Pod Save America - “Quid pro penthouse.”

Episode Date: December 3, 2018

George H.W. Bush leaves a complicated legacy, Michael Cohen’s guilty plea pieces together a conspiracy that implicates Trump, and Republicans respond to their midterm defeats with power grabs in Wisconsin and Michigan. Then Congressman Hakeem Jeffries talks to Jon F. about his new position as Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, as well as the party’s message and strategy in 2019.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Later in the pod, our conversation with Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, who was just elected to be the House Democratic caucus chair. We're also going to talk about the legacy of George H.W. Bush, the latest in the Trump investigation, and how Republicans are responding to their midterm losses, especially in states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Before we do that, Lovett, I hear your beloved variety show is returning. Love it or leave it, we'll be back on Thursday.

To those of you complaining to me in my Twitter feed, I'm sorry that we only did 47 in a row. Unbelievable. But we're back. We have some great guests lined up, which you can discover by downloading it. And you won't be disappointed. We're going to do a bunch of shows for the rest of December. Then we'll be back in January. We're also going to have some touring this week.

And we're doing shows all across the United States of America. Amazing. Amazing. Also a reminder, the deadline to purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act is December 15th. Check out plans on healthcare.gov because signups are a little down because Trump has been sabotaging the law for the last couple years

and it's starting to have an effect. And that site works now. It does work. It does work. Get some healthcare. Come to love it or leave it. Don that site works now. It does work. It does work. Get some health care. Come to love it or leave it. Don't worry about falling Klieg lights. There you go. Don't worry about falling Klieg lights. Well, I'm just saying.

It's a danger. It's a real danger. Okay, let's get to the news. George H.W. Bush, the 41st president of the United States, died over the weekend. He was 94 years old. Before he was president, Bush served as vice president, director of the CIA, ambassador to the United Nations, chairman of the Republican National Committee, envoy to China, and a congressman from Texas. He was the last combat veteran to serve in the White House. His body will lie in state in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda this week, and a state funeral is scheduled for Wednesday morning.

Now, just like when John McCain died, there's a bit of a debate about 41's legacy. Most every Republican and Democratic politician, along with older establishment political types, have praised Bush's commitment to service, to decency, to governing in a way that sometimes pissed off his own party. But there are plenty of reporters and folks on the left who've pointed out the darker aspects of his legacy and his failure to stand up to the right-wingers. Guys, where do you come down on this debate? I think he should be beatified and take his rightful place amongst the American greats. That or we should drag his body through the streets of Rome like Mussolini. There is only one option. There are two choices.

There is no complexity in our public debate anymore. You get a thumbs up or you get a thumbs down and you are judged accordingly to which side you are on forever. Yeah, you know, there was a lot of talk about the Bush legacy and I'm sure a lot of people listening have read and seen a lot. To me, what I was thinking about when I saw that he died was that what has always struck me about the way Bush's govern is they can't seem to understand the connection between their brass knuckled, often race baiting, often deceptive campaign style,

and then their failure to be seen as either moderate or convivial once they govern. And that's true of George H.W. Bush, who ran the Willie Horton ad. That's true of his son, who ran one of the most despicable presidential campaigns, including a famous ad with wolves in it about terrorism. And so although I would say that the difference there is, while both of the campaigns were pretty race baiting, George H.W. Bush probably governed more as a moderate than George W. Bush. Well, that's that's the thing. It's like George H.W. Bush kept the right wing at arm's length. Surely it became with each passing election less and less of a game. More and more of what Republican politicians were doing while they were governing was acceding to the base that they were riling up and poking with a cattle prod through each campaign.

Yeah. What do you think, Tommy? There is no right way to feel about this. And we will be attacked by both sides, which will be fun. But I mean, I can't help but be impressed when I look at that record of service you talked about earlier, ambassador to China, CIA director, vice president, member of Congress. I mean, that's a lot of time in your life to give your country. I also think it takes considerable courage to decide at 17 when you hear the news about Pearl Harbor being bombed that you're going to sign up to go to the military service and be one of the youngest pilots ever.

I mean, it's pretty extraordinary. I think on foreign policy, he showed restraint and deftness at some key times. Like he didn't stomp on everyone's grave when the Berlin Wall came down. He didn't take a victory lap because he knew that would make it harder to piece things back together afterwards and manage the aftermath. I think the coalition to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait was put together well. And I think it speaks well of him that he didn't feel the need to go to take out Saddam and march all the way to Baghdad. Those were tough political decisions back home. So, like, it's complicated. But, you know, he criticized the Civil Rights Act when he ran for Congress. He outsourced a lot of his dirty work to creeps like Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater in like this, what Lovett was saying, sort of means justify the ends take on politics that I don't think you get a pass for.

He, like you were talking about his dealing with the far right. I mean, he tried to run as a moderate. And then when Reagan was a force of nature in right-wing politics, he flip-flopped on abortion. And he went from denouncing supply-side economics to embracing it. So, you know, there are a lot of things he didn't do well. He didn't embrace medical solutions to the AIDS crisis early on. And I think a lot of people are justifiably really mad at him about that. He gave people pardons for Iran-Contra, that if Donald Trump did those things today, we would say it was rightly a constitutional crisis and an attempt to

absolve himself from any blame in whitewashed history. So, you know, I think there's a bunch of good profiles, like Adam Nagourney's piece in New York Times is long and thorough and thoughtful. If you want to read a tougher piece, Charlie Pierce wrote a piece for Esquire that took a much harder line at Bush. And then there's Maureen Dowd wrote a piece that's really sort of about Bush being nice to her when she was really mean to his son. And I think that piece actually explains a lot of what you're seeing in the media because he was an unfailingly nice and polite person to those he knew. He wrote thank you notes. He was gracious and kind. And I think that, you know, lets everyone remember a period of time in politics where civility did feel like it existed and everyone sort of pines for that. But civility doesn't mean much to you if you were harmed by his

policy. Yeah, I met, I should say, I met him at the White House. Really? And he was incredibly nice. And Frankel and I, Adam Frankel and I, he was there for, maybe it was the Medal of, I'm not sure why, I can't remember the event, but we went up and introduced ourselves. He was incredibly nice. He wanted to talk. He was just a nice person in person. Look, I think

everyone's life is complicated, and so are presidential legacies. And, like, you know, you listed a lot of the good parts and the bad parts of the Bush legacy, and I very much appreciated the pieces that were tough on him, but sort of laid it out in a real logical, smart way, and the pieces that were more sympathetic. All of those were much better than the inane Twitter conversation, which is mostly garbage.

But look, I think it's important to avoid hagiography, right? It's important to, even when they die, to be able to criticize our leaders, our political figures for their mistakes, their failures, so we can learn from those mistakes. We should not turn people into saints who aren't saints. But I also think that, you know, we're more than the worst

things we've ever done, and when we die, when people in public life die, it's okay to praise their service and their humanity. That is a natural human reaction. I feel like sometimes we've lost that. My thing is, if you want to be tough on George H.W. Bush's legacy, great.

I learned a lot. I learned about some of his position on the war on drugs, which was bad. Terrible. Learned more about that. Learned about the Iran-Contra pardoning. I hadn't even known about the pardons before then, so I learned a lot of things that made me question his legacy, which is great. I'm grateful for that. But the thing that I get annoyed

about is, and there's politicians from Barack Obama, like Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders tweeted something that was very just praising George Bush's service. The bare minimum of Marxism. The bare minimum. And all of these Bernie people are like, why don't do this bad, blah, blah, blah.

And it's like, just let people handle someone dying like they want to. Well, it's another form of like rapid fire Twitter time punditry because it is genuinely important that we not gloss over the flaws and mistakes of people after they die. But in the day after, we're not finalizing the Encyclopedia Britannica entry today. We're not finalizing the chapter in the textbook today. Just one more thing we should also add is that as part of his acceding to the right,

he replaces Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas, right, after having appointed David Souter. So probably the worst substantive legacy that lives on from his presidency. Yes. And, you know, it's hard not to connect to the fact that Clarence Thomas makes it onto the court despite credible allegations of despicable sexual harassment, with the fact that there are multiple allegations against George J.W. Bush for groping, which at the very, very least speaks to a casualness and an objectification of women in how he treated people and perhaps suggests even worse. The other thing is this thing about,

like, the reason people argue about the death of someone like a president is not because of what it meant in the past, but because what it means for us now. And I couldn't help but connect the way George H.W. Bush thought of himself, right, with kindness and a spirit of service, complicated by incredible political calculation that was damning of him, that damages his legacy, that is, you know, probably one of the great threats we face as a country is the way Republicans campaign, right? On the list of things hurting us as a country, that is one of the worst. And he is a practitioner of it. But I was thinking about Paul Ryan, you know, this guy that is also considered to be interpersonally incredibly nice, who is also mild mannered, who's considered thoughtful and sort of has that kind of interpersonal kindness and yet is able to gloss over the ways in which he's capitulated to Trump, the damage of his own policies. And to me, it's like, how do we... I do think most Republicans, at least the ones who are still sane, would speak more

highly of George H.W. Bush's character outside of policy than they would of Paul Ryan. But of course, of course. I know what your larger point is. Like, we're going to gloss over this now. We're going to, we don't want to be glossing over Paul Ryan's deeds in 20 years from now. Exactly. But to me, this is one of the key challenges, right? Because the polite, serious Republicans have been playing this game for a very long time.

And the only difference between the way Donald Trump governs and speaks and the way Paul Ryan governs and speaks is Donald Trump doesn't care how it looks to the Brahmin, waspy,y, kind, country club Republicans that they hang out with on the weekends. Yeah. Even politically, I'm more thankful that there are Paul Reins around because they continue to propose things that are horribly unpopular. Sure. Like supply side tax cuts and the like. So they are easier to defeat, as we saw with Mitt Romney, too. All right. It's good to debate it. It's good. All right. It's good to debate it.

It's good to debate it. It's good to debate it, just, you know. As individuals, we don't have to put out public statements about the death of us, of major former presidents. You know, it's like, you don't have to be a dick. That's another thing, too, to everyone on Twitter. That's exactly right. You're welcome to. You are welcome to, and people will continue to be. All right, let's turn to our current president,

who's been implicated as an unindicted co-conspirator in multiple felonies, is under investigation for obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations, and potentially conspiring with a hostile foreign power to undermine our elections with the purpose of helping him win the presidency. The person who has already implicated Trump in some of these crimes is his former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, who last week pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about how Trump's organization was pursuing a business deal

in Russia with Russian government officials while Trump was running for president in summer of 2016 with Trump's knowledge. A few days ago, BuzzFeed published a piece reporting that Trump's company at one point discussed giving Russian President Vladimir Putin a $50 million penthouse in the new Trump Tower Moscow as they negotiated a deal during the 2016 campaign. I want to know the price per square foot. President Vladimir Putin, a $50 million penthouse in the new Trump Tower, Moscow, as they negotiated a deal during the 2016 campaign. I want to know the price per square foot. Which ultimately fell through.

What are we looking at here? It's not West Hollywood, so you don't know. How much does this matter, guys? How much does this, these revelations? Well, let's start with the BuzzFeed piece about the $50 million condo that never was. It's potentially a very big deal. I mean, you can't say to a foreign official who has power over greenlighting a project that you'll throw in a $50 million cherry on top if you'll okay everything I'm doing. I mean, there's a lot of people discussing whether this would trigger the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

and make this action actually illegal. Now, clearly it didn't happen because the tower doesn't exist, but it's a big deal. I mean, I think stepping back, I think the simplest explanation for a lot of this stuff makes the most sense, which is that Trump ran for president to get attention and to get PR and to market himself. He never thought he was going to win, nor did the people around him. So they figured, let's milk this for everything we've got. This is like the Rod Blagojevich theory of politics. Like, I got something valuable here. What can we do with it? Access to Russian banks, visits to these properties. So they pursued this Russia project, which we know from Trump's books.

He wrote about it in The Art of the Deal. He's been trying to get into Russia for literally decades. So of course, Bozo Michael Cohen pursued it. Yeah. And so like, of course, Michael Cohen pursued this of course he briefed trump all the time about it it was like the most important thing to him and as we know donald trump doesn't have a lot to do he watches a lot of tv and he tweets a lot so of course he's getting updated his kids were a big part of it so michael cohen has just exposed donald trump and donald trump jr and to a whole bunch of people in organization to a whole bunch of crimes starting with perjury and we don't know what else.

Yeah. I mean, for the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it seems as if, like, you know, one of their defenses is, well, the project never happened and they never really took it. Well, the project doesn't have to happen for it to be a crime if you offered it. The question is... Yeah, it's still a crime to rob a bank, even if it turns out the vault was empty. Right. The question is, did, um, did Trump know specifically about the $50 million penthouse that we, that we don't know? No doubt in my mind. I mean, Rudy Giuliani is trying to say his quote was, this is Cohen's deal. Trump didn't talk to directly about the Russians, about the project. Bullshit. Bullshit. Michael Cohen was talking to Dmitry Peskov, who is a top, top aide to Putin. He's described as a press secretary.

I don't know what that means in the Russian context. Like, you run the state news outlets or something? I have a lot of briefings. Yeah, it's actually pretty easy to be the press secretary to Russia because, oh, you want to ask me a tough question? Yeah, right. Think about that. Think about that again. But, so, I mean, if Cohen is getting connected with people at at the very top of course he's briefing trump about this of course yeah sorry just but also it's i think that's like

we're all still living in part in the kind of morass of trump's dumb fake brand like the trump organization is not some giant company it's fake it's fake right there is times when he's employing many people to build something but in terms of what the company is it is a, very small family operation run out of his own building. There is just zero chance he wouldn't know about this. And we should also just say, we should also just say what the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is, which is a law that says the United States, that if you are an American, you cannot go abroad and bribe people and commit crimes in a foreign country to try to get good business opportunities. The reason I'm saying that is because Donald Trump has often said that he thinks that goes too far because he wants the ability to bribe people in foreign countries to

get business because he's trying to do things in developing countries and in Asia where he says you need to grease the wheels. He used to say that now that he's president, it's a lot easier. A year or two ago, it leaked out that he had pitched his staff on getting rid of the fcpa he wanted to do away with it we've just been reported wow um so penthouse aside uh legality aside how big of a deal is that the trump was pursuing a real estate deal that involved direct interaction with putin's office while he was wrapping up the republican nomination i think it's a big deal that he lied about it yeah uh I think it's a big deal that he lied about it. Yeah. You know, it's a big deal that in the context of that negotiation, they were talking

about getting rid of sanctions, which would have allowed the deal to be financed by a sanctioned bank. It's a big deal that Michael Flynn and KT McFarland later went on to lie about their conversations about sanctions with the Russian ambassador. Rachel Maddow on Friday did a really great A-block where she tied together a whole bunch of this that I highly recommend people check out because we don't have time to do it all here. But, I mean, I think the conspiracy is starting to come together, the quid, the pro, the quo, of the major real estate deal, the sanctions relief, and then the support in the election to damage Hillary. Yeah, I mean, let's go back to Mike Flynn. Mike Flynn was ultimately

fired uh and the reason that sally yates said he should be fired is she knew he was lying and she knew that the russians knew he was lying and therefore the russians had leverage over our national security advisor because they knew he wasn't telling the truth right and now we know that for the last couple years the russians and the Russian government has known that Donald Trump and Michael Cohen have been lying about this real estate deal. So they have had leverage over our president for the last couple of years. Like, we know that now. So let's just – it's so – it really is a Russian nesting doll. a nesting doll. So even if Donald Trump had not won, right, the fact that this ongoing negotiation over a tower was taking place while Donald Trump was becoming the Republican nominee. And by the

way, one thing that's very strange, if you listen to all the different reporters talking about this, is between the lines, you see that there's more to come and they can't say what it is, but there's more information about how that relationship continued to develop. This if if what we're seeing is all true and we have no reason to believe it's not. The fact that Donald Trump was having this sort of negotiation while he's becoming the Republican nomination and get Republic while he was seeking the Republican nomination. He he moved the Republican Party on the issue of Russia, even if he had lost. The fact that we have a Republican Party that is now so much softer on Russia,

that was so much softer on Russia at the convention, it is a huge, huge victory. It is an incredibly successful bribe. Yeah, and also, you know, the context of the Trump Tower meeting, I remember Marcy talked about this with you, Dan, on Thursday, was this email that talked about the broader set of Russian support for President Trump's campaign. We know that Donald

Trump Jr. knew about this project because Michael Cohen just said he briefed him on it, which makes that meeting in Trump Tower much, much more interesting. Well, and the people who wrote the BuzzFeed story, the reporters who wrote it, Anthony Cormier and Jason Leopold, you talked about reading between the lines. There's this line in the story about the penthouse. Two FBI agents with direct knowledge of the Trump Tower Moscow negotiations told BuzzFeed News earlier this year that Cohen was in frequent contact with foreign individuals about the real estate venture and that some of these individuals had knowledge of or played a role

in 2016 election meddling. So the big question, we talked to Marcy a little bit about this on Thursday, is how does the whole hacking, election interference, conspiracy sort of meet up with the business negotiation, Russia, you know, Cohen stuff, conspiracy. And this is the potential link that the real estate deal, that the people involved in the real estate deal in the Russian government were some of the same people who interfered in the election. Yeah. The other really interesting thing that, and Matt pointed this out on Friday, is that Felix Sater and Michael Cohen, at some point, very early administration, went and they took a secret Ukrainian peace deal plan and dropped it off in Michael Flynn's office.

Now, what are those bozos doing cooking up a secret Ukrainian peace deal, which by the way, the peace deal was like, you keep Crimea, we get rid of sanctions we're good right like wash your hands of it right so there's a there's a whole bunch of weird shit going on it feels like way too big of a coincidence got michael cohen playing henry kissinger over here well that's yes yeah yeah henry kissinger with a head injury the uh the um uh episode title the uh but um there was a, I think it was Ben Wittes who noted this, that there is this pathetic quality to what we're seeing, which is

at one point, Michael Cohen is emailing just publicly available email addresses to try to get a hold of someone. Press at Russia.com. It's a little bit like, you know, all of a sudden, you know, these guys, it's a little bit like you know all of a sudden you know these guys it's like the trump administration was like playing uh you know playing coffee shops and uh you know

playing little venues doing open mics and then all of a sudden they found themselves in an arena you know these guys were so outgunned so unprepared for the level of scrutiny they were about to get he was just trying to get a you know a, a hotel deal, a building deal done. And all of a sudden, all this power and attention and possibility accrues to Trump because he joined the campaign to goose the apprentice rating and ended up being the fucking nominee. You don't do this if you think you're going to win and you're suddenly going to have to release financial records and, you know, be subject to the kinds of transparency rules that he's supposed to be. Right. So to John's point, it's to the kinds of transparency rules that he's

supposed to be. Right. So to John's point, it's like there's these three things that intersect. One, there is the damage of actually doing this quid pro quo during the campaign, which is we'll be favorable to you now and let you hurt our democracy if we get to build this hotel. The second is the lying and the obstruction. And if you give us help to win.

And give us help to win, which is right. And the second would, yes, interfering in the obstruction. And if you give us help to win. And give us help to win, right. And the second, yes, interfering in the campaign. And the second is lying and obstructing justice and trying to intimidate witnesses, which continues literally to this morning with Donald Trump's tweets. And then the third piece of it is, I think, the part that John's talking about. You know, we joked about the P-tape for a year and a half.

The P-tape may just be the friends you make along the way. The P-tape may just be the fact that Vladimir Putin knows that the president is a criminal. And those three things seem to be all coming to a head right now. Yeah. So coming attractions. I mean, over the weekend, Michael Cohen's lawyers submitted a sentencing memo to the judge that asked for leniency. The memo states that Cohen told Trump about his contacts with the Russian government, that he consulted Trump's team on his false testimony to Congress, that he's been cooperating with New York State on the lawsuit against the Trump Organization. CNN also reported that Cohen was originally assured by people close to Trump that he'd get a pardon

if he refused to cooperate with Mueller. So now the Trump defense of all this, through super lawyer Rudy Giuliani, is Cohen's a liar, he's always been a liar. But we should say this, Mueller knows that Michael Cohen is not the most trustworthy human being. He just admitted to it.

He just admitted to it. Bob Mueller is not, you know, basing any conclusions or making any indictments just based on Michael Cohen's word alone. There are documents. There are emails. There are phone records. Like, Mueller is smart. He has the goods here. It's not just like Michael Cohen's word against Donald Trump's word.

We wouldn't have a case otherwise. We have no idea what General Flynn has been saying for months and months and months. And we'll find out this week, I think. Oh yeah, so I was going to say, so coming attractions, Mueller owes the court a brief on December 7th, that is this week, on his contention that Manafort lied and committed additional crimes.

We're hoping that tells a good story. And then Cohen is sentenced on the 12th, so we might know some more about the Cohen stuff on the 12th. And then Michael Flynn, as you just mentioned, is sentenced on the 18th. And he's been cooperating, too, to say the least. So my question is, like, you know, there's a lot of people that say, like, would Trump have won if voters knew he was paying off women to conceal affairs and pursuing a real estate deal with Putin while running for president? We will never know this. But the question now is, are we in impeachment territory already?

You know, like a lot of you ask a Democrat, should we impeach Donald Trump who's elected? And they're going to say, oh, I got to wait for the Mueller report to be over, you know, because they don't they want to get too far ahead of things. And I understand that position. report to be over, you know, because they don't they want to get too far ahead of things. And I understand that position. But Mueller is basically writing this report in real time through each of these sentencing submissions and these indictments. Like, aren't we at a point right now where Democrats, whether it's politically popular or not, has some sort of an obligation, even if it stopped right now, if there was nothing

else, isn't there enough to say that he has severely abused the powers of his office? Probably. Probably. Yeah. nothing else isn't there enough to say that he has severely abused the powers of his office probably probably yeah the dangling the pardons the obstruction the witness tampering yeah no look like yes i mean donald like donald trump has done witness tampering and obstruction of justice on twitter tuesday and it's not even that big of a deal because he does it all the time done it all the time yeah so you know there's been this question like will democrats overreach and it's not even that big of a deal because he's done it all the time. So, you know, there's been this question like, will Democrats overreach? And it's like, well, how about we do one investigation? How will we have one hearing where we're in charge where people start worrying about overreach? I think there's two things that are very clear. One, it is obvious that Donald Trump has committed impeachable offenses.

I think that is like trivial. If you're denying that, you're full of shit. I think that is like trivial. If you're denying that, you're full of shit. I think the second is, have Democrats done the job of setting the stage for impeachment? I think the answer to that question is it going to, what does the world look like when we're one month away from Democrats passing an impeachment resolution through the Judiciary Committee? What does the world look like? You know, when we first started seeing, I think the Flynn indictment was, I think, one of the big hinges in the past two years. And I remember we were talking about this at the time because there was all this drip, drip, this drip, drip, drip of information. It never felt like enough. And we said, well, it's going to feel different.

When the thing that comes that tells us something has shifted, it's going to feel different. And when Flynn pled guilty, that felt different. I think we're now at the place where we need another one of those feelings. It's not right. It's not fair. But it's the kind of the world we live in that we need something to shift. And I don't think this time it's going to take new information.

I think it's going to take a new kind of attention and strategy from Democrats once they take Congress to say, here is the process by which we are going to see if what Robert Mueller has produced and what Chairman Schiff and that committee has produced has given us enough information to declare that Donald Trump should be impeached. On June 6th, Donald Trump Jr., after the Trump Tower meeting, took a call from a blocked number for three or four minutes. I would bet almost anything I own that that call was from his father, Donald Trump. What about Luca? No, I would never bet her. Which I think upends the whole story, the whole cover story that he didn't know about this meeting. So there's little pieces of information that I think we'll soon be able to get our hands on that will fundamentally change we view this discussion. I also think, though, if Michael Cohen is cooperating on this stuff, he is probably talking a whole lot about the Trump organization's business dealings, generally speaking. And I think if you read the Washington Post during the 2016 campaign,

there was some pretty good evidence of widespread fraud, misuse of the charitable organization, all kinds of things that I think are going to create real legal jeopardy for him and fundamentally change the way people view him. I still think that the path to Donald Trump leaving the White House is through his electoral defeat in 2020. That's right. I still think no matter what kind of information comes out, it's going to be a very uphill climb in the Senate. But the Democrats have the House now. And I think that even if they're worried it may not be the most popular thing to do, we all know. I mean, we're saying like, obviously, you said, obviously, he's committed impeachable offenses. That's true. But it's actually, it's not trivial. It's a big deal.

And I think that there may be sort of a constitutional obligation on behalf of the Democrats to sort of go through this and go through these hearings, even if they are worried about how it looks. Because I do not think we can set the precedent that we can have a president of the United States who obstructs justice freely, who engages in these kind of business deals, who has who a foreign power has leverage over. Like we just we can't have that. We have to say that that's wrong. Yeah. So I think that's I think that's right. But, yeah, and obviously, you know, Congress has a constitutional obligation if the president is criminal to investigate it. He's committed high crimes and misdemeanors. And when I say it's trivial, I don't mean that the crimes are trivial. I mean it's obvious that he's done it.

It's less obvious how you make a demonstration to the public, especially a public that's getting their news in such a fucking fucked up way now, to figure out how to make that case. public that's getting their news in such a fucking fucked up way now to figure out how to make that case i mean i guess i think the question for us like just like i would wonder what you guys think how do we go from where we're at now to kind of shaking people from this kind of torpor around uh all this stuff that where there is this insane connection between surprise and seriousness like how do we like we have no we know enough we know a lot we're going to know more more. But it's always going to be incremental now because Mueller has been slowly revealing this information, not through one big report, but through sentencing documents. Part of it is just repeating and reminding everyone of how we've gotten to this point and what's happened so far. You know, when Democrats are on teams, you talk about this, like, how many people forgot until Michael Cohen came back into the picture that he, a couple months ago, implicated the president in multiple felonies as an unindicted co-conspirator? Like, people just need to bring this up. You need to sort of lay the groundwork, remind people, as we're talking about this, of the actual abuses that have been committed.

You know, like, you don't have to start guessing about what Mueller might do or might not do. Just talk about what's already happened, you know? I mean, we're going to know a lot more than we do today before Democrats take power in the House. That's right. And I also think we are seeing an increasingly desperate, flailing, tweeting president who knows that his son is in real legal jeopardy.

Yeah. And that could lead to pardons, or at least a very public discussion of pardons. And I think that kind of news might change people's opinions if you're letting your kid get off of something like this. So look, I don't know the answer to your question. I want to make the best political case. I'm less interested in like the moral

or constitutional obligations. And that's hackish of me, but it's just where I am. Well, I also think that, by the way, you can, both can coincide together, right? They could. Especially because I think we've talked about this before. A very effective message against Donald Trump in 2020 is going to be how he is a corrupt, rich buffoon who only cares about himself and no one else. And just about everything we've seen about the Russia investigation plays right into that caricature of Donald Trump.

He cares more about himself, his own bottom line than he does about the American people and the United States of America. That is how he's acted in domestic affairs and foreign affairs. And that is how he acted in all of the things that are coming out in this investigation. Let's talk about how the Republican Party is reacting to their midterm defeat. Very well. The answer is not well. Do not go quietly into that good night. In Wisconsin, where Democrats won every statewide office last month, the Republican-held legislature will consider a bill today, Monday, that would strip power from the incoming Democratic Attorney General Josh Call and the new Democratic Governor Tony Evers.

In Michigan, the Republican legislature is trying to gut ballot measures on minimum wage and paid sick leave. Republicans have tried things like this recently in North Carolina, where they tried to take out Roy Cooper's legs from underneath him before he even became governor in 2017. Tommy, what exactly are the Wisconsin Republicans up to here? And why is it so bad? So a couple things they're going to specifically do. They want to make it hard for the incoming governor

and the incoming attorney general to withdraw from the Republican lawsuit challenging Obamacare. They want to move the state's 2020 presidential primary from April to March, which will cost the state like seven or eight million dollars more. But it could reduce turnout for a state Supreme Court contest that's set for April. So that's a pretty diabolical way. And why do they want to reduce turnout? To win an election. Yeah, exactly. They want to change early voting rules to make it hard for early voting to occur. So they're basically trying to take their ball and go home and set up a bunch

of ways where they can suppress the vote for the next election. And, you know, there is clearly like a Mercer, Koch brothers, like big industry playbook that they're handing legislatures because this happened in North Carolina. Very similar things are happening in Michigan and now Wisconsin. A lot of it has to do with like the state board of elections and redistricting. Like it is devious, diabolical shit. And I think Ben Wickler, who works at moveon.org is a friend of the pod and a bad-ass activist has been like sounding the alarm about this for a couple of days but he's right that like there's not a page one new york times story about what's happening in wisconsin even though it's like literally subverting democracy i mean when the stuff went down in north carolina international organizations were like i don't know that the

state is a democracy anymore in fact it probably isn't it's just it's overturning the will of the voters playing for sure people people rendered a verdict on scott walker and the republican administration in wisconsin they did it in michigan they did it in north carolina and republicans who do not have mature majoritarian support and didn't in the election are now saying fuck it we're going to do what we want in michigan they're they're just the state voted to raise the minimum wage and the the republicans in the government are just like no yeah no paid, no. And paid sickly. And to cap tipped worker pay at $4 per hour. That's not like inside baseball nonsense that happens in a state capitol.

That is harming real people. Yeah, what happened is there was a ballot measure to raise the minimum wage to $12. It passed. Now the Republicans are saying the $12 doesn't go into effect until 2030. 2030. And for tipped workers, they don't ever get the $12. It's at $4. It's $4.

And they also passed a ballot initiative on paid sick leave. And it was so that employers could give you nine days off. And now Republicans are saying, nope, you only get four. This is how specific and hurtful they're being. It's very specific. And also the tip wage thing, that is a huge fight. And there's a ton of lobbying money, a ton of corporate interest in keeping that tip wage low because that is a boon to the restaurant chains and the restaurant industry. And you're seeing that fight play out.

By the way, D.C. refused to go along with raising a tip minimum wage. So, like, you see this fight playing out across the country. This is pinpoint acute lobbying money coming in to undo the will of the people. And it's despicable. In Michigan, one other thing. They're shifting campaign finance oversight from the Secretary of State's office to some new commission they will create. So, again, they're going to make it harder in the future to police money in politics. They're setting themselves up to use the Koch brothers' cash to win back the election.

Two other quick things in Wisconsin. They're trying to strip power from Evers himself. They want to prevent him from changing Wisconsin's voter ID law. It's very harsh. And they want to force him to implement the Medicaid work requirements, the onerous Medicaid work requirements that have already in Arkansas led to 12,000 people losing their Medicaid that Scott Walker had put in. It's disgraceful. One more, right? There's been their Medicaid that Scott Walker had put in. Well, it's graceful.

One more, right? You know, there's been this battle over this lawsuit about Obamacare, right? Something that was politically toxic for a lot of Republicans probably helped us win across the country. They're trying to make it so that a so that the Republicans in the legislature can hire a lawyer, their own lawyers, their own lawyers to privately to make sure that the state doesn't withdraw from this lawsuit or from any basically it's the idea is they are taking the power away from the attorney general to choose to defend or not to defend any suit that comes by the state purely purely to just take the basic the basic powers of the attorney general and just uh uh devolve them to the legislature because they just don't like it and the same move in michigan so this is definitely

a play that they're doing across the country, the Republicans for democratic attorney generals. They're saying you don't have the right to decide which cases that you want to defend or not. And we're going to have the legislature be able to hire their own, our own lawyers. So what can people do about it? If you're in Wisconsin,

you can go to a rally on the state street steps at 5 30 PM central time this evening, Monday evening, or if it's past that, you can call your legislators at 608-266-9960. One more thing that's up. Speaking of North Carolina, this story has been percolating here. Nuts. Last week, the North Carolina State Board of Elections refused to certify a congressional election marred by very serious and sketchy allegations of fraud.

The Republican candidate in the state's ninth congressional race, Mark Harris, appeared to win that election by, it's like about around 900 votes right now. But there were significant ballot irregularities, and the State Board of Elections is looking into sworn statements that a person was basically going around the district, tricking voters into handing over absentee ballots, some of which were even incomplete.

Of course the Republicans are the only ones committing voter fraud. It's so crazy. Of course they are. Of course they are. It only ones committing voter fraud. It's so crazy! Of course they are. Of course they are. It is so this is so brazen. These people should go to jail for a very long time for manipulating old people in African American communities

and literally stealing their ballots. Stealing them from them. Here, I'm here to collect your absentee ballot. I'm a nice poll worker here. Okay, I'm just going to throw it away. Unbelievable. The number, also just like, man, just leaving quite a trail. Okay, I'm just going to throw it away. The number, also just like, man, just leaving quite a trail. You know, you need two witnesses for your ballots, and there are

these people just going around just approving ballot after ballot after ballot after ballot. One little thing I just want to say about North Carolina. Democrats should look to the example set by Reverend Barber, who was leading the Moral Mondays campaign for four years and organizing and organizing.

Like, because of that work, they were able to fight a lot of this stuff. But it was because he was working on grassroots organizing for four years in advance of this power grab that we were able to fight back. And it's that's so important because movements like that, that's what you need in Wisconsin and Michigan. Like, as everyone sort of turns their attention and we're talking about the media hasn't done a great job their attention, and we were talking about the media hasn't done a great job covering this, or at least some of the media hasn't done a great job covering this. People turn their attention to Congress.

They turn their attention to the presidential race and stuff like that. This shit goes on in states, and it's incredibly important for grassroots activists to be there on the ground and stop this from happening. One other thing, too, is that you see this critique from conservatives, which is maybe if the federal government weren't so large, the stakes in these elections wouldn't feel so high. Then why the fuck are they playing the exact same game at the state level? One of the most important things in our democracy is that when you lose, it's okay. It's okay. You just leave. You just say we lost and we'll fight another day.

But the not accepting democracy, not accepting democratic results, rejecting votes, refusing to try to let people vote, believing fundamentally that the deck is so tilted against you by the media, by whatever forces in the culture that you don't need to respect the will of the voters

is a toxic idea and it simply doesn't have the same purchase in democratic politics as it has in republican politics and it's a huge fucking problem. This goes back to why there's a lot of fondness for George H.W. Bush, because he classily transitioned the office to Bill Clinton. He wrote a letter that's been all over the news that people should check out that's gracious. But, I mean, it goes back to the tradition, step by Washington, who stepped, who walked away.

And that peaceful transition of power is what separates a democracy from not. Well, I was thinking about Michigan and Wisconsin and North Carolina when I read Jonathan Martin's New York Times piece over the weekend where he talks about how there are no signs that Republicans are doing any kind of soul-searching or planning

any kind of course correction after their midterm defeat. It's full steam ahead, John. Gotta have a soul. And a Democratic attorney who was the lead attorney in the Florida recount, Mark Elias, he sort of tweeted this story out and wrote, instead of changing courses, the GOP is doubling down

on voter suppression and limiting voter rights. Their only electoral strategy at this point is to prevent people from voting. It does seem like the answer to the question, why aren't they soul-searching? Why aren't they course-correcting? Is because they don't want to because they can't because they know their agenda isn't that popular in the country. And so their only hope right now is to just try to do all these anti-democratic things to just cling to power. Yeah.

I also think that Donald Trump is still president and they're all still worried about the dynamic where they are far more concerned about a primary opponent than a general election loss because they know that if you're Mark Sanford, who's a member of Congress in South Carolina, who famously went for a weird hike, Google it, and you speak out against Donald Trump, he can come whoop your ass in a primary. So the energy in their base is on the far right. I would also say, though, that this is another area where like massive money, AstroTurf from huge special interests, the Koch brothers and all these organizations are all geared towards pushing the party to the right and hardening and fully implementing these voter suppression tactics. We should not look past how dangerous and disgusting those groups are.

Paul Ryan gave this interview. It's interesting. You see this sort of trend line. Paul Ryan gives an interview. He says he laments what's happened to our politics. And he wants to know why an inspirational kind of Republican politics can't take hold. Then his super PAC runs some of the most racist ads in the country. And as he's leaving, he decries the national debt, even though he's the one who ballooned the deficit. And he says, oh, by the way, these California election results, I don't buy them. Something's fucked up. And you see this problem that Republicans don't know how to answer honestly, which is they built a coalition that requires racial animus, deception, and voter suppression in order to

successfully implement a right-wing agenda. They're not George H.W. Bush anymore. They're no longer just holding their nose and saying they're for supply-side economics. They're no longer holding their nose and saying they don't believe in the right to choose. They are now the party that has been grown up in the 30 years since who now believe those things. They are supply-siders. They are these ideologues. George H.W. Bush was appealing to an electorate that was 85% white, and the country has drastically changed,

and they are trying to lock people out of voting to keep up with that change. Well, that is the heart of it, right? The Republican Party does not represent a majority of voters in this country anymore, and they haven't for some time. Donald Trump lost the popular vote. Barack Obama won it twice, right? George Bush, well, George W. Bush in his first election was a popular vote loser, right? And we've seen when Democrats have done poorly in the midterms in 2010 and 2014. It's when turnout was very low. And so there's two ways you can go when you don't command majority support in the country as a party. You can choose to change your party's position, change course, reform some of your policy stances, or you can try to cling to power through voter suppression, voter ID, some of these power grabs that we're seeing in Wisconsin and Michigan, right? And that's what they're choosing.

Putting nitro in the tank to get the last bits of whiteness to come to the polls for them. And look, it could work. I mean, we've seen it worked in 2016 clearly. That's why Donald Trump is president. But it's not a great long-term strategy. Yeah, I mean, Paul Ryan is on this little legacy tour, and the guy lives on a different planet, and it is truly pathetic to watch. There is some pushback happening on Trump in the Senate side. Jeff Flake is blocking judicial nominees in an effort to force a vote to protect Mueller.

Okay, glad he's doing it. Wish he'd done it sooner. The vote to cut off arms sales to Saudi Arabia is a major rebuke to Trump. It's the right thing to do, but it's also a major rebuke to Trump. It's the right thing to do, but it's also a major rebuke. So that's a good thing. But he right now is still trying to jam through $5 billion for the wall, a position that 60% of the country thinks is stupid and doesn't want. And yet there's no calls on him from the media to moderate because of the election results. But that always, always, always happens to Democrats. And I think that's some of the frustration here. Well, and that's why Democrats should just stand strong. We have

the popular support. We have the leverage here. No, you don't get your fucking wall. You don't get a penny. You're done. It's interesting. You know, before Donald Trump came along, there was the beginning of a little bit of recognition that there was this reimagining of republicanism that was needed. You have Reince Priebus doing that autopsy that said they needed to moderate an immigration to appeal to a cosmopolitan and multicultural America. You had Marco Rubio with his finger in the wind realizing that immigration was a way for him to move forward. And Donald Trump coming along and showing that there was still this path left within the Republican Party for this racially aggrieved, economically aggrieved populism really shut the door on a lot of that.

And we're just seeing right now this sort of Republican Party in limbo. You had this alternative vision of what Republican politics could be, but there was no one with the political courage and the political skill to demonstrate it successfully. And so all of these guys from Rubio all the way down just capitulated 100%. They lost the primary. That was their chance. Yeah. Okay. After this, we're going to talk to – we're going to see what the Democratic strategy is

and talk to Democratic congressman and new chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Hakeem Jeffries. Hakeem Jeffries. On the pod today, the incoming chair of the House Democratic Caucus, New York Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. Congressman Jeffries, how are you? Good, good. Thanks for having me on. Absolutely. So you've just been elected chair of the Democratic Caucus. Congratulations. For those who don't know much about how the House works, what does the House Democratic Caucus chair do, and what do you hope to do in this position? Well, the chair of the House Democratic Caucus is the fifth highest ranking Democrat in the Congress. Operationally, what that means is the chair presides over the weekly caucus meetings that take place usually on the Monday after the evening of first votes. It's the largest gathering of House Democrats during the

week in the United States Congress at that meeting. It usually takes place for an hour. We discuss the issues of relevance that we will be tackling either on the floor or before committees, as well as devise strategically how we're going to approach the challenges that we hope to confront on behalf of the American people. Those meetings have also been used over the course of the last two years to devise the overall strategy as it relates to how we were going to approach governing in the era of Donald Trump, provide the forum for people from the outside to come in and make presentations, as well as for internal deliberations.

I describe the caucus meeting sort of as a huddle where all Democrats, progressives, new Dems, blue dogs can come together as a team, figure out what plays we're going to execute on behalf of the American people. We didn't go out on the field that week to try to get things done. So you were talking about strategy. You recently said that message discipline will be necessary for Democrats to keep the majority, and that the last time Democrats were in complete control of government, we failed to adequately communicate what we were doing and why. How do you change that this time around? And what is the message about what Democrats in the House are hoping to achieve over the next two years? Well, nothing breeds success like success. And when we came back to Washington in November of 2016,

we understood at that point that the only vehicle that we had to help shape what was going to take place governmentally, as well as to impact the views that the American people have as it relates to what House Democrats stood for, was to shape public sentiment by changing the way that we communicated. And traditionally, as you and others have correctly pointed out, Republicans talk in headlines, Democrats talk in fine print. And the problem with that is that you need to master fine print in order to govern. And Democrats master the governing process. We're the party that has delivered to this nation Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, to this nation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act,

Fair Housing Act, Affordable Care Act, so on and so forth. You need the master fine print to govern, but in order to communicate and persuade, you have to speak in headlines. And one of the things that we effectively did over the last two years as it relates to shaping the playing field around health care, pre-existing conditions, and the Affordable Care Act, was to communicate what the stakes are in ways that were clear, concise, and compelling. We did the same thing as it relates to what we labeled as the GOP tax scam, making clear that this was an unacceptable piece of legislation that they jammed down the throats of the American people, where 83% of the benefits went to the wealthiest 1%. And then we closed with our For the People agenda, focusing on just three things, lowering health care costs, increasing pay for everyday Americans, and cleaning up corruption.

We now have the opportunity to build upon that level of message discipline, combine it with operational unity around the legislative process so we can both get things done and talk to the american people about why we're doing the things that we're doing and why uh... would not get cooperation perhaps from republicans in the senate or from sixteen hundred pennsylvania avenue

so in uh... in your race for caucus chair you narrowly beat out barbara lee uh... a lot of coverage is characterized the race as a person with ties to party leadership. That's you against a person with closer relationships to the progressive wing of the party. What does being a progressive mean to you? It's a great question because last time I checked, based on voting record, I was one of the 25 most progressive members of the United States House of Representatives based on objective standards. Certainly, I've got nothing but the highest degree of respect for Barbara Lee.

She has been a phenomenal representative for the people in Oakland and the East Bay communities that she represents. And will go down in history as one of the most important legislative voices of the 21st century. My view has been that for us to get things done on behalf of the people I serve in the 8th Congressional District in Brooklyn and a little bit of Queens, that we have to fight the administration when we must, but try to work with them when we can. For instance, around criminal justice reform and the effort that I've been involved in to get the First Step Act passed, which will help currently incarcerated individuals successfully reenter society, save taxpayer dollars, and also ensure that we dramatically reduce recidivism.

And so, in my view, we have to resist the administration, anchor it in principle, whenever and wherever they engage in overreach and attack our values, but also in a divided government context that we'll be in next year, try to work together to get things done on behalf of the American people. So one power the new house has is uh... investigations you guys can out subpoena have subpoena power now uh... there's been a lot more news about the mall investigation over the last week

we got the president implicated as an unindicted co-conspirator we know he lied about pursuing a real estate deal directly with the russian government during the campaign he's dangling pardons is tampering with witnesses on twitter uh... what is the threshold that this president would have to cross for you to consider impeachment? Well, I think we have to take things in stages. And certainly Donald Trump is totally out of control. And my colleagues in the House on the Republican side of the aisle have abdicated their constitutional responsibility

to be a check and balance on an out-of-control executive. Essentially, they've functioned as the cover-up caucus for Donald Trump over the last two years. As of January 3rd, those days will end, and we will no longer have a situation where we cede our authority as a separate and co-equal branch of government, but we have to proceed responsibly. And in my view, Democrats and progressives and folks from across the nation fought hard to force Jeff Sessions initially to recuse himself. We won. He recused himself. We then fought hard for the Department of Justice to be compelled to appoint a special counsel. We won. Rod Rosenstein backed up despite his initial reluctance and appointed a great American, Bob Mueller, as special counsel. In my view, we have to now let Bob Mueller be Bob Mueller, make sure that the

investigation can proceed in a full, fair, and comprehensive fashion, and allow him to report to the American people, report to the Department of Justice, report to Congress what his findings are, and then we can proceed from there. Do you see any evidence so far just based on, because one thing that Mueller's doing is, you know, there may be a report to Congress, but clearly he's writing a lot of this report within the various indictments and sentencing submissions and all the rest that he's making public right now. Do you see evidence in these reports that have already been made public and these indictments that trouble you enough to think about, oh, we may have to consider impeachment proceedings down the road? Well, I think it wouldn't be responsible for us as House Democrats,

having just been given the mandate of heading into the majority to put the cart before the horse, as a judge that I used to clerk for would say, and just allow the facts to continue to be uncovered for us to analyze those facts and to make a decision. What is clear to me, though, John, is that the Trump administration and Donald Trump himself are playing checkers, and Bob Mueller is playing three-dimensional chess. That is true. He is systematically laying out a case, and because of the thoroughness of how he has proceeded so far, I don't think we need to undermine the dynamics of what he has done

by jumping out and drawing conclusions until he has presented everything to us. Congressman, what's the House Democratic position on border security funding and the government shutdown negotiations? Over in the Senate, Chuck Schumer seems to be willing to offer either a clean continuing resolution for a couple months or, you know, he's pointed to an older bipartisan deal on $1.6 billion in fencing that he would support. What's the House Democrat position? I think the majority of House Democrats are taking the position that, to the extent there are any additional resources that we even consider putting on the table, that it cannot be for a border wall. It should be for fencing, perhaps for some technology enhancement, perhaps for some reasonable addition to the personnel on the border, not for interior enforcement. The one thing that should be clear to everybody is that Donald Trump made a promise to the

American people. He said, we're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. So my view is that Donald Trump should go talk to the Mexican government. And if he can convince them to pay for his silly border wall, then maybe we can have a conversation about it. But until such time as he does that, the administration should take a hike as it relates to a border wall that he himself said we would not spend a dime of American taxpayer dollars on. Do you think that there's any kind of need for a wall, even if Mexico did pay for it, even though they're not going to? I mean, what kind of security do you think we

need on the border that isn't already there? Well, clearly we have a broken immigration system that needs to be fixed, and we need to try to fix it in a bipartisan fashion because it's the only way that it will be sustainable into the future. I've often said that what we probably need to do, because a lot of the migration into this country, as you know, comes from the Central American Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. It's not from Mexico. Now, you've got a border between Mexico and Guatemala that is approximately 200 miles.

You have a border between the United States and Mexico that is in excess of 2,000 miles. It's much harder to maintain a level of security on our 2,000-mile-plus border with Mexico than it would be if there was cooperation between us and the Mexican government as it relates to that border between Mexico and Guatemala, which is about one-tenth of the size. So that's one of the things that if we had somebody in the White House that was willing to pursue reasonable international diplomacy, then we could begin to address that issue. We also need to deal with the root cause of the problem in terms of the violent nature

of what is taking place in those Central American Northern Triangle countries, which are three of the five most violent countries in the world. And we've got to address those conditions if we have any real shot of stopping the type of out-migration that is being done based on pure humanitarian need. So obviously the best shot for the House Democrats to really get something done is to have a partner in the White House who's also a Democrat. What do you think are the most important lessons we need to take from this past midterm election that will help us pick the right nominee and run the right campaign in 2020? It's a great question, because what often happens is that we as Democrats, we fall in love with what

I call a charismatic super brand, right? That's John F. Kennedy, that's Bill Clinton, that's Barack Obama. Phenomenal folks. But if we're solely relying on the emergence of someone who fits super brand, right? That's John F. Kennedy, that's Bill Clinton, that's Barack Obama, phenomenal folks. But if we're solely relying on the emergence of someone who fits into that category, and you will have some candidates, perhaps my good friend and colleague Beto O'Rourke decides to run, who would fit that criteria, several others. But there are some fundamentals to defeating this administration, which I think were lessons learned for us. One, you alluded to earlier, staying focused and disciplined on message and making sure that that message is anchored in kitchen table pocketbook issues, as opposed to getting down into the mud and taking the bait from Donald Trump that he throws out to distract.

And so in the run-up to the midterm election on November 6th, they tried to distract us in the House at least with Kavanaugh. We didn't take the bait. They tried to distract us with the caravans. We didn't take the bait. They tried to distract us as it related to the leak of some draft memo on transgender issues, we didn't take the bait. We stayed focused on pre-existing conditions and making sure we protected people who fell into that category, lowering health care costs, dealing with the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs,

talked about a real infrastructure plan, not the fake one, talked about cleaning up corruption in Washington, D.C. in a meaningful way, not draining the swamp, making a fake promise, and then turning the swamp into a cesspool, which is what the administration has done. We have to stay disciplined and focused, and I would think that our presidential candidates, who will have the best opportunities to succeed, will follow that same course that we undertook as House Democrats. Congressman Jeffries, thank you so much for joining us, and good luck in your new role.

John, thanks so much for having me on, and appreciate what you guys do at Pod Save America. Thank you very much. Take care. Take care. Thanks to Hakeem Jeffries for joining us today. Thank you guys for being here. Thanks for having us. Hello, it is me, interior decorator. I don't want to do it.

It's not that good. We'll talk to you later. Hey, if you do anything today, check out Ben Wickler's Twitter and all the things you can do to stop this brazen power gram in Wisconsin. It's important. Good call. All right, everyone. Bye. Bye. right everyone bye bye