Pod Save America - “That’s Chairman Schitt to you.”

Episode Date: November 19, 2018

Orange County turns blue, Stacey Abrams delivers a non-concession speech, and Democrats debate whether Nancy Pelosi should be Speaker. Then Congressman Adam Schiff joins Jon, Jon, and Tommy to talk about his new role as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the future of the Mueller investigation.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Later in the pod, you'll hear from Congressman Adam Schiff, the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and the latest target of Donald Trump's ire. Maybe not, actually, by the time you hear this. Yeah, who knows? They could all make up, by the way.

It could be three back. We're also going to talk about the latest midterm results, because 2018 is the election that never ends. And we're going to talk about the race for Speaker of the House first love it or leave it is that still happening love it or leave it is on a much needed break we'll be back after thanksgiving for a run of shows in december but there's a great episode up right now that you can download ever evergreen in our hearts wow great tell me what about uh the worldos out there the. Last week, the worldos were treated to a tour of the world's news with Ben Rhodes. And then we dug deep with an expert from CSIS about North Korea's nuclear weapons program

and how they're cheating on the non-agreement we made with President Trump. And then this week, I'm going to talk to someone who monitors right-wing extremists for a living, which sounds like a very hard, dark job. And I'm excited to learn about it. Oh, that'll be an excellent episode. Yeah, it'll be cool. And also for Thanksgiving, Dan and I are going to answer all of your questions, or some of your questions, this afternoon, and then that episode will be up on Thursday. Okay, let's get to the news.

News. In the nearly two weeks since the election, Democrats have now officially gained 37 seats in the House. We're likely to pick up about 38 when all is said and done. That's the best Democratic midterm performance since the early 70s. We've also won the popular vote by 7.7% and counting. It could hit 9% by the time California is done counting. That would be the largest midterm margin by either party in over 40 years. One particularly fun thing for us Californians, Democrats have now won six of the seven Republican-held House districts in this state that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, also known as the Crooked Seven.

The original Crooked Seven. Orange County is now completely blue for the first time since the 1930s. How about that, guys? And how did Democrats get it done? John, thanks to Julia for what I'm about to say. Let's get it done. John, thanks to Julia for what I'm about to say. What do you call a crazy dance party when they serve craft beer instead of club drugs?

They call it a brew rave, John. I knew that's what it was. Thank you, Julia. Julia, thank you for that. Always appreciate it. I think a few things are important about the Crooked Seven. One, we had great candidates, right, who were well-matched to their district. Katie Porter, compelling story, fought the big banks.

Katie Hill was well-matched. Harley Ruda. I also think we had early investment. And that is a credit to the listeners of this show who were given money to the Crooked Seven before any of them won their primaries. It's credit to new groups like Swing Left, credit to the DCCC. Indivisible? Yeah, Indivisible, who made this a priority early. They identified an opportunity and then went after it. And then, you know, I mean, you also have to talk about like there was changing demographics in the state in these districts that I think helped us have a better chance of winning this time around. I also think it doesn't help any of these candidates that Kevin

McCarthy pushed some of them off a cliff by making them vote against Obamacare. All of them. And President Trump, right? And President Trump jammed through this tax bill that hurt people in California. So we can make a tax argument against a bunch of Republicans, which was a new feeling. Yeah. I was surprised by that, that every single one voted against ACA repeal, because there were about 20 Republicans in the House who didn't. And these people had to know they were in danger. But Kevin McCarthy, the new minority leader, just pushed them all off the cliff with this. You're right. The demographics have really changed in a lot of these counties. But the other thing that's important, one of the reasons that we won these,

are a bunch of Republicans came out and voted for Democrats. And we knew this. Tommy, we were in Harley-Ruda's district that last Sunday. That was an especially Republican district, Dana-Roe Barker's district. And when they had us knocking on a bunch of doors, they said, you know, as they told the volunteers to go out and knock, they're like, look, you're all going to have lists with a bunch of Republicans. Don't be scared about that.

That's for a reason. That's for a reason. That's for a reason. And a lot of them are going to want to vote for Harley Ruda, which by the way, they were only able to do expand the world of their, their field program because so many people were volunteering, which is amazing. Yeah.

We, it's some districts. I think there were more volunteers than residents in the district, which is, I think you were at Katie Hills district. It was, there were like thousands of people in line, a lot of people,

chock a block with volunteers. A lot of people. Chaka block with volunteers. A lot of people were there the first time, which was great. And a lot of friends of the party showed up. Yeah. But so the demographics changed. We had a lot more Democratic voters in these. But look, in a lot of these counties, Republicans have a registration edge. There's more registered Republicans than Democrats.

And the Republicans didn't stay home. They came out to vote, but they voted for Democrats. And that's something to keep in mind that we were able to persuade a lot of people, which is important. And before we move on, there's also an outside shot that Democrats may sweep all of the Crooked Seven races. In the California 21st, Democrat T.J. Cox is only 2,000 ballots behind Republican Representative David Valadao. And even though most networks called the race, pretty much all of them called the race, a lot of the forecasters like 537 dave wasserman those folks are now moving the race back to toss up there were about 30 000 ballots left with the next update expected on wednesday

amazing it's gonna be close it's gonna be very very close it's certainly going to be closer than almost any of the polling that one was written off early they thought that you know valideo had a huge lead in all the polls and and there was no shot there so very very exciting it's interesting about the tax cuts too because obviously they didn't campaign on the tax cuts as much as they claimed uh they did and certainly if they had won more of these seats they would have been saying they won on the tax cut message but it was a bad message everywhere they tried it is especially bad in states high tax states like California, New York, Connecticut, elsewhere, because this, the tax law was written to punish California. It was written to punish

high tax states. It was a reward for states that obey their conservative ideology. So it's not surprising that Republicans were not on board. All right, let's talk about the other high profile races that have now been called. After coming close enough to demand a machine recount, Andrew Gillum only picked up one vote, and on Saturday, he conceded to Ron DeSantis. Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson conceded his incredibly tight Senate race to outgoing Republican Governor Rick Scott on Sunday. After the manual recount shrunk, Scott's lead from 12,000 votes to about 10,000 votes, not enough to give him the win. And then Stacey Abrams, who stood to become the nation's first black woman governor, acknowledged on Friday that her opponent Brian Kemp would be, quote,

certified as the victor, ending her search to find enough votes to reduce Kemp's lead and force a runoff. She did say her speech was not a concession, that, quote, democracy failed Georgia. And in an interview on Sunday with Jake Tapper, she refused to say that Kemp was, quote, the legitimate governor-elect, only the legal governor- elect. And she told CNN that the law as it stands says that he received an adequate number of votes to become the governor of Georgia. But we know sometimes the law does not do what it should. And something being legal doesn't make it right. What did you guys think of Stacey Abrams non-concession speech? I think Governor Stacey Abrams did a great job. You know, we talked about this in the run up to the election.

And we were saying that if this election is close and Brian Kemp ekes it out with the help of vote suppression and these sort of illegitimate tactics, it's going to be a real test for Democrats in the media. And one of the things that we disagreed with a little bit at the time was my view was that no one in politics is good at talking about these kinds of situations. You pointed out that the media is often the biggest practitioner of once the election is over, pretend all the illegitimacies, pretend all the problems, pretend they never happened for the sake of decorum and moving forward, but that even Democrats at time have acceded to that kind of politics. And what was fascinating is this was an example. And one of the things I said, I have no idea what it sounds like when a Democrat doesn't play by that game. But this is what it sounds like. It was fascinating because it was something different. It was refusing to simply pretend all the things we said before the election weren't true just because it would be easier and smoother to just move forward.

Tommy, what do you think? Yeah. Winning doesn't make you right. You know, I mean, and then that's one of the great frustrations in politics. Like, I think sometimes people act like the fact that President Trump was accused of sexual assault by dozens of women is wiped away by winning an election. It is not. We will never forget. And I think that's what was so great about Stacey Abrams' speech is it was tough and it was honest. And she was blunt about how angry she was and how she felt cheated and robbed in this process. And there was not some false call for unity. But instead, she talked about the unfairness of the way Brian Kemp ran these elections and pledged to seek legal recourse and talked about how she was going to build an organization to fix it in the future.

I mean, I think like it was a remarkable speech. Yeah. She's a great speaker. I want to listen to her speak all the time. Well, yeah, and she's so smart and so deliberate with her words and she was the same way with jake like she knows what she thinks and she's not going to let you corner her into saying something she doesn't believe you know rich lowry of the national review said it showed a lack of grace because she wouldn't concede

jake asked her you know are you worried that you're undermining faith in democracy? This is Jake Tapper. This is Jake Tapper, yeah, by going this route. I will say I believe that her speech and the words that she chose very carefully were very different from what Donald Trump has done, what Marco Rubio has done, what Rick Scott has done. I mean, first of all, she also said in that speech, I will pray for the success of Brian Kemp, that he will indeed be a leader for all Georgians. She said, as the law stands, of course, he is the legal governor of Georgia. But what she wanted to do in that speech is rightly call attention to the fact that a million citizens in that state, in the state of Georgia, were purged from the rolls. Tens of thousands of others had their votes, you know, not counted because of some ridiculous signature program that was, you know, judged by random poll workers. Right. Like there's all kinds that a federal judge found was lacking. Right. Yeah. I mean, Brian Kemp is the legitimate winner of an illegitimate process.

Yeah. And it's a hard thing to talk about because it would be in some sense more graceful to just accept it and move on. And, you know, the intellectuals and bonies that follow behind Trump and clean up the kind of things that he say, well, they'll say, well, you know, you all praised Martha McSally when she conceded. And yet now you're praising Stacey Abrams for refusing to do the same thing that McSally did. It's a trick, of course,

because the act of saying an election result is in some way tainted does not undermine democracy. It's only something that undermines democracy when the allegation isn't true. Pretending the problem doesn't exist for the sake of unity or decorum undermines democracy because you reward the abuses that led to it. So all this effort to say there's an equivalence between Donald Trump saying there were 3 million fakes votes and questions about vote suppression, Russian interference and propaganda. And Stacey Abrams pointing out legitimate differences is, as always, an effort to say, see, you're just as bad as we are.

You're just as bad as we are. Yes. I mean, her comments were careful, documented, specific, backed up by multiple judges rulings. And critically, the man she ran against oversaw the election. And we know that Georgia had 214 polling places closed down since 2012. Georgia had the second longest voting wait times of any state in 2016, and it got worse in 2018. So he either sucks at his job, or he did this deliberately in neighborhoods that lean Democratic to help himself win an election. I believe strongly that there's a lot of evidence that it was the latter, including his effort to purge many, many, many African-American voters from the rolls.

Yes. And I will also say that she chose her words so carefully, and she also made sure that her argument about this wasn't entirely partisan. She said in her speech earlier this year in the Republican state legislative primary of Dan Gassaway, under the direction of Secretary of State, counties issued flawed ballots and not for the first time and not just there. But in that instance, the mistakes clearly altered the outcome. Representative Gassaway, a Republican in a heavily Republican district, had to go to court to force a fair fight. And he won in court. So she's trying to lay out a case that this incompetent buffoon, Brian Kemp, systematically tried to disenfranchise people and didn't give them the right to vote. And what she's trying to do is defend the right to vote,

which is sacrosanct in this country. It's a constitutional right, and she's right to draw attention to that. It should be a constitutional right. It is currently enshrined in the constitution just not really being followed all the time uh you know the the the rich lowry argument against stacy abrams this is how he sort of this is i think the summation of his point every indication is that stacy abrams lost fair and square in an election where everybody knew the rules beforehand and they weren't unreasonable that's the trick right and they weren't unreasonable we disagree we believe the rules were unreasonable And they weren't unreasonable. We disagree. We believe the rules were unreasonable.

We believe that there is evidence that in a partisan way, he set about making sure that the election was tilted in his favor. And in a close election, that means the result is tainted. It may mean that he won according to the rules, but the rules aren't right.

And she has an obligation to say that. And you may disagree with this, but it is not the same as praising Martha McSally. And it is not the same as what Donald Trump did or any of the insinuations that that's the case. She's not out there saying, don't recognize him as governor, go protest in this. She's not doing any of that. You know, it was it was I think it showed a lot of grace how she comported herself in that speech. So one way we can fight voter suppression in the future in Georgia is by helping John Barrow win his runoff for Georgia Secretary of State on December

4th. Guys, why is this race so important? Because he will oversee the voting process next time, and he will get to decide whether we're going to invest in things that make it easier to vote, that give people more access to voting, if we're going to invest in more polling locations so you don't have 4.5 hour waiting times or not. And I think most people agree that Stacey Abrams probably would have won if that investment had occurred. Yeah. And also, I mean, the races he'll oversee now, the 2020 presidential race in Georgia, which could be much closer than any presidential race in Georgia has been ever. And or at least in the recent decades and also the 2020 Senate race, Sonny Perdue's up in Georgia as well. So extremely important if we have John Barron there, a Democrat who was pledging to, you know,

oversee elections in a nonpartisan fair way, unlike Brian Kemp did when he was running for the office. Welcome, Georgia, to the special hall where we keep our swing states. The attention, the visits. the TV ads, the ads. You get it all. Enjoy. Enjoy it. You'll be taking Missouri's place in that vaunted hall. But yeah, so I think Barrow is probably a little bit behind in that, but if he relies on

Stacey Abrams' field organization, which is probably the best field organization the state's ever seen. I mean, she's received more votes than any of the presidential contenders over the last couple of years, then, you know, he could definitely do it. So we want to help John Barrow. There's a second runoff election in Mississippi. This is for the U.S. Senate, where Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith's lead over Democratic challenger Mike Espy has narrowed significantly in recent days. Trump's planning to hold two rallies in Mississippi in the days leading up to the November 27th runoff to shore up support. That should be a good time. The Republican Party's all in.

The NRSC, the RNC is there. And now the Democratic Party is in as well, has been for a while. Democratic Party put a bunch of money in there as well. Guys, does Mike Espy have a chance here? I do not know. No idea. So the results in the first round were Hyde-Smith got 41.5%, Espy got 40.6%, but then a really fringe, awful Republican named Chris McDaniel got 16.5%. So the combined two Republicans got more than the

Democrat Espy. Normally you would look at a race like this and think, oh man, a president in the United States going down to do two campaign events for a Senate seat in Mississippi, they must be in trouble. Then you have to remember, oh, wait, our president does nothing but tweet and watch TV all day. This is his favorite thing in the world to do. You might as well be golfing. And, you know, he doesn't care about using his time effectively. And if the thing is he goes and then the Republican wins by eight points, he gets to say that he did it. It was just blame whoever he wants. It's the most narcissistic. You can just you just need the narcissistic answer. And that's the reason he's gone.

So according to Republicans who are quoted in background on pieces, so we can't vet this, they say that Hyde-Smith's lead has gone down in the last few days, in part because of a truly bizarre comment she made about how if a supporter of hers invited her to a public lynching, she would sit in the front row i don't get the joke i don't get the reference i don't know why the fuck you would say that in mississippi or anywhere else but wow and then she made a second quote-unquote joke where she said quote maybe we want to make it just a little more difficult for liberal college students to vote so those things combined have you know in the post a couple other places have interviewed people you know voters in

mississippi and there are a few who are like you know i in the post, a couple other places have interviewed people, you know, voters in Mississippi. And there are a few who are like, you know, I thought about voting for her, but now I'm not sure. You know, so it's clear that the race has narrowed a little bit. You know, the tough part is this is a state that Trump carried by 18 points in 2016. So just so we all know what the hill is that we're climbing. But on the side for hope here, African-American voters make up 38% of the population in Mississippi. And Democratic strategists estimate that Espy only needs about 30% of the white vote to win in that state if African-American turnout is high and votes in margins that they have in the past. So it's definitely possible.

It's doable. It's definitely possible. Look at Alabama. If you want to help John Barrow in Georgia and Mike Espy in Mississippi, you can go to votesaveamerica.com slash donate. Page is still up. Votesave America is still here, everyone. Still going. And we are sort of collecting fundraising for the runoffs and races that are still out there in recounts, which now is basically Georgia Secretary of State and Mike Espy. So go to

votesaveamerica.com slash donate. I mean, I'm taking Stacey Abrams lead and I'm going to be campaigning for her continuously forever because this election is not over. Is that the option? Yeah. Is Marco Rubio doing that too? Oh no, Marco Rubio. We haven't talked about that. 68 tweets, I think he said. 68 tweets. 68 tweets. And then he had the nerve, after alleging that Democratic lawyers were running down to Florida to steal the vote, to talk about his friend Bill Nelson and how they've never had a better relationship and they forged it. Like, you've been accusing him of stealing the election. Accusing his lawyer of stealing the election, dude.

Repeatedly, with no evidence. What are you for, Marco Rubio? You're like Trump. 68 tweets. He was... What are you for Marco Rubio or like Trump 68 tweets? He was what are you up to? I don't understand. It's like a zombie. He's like a zombie senator at this point Like I like what are you doing there? You don't seem to want to be there This is the fight you pick none of the ones that are important to state of the country None of the none of the big issues. This is it. This is where Marco Rubio makes a stand unbelievable

How do you not slip through a sewer grate? You're so tiny. So we haven't yet had a chance to talk about the big race for Speaker of the House. Current minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who served as Speaker from 2007 to 2011. Tough race for Speaker. Nancy Pelosi versus... Yeah. Pelosi, who served as speaker from 2007 to 2011. Tough, tough race for speaker. Nancy Pelosi versus... Yeah, so she faces a challenge. Her leadership faces a challenge from Democratic members like Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, and a number of incoming Democratic freshmen from more moderate and Republican-leaning districts who pledged during their campaigns not to support Pelosi.

So far, there is no House member who's actually declared that he or she would run against Pelosi, though Ohio's Marsha Fudge, a former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, says she's weighing a run. Just so you all know how this works, to be Speaker, you need to first win a majority of House Democrats who vote in a private conference on November 27th. By all accounts, Pelosi is going to win that vote. She has a majority for that in the conference. But then the full House votes on the floor for Speaker on January 3rd. And during that vote, Pelosi can lose no more than about 15 Democratic votes, since it's highly likely that no Republicans will vote for her. So far, 16 Democrats have signed a letter saying they oppose her, and about 69 are undecided.

Guys, what's the argument being made by Seth Moulton and other House Democrats who oppose Pelosi? And is it a good one? I think the argument is sort of multifaceted. I think there's a generational argument that we just swept in this new group of young, dynamic, diverse, interesting lawmakers and that the leadership as currently constituted does not reflect that youth and diversity and excitement. I think there's another argument that Pelosi gets tied to Democrats in elections and thus hurts the party. And I think the second argument is not a very effective one because we just took back the house overwhelmingly, right? So that's the other piece of that is I don't think we should let a bunch of Republicans determine our strategy. They're going to attack whomever they decide to attack and they always will. I also think, you know, we need strong leadership for the next

couple of years that you can argue that Speaker Pelosi is one of the best speakers in history. I do understand the desire for new leadership., I don't like find it offensive that people challenge other leaders for positions in power. You know, Pelosi certainly did 15 years ago when she first became the minority whip, I guess, at the time. So, you know, but I also think like you need to put someone forward and say, X individual would do the job better than Nancy Pelosi. And I've never heard that argument made. And until you do, I think Pelosi would be the best

speaker. Yeah. Love it. What do you think? So I do believe Nancy Pelosi is one of the greatest speakers in American history and probably the best speaker of the house in half a century. If she were a man, she'd be more recognized as such. That said, I felt it for the first time, actually. And I'm a big defender and believer in Nancy Pelosi, but I felt it for the first time, actually. And I'm a big defender and believer in Nancy Pelosi, but I felt it for the first time on election night watching her speak. And it was like, wait a second, we just ushered in a new Congress. We just ushered in a ton of new representation, a diverse, changing America represented in this new caucus that is going to be elected to hold Trump accountable. And our person standing at the helm is someone that's been around for a long time. And it was the first time I actually

felt some sympathy for the argument that says we need new leadership because we need new leadership, which is, I think, a lot of what the criticism amounts to. I'm also sympathetic to the argument that she has not allowed for younger leaders to rise up and to create a bench. And so she's kind of being rewarded for her failure as a leader, right? Because there is no obvious successor to her. She gets to be speaker in part because she did not create the conditions for other people to rise up. That said, because there is no alternative right now, I am very interested in more progressive members of the caucus pushing her, pushing her on things like pay as you go and getting those kinds of concessions.

I'm interested in progressive leaders having important roles within the caucus. But right now, the fact that she has agreed to say, I will be a transitional leader does for me everything I need her to do to assuage my concern about the fact that there does need to be new leadership. And right now, what I want is for Democrats to come together, not in unity behind Nancy Pelosi, but in unity of purpose, in beginning the work of holding hearings, beginning the work of putting out a legislative agenda. And that doesn't mean just going along with what Pelosi wants, but it does mean having this fight now, getting concessions from the leadership as it exists right now, and then make the decision to move forward together unless somebody steps up, which it doesn't seem like

there will be. Yeah, I guess my view on this is it's fine if you want to challenge Nancy Pelosi, but I don't think they have made a very good argument. I don't really know what the argument is. Like, Tommy probably made it better than they have so far. You know, it's a little clumsy. It's a little clumsy. Some of it is based, like, I think if you want to make an argument and you want to sort of rally people to your argument, it has to be based around, is there an issue that Nancy Pelosi isn't with the party on, right? Is there something specific that she's not doing? Like you said, it is right that she has not allowed for a lot of the younger members to become part of leadership. Again, this isn't just a critique of Nancy Pelosi, like Steny Hoyer is her number two. He's 79. Jim Clyburn's number three. He's 78. They've been

there for a long, long time. Like you'd really like if the number two, number three, number four were sort of part of this new generation of Democrats who are coming in. You know, it's not just Pelosi. But again, all that said, no one is challenging the fact that she is one of the most effective speakers we've ever had in the party. We would not have the Affordable Care Act today if it weren't for Nancy Pelosi. She can whip votes having all of us having been in the White House and seen this, she can whip votes like no one else. And not only that, on the Affordable Care Act specifically, I think there's been some people criticizing her because the Affordable Care Act didn't go far enough. She was part of the establishment. It didn't go further. The House bill went further. The House bill had the public option. The House bill was a more liberal version. It was only in her incredibly sophisticated dealings with the Senate,

even after we lost a seat in the Senate, that we managed to pass the Affordable Care Act at all. She also passed a climate bill, which the Senate never got done. The strongest climate bill the Democrats have ever passed. Yeah. I mean, there is some truth to this idea that Democrats assign committee chairmanships based on longevity, which makes, if you're a young, dynamic member, like a Beto O'Rourke, like it makes sitting around for 30 years until you have real power, not very compelling. So if you're young and ambitious, maybe you seek another path. That said, I think you could adjust that. I also think

it seems likely that Pelosi would want to use this new, exciting, dynamic group of people and put them forward on issues. Like, for example, in 2006, Harry Reid put out Barack Obama and made him the key voice on ethics and lobbying reform because they knew Barack Obama could get press. They knew that Sunday shows would want to book him and it helped us drive the issue. So I think she will probably do that. And on that note, we have to remember that 2018 to 2020 is going to be much different than 2016 to 2018 and that it's not like nancy pelosi and chuck schumer will be the faces and voices of the democratic party out there on every issue because we will have about 456 people running for president and the presidential

candidates will be out there and they will be the ones talking about the vision for the party and the future and stuff like that and so you, and that'll be a whole nother conversation of like who seems new change progressive, you know, among all those candidates. But that's the other thing too, that doesn't bother me as much about like when you were saying love it on election night, you know, that she's giving that speech. And of course, like Nancy Pelosi is the one you turn to on the democratic side that actually won't happen that often over the next two years. And where Pelosi shines is being a tactician, being a strategist, figuring out how to legislate. That's what a Speaker of the House should do. And that's what she does very well.

But I totally agree with the transitional Speaker thing. And she might be able to close this whole deal and end this whole fight by just actually saying, all right, on this date, or at least around this date, I will, you know, I'll cede my speakership to someone else. I just, one thing I don't totally get is the anger at Seth Moulton for, you know, for criticizing Pelosi. I mean, he's, I like Seth Moulton. I think he's a good progressive. He was critical of Obama about Iraq and ISIS strategy. And I respect him for speaking out about that. He raised a ton of money to support veterans running for office. You know, like he's been very forward leaning on this issue. But I don't know that we should question his motives there. I like I think people in politics fight for power. That's what happens all day. politics fight for power that's what happens all day i agree with that i mean i think this is where it gets to you know but people are talking about primary him reporters pundits a lot of people on twitter everyone everyone is like let's get the democrats in disarray headlines let's show a

party like you said it is fine to challenge someone um if you challenge someone you should probably have a good strategy and i don't know if they have an argument you can blame it for not having a great strategy yeah um but i think everyone has a and it's not i mean seth moulton is the face of it right now but there's a bunch of democrats uh who were just elected to the house who we all love and and fought for and worked for um that or have also said they wouldn't vote for her because they said in the campaign right abigail spanberger from virginia who is great you know i don't think that seth's criticism of pelosi on gun control was you know? I don't think that Seth's criticism of Pelosi on gun control was fair. No.

I don't think Tim Ryan has been a particularly effective messenger on this issue for a while. So, yeah, I mean, if they want to win, they need to do better. But it's their right to try. Yeah, completely. And I've done exactly zero hand-wringing about the fact that we're having this fight right now. This is when you have it. Like, Democrats shouldn't be having a fight right now. The election is in one year and 360 days.

No, it's okay. I guarantee you we're not going to lose a single vote in November of 2020 because of the argument we're having right now. And if anything, having the argument now and having the fight now, I think is a very positive thing. The fight is good.

I just think it's like when you have the fight, and I believe this for Democrats as we go into 2020, ideally the fights are about issues. It's about changes in leadership and stuff like that. And then we can all argue about that. When it gets super personal, that's when, you know, that's when we have problems. Yeah. Okay. One more piece of House related news before we move on. On Saturday, Representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that she'll be supporting a new campaign to mount primary challenges against incumbent Democrats in safe blue districts who aren't as progressive. What do we think of this? Good idea?

Bad idea? Yeah, good. I mean, like, I'm fine with it. You know, it's like, first of all, saying you're going to do that isn't the same as doing it. So I think people should wait to get mad until they're actually a whole bunch of primary challenges running. But just talking about this is likely to achieve part of her goal, which is to push lawmakers to the left. And if you think that you live in a liberal district and you have a member who's too moderate for you the way Joe Crowley was, then this is fine. I'm not worried about it. It was interesting because I first saw the way it was tweeted about. Yeah. And then I saw what it was. Which is just, again, what a surprise. Twitter didn't get it

right and the way it was tweeted about it sounded like aoc was going door to door in the capital trying to throw people out like you get the fuck out of here it's aoc's town now you know and i was like and then you realize like she did a call with progressives saying this isn't about any one person this is about you know this is about electing the kind of people we believe this is like a completely reasonable thing to do this is the bait we should have. Democrats have retaken power now. But a lot of the assumptions Democrats have made over the past decade led to a rout of our party. This is the debate we want to have. And primaries aren't bad. If you're worried about a primary, it means you're worried about a Democratic candidate having to defend the positions they've taken

to the party itself. And I just am not worried about that. I also applaud her for being incredibly strategic about this, right? She's, again, the key here is challengers, primary challenges in safe blue districts. She's not going around to some purple and red district and saying, let's possibly cost ourselves the seat because we want, you know, even that, like if, again, if it's a primary based on issues, fine. We already have seen the results of what's happened here. In 2018, there were a number of primary challengers like her that did this. And, um, I don't know, we had the best democratic performance in a midterm since Watergate. And we have a party with everyone from Joe Manchin to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and everyone's just fine. Incumbency ain't what it used to be either. Like, let's not get too worried about the safety of these seats long term. Right. I mean, what happens when a more

progressive candidate challenges an incumbent Democrat in a safe blue seat is one of two things. Either the incumbent wins because the incumbent ends up being pushed to the left on some of these issues or the challenger wins. And either way, now we have a representative who might be for who might be out there fighting for Medicare for all, fighting for a Green New Deal, fighting for all kinds of progressive issues. And maybe they might win some of those fights. Maybe they won't because a lot of the rest of the caucus still is in purple and red states where they have to be more conservative. That's the way politics works. It's very strategic.

One of the things I liked about it, Trump calls it a swamp. And the thing I was thinking about is that a lot of ways D.C. is kind of like a lazy river at an amusement park, you know. And there's just like tubes floating. And basically there are people that have been there forever and they're just lying there and they're just like pointing at the tube. Get in. Get in this tube. Just ride this river in a couple circles. And what's exciting, I love like seeing all the people we met on the trail, whether it was Chrissy Houlihan or Katie Hill or Katie Porter, seeing them just taking pictures in the hall. It's very much like it's awesome.

But one of the things that's exciting about it is everyone is taking their job very seriously, but they're not letting someone else tell them what the job is, you know, and I think one of the problems Democrats have had is there's just this idea of like, this is how things are done. This is the way my predecessor did it. This is the way I'm going to do it. And what's exciting is in part because Donald Trump became president in part because the party and the authorities that were saying this is how it's done. We're so laid low. There's this new generation coming to Washington and not just showing up, not just showing up and trying to learn how things are done, but coming to think this is what I believe in. This is why I'm here. And I'm excited to do this. I'm excited to take it really seriously.

And taking it really seriously means actually acting on the things I said when I was on the campaign trail. I actually believe that money in politics is a problem. I actually believe the Democratic Party will do better when more candidates are for Medicare for all. These are the things I actually care about. And so I'm going to actually start acting to make them happen starting on day one and that is an incredibly good thing yeah when when uh get out of the lazy river when tommy and i were uh canvassing with joe biden for the hbo

show and we talked to katie porter she was saying she's like i know this is going to sound cheesy but i want to go to washington because i'm a nerd who cares about policy and want to write legislation about consumer protection that's why I'm doing this. I really just wanted to go do that. And it was just the two of us. We love you. Last time I was in a lazy river, I was at Water Country in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

I was in high school. Water Country. It was me and my brother and my sister. And my brother threw a tube at the lifeguard. And they tried to kick us out. And the guy just walked around the lazy river following us for like a mile. it who is the life guard in that scenario in congress who am i throwing it too bad it's the american people and we're on duty and you know what for a long time that life guard wasn't paying attention that life guard was uh you know trying to get a date you know

getting a tan going to a pack fundraiser you know but now life guard back on, back on duty. Back on duty. Okay, when we come back. Really? You asked me the question. I did. I asked for it. When we come back, we'll be hearing from Congressman Adam Schiff. Welcome back to the pod. Friend of the pod and the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff. Congressman Schiff, welcome back.

Thank you. It's great to be with you. Congressman, we want to kick off with, I think, one of the most pressing issues of the day. You were recently assigned a nickname by Donald Trump. Do you think that it was disrespectful that he didn't refer to you as chairmanship? Yes, that is outrageous. Well, this is not the first nickname I've had from the president. I've had several over the years, but it was one of the more scatological, that's for sure. But it was one of the more scatological, that's for sure. Very well done.

So your committee has oversight jurisdiction over our intelligence agencies, emerging threats, cybersecurity efforts. Obviously, there's a lot of areas of inquiry to choose from when you guys start in January. What is your first priority as chair? Well, I think we're going to want to look at what has been done in the Mueller investigation, what we were allowed to do, what our Senate counterparts were able to do, and what are the remaining issues that would expose the country to potential jeopardy if they go uninvestigated. And I think within the rubric of the Russia issues, one that has concerned me a great deal is whether the Russians were laundering money through the Trump organization. Is that a form of leverage that the Russians have over the President of the United States? So we're going to want to look at issues like that and figure out

what needs to be done. But there's a whole category of other non-Russia related issues that really deserve our attention. The President is making lots of claims about how we can sleep well at night because the North Koreans are no longer a threat. I don't see any signs of denuclearization. So we're going to want to do a deep dive in North Korea and find out just what are the North Koreans doing? Has the president accomplished anything? Or is the North proceeding apace with its program and merely driving the benefit from some international legitimacy that the president has given them? Congressman Jeff, this is Tommy Vitor. Someone suggested to me recently that President Trump is actually not sharing all the North Korea intelligence with members of Congress that he should be sharing.

Is that accurate? I can't go into any of the particulars, but I can say that it's certainly going to be vitally important for us to get good information and make sure there's no pressure being placed on the intelligence community, to make sure also that the president is not misleading the country when he makes claims about what the North Koreans are doing or what the Iranians are doing or what the Chinese are doing or the Russians. We need to be able to speak truth to power. That means the intelligence community needs to be fully independent and willing to do that, notwithstanding the taunts that they receive from the president. But it also means that members of Congress are going to need to be able to call out the administration and say,

your North Korea policy is not working. In fact, the sanctions are weakening on North Korea. North Korea shows no signs of doing anything you say they're doing. And we need to use a different approach. So I can't go into the particulars of what the administration is sharing or not sharing with North Korea, but I can say we're going to make sure that we get the best information our agencies have. Congressman, do you think there are witnesses in the Russia investigation who committed perjury when they testified before your committee based on some of the reports we've seen that have come out since their testimony? We have very serious concerns about a number of witnesses and whether they were truthful with us. There have been a number of cases where information has been made public that seems to be

inconsistent with what they testified under oath. So, yes, and we have asked the Republicans to work with us to be able to share information with the special counsel. If that isn't done, then we certainly will do that when we hold the gavel. It is our intention to make the public aware of the transcripts, make the transcripts public. That will have the effect of making them available to the special counsel. But in some cases, we would like to accelerate the timetable and make sure the special counsel has the advantage of being able to look not only at the evidence that we found, but also to determine whether perjury charges are warranted against anyone who testified before our committee. What do you think that Democrats can do to stop Matthew Whitaker from

ending the Mueller investigation if he decides to, well, even if he doesn't decide to end it outright, but decides to interfere with it, slow it, how would you handle that from your new position? Well, you know, the first course of action that the legislature has taken, you saw probably that the Senate has filed suit seeking to challenge the appointment as unconstitutional. And I think there's several problems with the appointment. It does violate the constitutional requirement that that position be Senate-confirmed, but it also violates the succession statute, which sets out in detail what the line of succession is supposed to be and doesn't make a provision for filling it using the Vacancy Act, so I think it also violates the law as well as the Constitution. But in terms of ethics, violates the law as well as the Constitution. But in terms of ethics, to appoint someone to this position who has spoken with great prejudice against the Mueller investigation, talked about

how you can secretly cripple it, is also unethical, violates the ethics laws. And to compel and recuse himself, I think we're going to have to expose any commitments that he made to the president in taking the job on the recusal issue. We've already written to the chief ethics officer of the Justice Department to determine whether he has written opinion, what that opinion holds, and if there hasn't been one, why isn't there an opinion on this? Because it seems the facts are quite overwhelming and would call for his immediate recusal. What do you think of Congressman Nadler's idea to attach protection for Mueller to the year-end government funding bill? We're certainly going to try to do that.

You know, the far simpler course would be, of course, for the Senate to take up the legislation that is already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis. But we will certainly seek to use our leverage in the budget process to protect Bob Mueller. And for those Republicans who have said, well, this isn't necessary, and he shows no signs of interfering, how they can plausibly continue to make that claim after Whitaker's appointment is beyond me. But we'll certainly seek to use every bit of leverage that we have. And as part of that leverage, if the administration does somehow restrict the Mueller investigation, can you subpoena Mueller to testify about his findings?

We can subpoena him. I would hope, frankly, that if Mr. Whitaker takes any action to unethically constrain the Mueller investigation, anything that Bob Mueller believes is antithetical to the impartial administration of justice. I hope that Bob Mueller would do something that he has thus far not been willing to do, and that is I hope that he will speak out. He has, I think, enormous power in his position, and particularly given that he has been so reticent to appear or speak out at all, it would be quite dramatic if he were to go before the country and say that the rule of law is being challenged. But short of that, we do have the power to subpoena him to testify. And in fact,

one point I continually made with the Justice Department over the last year, as they were providing hundreds of thousands of documents to the Republican majority, and no shortage of documents involving the Mueller investigation to the Republicans in Congress, that they were setting a precedent that they were going to have to be prepared to live with. And that is, if they're going to do this with GOP majority, then should the House change hands as it has, then they would have to be willing to entertain the same requests from a Democratic majority if there's any effort to interfere with Bob Mueller. Right. Congressman, do you support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker? I do. I do. I think, you know, at a time when we have probably the most diverse caucus that we've ever had, most diverse indeed in the history of the Congress, and along every different line, but especially politically. And we have, I think, the far greatest challenge to our system of checks and balances in memory.

We need our best tactician. We need our best legislator. We need our best general, and that's her. I haven't seen anyone that has the same capability that she has, and I certainly don't want to engage in a big leadership fight after the voters entrusted us to advance health care and help people put bread on the table and make sure that we were a check on the abuse of authority by the executive. I don't think we want to get into a big leadership fight right now either. Now, she has said that she would be, you know, a transitional leader if she becomes Speaker. Would you support her talking about, Pelosi talking about, a date when she would leave or she would sort of relinquish the Speakership after a year or two years or whatever it may be so that sort of new leadership can kind of come into the party? You know, I would certainly recommend, you know, doing what she has done, which is to bring new people forward to get the bench ready. And she has made an effort to tap various people within our caucus and elevate them to positions of leadership. When she made me the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, I wasn't the senior most member or the next to senior most or even the next to senior most after that.

So she has made an effort to get the bench ready. At the same time, I can understand a reluctance to say, okay, this is the date certain, because the moment you do that, you're a lame duck. And that really limits your effectiveness. But I think it is important that she continue to elevate people within the caucus and get them prepared to lead. But I would, frankly, like to have her enormously capable leadership at this time of incredible trial. Congressman, one last question. You know, you mentioned the Intelligence Committee, you obviously have some very big shoes to fill. How soon into your tenure do you plan to Uber to the White House and cook up allegations with political appointees to undermine intelligence agencies in the Department of Justice?

It's one of the key roles your predecessor played, and we just want to make sure that that will continue. Well, I think the only midnight run I'm going to go on is to Tommy's. But given that I'm a vegan, I probably won't find much there for me to eat. Oh, I see. That's better. All right. That's good. That's better. All right. That sounds good. That's better than jumping out of a Uber.

I didn't mean you, Tommy. I meant the burger joint. You're welcome. I have peanut butter, jelly, and toast. You guys are neighbors here in Los Angeles. That's fine, too. Yeah, I voted for you, Congressman. You are welcome.

Once again, I appreciate that. All you guys, I think, are constituents, so anything you need from your congressman, you just let me know. I have to say, sadly, we moved last year, and I'm just out of the district, and now Ted Lieu is my congressman. Who's great, too.

Who's great, too. I love Ted Lieu. Love Ted Lieu. You are dead to me. Here's the thing. Look, we try to tell it like it is in this thing, and honestly, just between us, I'm glad it's you.

Congressman, thank you for joining us. We appreciate it, and congratulations on your newfound power. Thank you. Great to be with you. Thanks to Congressman Adam Schiff for joining us today, and happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Thanks to the good people at Water Country in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. My cousin Jeremy used to change

your theme song to say, Hepatitis, have some fun. And that was not nice, so I'm apologizing on his behalf. Poor Jeremy just under the bus. Rich is laughing. Rich is from Connecticut, he knows. Remember in D.C. when we used to go to

down that river to Harper's Ferry and we would do the tubing? God, I love that. We were just interviewing red

state voters for the New York Times. Bye, everyone. Bye.