an issue that drives. Thank you. Hi, my name is Lydia. I'm from Cincinnati and my friend sent me down here to ask a dumb question, but I think I thought of a better one. Now you have to ask them both. I got to tell you, first of all,

you didn't need us to know that. That was just an unnecessary thing. I know, I was telling them. I was telling them. So one of you mentioned earlier that... Where's your friend? This is the behind the... We're way in the back.

We're way in the back. This is a question behind the music. Exactly. So one of you said earlier that it didn't matter that Bernie Sanders didn't call himself a Democrat. And I'm wondering why you think that. Why should candidates not have to kind of take the battering of coming up through the party, not just at the presidential level, but at all levels, but get to benefit from the institution and the organization once they're a nominee. I think, I understand, I understand why

that bothers some people, but in this case, to me, it's really a distinction without a difference. Bernie Sanders has been either in Congress caucusing with the Democrats and voting with the Democrats, or in the Senate caucusing with the Democrats and voting with the Democrats, or in the Senate, coxing with the Democrats and voting with the Democrats for decades now. And in the years where the Senate's been closed, Bernie Sanders has been the person who put us over the top and gave the gavel to Harry Reid or Tom Daschle, whoever it was. And so it is, I think it's, we have lots of real substantive debates to have between some of the things that Bernie wanted to do, some things Hillary wanted to do, some of the other debates that are emerging in this time, and arguing about whether Bernie Sanders calls himself a Democrat or a Democrat socialist is sort of a waste of our time.

And just, when I say it doesn't matter, I understand the desire to want people that are, you want to support Democrats, you want people to represent the party. I think what bothers me is when the fact that he's not a Democrat is used to impugn his motives and the motives of supporters. I think that's a large, the more important part of what I think what bothers me is when the fact that he's not a Democrat is used to impugn his motives and the motives of his supporters. I think that's the more important part of what I think. Hi, I'm Kelly. I'm from Cleveland. Kelly's got fans. Do you guys know each other? Since 2011, we've seen a record number of anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-abortion, anti-birth control bills introducing the United States.

Many of them turned into legislation more than the previous 30 years combined. So my two-part question is, why now? And second, as four white dudes, what can you commit to, to fighting for us, knowing that laws like this disproportionately affect women of color, immigrant women, trans people, and low-income individuals, and love it, I love you so much. Earlier, you dropped Joe Manchin's name, saying that he had a place in this conversation, when Joe Manchin has repeatedly vote against women. saying that he had a place in this conversation when Joe Manchin has repeatedly vote against women. So I just want to hear more. Here's what I'd say. That's a totally legitimate position. Here's what I'd also say. Joe Manchin helped save the Affordable Care Act, right? So this is a tough

issue. And saving the Affordable Care Act was really important for women's health and people in need across this country. So it's a tough issue. So that's what I'd say to that. It's not a coincidence that we've seen anti-women, anti-choice legislation proposed and passed across the country as Democrats have been decimated at the state and local level along with the national level. The single most important thing we can do to prevent these kinds of bills from passing is focusing on state legislatures and winning elections and putting Democrats in office and women in office who will fight for women's health. That is the most important thing we can do.

Republicans will always be bad on this issue and electing Democrats is the only thing to do. And this goes to a point about state legislatures and governance races because the minority, whether the Democrats had 50 votes or 48 votes votes they were stopping a lot of terrible things the house was passing and so we're republicans have not been able to succeed although they've made some progress some the opposite of progress uh at the federal level they've gone to states and just passed

incredibly horrific and onerous laws and they've done that because we have not done a good enough job of winning those races. And so 2017 in Virginia and New Jersey, 2018 across the country, it's so critical on this issue and every other issue at the state level. And just one of the things, we are four white dudes, but one of the things that we have just launched a contributor network with bringing in a whole bunch of women and people with diverse points of view, diverse experience, and more and more you will see

that this company will not be just represented by the people on the stage. We're going to elevate more and more people and bring more people to the fore. They'll be joining us on tour. Guys, before we go, just want to say, check out the folks from Headcount when you leave.

This is an organization that helps register people to vote, and they can register you to vote tonight, right now. And if you're already registered to vote, the other thing they can do is you can sign up for text alerts that help you know exactly when and where to vote, because one of the biggest problems is when people are registered to vote, they still don't know when and where to do it. So we can solve that problem tonight. Please see Headcount on your way out. And thank you so much. You guys have been wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you.