Pod Save America - "The Subpoena Finale."

Episode Date: October 14, 2022

The final January 6th hearing suggests that Donald Trump isn’t a great guy, Democrats zero in on a closing midterm message, and Colorado Senator Michael Bennet joins to talk about his midterm race for re-election. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast. 

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, the final January 6th hearing suggests that Donald Trump isn't a great guy. Democrats zero in on a closing midterm message, and Colorado Senator Michael Bennett joins to talk about his midterm race for re-election. Before we start, in case you missed it, What A Day has a new host. In case you missed it, What A Day has a new host. MSNBC political analyst Juanita Tolliver joined co-host Josie Duffy Rice, Priyanka Arabindi, and Travelle Anderson to give you the latest politics and news every morning.

Very exciting. Listen to new episodes of What A Day every Monday through Friday, wherever you get your podcasts. All right, Dan, let's get to the news. So we are recording this just after the series finale of Insurrection. Do you think we've worn out that joke yet? Yes, John. Yes, we have. I mean, it's the last time we're going to be able to use it. So it's getting a little send-off. Wait till the reboot in the lame duck, my friend. There we go. There we go. All right. So today's hearing was about summing up the entire case against Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican friends for their attempted coup in 2020,

a coup that started with an attempt to overturn the election even before the votes were counted and ended with a violent attack on Congress. The committee presented new evidence and new testimony that proves Trump knew about the violence at the Capitol and reacted by encouraging the mob. But then there was, as there always is in these hearings, Dan, there was a twist. We learned from some reporters during the hearing that at the end of the hearing, there would be a vote to subpoena Donald Trump himself. And of course, the committee delivered. Here's a clip. It is our obligation to seek Donald Trump's testimony. He is the one person at the center

of the story of what happened on January 6th. So we want to hear from him. Pursuant to today's notice, I send to the desk a committee resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. Resolved that the chairman be and is hereby directed to subpoena Donald J. Trump for documents and testimony in connection with the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, there are nine ayes and zero noes Wow, nail biter It would have been funny if one of the retiring members

Elaine Luria was like, fuck that No, and then immediately resign from Congress, take a job as the guest host of The Five Alright, so big twist Trump gets subpoenaed Why do you think they did it? And what happens now? Well, we know what happens after Congress issues the subpoena. Nothing.

I mean, it's like you and I were joking earlier, but congressional subpoenas apparently in this day and age have the legal force of a paperless post. But look, I think to be in all seriousness, force of a paperless post. But look, I think to be in all seriousness, Amanda Carpenter, who's a never Trump Republican strategist, made this point that they're not subpoenaing Trump expecting that he is going to testify, particularly if we're on a constrained timeline, because the Republicans might take the House in a few months. But it's to show that they subpoenaed him and he refused to testify. And that's sort of the point of doing all of this is he's at the center of this. He lied. He knew he lost.

He knew violence was coming. He lied about it then. He's lying about it now. And he does not have the courage to answer those questions under oath. And that's the point of it, I believe. Yeah, it's definitely getting in his head, which is why I've been asking our team to monitor Truth Social for any truths from Trump that may pop up during this podcast. Of course, I don't have good internet service, so sort of had to do this. There's like, there's no reason not to subpoena Trump at the end of this, especially if, you know, they're going to make a criminal referral or if, I mean, the whole thing is sort of, you know,

it's a public case that they're making, and a political case they're making as much as a legal one, as we've said many times here. And, you know, if you're just watching these hearings, you think, well, then doesn't Trump get a chance to speak for himself? Doesn't Trump get a chance to tell his side of the story? Well, yes, he did have a chance to tell his side of the story. And now we'll see what happens. Or he could plead the fifth, which would also, which is, of course, his right to do. And as the committee pointed out, that's what Roger Stone did.

That's what a number of other witnesses did who might have committed crimes around January 6th. They pled the 5th. And Donald Trump, of course, has the right to plead the 5th. But that would be telling as well. That would be telling as well. So what do you think of the hearing overall? Do we learn anything new or surprising? I mean, all of these hearings have just provided new data points to butcher us what we already knew,

is that Donald Trump is responsible for what happened on January 6th. He was part of a multi-layered plan to steal the election through any means necessary. Fake legislators, the vice president, violent assault on the Capitol, all of the above. And I think it's also worth knowing, if you were someone like us, who consumes political news directly into our veins, we read all the tweets. We read all the newsletters. All the tweets. All the tweets. We're even vaguely aware of what happens on cable. And it's like none of this is new to us.

We could even pinpoint video we had seen before or Trump clips we had seen before, but we're not the audience. The audience is everyone else. And it's not just people who are going to tune into this because people who tune into a congressional hearing in the middle of the day on a Thursday are people like us. But it's that there are going to be headlines on social media, on news websites, local news, cable news about these hearings.

And the headlines are going to say two primary things. Donald Trump knew he lost. Donald Trump, three things, I guess. Donald Trump knew he lost. Donald Trump, three things, I guess. Donald Trump knew he lost. Donald Trump knew there would be violence. And Donald Trump, in Congress, subpoenaed Donald Trump to testify on January 6th hearings. That is to remind everyone. And that's been the point of these hearings from the beginning. Because they don't have the force of law. They can't jail him.

They can't force Merrick Garland to indict him or prosecute him. It is to grab the country by the lapels and scream as loudly and often as possible that Donald Trump is a dangerous, deranged criminal and that he certainly he should not he should not have been president. He should not be president. And he certainly shouldn't be leading one of America's two political parties. And you have to do that. This was one of perhaps their last chance to do this under this Democratic leadership. If the House goes, as a lot of political prognosticators think it will. And as they've done in the past, they supported those headlines that you mentioned

with some fun, new, interesting tidbits, fun, terrifying, all the above. So like, you know, they mentioned that they got testimony from Brad Parscale, Trump's former campaign manager, that Trump was preparing to declare victory as early as July of 2020. Trump told people he was his plan was to declare victory on election night. They showed testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson's, who we had seen in a previous episode. But they have her saying that Trump said, I don't want people to know that we lost. This is embarrassing. Figure it out, Mark. Figure it out. Meaning Mark Meadows is chief of staff. So I do think it's important to have testimony and evidence that Trump knew that he lost. I mean, we all assume that they've been

making that case for a couple of hearings now, but I thought there was some more damning evidence that Trump privately acknowledged that he lost multiple times here. Yes. One thing about that, though, is I think that is important. I think it's important as a political matter to the broader country that he was pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. But as a legal matter, even if he believed he lost, you still don't get to direct a violent mob to assault the Capitol. Right. Like that is that is just, I think, worth noting that whether he is too deluded or dumb to know the truth, it's still a crime. Yeah, but like so much of this is a political public case, which is why I'm sure they did that. I'm sure they did that. We also there was evidence from a bunch of United States Secret Service emails that the Secret Service did anticipate violence at the event. At January 6th, we found out that witnesses were told, quote, not to cooperate with the panel, with the January 6th committee over Trump's famous fight with the Secret Service when he was in the motorcade and apparently lunged.

And remember, it was like, oh, Tony Ornato says there's all these fucking sources, you know, that sources close to Tony Ornato and Bobby Engel at the Secret Service say they will testify that Cassidy Hutchinson lied. Well, they never testified. And in fact, now they have evidence that people were told not to cooperate with the committee about that fight. So you can leave it to your own devices to figure out what happened there. We found out that Trump did watch the violence unfold on television and did nothing. There was a United States Secret Service text after Trump tweeted that Mike Pence had let us down. And it's just like one of my favorite lines of all time. It's just Trump just tweeted about Pence.

Probably not going to be good for Pence. Nope, probably not. Probably not. But could be. Not great, Mike Pence. Not great, Mike Pence. I appreciate the humility of using probably. Could be great.

Probably not. But could be. Probably not. Probably, probably not going to be too great for Mike Pence. Yes. There was also harrowing footage of the leaders of Congress sort of in the Capitol, in their like hideaway, in their secure location that was filmed by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Alexandra Pelosi, who was there on hand. And she filmed Pelosi and Schumer and other

leaders of Congress, like begging for help. They called Ralph Northam, governor of Virginia, to try to get the Virginia National Guard. They were trying to get the DC police. It was, that was, I mean, like we knew that we had heard stories that that had happened, but that was pretty scary to watch. Yeah. I mean, it was, it's, it just kind of puts you back in the moment of just how dangerous that was, which, I mean, it just kind of puts you back in the moment of just how dangerous that was, which we always sort of make ourselves numb to it. And then we're reminded every time there's one of these hearings where we see the videos of the people storming the Capitol or just missing Mitt Romney or all the other near misses. It's a reminder that it is absolutely

unbelievable that more people were not killed on that day, given the scale of what happened and how close they came. I also think those videos are just absolutely damning of Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, John Thune, Mitch McConnell, these Republicans who were on the phone with Democrats in that moment, begging someone to get the president to tell the rioters to leave, to dispatch help. They don't do it. President Trump does not lift a finger to save them at a time when they were at risk of being murdered. And still to this day, they carry water for him. All of them will or will endorse him the day after he announces they will stick with them. They have stuck with him this whole time.

And it's just it's just a reminder of what historically treasonous cowards they are. Well, and to your point about, you know, is this does this matter legally or is this just a political thing? It's just a political thing. The fact that the committee continues to play the clips of Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy after January 6th condemning Donald Trump is purely political in the best possible way. Just to remind everyone of the cowardice that you're talking about. Per usual, as part of that footage, per usual with everything in the Trump era of politics, moments of horror and tragedy are right next to moments of comedy. At one point, Nancy Pelosi is talking about the rioters in the Capitol and she says that someone needs to, quote, clean up the poo-poo that they're making literally and figuratively at the Capitol. Nancy Pelosi very famously does not swear and does not abide by anyone swearing near her or in her presence. And so I think that that is why she used that term.

Which you can tell because at this moment where she's just like, she turns to Schumer at one point, she goes, can you believe this is happening? And I was like, how did she not drop an F-bomb there? That's like, that's the moment right there when they're, and she just, she was very also cool, calm and collected yeah of all the leaders and like mcconnell's down there you see thune you see schumer and like pelosi is just sort of like directing the whole thing just like cool as a cucumber the whole time and also and i love it uh met at every opportunity mentions at the instigation of the president united states every single time every call's with, she finds a way to point out.

She's always on message. She's always on message. Good for her. Good for her. Yeah. All right. So stepping back. Before we step back, John, would you like me to read you the truth that was just posted?

Yes. Okay. Yes, we got a truth. Okay. I'm aware of two things. First, they put out a two-minute video on Truth Social that was pre-produced and pre-made that said, why did the unselect committee never talk about the peaceful, enormous crowds of the January 6th speech or the overwhelming evidence of election fraud? The sham committee is ignoring the truth. Those are some of the excerpts from that video.

But then there is a – Boring. truth that said, why didn't the unselect committee ask me to testify months ago? Why did they wait until the very end, the final moments of their last meeting? Because the committee is a total bust that has only served to further divide our country, which by the way, is doing very badly. A laughingstock all over the world. Man, that is so Trump just like clinging on to whatever bit of, you know, lame punditry that he saw on cable news. Because the one thing you'd hear from all the pundits on cable after they did the subpoena is like, well, why did they wait until now? Well, why did they wait until now? So Trump just,

of course, watches that because he's obviously watching the coverage, hangs onto that and decides that's going to be his truth. He's so fucking predictable. I mean, the unselect committee. What does that even mean? Yeah, it doesn't mean anything. Were they not selected? Were they randomly chosen? If they were random, it also would have been selected.

I don't know. It doesn't show great facility with English. You know what, Donald Trump? That truth, that gets one politico for me. That was not even a real valiant attempt. You can do better than that. You can do better than that. You can do better than that. Stepping back, do you think the January 6th hearings were successful,

or do you think it's too early to say? It's obviously too early to say in the sense that I guess if we have another insurrection in a couple of years, then we'll say they failed. It's like, did the Inflation Reduction Act, did the climate change provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, were they, I don't know, did the planet melt? Like we'll find out in centuries. But I think we have to, we have to judge, there are ways to look at this and say they were successful. There was a very annoying, poorly thought out, pretty pedantic op-ed in the times today by someone oh no i it's i'm so mad that you read that because i read it this morning and i was like i don't even want to i don't even want to make everyone mad by sending this around well i'm gonna send it around but

this is gonna be righteous anger because i'm gonna tell everyone why it sucked the point being okay it was dumb i'm not gonna get into it but the argument they met this individual who once again i said i can't i can't promise exists because promise exists because I don't know who he or she is, but was that in the polling, the number of people who believe that the election was illegitimate has not changed from before the hearing to now. And if you view the hearing as, are we going to deprogram Trump supporters from thinking that the election was stolen? It was always doomed to fail. That's not how disinformation works.

That's not how the Armada or media ecosystem works. But it also, as a political matter, it does not matter. Whether they believe it's a big lie or not is not absolutely consequential, and it's not something that a congressional committee has the ability to stop. is not absolutely consequential, and it's not something that a congressional committee has ability to stop. If the point was to remind everyone how deeply dangerous Donald Trump is, then they have made progress on that. If it was to remind everyone that our democracy is in danger, then they have succeeded at that. And in fact, you have seen movement in polls over time in the number of Republicans who think Donald Trump should be charged with a crime, as high as one in four Republican voters in some polls earlier this summer. That's a big deal,

right? In a highly polarized, closely divided nation, that is a difference. And prior to these hearings, January 6th had been flushed down the memory hole of our national short attention span, and they brought it back out, and it's incredibly important that they did. national short attention span, and they brought it back out. And it's incredibly important that they did. Yeah. And look, the January 6th committee cannot do anything about the fact that upwards of 80% of the population did not follow news and political news, especially closely. They can't fix that. What they can do is make the best case possible to get the most coverage possible in the news, which they did, right? Like they, for, for the audiences who watched, which admittedly is a small subset of the American population,

but one that includes very influential media figures and journalists with quite a bit of reach for that crowd, it was important. And they talked about it and they wrote about it and they talked about it on television and all the people who paid attention to that saw it. And it was a damn good case. They made the best case they could do. And what was the alternative? Just not talk about the insurrection that took place at our Capitol? It's just, of course, of course they should have done what they did.

Beyond that, they can't control what everyone thinks. Maybe this is damning with faint praise, but it's by far the most impactful, important set of congressional hearings since Iran-Contra. I know, we're talking about a quarter century here. It's hard to know what would be more. They did the absolutely best job they could. You can take the horse to water. You can't make it drink. But they made it as compelling a case as anyone could possibly have made in this media environment with the tools available to them.

I interviewed Rachel Maddow for Offline this week. Oh, excuse me. Yeah, just a little preview. And so she has this fantastic new podcast out called Ultra, which is about a fascist movement that gained steam in the United States before World War II in the early 40s. And it had infiltrated members of Congress. And it was like thousands and thousands of people in the United States. I mean, it was like this crazy untold story. But I asked her, she said, look, it ends up being a hopeful story because this, you know, this movement was obviously defeated.

And I said, well, what was the best strategy that you found telling the story for defeating it the first time? And she said, exposure. Exposure is the number one most effective strategy. Letting making sure that everyone knows what these people are up to and making sure that it doesn't happen in the dark, that everyone knows. And that's what the January 6th committee did. And like, you're right. Who knows what will happen from here? It's not going to like, is it going to lead to Donald Trump's arrest and imprisonment? No, like we're all going to have to make the case that Donald Trump should not be president again. It's not going to absolve us of the very hard work that we have ahead of us to make sure that this man

does not become president again. I know that's what we wanted, but like, that's, that's not how it works. So I, you know, I think, I think they did a great job. I mean, what the question is, what's next on the legal front? Like, are we all just waiting for Merrick Garland to cross the T's and dot the I's on, on the post-election indictment of Donald Trump or what? eyes on the post-election indictment of Donald Trump or what? Yeah, and it's a question on for what, right? Merrick Garland's got multiple criminal investigations going into Trump. We have investigations in Fulton County, Georgia. There are other investigations in Trump businesses in New York. I mean, it's really a race to who can get their indictment out first, I guess. But we are in this awkward position now where we're clearly too close to the election for

the Department of Justice to make an indictment. If that was going to happen, it would have happened months ago. They clearly aren't ready to do that. If they're going to do it, what happens after the election? Is there some period afterwards between what happens if Donald Trump announces for president in that period? When you and I were talking to Maggie Haberman last week, the week before, I can't remember, she pointed out that one of the reasons he wants to run is because he wants the constitutional protections that come with being president

from indictment. And so who knows what's going to happen? The committee can't make it happen. I do think that the committee clearly put information out into the world that the Department of Justice did not know, some of that, like we've read reports about that, and increased public pressure on the Department of Justice to do something, whether that means they will indict on the Espionage Act for the Mar-a-Lago case, whether they will do something, indict someone, whether they indict Trump or some of the people around him here, we don't really know. And once again, we don't have control over. And if you're looking for even, not that anyone listening to this podcast needs it, but even more motivation for these midterms is if we can retain control of the House, we have the ability to see this through, to continue to put pressure on Donald Trump. He wants to run the clock out on this subpoena. Maybe it will be enforced. Maybe it won't. But if the Republicans take Congress over, then the subpoena will be null and void, I believe. So we have the ability to keep pressing this case if we keep the House. And there were two other pieces of notable Trump legal news today during the hearing. The first was that former Pence Chief of Staff Mark Short

and Trump National Security Advisor Kash Patel were seen today at the federal courthouse here in D.C. where grand juries meet. So that could be happening. And then we found out that the Supreme Court denied Trump's appeal over the Mar-a-Lago documents. No dissents. No dissents. The Supreme Court does not want to save him on this one. I mean, there is one other one that I think is just worth noting, which came out in The Times during the hearing, I guess, which is, as we know, Donald Trump's the Trump organization, his business is under.

Oh, yeah. Investigation is being sued in a pretty massive civil case in the state of New York. So right before that, those charges were, that case was launched. Donald Trump went to my home state of Delaware, where all corporations are apparently created, to form a new business called Trump Organization 2. So he would have a separate business, not under obligation, which is just amazing in its audacity and its lack of creativity. Yeah. Yeah, I think he's a, it sounds like he's a criminal, you know, doesn't sound like he's a, doesn't sound like he's a great guy. What happens if there are no Trump indictments? Do we all have to castigate Democrats as miserable failures and put away

our Liz Cheney bobbleheads? What happens? Look, it is not the fault of this committee. If there are no indictments, they have no control over that. They have no ability to indict Trump. That is not on them. And I don't think in the if you want to do an accurate rendering of the history of this committee hearing, that should not be like a demerit on them. They've done all they possibly could. If Merrick Garland were to decide not to indict Trump for all the various crimes, that's something that he will have to answer for in the history books like that. various crimes, that's something that he will have to answer for in the history books like that. You know, if you know, it's like we've tried to be, I think, as fair and open about the challenges of making a case against Trump, and it's high stakes for the Department of Justice. But if they if the reason they don't pursue it is political, I think that is something that is

going to be very damning in the short term for our political system and very damning for how this Department of Justice and Merrick Garland's tenure is seen over the course of history. But I also think that we all have to be open to the fact that they might not bring an indictment because they do not believe that they can get a conviction or that the indictment is warranted, right? Like these, like we're all, we can all go on Twitter and see all the Twitter lawyers saying that like, oh, he definitely broke this law or that law. But like, you know what? That's not what we do. And we're not in the Department of Justice. And you're right that if they were doing it because

they're worried about the politics, that's inexcusable. But there's a possibility they don't do it because they don't think that they can prove that he actually broke any laws, even though what he did was fucking horrendous. So we'll see. And also, it's not a panacea. Merrick Garland could indict Trump tomorrow, and he could still announce for president. In fact, he will. He could still run for president. In fact, he will run for president and maybe win. Like the only thing that we can control is what happens in the elections in this election coming up in 2024. We have no control over what Merrick Garland does or what happens after Merrick, after the Department of Justice were to indict him.

We don't that could that would be in the hands of a jury. That would be in the hands of a judge ruling on motions, all those things. All we control is political accountability. We cannot depend on legal accountability to solve our political problem. So you'll all hear a lot about these hearings on Twitter and on cable news and right here in this podcast. But one place you won't hear about them is on the campaign trail. So a Politico analysis found that less than 2% of all spending on television ads in House races have been about January 6th. And the Democrats have aired just two dozen spots focused on threats to democracy in about 16 different battleground districts. Why do you think this is? Because it is backward looking and Donald Trump himself is not

on the ballot this fall. Trumpism is on the ballot, which is why you've seen a lot of ads about MAGA extremism and extremist views. And there have been ads in Senate races and other races about January 6th when you would have a shocking number of Republican candidates who were at the Capitol that day. Mark Fincham, Doug Mastriano, a whole bunch of people were at the January 6th rally, and you see it there. But it is, we want this race to be a referendum on Republican extremism. But that referendum has to be on extremism going forward, not extremism that happened in the past. And while this committee is doing the right thing to focus on that in their capacity, if you're making the case to voters, it has to be about what happens after this election, not what happened after the last election. on extremism that affects your life directly. And this is what I heard over and over again in every single focus group for the wilderness when I asked, what issues does the media cover too much?

What issues does the media not cover enough? And under cover too much, January 6th, these hearings came up again and again. And what does the media not cover enough? The economy, healthcare, education, and abortion, although that was getting a lot of coverage. So people talked about it as an issue that they cared about, but not as one that wasn't getting enough coverage because it has. So again, you're trying to get people to vote for you who don't pay close attention to the news and to politics. And what they want to know is, if I show up and vote for you who don't pay close attention to the news and to politics. And what they want to know is, if I show up and vote for you, what are you going to do to make my life better? And we can all say, well, what they're going to do is protect democracy from another insurrection.

But to someone who's just like struggling to get through the day, that answer just doesn't, it doesn't land as effectively. And we can be upset about that for sure and wish that more people would care. But that's not the reality that we're living in. And we have to operate within reality. That's politics. It's interesting because one thing I thought about is we talked to Pat Ryan, who won that special house race in New York a couple months ago. And he did make sort of democracy central to that race. But it wasn't really January 6th that he talked about a lot. It was sort of the threat to democracy writ large,

and he sort of folded in the threat to our freedoms and what they've done and the Dobbs decision and everything else the Republicans have done and all the other extremism. He sort of folded it into one argument. And I do think there's probably a way for Democrats to sort of make the larger threat to democracy a part of this midterm campaign as long as you make it tangible for people. Right. The reason that this extremist minority is willing to seize power in every way possible, throwing out votes, suppressing votes, violently storming the Capitol is because they want to put in place an extremist, unpopular agenda that includes banning abortion, banning marriage equality, banning books, privatizing Social Security and Medicare, things that they could not put in place through the normal course of politics because the vast

majority of the country opposes them. And so that is what Pat Ryan's campaign message was, is it tied all of the Republican efforts to undermine our democracy as a way to put in place this extremist agenda that affected people's lives. And that's the connection you've mentioned. That's what you have to do. And so there's a way to do it

that is not about Donald Trump that is bigger than January 6th. January 6th is a very important issue. It is one that should be talked about. But in the context of making a political persuasion argument, there are better ways to do it, in my opinion. Speaking of cutting Social Security and Medicare, NBC News reported today that those two issues have become a focus of Democratic campaign ads this cycle. The piece also says, quote, these ads come as Bernie Sanders and James Carville have warned Democrats that relying only on abortion is a mistake and they also need to turn to economic issues. What do you think about that? I know you have feelings.

It's just the straw man argument here is so annoying. No one. No one is running only on abortion. No one is arguing that people only run on abortion. That's not a thing that's happening. It's just – it's not. That's just – if you look – I watch a gazillion campaign ads where political experts react. We pay attention to what these campaigns are doing.

No one is doing that. Is abortion a central issue in this race? Yes. Should it be? Yes. Do the polls show that it is effective both in engaging Democrats who had been disengaged from the politics and in persuading the voters we need? Yes. But it's only part of the argument. So just... Did you read Bernie's op-ed about this? No, I just read the tweets who do you think i am i like honestly this is so bad i don't even know that i didn't even know there was an op-ed i just saw all the tweets about it i got so mad i just got so mad that i checked out of it

bernie sanders wrote an op-ed in the guardian as one does. In the Guardian? What is happening? Are we sure this is real? I read it with my own eyes. I read it with my own eyes. And look, so basically he says in the op-ed, he starts by saying abortion is critical. It should not be on the back burner. We should be talking about it. It's an important issue. I am hearing that Democratic consultants are advising candidates to just cut a couple abortion ads for the last couple weeks and just wait for the victory. I'm paraphrasing it.

That's basically what it is. Yes. And so then he said, and this is why we need to also talk about economic issues. So Bernie is claiming that he's hearing this is what consultants are saying. But you're saying, as the host of Political Experts React that looks at every campaign ad, that you have not seen that. I've not seen that. And, you know, we are friends with Democratic consultants. We know lots of people working on races.

If there are people saying that, they are very bad consultants. The ones who are working on the most races, the ones we know, are not making that argument to anyone. And just no one is like, just cut a know are not making that argument to anyone. And just no one is like, just cut a couple ads and wait for victory to roll in. That's not really how it works. I think what's happening is abortion as an issue does get more media coverage, just as every political issue gets more media coverage than like the economic issues that Democrats are always told to drive home because like cultural, social, political, racial, like all of those issues just get a lot of media coverage. And, and, and someone talking about like raising the minimum

wage in healthcare, those issues happen to be central to democratic campaigns, stump speeches, television ads, but they just don't get the same level of media coverage unless you have a situation where like you know republicans are trying to repeal the affordable care act right otherwise you don't hear about that stuff as much so that there is that but like that doesn't that is much different than actual campaigns that are spending money on ads and going out on the stump every day only talking about abortion, which is not happening. There are lots of abortion ads, but there are also a lot of ads about Republican extremism, of which abortion is, as it should be, an important part. But there are other issues in there as well. And some of those issues, as we'll get to in like two seconds, are economic.

Right. Well, so what do you think about the Medicare Social Security strategy that NBC News was reporting on in general? It's good. It is a good strategy if done in the right way. The way you say good did not really. Well, we've in a lot of tough elections where things are not looking great for Democrats. It's like this is the last card in the deck that we pull. Right.

So it is Social Security, Medicare. They're going to cut it. And it's like we're the last card in the deck that we pull, right? So it is Social Security, Medicare, they're going to cut it. And it's like, we're like, oh, my God, seniors, we got to get them. But in this case, and in the ads that I've seen about this, including some from Mark Kelly, and some from John Fetterman, some ads from groups supporting them in those races are good, because what they are really addressing is inflation. I know that seems crazy, but bear with me. There is a tendency to look at issues like inflation in a one-dimensional way. It's about inflation. Let's talk about what we – it's not a problem. We've done these things with a problem. But ultimately, all campaign issues are about – come down to or they're

a proxy really for, who do you trust to fight for you on this issue? Who do you trust to fight for you on the economy? Not who is responsible for getting it here, who has what plans for doing it. Who do you actually trust? And if you can convince people that Republicans are the kind of people who want to cut Social Security and Medicare, those are people you cannot trust to take on the oil companies, to stand up the big corporations doing price gouging, to fight for working and middle class people. And so it is actually an extension of this extremist argument where these are extreme positions. And someone who is willing to force a young person to bring a pregnancy to term after being raped is the same kind of person who would overthrow an election and cut Social Security and Medicare. And so these are extremist views, and they are on the economy.

And essentially what we're trying to do is disqualify Republicans from being people you would trust to deal with inflation. For the voters who say inflation is the number one issue, would you really trust somebody who wants to put your Social Security into the stock market right now? That is sort of the argument there. And I think that is in a lot of campaigns I'm seeing they're doing it in the right way. There's also a news peg here in the final weeks of the election. This isn't just based on Rick Scott's campaign plan that Mitch McConnell said would

never happen. That got like Pinocchio to death. This is a Bloomberg story from last week where a bunch of house Republicans who are all vying to be the chair of the ways and means committee. If the Republicans take back the house, talked to Bloomberg News and said what they're planning to do is to use the debt ceiling negotiations that will be happening in 2023 as they're going to hold the debt ceiling hostage until they get cuts to Medicare and Social Security. They said this, and Medicaid. They said this to the Bloomberg reporter. They're like, we're going to have to go after entitlementslements and they're not going to raise the debt ceiling unless they get entitlement cuts. So that means Medicare and Social Security, Medicaid. So it's like, yeah, of course,

every Democrat running should run out there and say, look, if these guys take the House, even though Joe Biden's still going to be president, they're going to try to hold the debt ceiling hostage and maybe crash the global economy unless they get cuts to Medicare and Social Security. I'd be running on that all the fucking time. And another way to connect the dots here is two things, is the vast majority of Republicans running say that they want to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. I talked to Michael Bennett in an interview here shortly where his opponent wants to do that. Doing that means that you are going to increase the deficit because you are going to repeal the minimum tax,

which means that large corporations can keep paying $0 in taxes. And how are you going to pay for that? By cutting Social Security and Medicare. So less taxes for corporations, less Social Security and Medicare for you. Yeah, no, I think that is the right message. And with the debt ceiling thing too, you get to tie in the extremism because it is of course extreme to hold the global economy hostage because you want cuts to Medicare and Social Security. So, all right, when we come back, we will have Dan's interview with Senator Michael Bennett. Joining us now to talk about his upcoming reelection is Colorado Senator Michael Bennett. Senator Bennett, welcome back to Pod Save America. Thanks, Dan. It's great to be with you.

I want to start with just a quick reaction. Today's news, inflation remains stubbornly high. You know, everyone who's out there talking to voters, as you are, knows that this is top of mind for everyone else. The Fed has a very aggressive strategy of rate increases to essentially slow down the economy. A lot of folks are concerned that that is going to put the burden on working families by raising unemployment and slowing wage growth. Is the Fed doing the right thing? And if not, what else should they be doing? I think they're doing the right thing because unfortunately, I don't think they have much of a choice. I think they waited too, this is Monday morning quarterbacking and I'll admit that, but I think they waited too long to do this. They kept interest rates at zero for too long.

I think the breadth of the quantitative easing probably was broader than it should have been. And, you know, I've had this conversation with the Fed chair, because of concerns that I had, this was before the inflation concerns that I had about the cost of housing in Colorado, which has gone through the roof, there's no workforce housing left in our state, you know, and that's partly the result, I think he he disagreed with me, it's partly the result of a Federal Reserve that intervened and drove asset prices and the stock market through the roof so that people with cash can pay whatever it is they want to pay for housing in Colorado. I'm not saying they shouldn't have intervened, but I do think that was an unintended consequence of the intervention. And to your point, you know, once again, we find ourselves on the back end of a recession, making income inequality worse in this country, creating, you know, more, you know, a country where the folks at the very top benefit every time the economy falls or grows. top benefit every time the economy falls or grows. And working people, you know, often, you know, for them, economic recoveries over the last 50 years have actually acted like recessions for them. And I would say, you know, a more important question is, can we hopefully claim

that we're at the end of the Reagan era and the end of, you know, this sort of supply side trickle-down economics and an economics that privileged people that wanted to make stuff as cheaply as possible in Southeast Asia or China over lots of other things we could have privileged in our economy, like decent wages and like, you know, having durable supply chains and our national security. And I think the bill that we recently passed, the president signed, the CHIPS Act, you know, to my mind anyway, maybe the first step to trying to say we're going to privilege some other stuff, you know, and we're going to bring the semiconductor supply chains back to America for a variety of reasons, not the least

of which is our national security. But I think we ought to be thinking about other things too, in the wake of the busted supply chains that really have caused the inflation that we're dealing with now, in addition to the rising energy prices that have been caused by an economic recovery and by Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I mean, you mentioned the CHIPS Act. Congress has also passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which over the medium and long term will do a lot to reduce costs on things like prescription drugs. But for voters who are thinking inflation is too high, the cost of gas is too high, groceries is too high,

help me finish this sentence. Send Democrats back in the majority to do X to help you with. So that we can create an economy in America that when it grows, it grows for everybody, not the top 10%. Are there specific things that a Democratic majority would do to help deal with the cost? There's specific things I would want to do. I mean, I think that first of all, we should reverse the Trump tax cuts for the richest Americans. We haven't done that yet. And we should fund Bennett Brown and Brown Bennett, which are the biggest tax cuts for working people that the Democratic Party has stood for in generations. That's the child tax credit that I've worked on for years that I ran my completely unnoticed campaign for president on. But, you know, we did pass that last year and it cut childhood poverty in America almost in half.

And it meant that families in Colorado were getting 450 bucks a month to help feed their kids and to help pay their rent. Similar with the earned income tax credit, which I've worked on with Sherrod Brown for a long time, too, that, you know, benefited millions of workers with, you know, that don't have children. I mean, I think those are the kind of tax policies that could help people in the short term deal with the inflation issues that we're confronting. And then in the short term, I think the Federal Reserve has to continue to try to do what it's doing, even though it has some of the effects that you described. And then over the longer term, what we have to do is, I think, repatriate these supply chains so that we're not seeing the kind of inflation that we're seeing right now and have an energy policy in this country, unlike the one we had going into this administration, which was inflationary, terrible for national security and awful at reducing emissions. I mean, coal is up 20% since Biden became president. You know, we should have an energy policy in place that allows us to, over time, reduce costs, create energy independence and economic independence, keep Europe in the fight against

Putin for Ukraine, and that reduces emissions. And I think the combination of what we've got in hand with respect to natural gas and the Inflation Reduction Act puts us in a position that no other country in the world is positioned to, you know, puts us in a position to lead that transition that I think over time is going to make a huge difference to people's pocketbooks in this country. On this podcast, we talk about the closest Senate races in the nation all the time, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, et cetera. We don't mention Colorado very much, but you are up for reelection. There's been some rumors or some thoughts that maybe this is going to be a close race. Mitch McConnell's super PAC just gave money to your opponent's super PAC. I think President Biden's headed to Colorado shortly. What is the status of your race? How are you feeling about your reelection? I mean, every time I run every race like I'm 20 points behind, that's how I've... And Dan,

when you and I first met, I was running for the first time in Colorado, having been appointed to the Senate. And and in 2010, you'll remember, was a terrible, terrible year for Democrats because we had passed the Affordable Care Act. And I was out on the eastern plains of Colorado with a slide deck trying to explain. Here's why I voted for the Affordable Care Act. I'm not sure I convinced anybody, but I survived. And because I did, and Harry Reid did that year, and Patty Murray did, we held the majority, even though it was a complete wipeout. And that meant 35 million people who might have lost their health insurance didn't lose their health insurance. You know, I'm running the same way today as I did in 16 when Trump won. That was a crazy year.

And I think we're going to be OK. It's going to be close and the race is going to close. And McConnell is spending money here. And we learned last week that a billionaire in Wyoming has put $4 million into a super pack here to try to buy the race for my opponent. And I think people should know about my opponent. He's trying to claim that he's a pro-choice, moderate Republican. And the reality is he voted for an abortion ban in Colorado two years ago that had no exceptions for rape or incest. He says that he doesn't support any of the federal laws that are being used to codify Roe v. Wade.

He doesn't support Colorado's own bill codifying Roe v. Wade. He said he would have voted against the bipartisan gun bill that we passed, a bill that even Mitch McConnell voted for. He won't vote for it because he says we have too many gun laws. He doesn't support the existing red flag law that we have in Colorado. And he wants to make permanent the Trump tax cuts. So, I mean, I think this guy is way he also opposes the Inflation Reduction Act, which, as you mentioned, caps drug prices at 2000 bucks for seniors. Finally, after decades, requires Medicare to negotiate drug prices for the American people and caps insulin at $35. And this guy says there's nothing in the bill to like. So

the choice is going to be very clear for Coloradans. And I think he is way outside the mainstream. I mean, I of Colorado, I will confess that unlike his primary opponent, who actually was an insurrectionist on January 6th, he was not there that day. But he has said that he thinks that Donald Trump bears no responsibility for what happened on January 6th. It says a lot about the state of the Republican Party that simply not attending the riot on the Capitol is what makes you a moderate in this party. I know. I agree. And I think it also, to me, it says a lot. You know, this guy knows better, I'm sure.

He knows that Trump blew the whistle that brought all those people there in their racist T-shirts and in their anti-Semitic T-shirts. But, you know, instead of saying, instead of telling the truth about it, he's just being an apologist for Donald Trump and saying he didn't bear any responsibility. It reminds me of Senator Cruz on the floor, literally the day of the

insurrection, standing in the well of the Senate, claiming that we were disrespecting Trump's voters because we weren't basically having a recount. We weren't delaying the certification of Joe Biden's election. And then we got invaded right after Cruz was saying that. And when we went back to the floor, I went down there and I said, you know what? You guys are the ones disrespecting your voters and Donald Trump's voters because you won't tell them the truth and you know better. And even after we've been invaded, they still won't tell the truth truth and you know better. And even after we've been invaded, they still won't tell the truth. So you're right. I think it does say a lot about the state of the Republican Party. Obviously, we want everyone who hears this interview in

Colorado to get out and vote and volunteer and do everything they can for you. But we're also making the case to our listeners all across the country about the stakes of this election and about why it matters who's in the majority in the Senate. So maybe could you talk a little bit about what would concern you as someone I know who cares deeply about democracy, about the Republicans taking the Senate majority this fall? I mean, first of all, if you think the democracy is fragile, which I do, and I hope most people believe that, that are listening to this, then Democrats have a moral obligation to win, you know, not for the sake of Democrats,

but for the sake of the democracy. Because what's on the other side is the Republicans that are running in Georgia and Pennsylvania and Ohio and here in Colorado and in Arizona, they're not, these are not people that are committed to the democracy. And that's something I think we need to be really worried about. And I will tell you, I, before I was in this job, I used to hear politicians say all the time, this is the most important election of your life. You know, that's what people would say. And I want to tell you my very, I think, very considered opinion about this, having watched Donald Trump get elected president, which should never have happened. It should never have happened. And it wasn't his fault that he got

elected, but he got elected. And then being there on January 6th for that invasion of the Capitol by my fellow citizens, you know, with those racist banners and flags. My judgment is that every election between now and when we expire is the most important election of our lifetimes, and we should treat it that way. We have to treat it that way. You know, Amy Klobuchar is a friend of mine. She's going to be mad that I said this on your podcast because I've only said it in Colorado. But, you know, I keep telling people in Colorado that I'm sick and tired of hearing Amy Klobuchar say that Minnesota has the number one voter turnout rate in the country, because I know, and she knows I know, that Colorado has the second highest voter turnout rate. So what I've

been pleading with people in Colorado to do is take that talking point away from Amy Klobuchar. We have an excellent, excellent system of voting in Colorado, mail-in ballots. We've got tons of early drop-off places and a nice early voting period. And ballots are going to go out next Monday. And I just hope that everybody votes like this is a presidential election because the stakes are incredibly high. You know, if we have Mitch McConnell as the majority leader with a pro-life Senate in the wake of Roe versus Wade being overturned, we have a Senate that wants to perpetuate the trickle down economics that got us here to begin with, these incredibly staggering rates of income inequality and

lack of economic mobility in our country. That in and of itself, I think, is the biggest threat to our democracy. And we've got to fix that. We need an economy that when it grows, it grows for everybody so people can see, you know, that there's opportunity for themselves and opportunity for their families. Otherwise, Trump's going to come back again and say, I alone can fix it. That's what happens. That's when you lose. That's when you lose a democracy, because people sense that they don't have an opportunity, and maybe a tyrant can show up and tell you, I alone can fixly bankrupt, and you're a sucker if you don't believe that. That's the dark vision he ran on the last time. And we need to cure the underlying circumstances in our society so that people do have economic hope for themselves and for their families. families. Senator Bennett, I think that's a great place for us to end, where your GOTV message is one of two things. Turn out and vote like your democracy depends on it. And if that doesn't work for you, turn out to vote so you can stick it to Amy Klobuchar. Just so you can take that talking point away from me. Exactly. Yes. Thanks for having me, Dan. I look forward to catching up

after the election's over. Absolutely. I look forward to it. Always fun to talk to you, Senator. Great seeing you. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Michael Bennett, for joining us today. It's Thursday. Tomorrow, the two of us and Tommy and Lovett are going to go interview our former boss, Barack Obama, for a special bonus episode that will be out Saturday. So check out that bonus episode.

And you can also listen to it Friday night first on Sirius XM channel 127. So check it out. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein. Our producers are Hayley Muse and Olivia Martinez. It's mixed and edited

by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineered the show. Thanks to Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Sandy Gerard, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team,

Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montuth. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash podsaveamerica.