Pod Save America - Trump Has James Comey Indicted

Episode Date: September 26, 2025

Just days after the President demanded the Justice Department prosecute his political enemies and ousted a career prosecutor who refused to comply, Trump's handpicked replacement indicts former FBI Director James Comey. Jon and Dan react to Trump's weaponization of the Justice Department and then discuss Jimmy Kimmel's powerful pro-free speech monologue, a government shutdown that now seems inevitable, and why Vice President JD Vance called Jon a "dipshit" on Twitter earlier this week. Then, Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff stops by the studio to talk to Tommy about his office's investigations into ICE and the defining feature of the Trump administration: corruption. Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security. So much of the political frustration we talk about comes down to a basic lack of competence. It's why having something that just works and works incredibly well feel so good. That's Simply Safe. It's smartly designed security that's praised by experts like CNET, U.S. News and World Report and the 4 million Americans who trust it in their homes, including John Lovett. There we go. He set it up himself years ago.

He was ahead of the curve. And it's really easy. You can just turn it on and off from your phone. Here's how it works. Their smart cameras can identify a potential threat, not just motion, but a person lurking on your property that immediately alerts SimplySafe's professional monitoring agents in real time. And this is the game changer.

The agents can proactively intervene while the intruder is still outside. They can use two-way audio to confront the intruder, letting them know they're being watched on camera and the police are on their way. They're so confident in what they do that there are no long-term contracts or hidden fees. You can cancel any time. They also have a 60-day money-back guarantee so you can try it and see the difference for yourself. Visit simplysaf.com slash cricket to claim 50% off a new system. That's simplysafe.com slash crooked. There's no safe like...

Simply safe. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm John Favarra. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, why the vice president called me a dipshit, how the White House is using a shooting at an ice facility in Dallas as another pretext to crack down on the left. We'll also talk about the return of Jimmy Kimmel, the government shutdown that's almost here, MAGA's war

against escalators, what gets Stephen Miller's wife going in the morning, and Tommy's interview with Georgia Senator John Assoff. Look, those are her words, not mine. No, I know. I know. But first, the people demanding, we stop

calling them authoritarian, are now ordering law enforcement to charge the president political enemies with crimes they didn't commit. The new loyalist Trump installed as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia is reportedly planning to seek an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, even though the Trump appointee she replaced and the rest of the prosecutors in the office have told her that the investigation that they did didn't uncover sufficient evidence of any crimes. What's stopping you, though, you know?

Just because you can't find any crimes doesn't mean you can't try to bring an indictment. Comey is far from the only target here. The fabricated case against New York Attorney General Tish James appears to be coming back from the dead as well. Ed Martin, formerly the lawyer for the violent January 6th rioters, is reportedly advancing that investigation, which had also stalled due to a lack of evidence. Trump is pressuring the Department of Justice to indict ex-CIA director John Brennan, though prosecutors are also struggling to find a crime that he committed. And on Thursday morning, the New York Times reported that an official at DOD. Jay sent a memo to federal prosecutors around the country asking someone, anyone, to please start investigating George Soros and his Open Society Foundation. The story says that the memo

goes as far as to list possible charges prosecutors could file, ranging from arson to material support of terrorism. The memo suggests department leaders are following orders from the president that specific people or groups be subject to criminal investigation. Just putting it all out there right in the memo. Here's Trump's response when asked about the potential Comey indictment on Thursday. I'm not making that determined. I think I'd be allowed to get involved if I want, but I don't really choose to do so. I can only say that Comey's a bad person. He's a sick person. I think he's a sick guy, actually. He did terrible things at the FBI. But I don't know. I have no idea what's going to happen. He's got no idea, Dan. He has no idea what's going to happen. He's following these

stories just like we are. Yeah, he seems like a guy who really values the independence of the Department Justice and the idea that the president should not get involved in investigations. He could get involved. He could. Get involved. Don't dare, don't dare suggest he might be impotent in any way, so he could get involved, but he's not. Like, we are laughing here, but this is a five alarm fire for democracy and the rule of law. Here you have the president who is removed prosecutors who are unwilling to charge crimes to people for which there was insufficient evidence, replace them with a political crony who has no prosecutorial experience and is now going to try to get indictment on Jim Comey, going to charge crimes against Letitia James, looking at John Brennan,

looking at George Soros's Foundation. We also, we know just from reading Trump's truths, which apparently operate as rule of law these days because they provide instructions to people across the government that Adam Schiff could be next. You know, who knows, like who comes after that doesn't stop there. It could be Jimmy Kimmel, could be people working in the January 6th commission. It could be all kinds of people who anyone who was who had, who ever crossed Trump before or now who does not have blanket immunity from Joe Biden is at risk here. And it is quite dangerous. And we are like we have been through this cycle for so long now with Trump of outrage to normal, which is we're all outrageous this is happening. And then it's the new normal, right?

That was the way it was with Doge. That's the way it was with the free speech stuff. And so here we are. The new normal is, and everyone's going to treat it just as normal, that the President of United States gets to pick who law enforcement goes after regardless of the evidence. You pick the opponent first, the crime second, and the evidence follows. Which is the exact opposite of the way it's supposed to go. And as we've said before, there's a very good chance that if any of these indictments get to court, you know, a judge throws them out before a trial even commences. There's even a chance, as we've seen from some of these Janine Piro grand juries in D.C., that the grand jury doesn't even indict them, even if the prosecutors bring the charges.

That does not mean that, like, the rule of law has won the day and everything is safe, because Jim Comey, John Brennan, all these people, they've had to lawyer up. They've probably had to talk to the FBI. There have been investigations. And what if it starts targeting? you know, he's going to start going after people who can't afford lawyers. He's going to have to start going after people who, you know, maybe you've committed some minor, you know, offense 30 years ago that they're going to find. I mean, this is just really, really dangerous stuff. Because once the rule of law starts coming apart, once you start just completely politicizing, not just having a lackey as attorney general like Pam Bondi, but now you're reaching into these

these offices, these U.S. attorney offices and you're only putting in prosecutors who, even if they don't find a crime and they don't find evidence, they're going to go try to bring an indictment and criminally charge someone, potentially go arrest someone, bring them

it's crazy. It's fucking crazy. Somebody just had to say back, if this was happening in any other country, we would call it for what it is, which is the end of democracy. And it's happening here and it's happening right now. On the source thing, the memo that the Times got accused the Open Society's foundations of, quote, pouring over $80 million into groups tied to

terrorism or extremist violence. Have you looked into this memo and what they're planning here for Soros, how to loop him into this? I have. So we should stipulate that there is, despite plenty of accusations from many on the far right, including the president of the United States, there is no evidence that George Soros' foundation has funded any groups that have done violent extremism. There are also, at least in the cases of the most recent incidents of violence. There's no evidence that groups are involved at all, right? As of what we know right now, these are the actions of individuals acting on their own. So this is a completely made up thing to begin with. They're trying to hang this on the thinnest read possible, which is there is a group

that is a Palestinian rights and aid organization that the government of Israel, to my knowledge, not the government of the United States, but the government of Israel has said is a front for terrorism. Now, I'm going to be pretty skeptical of how Bibi Netanyahu's government characterizes a group that provides aid to the Palestinian people at this exact moment at time. But that is what they're going for. Like, that is the hook here. The arson stuff is a reference to this completely made up idea that lacks any evidence at all that the sabotage of Tesla's was funded by Soros.

That was a big talking part on the right. I think that's where the arson comes from. But there is no evidence there. They are instructing prosecutors to go investigate, but they're starting with the crime, not with the evidence, which is, as I said before, exactly the opposite of how it's supposed to go. Yeah, basically what they're doing here is, first, they're trying to find protests that have happened in the United States anytime in the last decade where at some point, some, you know, maniacs infiltrated the protest and caused vandalism or violence or something like that. Or like Antifa showed up and they were violent or they were destructive and some black box or any of these fucking anarchists.

Right. And then they're going to look and say, okay, originally was that protest organized by some kind of a group? And then can we tie the group that organized the protest to the Antifa anarchists who joined the protest later and caused some damage? And then who funded the groups that set up the protest and could we tie the funding somehow to Soros or to the Ford Foundation or to any of these other, you know, left-leaning foundations? and then do those foundations have foreign ties because since you there's no legal way to label NGOs, you know, nonprofits in this country as domestic terrorists. That's like not a legal thing. We've talked about that. You can only label foreign organizations, terrorist organizations. So is there any foreign funding involved for many of these groups, which of course the Soros Foundation funds sort of nonprofits all over the world, that you can then tie.

of them and then do it that way. I'm not even sure the funding works in the reverse, right? You need the funding to come from abroad, right? If you send your American money abroad, that is America funding things abroad. It is not, in or not, the foreign interest funding. Like, it's all bullshit. It's all ridiculous bullshit. And it's once again, the president of the United States has a fever dream that is inspired

by a right-wing outrage machine. and then the government then goes to try to make that real. He just signed the, we're going to talk about the TikTok deal, and he was in the Oval and got asked about this and asked about Soros particularly. And he said, I mean, I don't know, you know, like every time I, he's involved in so many things. Every time I read the paper, Soros's name. So I assume that's, you know, like just reading his name connected to progressive liberal organizations, that's enough for, he's giving away the game.

It's not like he was saying, I've read, I've read the name in connection with violence. It's I've read the name in connection with Democratic Party politics. And we should just, I mean, like, let's be clear about what Trump and the right wants to do here, is that JorSaurus's Foundation is one of the most impactful and important funders of, not just political causes, but democracy, equity, civil society in this country and around the world, and they want to create some pretext to begin investigation, to go rooting through all of their stuff to, so that they can exact

revenge and come up the works through law enforcement, through investigations, through the IRS or whatever else it is to make it hard for them to do good in the world. That's what this is about. So it feels like all we can do about this is call attention to. it, raise awareness? Like, I don't know what tools Democrats in Congress, what power Democrats and Congress have to fight this. You got any ideas? Yeah, we don't have the power to do it right now, but we can use this as an argument to get the power to do something about it. And I think Democrats need to, we should not run away from this. We should not pretend like it's not happening. We should not vomit up a bunch of poll tested, focus grouped, pablum about

tariffs and affordability and Medicaid cuts, we should weave this into a clear and compelling narrative about a president of United States who is abusing his power to help his friends and seek vengeance on his enemies instead of trying to help American families. And we know from previous midterms that there is always a segment of voters who want there to be a check on power. Right. That is that helped us in 2018. It is it helped the Republicans in 2010, 1994, etc. to get those votes from those voters who want to check on power, you need to do two things. You need to show that there is an abuse of power happening and that it's hurting people's lives and affecting people in a negative way.

That's one. And two is you have to make yourself a worthy vessel so that people think you can actually check that power. And so the way you begin this is by making this an issue, talking about it. And I think actually using some leverage is like, we think we're going to have the house next year and we are going to root through every single email that every single piece of correspondence in the, in the Eastern District of Virginia to go over exactly how these decisions were made. We're going to hold people accountable if they're doing things politically.

If you were taking, if you're a district, if you're a U.S. attorney somewhere or a prosecutor somewhere and you want to do the bidding of Trump against your best wishes, we are going to hold hearings on it. We are going to investigate. We were going to subpoena this stuff. We were going to find out what's going on and we're going to expose it to American people. Like people, I think the people who are executing the dictates from the dictator should feel the risk of reputational damage when Democrats have the ability to start exposing this stuff

in 2027. I also think it's important to point out that Donald Trump and his government are not just going after his political enemies because people will be like, well, that's James Comey. I'm not James Comey. I'm not John Brennan. I'm not any of these people. But he's not just going after his political enemies. He's working to criminalize dissent in this country. People who oppose him, people who criticize him, people who speak out against him, people who try to fund an opposition that can defeat his party electorally. Those are the, that's what he's going after. He's trying to criminalize dissent in this country. All right, Dan, of course, after we just finished this episode, we've been informed that Jim Comey was indicted just moments ago. and so I will just read you

the ABC News story which has just come across my screen former FBI director James Comey has been indicted on charges of making a false statement and obstruction related to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020

just days after President Donald Trump issued a public demand for his Justice Department to act now to bring prosecutions against Comey and other political foes there you have it, Dan Pam Bondi, no one is above the law

today's indictment reflects this department of justice's commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts on this case. Doesn't seem like it. No, because the facts said that there was no evidence to actually prosecute them because you do not indict people with the purpose of indicting them. You indict people if you think you can actually find them guilty in a court of law, which the career prosecutors and the Trump appointed former prosecutor, former U.S. attorney, did not believe could be done here. I mean, this is this is a

giant, very concerning, very alarming situation. Because it is Jim Comey today. It's going to go on and on and on. And we are now a country where the Department of Justice is a political arm of the President of the United States. Their top responsibility is not necessarily to keep us safe, right? It is not to follow the evidence. It is to exact vengeance on the people the President of the United States once vengeance exacted upon. And again, we already know that the process prosecutors who looked at this, including the one that Trump selected himself, said that there just wasn't enough evidence even to bring an indictment. And so that's all you really need to know. And, you know, we were just saying earlier that there was maybe a possibility that the grand jury

doesn't indict, but I'd be hard pressed to see a judge take this seriously, but we will find out. Pod Save America is brought to you by Article. We've had a bunch of stuff in this office from Article. We've got chairs, couches, desks. Definitely couches. I think all the chairs in our conference room, they're super comfortable. They look great. They've held up really well.

And the other thing I remember about them is they were cheaper than the other options, and they showed up really, really fast, which when you're buying furniture is a big deal because that stuff can take forever. Article makes it effortless to create a stylish, long-lasting home at an unbeatable price with a curate. range of mid-modern, coastal and Scandy-inspired pieces. Article products are designed to shine on their own

or pair slinglessly with nearly any other article product. This thoughtful design approach makes it incredibly easy to mix and match, helping you create a space that feels cohesive and stylish. Every item is chosen for its craftsmanship, design, and lasting value. Article carefully curates its collection, selecting only high-quality, meaningful, and enduring pieces. Article offers fast, affordable shipping across the U.S. and Canada, with options for professional assembly.

If you prefer, a hands-off experience. Have a question or need help with your design choices. Article's customer care team is available seven days a week, offering knowledgeable support and even free interior design services to help you get your home just right. With Article's 30-day satisfaction guarantee, you can shop with confidence knowing that if you're not completely in love with your new furniture, you can easily return it. The peace of mind ensures you can invest in your home without hesitation. Article is offering our listeners 50 bucks off your first purchase of $100 or more to claim visit article.com slash crooked and a discount will be automatically applied at checkout. That's article.com slash crooked for $50 off. your first purchase of $100 or more.

All right. Speaking of the White House going after people who criticize them, I should say that the vice president did call me a dipshit on Wednesday. Can we talk about this for a second? Yeah, let's talk about it. So let's give you just a little bit into my life is that on Wednesdays at lunchtime, I play pickup basketball, do it every Wednesday. So I don't really look at my phone for like an hour on Wednesdays.

Boy, did I miss a very event. hour in your life and that of American democracy where I found out through many texts for many people that the vice president has called you a dipshit. And so that seems like a big deal. One, just the fact that you were a Twitter, you were having a Twitter fight with the vice president. And it's not your first. You've had several. But that's just notable. Like, that's interesting. But the fact that he called you a dipshit is wild in a relationship performance. Like, imagine if Joe Biden called a right. I mean, I'm sure Joe Biden has called us dipshit. Well, I was going to say, I was going to say, as vice president. in the year 2010.

Don't have a good record with vice presidents, right about it. Yeah, no, no, you are not popular with the vice presidents. I also would say, well, I would say in the early days of this podcast, I think we were, the four of us were all in the same, we were equally good tweeters. But you, I would say, have ascended to really be a top-notch tweeter. Like, you are, you're good at Twitter. You are your troll and take crews. You're fighting with Elon Musk.

You're fighting with Jade Evans. And you know what that tells me? That Malcolm Gladwell was right about the 10,000 hours. You put your 10,000 hours in, and you, it has worked for you, I have to say. It was a very weird day because... Oh, yeah, no shit. Well, but I didn't feel like it was a weird thing. That's the weird thing about it.

That's what's meant about this. But it's like the reaction of everyone else made it feel like a bigger deal than it did to me originally, which maybe maybe I have been I don't know maybe I'm numb to all this now but I see the story break about this horrific shooting in Dallas outside an ice facility and I'm getting ready for work and I look at the phone and I see that immediately Christy Noam and then J.D. Vance are like this is an attack on law enforcement. J.D. Vance says it's an obsessive, the obsessive attacks on law law enforcement must stop and because you know i was like oh jesus you know and i'm like reading the news reading the news and then i see NBC report that no ice agents were hurt and that detainees were

actually killed and then i see a a tweet that had a proposed community note attached to jd vance's post saying actually there were three detainees uh who were who were shot and and at least at the time it said two were killed they later revised that to one was killed um tragically and i was like Like, I just stopped and I'm like, this fucking guy and this administration, like, this just happened in the shooting. We do not know they don't have a suspect identified yet. They don't have any evidence. This was before the bullets were found that was, you know, anti-ice was written on one of the bullets. It was before anything.

And I'm like, how many times has fucking J.D. Vance done this? Because he needs to make a political point and he goes out and he just starts saying shit. And so I tweeted that the vice president is not a. reliable source of information. This is the fifth or sixth time. He has jumped out to have a political take that is contradicted by law enforcement. At the very least, did not have the context that the community note cited. So I did that. And then, you know, right, then I didn't even, I didn't even think about it. I got dressed. I went to work. I was, I was about to record something. And I got a text from one of our friends that just said, oh boy, have a good day, John.

was like, what? And then I saw, and then I saw that that happened, that the dipshit thing happened, which first of all, dipshit's a great word. I love dipshit. I use, I used, I do use it a lot. I've heard of, I know. That's why I use it quite a bit. Yeah, you use it to describe JD Vance. Hoisted by my own pittard. Yeah, it happens. And then of course, you know, as a lot of the evidence came out, like, it clearly seems like from all the evidence that it was that the person was targeting ICE. You know, the FBI said today, another lone wolf. The person said that there, you know, there's no evidence that they're tied to any other groups or anything else. Person seems disturbed. Ken Klippenstein had some, I talked to some friends who said,

oh, he's like more libertarian, although he didn't really care about politics, but clearly he wanted to hurt ICE, ICE agents. So that's horrible. So it's not like, was J.D. Vance right or not right, it's just like you don't, you, how many times do we have to learn that when a shooting happens like this, you wait to let the facts come up before you draw political conclusions, and that goes for everyone, it fucking especially goes for the vice president of the United States who now multiple times

has done this shit and is like, did it with Kilmire Brigo Garcia when he fought with me on Twitter there and said, oh, you obviously haven't read the court document that said he's a convicted MS-13 gang member. It's like, well, that's not what the court document said

and he's not a convicted MS-13 gang member. And he's done this time and time again. So, fuck him. I'm kidding since he's dishonest, Chen. I was surprised to see that the New York Times ran a whole piece on it that had like me versus J.D. Vance. And then in a story that also talked about how he got in a fight with Gavin Newsom, I was like, maybe you want to put Gavin Newsom at the time. No, this is interesting because what it is, this is where the traditional strictures of putatively objective journalism don't really work in the Trumpian moment, which is the reason why it's newsworthy is the Vice President of United States called. A random podcaster.

Yeah, a dip shit, right? Like that... That's a weird thing for a vice president to do. Yes. And so that is like, that is notable. But because the times, I guess they think that's cheap and they can't swear, they just have to write this whole story and they just write that he called your profanity. But they don't say what the profanity is.

There's no hint to it. There's no like D ampersandee. And so like unless you were like, I imagine we are like very nerdy reader. of journalism, you understand exactly by the word of the story. Otherwise, it seems fucking bizarre to the average person because they had to bury the lead because the actual news nugget was something that they thought was beneath them. Anyway, the most important point here is that the White House, it's not this. It's not this. It's not this. Believe me, it's not this. Is that the White House is once again exploiting a horrific act of political

violence to silence dissent and crush their opposition because right after J.D. Vance finished his Twitter fight with me. He went on to speak at a event in North Carolina where he blamed the shooting on the left, on Democrats, on people who've criticized ICE agents for wearing masks and on people who've called his administration authoritarian. He singled out Gavin Newsom. Trump posted something similar,

and he also wrote, quote, The continuing violence from radical left terrorists in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination must be stopped. I will be signing an executive order this week to dismantle these domestic terrorism networks. I believe he signed that this afternoon when he signed the TikTok deal. Wonderful. And here's what Trump said about this in the Oval Office on Thursday.

The radical left is causing this problem. Not the right, the radical left. And it's going to get worse. And ultimately, it's going to go back on them. I mean, bad things happen when they play these games. And I'll give you a little clue. The right is a lot tougher than the left. And they better not get them energized.

because it won't be good for the left. I'll give you a little clue. The right is a lot tougher than the left. What do you think he means by that, Dan? I think it's not something we should pay a lot of attention to. It's just the President of the United States threatening violence from allied militia groups. I mean, gee, wouldn't it be a shame if you got these crazy right-winger?

I mean, I don't know them, right? Nothing to do with me, but they're pretty tough. They're pretty tough. You don't want to see what they can do. You mean people like the proud boys or the oath keepers, people who, upon the president's order after the election, then marched on the Capitol, many carrying weapons as they stormed the Capitol of the United States to try to stop the certification election, those people? Again, I just want to, this is all, we have, it was a lone wolf shooter that assassinated Charlie Kirk, and now we have another lone wolf shooter who shot at a nice facility that is two people. there are not riots all over the country there are not things on fire vandalism

Antifa roaming around like the whole fucking left wing violence thing the way that Trump and Vance and the White House are talking about it is fucking fiction that is not to say that there is not like incidents of violence with people who are radicalized with some

at least some left wing views but individual cases now that we've seen a couple in the last couple weeks but like he sounds like it's this fucking epidemic. It's crazy. And it's going to make people think that, you know. Which is how every authoritarian in world history has seized power by creating a mostly fake internal or external threat to get people to willingly hand over their freedoms in exchange for security from this made up threat. Yeah, exactly.

How do you think Democrats should, and activists and organizers should talk about all this? Because, you know, basically what they're, they're trying to play this game now. where if you say authoritarian right if you call them authoritarian or fascist then that's inciting violence if you now it's if you complain about ice wearing masks or you call you know ice is a secret police or the fact that they're fucking throwing throwing people into vans and and keeping them without due process and you know detaining people in horrible conditions that all this is inciting violence against ice And so now criticism itself and rhetoric is seen as inciting violence. And so they're just going to keep pushing the envelope here until any kind of comment or criticism of the regime is seen as, you know, being left wing inciting of violence.

Like, well, how do Democrats handle that? We can debate the efficacy of using the words Nazi or Gestapo were those things to describe various people. But the bigger and more important point here is that. Democrats should not shy away from calling it like it is. Like, this is authoritarian. When they do fascist things, like, oh, I don't know, have the chairman of the FCC threatened companies in order to get them to take the committee of the president like off the air. When they do things like that, we have to call it out.

I have seen no evidence that shows that the American people believe that the things that Democrats or Trump critics have said have contributed to this. Like, they are trying to create this impression. we do not have to buy into it. I think every politician should think about their words and we should try not to dehumanize people. We should obviously shy as far away as we possibly can from anything that promotes violence or anything like that. But there aren't Democrats aren't doing that. That's not a thing that's happening. But Trump is seizing power. He's abusing power. He's doing the things that authoritarian do. There are fascistic tendencies in what

his government is doing. And we should call that out. And doing so is not something that is out of bounds in American politics. What's out of bounds are the things that Trump is doing, not us talking about the things he's doing. And so I just do not be cowed by this, right? Do not let either the bad faith folks on the right or the civility police in the middle try to keep Democrats from actually using words to describe what's happening here. Yeah, I think merely describing what the Trump administration is doing. That's enough. You don't have to put too much mustard on the hot dog here. Exactly. This is exactly right. And I think that is,

That both prevents some of their bullshit criticism from landing with people who are not paying close attention to this. And it also has the virtue of just, you know, factual descriptions are more persuasive than using all kinds of adjectives and names and trying to figure out whether something is fascist or not fascist or whatever. You know, like you just don't need it, right? It's not like you shouldn't say it. It's just like you have to think to yourself, is it useful? Is it useful to persuade the vast majority of people in this country who are not political junkies that something serious is amiss? Or could you just describe what is happening, right? So I think that is a really important point to keep in mind.

I also think it's not just like, you know, we don't support violence, but this is scary. We somehow have to make, and I've been trying to press this point, but we have to make nonviolent resistance like part of our brand. That, like, as we oppose this administration that is acting authoritarian, and we can point out all the ways they're acting authoritarian, the most effective response to an authoritarian regime is nonviolent resistance. And that has been the case throughout history, and it is certainly the case now. And so I think those things can work. Like, we can be as tough as we want in describing the abuses of power in this administration. And we should be. We should also lead with the fact and not be defensive about it that the way that we're going to do that is through nonviolent.

resistance. And I think sometimes we get caught in the like, you know, I don't want to say this, but, you shouldn't be cowed. You should also be proud that our strategy is nonviolent resistance because that's not a soft strategy. It's not a weak strategy. It's actually very strong and effective. And that is what history shows. And then you actually have to have nonviolent resistance, right. Right. Well, I mean, like, and I say that, like, we're coming up on another No Kings Day like protests coming up in a few weeks here. We saw instruments run out there, but it has to be something more than just posting, right? It has to be actual, like, and this is a part where I think Democrats at all level should think outside the box a little bit about ways in which you can demonstrate opposition

to Trump that is not through the traditional typical means of doing it, where we're just going to complain about, we're going to press conference about it. It can be sit-ins. It can be protests. It could be a day general strike, that they're, like, we, like, we have to widen the aperture of the tools available to us because we continue as a party. And I struggle with this myself. We struggle as a party to confront an absolutely extraordinary threat with the tools of ordinary politics. And that's a mistake. And, you know, sometimes nonviolent resistance is, um, it's responded to with violence, right? You've seen people calmly film ice agents, um, you know, taking people. It's taking people away from their families throwing them into vans and then the ice agents rough them up and that's

something that like if you're engaged in nonviolent resistance you have to be prepared for that and that's what they that's what civil rights activists did sometimes um it entails civil disobedience i think about our our old friend adi barkin and everyone in that health care fight protecting the ACA and when they did sit-ins in congressional offices in in the halls of congress oftentimes they were arrested and so nonviolent resistance doesn't mean that you don't ever get arrested right like that is that's that's part of protest the key is when violence is visited upon you or or you know police haul you away you respond to that with nonviolence and you don't respond to it with violence or with destruction or anything like that because you you don't want to maintain the higher ground just to make

yourself feel good. You want to maintain the higher ground so that you can persuade most of the people who are watching and who are paying attention that the nonviolent resistance is where they want to join, is the team they want to join and not the state violence and the state repression that they're seeing on their TV screens and on their phone screens. you by blinds.com. If you've ever thought about upgrading your window treatments but didn't want the hassle, blinds.com is here to change the game. They're the only company that lets you shop custom blinds and shades online, then backs it up with professional in-home measure and insulation services. Tired of waiting around all day for an in-home design appointment just to get a quote.

At blinds.com, you can skip the stress and get expert design advice through their convenient virtual consultation on your schedule. Whether you know exactly what you want or need a little help deciding, they've got you covered. Do it yourself or sit back and let Blinds.com everything from measure to install. Either way, you have access to experts every step of the way. Blines.com makes it easy to get the designer look without the showroom markups. They're on a mission to make custom window treatments easy and affordable for everyone. Get the same quality and service you would at other high-end stores, but at a fraction of the

price. Shop with confidence. All blinds.com orders are backed by their 100% satisfaction guarantee. If you're not happy, they'll make it right. They're breaking the mold, but they're not new to the game. Blinds.com has been around for 29 years and has covered over 25 million windows, making them the number one online retailer of custom window treatments. Right now, blinds.com is giving our listeners an exclusive $50 off when you spend $500 or more.

Just use code crooked at checkout. That's blind.com. Use code crooked. Limited time offer. Rules and restrictions apply. See blinds.com for details. Okay. So right after Vance spoke at that event in North Carolina, he took a question from a reporter about government censorship and Jimmy Kimmel, here's his answer. And I'm pretty sure that Jimmy Kimmel was back on the air last night. And to the extent that he's not back on the air, it's because he's not funny and has terrible ratings. The FCC commissioner making a joke on social media, what is the government action that the Trump administration has engaged in to kick Jimmy Kimmel or anybody else off the air? Zero.

What government pressure have we brought to bear to tell people that they're not allowed to speak their mind? Zero. Yeah, I'm a dip shit. Yeah. Like, it's so, it is so his style of dishonesty, which is like, I'm going to try to say something that is in the most narrow, narrow sense, technically true. And, but it is completely dishonest. First of all, it was not a joke on social media. Brandon Carr said, we can do this the easy way. We can do this the hard way. And if we do it the hard way, that means the FCC has more work to do. That was directed towards ABC. That was directed towards the affiliates that were, at least in one case, requiring a merger approval from the FCC that then decided after Brendan Carr said that to pull Jimmy Kimmel off the air. So yes, did Brandon Carr go to Nextar and say, I'm ordering you to not air Jimmy Kimmel's show? No, he technically did not say that.

But he certainly threatened it. It is just a, like his entire persona is so. fucking grating because it is... Smug, smarmy. It is so smug. It is so arrogant. It is just this idea...

Like, he just exudes the idea that he is smarter than everyone else. And he's like figured out the way to sell this like right wing fascistic bullshit that he theoretically did not believe in. And I would say, speaking of people use language, he did compare Trump to Hitler at one point in his life. Sure did.

But in like, you're right exactly right. He just mows down, he builds up straw men arguments and then most them down every time. And because he doesn't, it's infuriating. And we're going to have to deal with this for a number of years because he, like, I do look forward to some Democrat, I don't know who that Democrat is right now, kicking the shit out of him on the debate stage in 2028. He's so great. Also, we just talked about the actions that Carr took and things that he said. J.D. Vance gave that answer a day after, maybe two days after. Was it yesterday?

It was yesterday. Who knows? He gave it a day. After his boss, Donald Trump, whose posts, I know that J.D. Vance reads because he posts them on Twitter all the time. Donald Trump said, oh, Jimmy Kimmel's back on the air. They told us the show was canceled. I'm going to have to take legal action against him because he's giving an in-kind contribution to the Democratic Party. And I think that's some fucking campaign finance violation, whatever the fuck he says.

bullshit and Donald Trump in a post threatened to take action legal action against Jimmy Kimmel and then JD Vance gets up there and he says what action have we taken zero oh no your boss just fucking threatened it to the whole country in front of the whole country the night 24 hours before yeah so that's bullshit let's talk about Kimball's return on Tuesday night which averaged over six million viewers on traditional television despite being blocked by Sinclair and Next Star affiliates that reach roughly a quarter of all households. That's the show's highest rated planned episode in at least a decade, and that's before you add the so far 20 million YouTube views. It's racked up so far. Jimmy's monologue I thought was funny,

emotional, and most importantly pulled no punches whatsoever. Here's some of it now. The president of the United States made it very clear he wants to see me and the hundreds of people who work here fired from our jobs. Our leader celebrates Americans losing their livelihoods because he can't take a joke. They want to pick and choose what the news is. I know that's not as interesting as musseling a comedian, but it's so important to have a free press

and it is nuts that we aren't paying more attention to it. This show is not important. What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this. What'd you think? He nailed it. I mean, Jimmy's such a smart and thoughtful guy, and he just, and he spoke in this moment, honestly, authentically from the heart. You're right.

He pulled no punches. He made it clear that he was not back on the air because he agreed to soft pedal's criticism of Trump or Brendan Carr or anyone else. And honestly, like, I'm not one of those people who are saying, like, we got to put our future of our society depends, or future our democracy depends on a comedian of some kind. but we do need more people in our politics who can speak that authentically and that honestly. I had that same thought. Emily and I watched it the night that he did it. Not live, obviously.

You obviously watched it when someone posted it from the East Coast because it's not a fucking chance you're staying up till 1130. Fuck no. Fuck no. As you know, our good friend, Jen Saki, was like, are you guys going to be up? Do someone want to come on the show and react?

And we're like, poor Jen. Yeah, at 9 p.m. She's up at midnight and we're like 9 p.m. We're in bed. Sorry. But anyway, I was in bed and we watched it on YouTube right after it aired. And, like, I was moved in a way that surprised me and that I hadn't realized how much I needed to hear something like that. And I've been thinking about the last couple days.

And I think it's because it's just like what you just said. Like, since January, we just haven't had many moments or leaders where someone stands up and speaks to a very big audience, in defense of our rights, our values, our ideals as a country, in a way that is like not partisan intended for a politically minded, but maybe non-political audience as well, most of the country, right? That's who Jimmy's speaking to. And he didn't do it in a partisan way. He didn't make it all about Trump. There weren't a lot of cheap shots. It was just a sort of calm, forceful, powerful defense of free speech and American values. And I was like, God, I wish that Democratic politicians would just be like, all right, take myself out of Washington, out of like all the language that I hear

all the time from all my colleagues and strategists and staffers and everyone else. And it's like, what if I just had to speak to people who didn't necessarily pay close attention to politics, but also not speak to them like they're fucking idiots? And that's what Jimmy Kimball did, you know? And again, I'm not saying like Jimmy Kimball 2028, though, who knows. But I am saying that we just, our leaders need to take a page out of Jimmy's playbook there in that monologue. Particularly, I'm not the jokes, not the jokes, don't try the jokes if you're not funny. But particularly the serious parts of that monologue.

Because I think it was pitch perfect, I think from a like messaging perspective. I would say he nailed it. I'm sure that would have tested well if he did it. And he doesn't have pollsters to test it. Not yet. Right. But he didn't write it thinking like, okay, I need to have this line and this test well and this is well.

But I bet it did because he was speaking to an audience that he was trying to persuade that he knew might not always be with him. Well, he did something that is just very absent in American politics. He spoke to everyone. Yes. Right. He was speaking to any person who would. could possibly see his show, whether they voted for Trump, they voted for Harris, most likely

don't vote at all, and was trying to reach all of them, persuade all of them. And that's just not how politics has worked in the last decade, where we are, everyone is trying to speak to their group and their group alone. We have sliced and diced the electorate in so many ways. We have message tested us into the ground where we know the exact words to reach this group. And he just, he gave a broad-based message to a broad audience, and we could use more of that in politics. I kind of think that this whole attempt to silence him backfired spectacularly on Carr and Trump because, well, first of all, just the ratings alone.

Second of all, he has, like, it gave Jimmy the chance to deliver that monologue. I believe his audience has, it's not as big as the night of the monologue, but it has remained elevated last night. And, you know, by the time you hear this, there'll be another night that he'll, have done it as well. And I also think it's like gotten people's attention in a way that probably a lot of other things haven't. I don't know. What do you think? Yeah, I read about this in my newsletter last week. I think if the goal was to silence Jimmy Kimmel, it is a massive epic failure because more people have thought about Jimmy Kimmel, listen to Jimmy Kimmel and watch Jimmy Kimmel in the last 48 hours than have done in a very long time. And that's because Trump and

Brendan Carr clumsily tried to silence one person. and he may turn it into a national cause. And this is one of those things that broke through, right? Like, I always track which stories are getting the most attention on social media. The Charlie Kirk story is one of the biggest stories that we've had. Of course. Probably the biggest stories since Trump has been elected. But Kimmel was right, Kimmel is adjacent to that story.

It's right behind that story. It broke through to people. And it caused all these problems for Trump because it led to intra-party conflicts, which never happens with Trump. So that gets more attention. You have Ted Cruz criticizing Trump, the Trump administration. You never get that. And then it led to people like Joe Rogan, Andrew Schultz, others with large platforms who are an important gateway to an important audience of young men for Trump who have just

been shitting on him for the last few days for it. And that hurts him in the moment. And it hurts the ability for Republicans and J.D. Vance in the future to have that, have that relationship with those media personalities and those influencers going forward. So this was in terms of like political impact. both on Jimmy Kimmel and for the Republican Party and Trump, I think just a complete and total disaster. Do you think that the administration will be smarter and more surgical in how they go after free speech from here on out? Because obviously the threat is not gone, clearly.

But, you know, Next Star still isn't airing Jimmy Kimmel as of this recording, Nor is Sinclair, but Next Star is the one that's got a merger. They've got to get approved. So I kind of wonder where this goes from here. Well, I think the threat to free speech is as great today as it has been since the Red Scare, right? It is, we are in a very serious moment because I think they were going to, they're going to be smarter. Brendan Carr is not going to go on right-wing podcast and do his best good fellow's impersonation anymore, but they have a playbook now, right? So now they want Jimmy Kimmel not on large parts of the country. Next, it's the view.

Maybe it's CBS, you know, CBS News or meet the press after that. or they think that WMBA's too woke. And so all of a sudden you now have these either local television affiliates owned by right-wing billionaires like Sinclair or people who have business before the Trump administration who are going to take their orders, who are going to start censoring the program that comes on the air to appeal to what the state wants. And that is very, very, very dangerous. And that is where we are.

And there is a playbook now. And that was impossible to imagine 96 hours ago. And here we are right now. And I would say that, you know, and Kimmel at one point in the monologue, you know, he talks about sort of other threats to the press. And he talked about Pete Higgseth's rule that, like, he was going to pull press credentials from any reporter who published unauthorized information, not necessarily just classified information, just unauthorized information, which is what reporters do.

And so Kimmel, and I like that he did that. that because I think we've talked about this before, it is important to stand up for anyone they come after because solidarity is important here. There's strength and numbers. And I do think another benefit of what Kimmel did is he was unafraid. And I think that courage, you know, I think that kind of thing gives other people courage to stand up. And I think that's the lesson that everyone should take from Kimmel, which is they're going to keep going after people. And we got to call it out. We've got to stand with those people. However, you feel about them and, you know, whatever you've thought about them before because, you know,

it's, they come for one of us, they come for all of us. And the thing that's important about Kimmel Sammas, Kimmel's been talking about retiring for a long time. Now he's been doing this show for a long time. He could have easily just walked off the air and said, fuck this. Like, Disney betrayed me. Bob Iger betrayed me. I'm not going to do it. Walk away, not deal with this. He's made plenty of money, I imagine in his life. He could still come back and host award shows or do whatever he want. Or he could go to YouTube. He can do lots of things. But, he's one of the few people who has power and money who decided to fight back, right? And that's important for these reporters because it's easy.

These reporters and individual reporters certainly don't have that. They are fighting for their jobs in a decaying media industry. A lot of these media outlets are barely hanging on anyway. And so, like, this has been the problem is that the most powerful elite people have been the least willing to fight Trump over the last nine months. And so, you know, embodied by Disney's decision. to take Kimmel off the year to begin with. Kudos to them for putting him back.

But we need more people who have money and power to be willing to stand up to Trump because when they do that, it makes it a little bit easier for the other people like them and the other people much further down the ladder to do so. Because some of the people further down the ladder

don't have the ability to do it in the same way. Yeah. All right, let's talk about a government shutdown that's no longer just looming, but something that Washington is barreling towards. We're barreling now? We're barreling. What are we going to be doing on Monday?

Uh, on the brink. Are we on the precipice? Yeah. Yeah, something like that. Uh, here's where things stand. Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer demanded in a meeting with Trump. Trump agreed. And he backed out with a post where he said, quote, after reviewing the unsurious and ridiculous demands being made by the minority radical left Democrats in return for their votes to keep our thriving country open, I've decided that no meeting with their congressional leaders could possibly be productive. Uh, Democrats are now demanding that any funding bill include an extension of Obamacare subsidies and a reversal of Trump's Medicaid cuts while the White House is making new threats, they sent a memo ordering federal agencies to begin preparing for mass firings in the event of a shutdown, not furloughs, which is temporarily layoffs while the government's closed, but firings. They're also lying about what Democrats are asking for, quote, J.D. Vance's Twitter feed, again, quote, Democrats are about to shut down the government because they demand we fund health care for illegal aliens. Not true. Not true at all. Not true. How are you feeling about the shutdown and how Democrats were approaching it? I said this on this podcast a couple weeks ago, but I believe strongly that Democrats cannot simply rubber stamp funding for Trump's authoritarian government. Like, you absolutely cannot do it. If you believe what you're saying about the threat that Trump poses, the abuse of power, the politically motivated prosecutions, the threat to free speech, you can't just pretend like it's regular order and just like, well, vote for the continuing resolution and keep the government open. you cannot do that. And so I agree with the approach they're taking. I do want to try to approach my analysis of this from, not from, like, it's very easy to have the hot take that they're fucking this up or they're not doing it the right way or they suck. And I think it's

important. And if this is not how I would have done it, like I, if it had been me, just Dan Pfeiffer in charge, I would have made the whole thing about affordability. I would have made it about the Obamacare premiums and the tariffs. And the tariffs are very useful because they are abuse of power, right? This is the, this is Trump being a king. And it goes right to what Trump's weakest spot politically is cost of living, inflation, high prices. And you could focus it around that. But I do recognize, I've seen this from the other side. I worked in the White House during a shutdown. I loomed and barreled a lot over my time in the White House. And even sometimes in Congress, I loomed and barreled. And the one thing that is true is that the most important thing

the leadership can do, because it only works if they do this, is to have unity in their caucus. And so you have to have a message, a strategy, and a set of demands that in the House goes from Jared Golden to AOC, and the Senate goes from, you know, like institutionalists like, I don't know, Patty Murray or whoever to Bernie Sanders or Alyssa Slack into Bernie Sanders, however you want to do your spectrum of people. And so that does sometimes lead you to lowest common denominator asks, which is what's the one thing that unites Democrats, right? It's health care. And it's the Medicaid cuts and it's the Obamacare premiums.

And I think they're picking the Obamacare premiums because it's the one thing they have the best chance of getting because there was a bunch of Republicans very uncomfortable about this. They think they don't want to just do a permanent extension. They maybe don't want to do it up. But there were discussions before this about some sort of agreement before they expire at the end of the year because Republicans know they're on the ballot next year. Donald Trump is not and they don't want to have jacked up everyone's premiums. So that's how they got here.

And so it's just like it's hard. It's easy. It just, it is easy. Like the thing that I think is the value add that we bring to this analysis is that we've actually worked in these spots before. You know, we've sat through these things. And so just recognizing that there is a, that there's a lot of factors that a lot of equities that, the leadership has to work through that may not be as obvious to people on the surface, right? Like, why aren't we making it about mass ice agents? Well, you can't. Like, you're not going to get members to do that. Do I wish we could? Yeah, sure, but that's just not the reality that we live in, and they do have to operate in that reality. It's a tough reality. Here's the, so I hosted one of

these debates that we've been trying out here. You know, Tommy did one on Gaza and Lovett did one on housing. I'd love it did a couple, I think. And so I did one on government shutdown with Matt Glassman, who thinks that it is a very bad idea for Democrats to do a shutdown. He's in the New York Times and on a substack about that. And then Fad Shakir, our friend who was Bernie Sanders campaign manager and had worked with Harry Reid. And Nancy Pelosi. And Nancy Pelosi, so he's been through a couple shutdowns. And he took the pro shutdown side of the case. So you can all check that out on the Potsave America breaking news feed. If you want to listen to to the pod or you can go right on our YouTube channel and it's right there Pod Save America

YouTube channel go subscribe it was a great debate and I will say I left thinking both Fas and Matt made some very good points like it is not an easy one and I say that only not because like should we stick it to the Republicans of course but because of what you just mentioned it's like okay why are Democrats shutting down the government now well first of all Schumer and Jeffries are saying we're not shutting down the government. Donald Trump shutting down the government by not having the meeting. So you're not really shutting down the government. But then it's also like, well, Donald Trump is engaged in an unprecedented abuse of power. And he's acting like a king. Okay, so then what are you asking for?

Healthcare subsidies. And so it's like it before we even begin, the messaging is complicated. And I don't know, I don't know how long you can sort of hold on once the government shuts down under these, with the different complications the Democrats are facing in terms of messaging, in terms of asks, and in terms of just the power that they have. And it's hard because the House is not, it's a free vote for the House, right? Yeah. They all vote against. Republicans got to throw. In the Senate, you got to hold, you can't allow seven. Democrats to bolt. You've already lost John Fetterman. Right. So now you've got to hold six. And so I listened to the debate. I also read Matt's substack. I, here's my take on it, is

Matt makes a very compelling case. But I think he, and it has made this point in your debate, which I think that compelling case is based on a pre-Trumpian old view of politics. And like, yeah, it's true. Like here's, I guess this is the simplest way to put it, is, Democrats can either choose not to fight, which I think comes with a severe set of political consequences, severe, and opportunity cost, or we could fight in very possibly lose. And I think fighting and possibly losing or even likely losing is better than simply not fighting at all. Like this, I've tried to make this point multiple times here in many forums with privately and

publicly is that we are a long shot right now across the board. Democrat. Our approval rating is shit. Trump has all the power. We are, the American people do not like us. They do not like our brand. And we can't play it safe. Playing it safe is a guaranteed loss. We are a huge underdog, right? Maybe we are not an underdog for the immediate midterms. But over the medium term in American politics, we got a lot of work to do. And so you have to take on high variance strategies. You have to say, yes, we could lose this. Like if you don't fight, you're going to, you're going to, you know the amount of pain you'll take. And I think it's significant, but it's, you know what it is. If you fight, you could win, but the loss could be even worse. And I think you have to be open to strategies that have higher ceilings, but lower floors. And that, and you just, to me, it feels like the right thing to do. Like, if you think things are really this bad, and this is your one moment, you have to fight. And your approval ratings could go to shit. We could absolutely lose this. Do I think we're trotting out our best messengers? Absolutely not. Do I think we have a great message? No. Are we at a massive media disadvantage?

Yes. But it is a moment. It is a moment. It is a moment. to possibly maybe grab the nation's attention, grab people by the lapels, and tell them what is happening in this country. And if you can do that, like, that's worth a shot. And it comes with great risk. It absolutely comes with great risk. Politically, it comes with great risk substantively. Because Trump may fire these people. And federal workers are getting fucked everywhere by this administration. And will a court probably reinstate them at some point three weeks down the line? Probably. Maybe. But so there, there is risk here. And I understand that. And I understand that this is it's not a obvious clear case, but I just think fighting and possibly losing is better than

not fighting at all. Yeah. I come down on like, let's do it. But I really think making the message bigger and the fight bigger is going to be key here. And by that I don't mean throw everything in that Trump has done badly as part of the message. But I mean, to your point about, and FAS makes this point as well, like make it about something bigger like a, affordability cost, right? And then like tell a whole story about how since January Trump has been getting as rich as fuck and making sure all of his friends and family and allies are getting rich as fuck while everyone else is getting screwed. And he's he's doing the screwing. He's slapped a fucking tariff on all of us on everything we purchase and everything's prices are up and we're losing

jobs and now premiums are going to go up because he's not helping with the ACA stuff and now people are going to lose their health care coverage and set up what the world would look like if Democrats were in charge, which I thought was a very compelling point from FAS, is that it's not just Trump is bad, but if we're going to draw attention to this and if we're going to take this risk, make sure that when people hear Democrats talking, they know what a Democratic run Washington would look like. And then it sets up the midterm fight. And I think the important point you're making here is don't confuse the tactics with the message. The strategy, here are the things we're asking for is not the message. The message is what

Donald Trump is doing wrong and what we would do differently. And then you have a set of things that you're going to bring up in the meeting that might possibly be points of agreement at one point to get the government open again. Those are two separate things and don't confuse them. Yeah. All right, two things before we get to Tommy's conversation with John Ossoff. First up, escalator gate. As you may have heard, Trump's appearance at the UN General Assembly this week led to an international incident that could mean the end of the United Nations. It all started when the president and first lady attempted a routine assent of an escalator that inexplicably froze as they were about to step onto the bottom stair. This catastrophe forced the first couple to improvise

or in Trump's case stand still for a few seconds looking confused before putting one foot in front of the other to climb the stairs to the top. Trump later complained about the escalator's temporary malfunction during his speech and the UN, after launching an internal investigation, said that the escalator likely froze because Trump's own videographer accidentally hit the stop button. Likely fucking story, UN. We are not buying that. Unfortunately for you, MAGA Media is on the case and they know exactly what you did. Well, there better be accountability for those people and I will personally see to it, Jesse. And you know, the president, being frozen there in one place makes him vulnerable.

And thankfully, the First Lady and the President had their hands on the rails. Why are we paying for a building that's just trying to injure the First Lady? What we need to do is either leave the UN or we need to bomb it. There's a few more great tweets. Mike Flynn, it's time to turn the current UN into a hotel.

Representative Tim Burchett, Bershit, Burt. Who cares? We're not even going to try to care that we know what his house. Defund the UN. Will Chamberlain, who's, you know, he's one of these Article III project right-wangers. His name is Wilk Chamberlain? Will. No, Wilt.

Just will. I was like, Willettleyn's tweeting about the escalator from the grave? What is happening? Yeah, he's, believe me, very different. Remarkably dangerous, Trump should demolish the U.N. building and put fragments of the rubble on the resolute desk, seize the property, turn it into a new Trump hotel. And then Trump himself has said that the Secret Service are investigating and has called this triple sabotage because of the teleprompter.

And I guess there was a third thing that happened. The audio. I think there's something about the audio. The audio. Triple sabotage. I know this because I watched the Caroline Levin interview on just Jesse Waters where she cited Katie Pavlach of Town Hall who told her about the audio. There's so many, so many things wrong with this. Do you want to take a cut?

Yeah, I just have a lot of thoughts that are not really coherent. One, it's a flight of stairs. It's just one flight of stairs. And if one flight of stairs is such a threat to our elderly, out-of-shay president, maybe we should have some more discussions about the gerontocracy one. Two, Caroline Levitt says on Justice Waters that she will personally hold those responsible accountable. I don't know like press secretary is a cool job like CJ Craig made it look cool like you're very famous you can end up many of them end up on TV afterwards but you don't have the authority to hold anyone accountable I mean talk about petty dictatorship it's like oh no his majesty had to stand still for a couple seconds and in his fragile physical and mental state we must not ever let him be inconvenience for just a few seconds. Also, it's so dangerous. He was just,

he was like a sitting duck. He was just, this is what they're all saying. I'm like, so he can't stand still in public anymore? He's got to keep moving. Inside, it's, inside a fully secure, look. Yeah, we're going to put him in a fucking hermetically sealed bubble? Should he be in a fucking Popemobile from now on? Yeah. Like, obviously, he's had two assassination attempts against him, but there are probably few places safer on the planet than the United Nations during the United National Assembly with almost every world leader in the planet there. But again, yeah, again, safety or not, like, a standing at the bottom of a stairwell is not more dangerous than not standing at the stairwell.

Yeah, I mean, it's not like you're moving so fast up the escalator. I mean, it's just, it's like, there's something, like, you could really write a paper about the incentives of MAGA media in this moment where, like, Donald Trump obviously was embarrassed and very upset to walk this flight upstairs, so he complained. So then everyone is to one up each other about what has to happen. So first, it's like, are they sabotage? We will hold the individual person accountable. And like seven minutes later, we're here to seizing the UN. We're bombing the UN. We're seizing the UN. We're going to put the rubble on Donald Trump's desk. It's just like, like, I'm sure someone right now is sitting about nuking the UN. It's just,

it, it's also every, and everything is pretextual, right? Which is like, none of them. like the UN. They've all hated the UN for a long time. Because of the faulty escalators. That's always been the main critique. Like if it happened at a fucking wrestling match, you know, or ultimate fight, a UFC match, you don't think anyone's going to be complaining

about that. No one's going to be like, oh, Dana White, we're going to fucking bomb the UFC. You know, like that's not happening. I mean, look, you and I lived in D.C. We took the Metro home sometimes earlier in our career. And wait until you get to the bomb the DuPont Circle Metro. And that escalator was broken 90% of the time. And that is like a, that's a mile

up. I would hold someone accountable for that. Yes. For sure. I'd pull a Caroline Levitt. Also, we're never going to hear about this again because they need an excuse to be aggrieved every single day, every hour of every day, right? They just need. And then now that they got the, the Dallas ice thing, and then tomorrow it'll be something else. And they can go back after Antifa and the Democrats, whatever else. The escalator thing will just fade into memory. They just needed something to get them through the rest of the day to feel like they are victims and aggrieved.

Wait till Jim Jordan opens the September 23rd Commission report in Congress to investigate what happened here. Lastly, in a right-wing media crossover episode for the ages, podcaster and White House spouse Katie Miller appeared on Jesse Waters' Fox News show, and the result was pure magic you are married to Stephen Miller so you are the envy of all women what is that like

the sexual matador right what is it like being married to such a sexual matador he is an incredibly inspiring man who gets me going in the morning with his speeches being like let's start the day I am going to defeat the left and we are going to win so

I want to know which part of the Miller's domestic life, you relate to the most. Well, John, it's how he's going to kill me for saying this, but a lot of times I'll just pull up a recent message box and I'll read it to her. So I get what's going on here. You know what Emily wants when she wakes up in the morning on the weekday? She wants me to hand her her venty latte from Starbucks. That you have woken up hours earlier to bring to her.

Yes. I'm sorry, it's a London fog. It's a London fog. And sometimes I say, good morning. And she goes, could you bring the coffee up? And I say, sure. And she does not ask me to recite a speech or to talk about how I'm going to defeat the right that day. Like in-

She does plead with me not to get in Twitter fights with high-ranking. Trump officials? Yes. I mean, my wife, I find. your fights with high-ranking Twitter officials to be uncomfortable. Like as if I could be collateral damage when they come out. Like, I could just be in the studio with you when they storm. But Katie Miller, Katie Miller, that kind of shit, that gets her going.

That gets her going. I mean, I don't want to spend a lot of time parsing this, but does she, I don't let's not even get into it, really. It's a lot. But their mornings are different than ours. Like, we're really just trying to get the kid. We're trying like, we're waking up. Do the kids have to listen to the speech too?

I hope not. It depends on what you, it's, yeah. Anyway, whatever floats your boat, Miller. Yeah, we don't kink shame here. We don't, we should say sexual matador, too. That was, that was an inside joke because Jesse Waters had previously called Stephen Miller a sexual matador as a joke to him. You've got to know all the Jesse Water sayings and inside jokes and if you're an avid Fox viewer like I am. Like you.

Yeah, I did not know it. It was out of context for me. Yeah, so that one did not get me as much as the, this is what gets me going in the morning. Anyway, I don't know. It's been a long week, Dan. All right. When we come back, you'll hear Tommy's conversation with Senator John Ossoff, who's pushing back on Trump's corruption and gearing up to defend his seat in the Senate. One quick thing before we get to that, we've talked a lot about freedom of speech in this episode and others and the importance of independent media in a world where a lot of corporate media, a lot of the people who run corporate media.

are just bowing down to Trump or capitulating. And if you want to support independent media, may we suggest Crooked Media? Because, you know, you're listening to us now. We have some great content. And if you want ad-free episodes and you want all the great stuff that's behind the paywall,

like Dan's Polar Coaster Show, and terminally online, which is very fun, all kinds of other great stuff. And again, add-free episodes of Pod Save America, Pod Save the World, love her, leave it, offline. Join us. Become a subscriber at Cricket Media.

You can head to cricket.com slash friends and subscribe on the platform that makes the most sense for you. So come join us. We're building something fun over here. associates build lasting careers with or without a degree. In fact, 75% of Walmart's management started in hourly roles with benefits like health care, paid parental leave and tuition support. Walmart isn't just a place to work. It's a place to grow. Learn more at walmart.com slash spark. I'm very excited to welcome Senator John Assef, Georgia, to L.A. to our studio here. It's great to see you. Great to be here. Thank you for having me. Thank you, you know, slow news year. It's good for having studio.

Okay. So let's just get into it. So earlier, this week, MSNBC reported that the Justice Department is planning to indict former FBI director Jim Comey for allegedly lying to Congress. This announcement came a couple days after Trump fired the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and installed his own personal attorney, someone named Lindsey Halligan, who I believe ABC News reported was presented with a memo recommending she declined to bring charges, but it sounds like she's going to pursue them anyway. She is no prosecutorial experience. It kind of tells you everything you need to know, I think. What's your reaction to these reports and what they tell us about rule of law in this country?

Well, that the rule of law is hanging by a thread in the United States right now. And we have public enemies lists, DOJ drawing up orders to U.S. attorneys to investigate political targets. Makes me think of, there's an expression I think attributed to like a Stalinist official in the USSR, which was something like, bring me the man and I'll find you the crime right yeah um it is such a perversion of justice and it's it's also just a another piece of proof that the thing about trump is that every accusation that he makes is actually like a deep confession of his true intent and he is weaponizing the department of justice and the entire federal government as a political instrument this effort to crush the opposition, destroy the pillars of authority that might oppose

or criticize him, stifle dissent, make examples of his enemies and adversaries using the force of law is so deeply un-American. And I think one of the most significant threats to the basic fabric of our republic in well over a century. In other legal news, Trump accused United Nations employees of sabotaging his U.N. visit because someone briefly turned off an escalator. His surrogates are suggesting this was a grave assault on the president and first lady. And Trump himself tweeted, the people that did it should be arrested, end quote. To the best of your knowledge, is it a crime to turn off an escalator? It is like, I'm sure that all the folks in Georgia who are, you know, losing access to labor and

delivery services or maybe to an ICU because of these Medicaid cuts or whose groceries have gone up 8% in a year will be relieved that the president's investigating escalator failures in New York City. Would you consider passing a law to make escalator sabotage a felony? I'll have to give that some considerate. We can double back on this one. So we appear to be close to a government shutdown on Thursday, Trump's Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to agencies telling them to identify programs and projects and

activities that can be permanently eliminated in the event of a shutdown as opposed to just a temporary furlough. In other words, they're sort of signaling that they think the shutdown could expedite the Doge efforts that we've all talked about so much? Do you think that we're going to shut down the government? And do you think that's the right thing to do? As of our taping this, I think it's too soon to tell. But it doesn't bode well that the president is refusing even to meet with opposition leaders in Congress. I do think this is a big mistake from OMB in the White House and Russ vote. You know, the mass firings and the Doge effort were hugely destructive and hugely unpopular. I mean, there's a reason that they kicked Elon to the curb, at least publicly.

You know, like in Georgia, a quarter of CDC employees have been pushed out or they've tried to push them out. The American public doesn't like mass firings. And I know that it sparks joy in Trump's West Wing to fire hundreds of thousands of public servants. But if what they plan to do is to refuse to talk, in refusing to talk, force a shutdown and then sort of rampage, you know, the public's going to turn pretty quickly against that. So I think it's seriously overplaying his hand for the budget director. So, I mean, this shutdown talk kind of brings me to bigger anxiety I hear from Democrats, which is they feel like Trump poses this existential threat to the fabric of our country, but that the current leaders, the Democratic Party are not necessarily meeting the moment. The criticism is like they aren't using the leadership isn't using the little power they have to block enough stuff that Trump is doing. They feel like leadership is terrible communicating and that Trump is running circles around us in terms of messaging.

what would you say to those Democrats who are anxious and you frankly want to see younger senators, the next generation of elected officials like yourself, in leadership roles? Yeah, I mean, first of all I would say, I get all that, and I completely understand the apprehension, the fear that people feel right now, the frustration. You know, I also think just to level with folks, you know, there is no magic button that senators aren't pushing, right? They would have pushed it on on day one. And we do have to wield the powers that we have as the minority in the opposition to limit the damage and try to contain this out of control executive. But as I look ahead to the midterm elections and think about the generational obligation that we have to win, right?

I think that we as citizens right now have an obligation to deliver a landslide. victory in these midterms that is as profound as any moral obligation any group of citizens has had throughout our country's history. We have to win these elections. And there are two things that worry me. Because like we have the wind in our sales. I'm holding rallies across Georgia that I barely promote that thousands of people are coming to. You all remember, you know, I ran in the first big U.S. House race after Trump was elected the first time. then those double-header, double overtime, Senate runoffs, four of a Senate majority in 2021. So, like, I have run at the most dramatic moments of the Trump era.

No pressure in those races. And I've never seen opposition energy and determination like I'm seeing right now. And even all of the angst that's directed at the Democratic Party is actually a good sign in that it shows the passion that people feel to oppose this and to, to write the ship. What worries me is that we're a little too in our own heads. In what sense? In the sense that a loss of faith, a loss of confidence in our ability as citizens to use the rights we have as citizens to shape this country's future because we're doom scrolling

in the fetal position, right, or waiting for some charismatic savior to ride in as a national figure who will fix all this. Like we have a president who is completely out of control, a crook engaged in unprecedented brazen personal corruption, who is passing one of the most unpopular agendas in American history. The public is turning against him. The opposition is motivated. We can win and we have to win. But we don't have the luxury of despair or self-pity or kind of wallowing in doubt. So I just want folks to focus on what we can control. And yes, you know, we in Congress have obligations to rise to this moment and all of us have obligations to work like hell to win these midterm elections and to restore

some checks and balances to Washington. All right, I'll take that as a pump-up speech. I'll stop doom scrolling for that. That works for me. Just cut the doom scrolling in half. Yeah, that's honestly a good note. You mentioned the corruption of this whole thing. I think it's the most undercovered story of the administration is the corruption that's happening in plain sight. I mean, some of it's not in plain sight. We heard about Tom Homan getting the border czar, getting a Kava bag with like 50 grand in it. Who among us? You never just like done one of these. Apparently he was going to get 50 grand in exchange for government contracts. Then every time Trump goes on a foreign trip, Don Jr. or Eric follows behind, right? And they announce a billion dollar real estate deal.

We got a golf course in Vietnam. We got a tower in Dubai, whatever. And then for me, it's like the crypto is the main event. There was this big New York Times story the other day that alleged, basically a quid pro quo between the Trump organization, the Trump family, and the United Arab Emirates, in which this Emirati-linked investment company put $2 billion into Trump's crypto company. And then shortly after the administration agreed to sell the Emirates very advanced AI chips, like a huge national security consideration was at play. How do you think we can get people to notice and care about this stuff? Because I feel like when I try to tell people in my life who are not, who are just kind of like normie voters,

they're like, you know, all politicians are corrupt. They all do this kind of thing. They throw us some Hunter Biden in line at me. And then what can Congress do about it if we actually win the midterms? So a few thoughts on the corruption. First of all,

I think we have to absolutely hammer away at it and make sure that the public sees it and understands it. because it is, it is like the most shocking, brazen and overt abuse of power in presidential history by degrees of magnitude. We're talking about billions of dollars, a lot of it through cryptocurrency vehicles directly to the first family. And he's got his personal envoy, right? Like his sort of roving diplomat, Steve Wickoff, who, by the way, the wars that they promised to end are still raging, whose son is doing business with the Trump boys in this World Liberty Financial vehicle that foreign sovereign wealth funds are pouring billions of dollars into, you know, there is good reason to believe that they are shaping American grand strategy. around the personal financial interests of the first family and the hypocrisy is stunning like one of the things I said at a rally a few months ago is like Hunter Biden should have been more ambitious like you know this is this is an insane level of corruption and self enrichment but I think there's a deeper

story here about corruption in American politics which is something of a Democratic Party needs to focus on, which is that Trump, in my view, is a symptom of the deeper corruption in our politics. Like, how is it that we have a demagogue who promises to tear it all down, elected twice to the presidency? It's in part because much of the American public has lost faith in our political system. Totally agree. And with just cause, since citizens united, this political system, has been corruption on steroids. And that is a big part of why policy doesn't serve ordinary people. So as Trump poses this sort of radical threat to the rule of law and the Constitution, things that we have to protect, we can't just become mere guardians of the status quo.

We have to be about change and reform. And money in politics is like the root of all of this. We have to focus on that. You know, the vast sums of corporate and billionaire money in our political system with or without Trump are why ordinary people are so ill served by elected officials and by Congress. We need to take up that mantle and run with it. And if we don't solve this problem, even once we put Trump back in the box in the midterms and once he's gone, the country will still be in deep trouble. So, look, I totally agree with you. I worked for Barack Obama in the Senate in 2006, and there was this big scandal for the old heads out there. You might remember Jack Abramoff, who was this sketchy lobbyist who was, you know, given people boxes at, you know, football games and stuff.

It was a deep corrupt scandal. And so Democrats ran hard on a reform agenda in the 2006 midterms and did incredibly well. And Barack Obama was kind of out front of that. And so I totally agree with you. I've seen both the necessity of it, right? I agree that money is kind of the original sin for a lot of our political problems, but also the political upside of it. I guess the question is, what does that reform agenda look like? Is it no PAC money, no lobbyist money? Are we talking about stock trading from members of Congress? How are you

thinking about what that? Yeah, all of these things and more. I mean, you know, I have been championing legislation to ban members of Congress from trading stock. My campaigns have not taken contributions from corporate packs or from federal lobbyists. I've introduced to build a ban corporate packs. You know, the American people understand that the system really is rigged. But Trump is not unrigging it. He's re-rigging it for himself and his personal financial interest and his family's financial interests. So, you know, we have to be about change and recognize that the public's complaints are legit. This isn't working for people, and we have better solutions.

And it's so hard, right? Because some of this is like a, it feels like a financial arms race. You know, like we need to make sure we're raising as much as they are. Now, every candidate has a super PAC. We're spending billions in presidential elections. And I think there's a concern, you see it with redistricting too, right? Like Trump's doing this mid-year redistricting in Texas. So Democrats are fighting fire with fire in California.

I think that's the right thing to do. But I do worry it kind of muddies up. our efforts at being the Reform Party. Yeah, I hear that concern. I mean, I think that what we have to acknowledge is that the corruption is bipartisan, right? The whole Congress is captured by big money. And people want to hear that we recognize that

because it's true, right? And so. And obvious. And obvious. And, you know, like you take something like, um okay uh taxes on the ultra rich it's like it's almost like an 80 20 issue in public opinion right um but everyone knows that the reason that it never happens is because of the financial power and therefore the political power of super wealthy people regardless of who's in charge right so

you know we're we're we have to focus on not exclusively but we have to make sure people are aware that Donald Trump his administration are engaged in some of the most brazen and overt corruption it's happening like in the world right now right I mean they're they're operating like like some of the most shameless foreign leaders who mix state business with family wealth and personal business but we also have to get at the underlying corruption in american politics yeah it's like autocrats and their princelings and their oligarchs, it's all, it's just a mess. Switching gears a little bit. I just want to talk about freedom of speech in this country at this moment.

Listeners have probably followed the saga of Jimmy Kimmel. Kimmel was pulled off the air after he made a joke about Trump's reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Then earlier this week, Kimmel was put back on the air. That enraged Trump. Trump called the show an illegal campaign contribution and suggested he'd once again be suing ABC. noting, quote, last time I went after them, they gave me $16 million. This one sounds even more lucrative, end quote. How concerned are you, or at all, about the FCC's actions in this case?

And then just sort of like the totality of the threats to free speech we've seen since January of this year. Yeah, we should all be extremely concerned by this. I mean, you got the president standing on Air Force One threatening to take news broadcasters off the air because he thinks their coverage is too negative, right? this is that's like this is north korea i mean it is so beyond the pale and you know before i was a candidate for any office i ran a business that produced investigative journalism for international news media we held power to account we exposed war crimes human rights abuses undercover investigations of official corruption once you chill and stifle and destroy the free press, you know, that is how authoritarianism really entrenches. And I think that their

agenda is very clear and extremely dangerous. And actually, you know, I got to give at least, like, I know the bar is very low, but there were a couple of Republican elected officials who spoke out on it. For sure. We have to reach out to folks on the other side and try to make sure this does not become a partisan issue. And again, the public is with us, right? I mean, getting back to reasons for us to feel optimistic about our prospects to win next year, just like the country is against defunding hospitals and nursing homes to cut taxes for the rich, the American people are against official censorship. And this is a deep betrayal of some of what they proclaimed to their followers animated their campaign, right? The sort of railing against the excesses of cancel culture. And you've

seen among some of their supporters that they're shaken by this betrayal of those supposed principles. Yeah, I agree. And also, look, I think people also have to understand the context of that kind of a threat to free speech or news gathering or investigative journalism like you are working on. When that's coming from the U.S. government that is terrifying, because it's also there's like spyware for hire everywhere these days. There's groups like the NSO group that are buying this, you know, hacking software like Pegasus. Yeah, I just opened a contract with them. Did they really with the NSO group?

Yeah. Oh, that's great. I think it's the successor. It's like Paragon, I think it's called. Oh, yes. Oh, good. Yeah. So, I mean, I'm just saying that these journalists are under threat from every direction.

Financially, from rogue states, from spyware for hire, and now from the FCC, it's like, it's pretty scary stuff. I think the other piece of this that it's like more complicated but potentially equally dangerous is the use of official power to bully tech companies into how they run the algorithm that delivers content to people, right? Like, threatening to take NBC off the air because you think that their coverage is too negative is obviously like a brazen, unconstitutional, un-American attempt at a sort of classic form of censorship. But, you know, if they go to meta,

or they go to Musk or this group of allies who may now be running TikTok and they say Turn the dial, turn the dial, you know, that is a more subtle, but in this world that we're living in potentially more powerful way for them to control the information that gets to the public. Yeah, it's insidious. You know, you mentioned some of the Republicans saying the right thing about, free speech. Someone like Ted Cruz, for example, came out and said the FCC chairman was acting like a mob boss out of goodfellas and like good, good for Ted Cruz for saying that. I think if you were sitting at this table and we were kind of, you know, pointing the finger at him and what the FCC was doing, he would respond along the lines that you just did. Well, during the Biden administration, the White House was going to tech companies and telling them to censor speech around COVID or, you know,

social issues, et cetera, do you think that we, the Democrats, or the Biden administration, overreached at that point in ways that, in hindsight, or maybe showed less of a commitment to free speech than we should have been showing? I think probably yes, in some cases, but I think that the what aboutism is like pretty limited in its validity, because we're talking about things that are vastly different, right? And I think federal courts rebuked the Biden administration for some of the way that the tech companies were being talked to about information about public health that was coming out during the COVID pandemic, right? And that was probably overreach. But it's nothing like the president saying, I'm going to take broadcasters

off the air because their coverage is too negative. So, you know, we should not, yeah, we obviously need to practice what we preach and acknowledge where there may have been misconduct. mistakes, but let's not for a moment indulge the lie that these are equivalent in any way. Yeah. You mentioned ICE buying the, you know, Pegasus-like software, working with the NSO groups, whatever their new corporate name is. I know your office has been investigating ICE and human rights abuses in U.S. immigration detention facilities. Can you just talk to us about what you guys have found? Yeah, well, I've been investigating not just Homeland Security facilities, but federal prisons, state and local prisons in jail since I was elected. I mean, and, you know,

that has been sort of the continuity of effort for me, having left investigative journalism and entering office. The oversight muscles in Congress are so atrophied, right? Like most of the oversight is partisan oversight and very little of it is just pure public interest oversight. Can you tell the, explain the distinction in your mind? Yeah. So, so most of the over the Oversight in Congress is like one party investigating the other party's efforts. And, you know, there's a role for that in ensuring that there's accountability, right? Like you have to have that kind of hostile exchange in order to ensure that things are brought into the public light and debated no matter who's in power. But what doesn't, what gets neglected is oversight that's essential for principled moral reasons, human rights reasons, but for which there's no obvious political reward.

you know like there's not there's not a lot of political upside to investigating the abuse of federal inmates right and so we have this federal prison system where there's this ongoing multi-decade human rights crisis that gets very little attention from congress you know so i've led investigations of of corruption and civil rights abuses in federal prisons of uncounted deaths in state and local prisons and jails One investigation from two or three years ago, it was a bipartisan investigation where the ranking member on the subcommittee ally was Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, not exactly a fellow traveler ideologically. Right. Not even close. But, you know, I got him to work with me on an investigation into an ICE detention facility in Georgia where we found, and it was a bipartisan finding, that multiple female immigration detainees at this facility had been subjected to. unnecessary, invasive, and in some cases, non-consensual, gynecological, surgical procedures, while in U.S. surgical procedures. Jesus Christ. So I say all that to say that my efforts to investigate human rights abuses in prisons,

jails, and detention facilities is not new. This year, I opened a new inquiry, anticipating that there would be an even higher level of brutality. by this administration in these facilities. And what we had found through July was more than 500 credible reports of human rights abuses in DHS detention facilities, including of pregnant women, children, some of whom are U.S. citizens. And the last thing I'll just say about this, because I think it just speaks to, like, the character of this administration is I released that report.

Within like 90 minutes, the administration just issued a blanket denial and basically said, everything is fine in all of our facilities and this is all lies. I read their response. Yeah. It literally didn't seem to engage on the substance of any of the specifics in your report. No. I mean, it's it's just deny, deny, deny. They do not care. And, you know, it really saddens me to say it, but I think that there are some folks in this administration and at this White House who relish the brutality of the system they're creating. Yeah, clearly they do. I'm going to jump around a little bit because we're getting to the end. So, you know, speaking of gross human rights violations, a few minutes ago, right before we started recording, Trump told reporters, quote, I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.

Nope, I won't allow it. It's not going to happen. And then speaking about the war, he said, there's been enough. It's time to stop now. Do you believe him? Do you see any evidence that the administration is exerting pressure on the Israeli government, either to stop the war in Gaza or, prevent annexation in the West Bank? No, there is, there is to date zero pressure.

And, you know, the, the reality is that the slow motion annexation of the West Bank has been the Likud and Netanyahu policy ongoing now for many, many years. I mean, it is like a work in progress. So, you know, I suppose that is a welcome statement, but I am pretty skeptical that it'll be met with any kind of policy. One thing I do want to say about this while we're on the subject, and since we've been talking about the role of the press, is, you know, international media have been launching yet another push to call for access for journalists to guys. Gaza. And I just want to lend my voice and support to that effort. I've seen personally through the work, but I've helped lead and produce how essential it is to have independent journalism in places where there's armed conflict, to hold warring parties to account where there are serious human rights abuses. And the continued exclusion of journalists from Gaza is completely unacceptable. And I want to state unequivocally my support for that call and once again call on the Israeli government to permit journalists to access that area. It really is amazing. It's been nearly two years,

no press access. I mean, there's some incredibly brave Palestinian journalists on the ground providing vital reporting, video evidence, and doing so at great risk to themselves. I mean, hundreds of journalists in Gaza have been killed throughout the conflict by Palestinian airstrikes or God knows what else. But yeah, I think it's a really important. not widely understood fact, frankly, about the war. Yeah. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, she got a book out. You may have heard it's ruffling some feathers in the Democratic Party.

One piece in particular, she wrote that Joe Biden's decision to run for re-election was reckless. Do you agree with that characterization? Well, I think that events have proven it to be the wrong decision. I mean, I was not in the room. but I think it's clear that he wasn't up for it and by the time the decision was made to make a change it was very very late in the game do you think that's like a one-off situational challenge look I think back to that time and I felt in my my heart that I knew Joe Biden was too old but I kind of wondered like what value there was I mean after the debate it was obvious right and people were like like he's got to go. He's got to, you know, step down. But I think when he ran, we all thought he was going to be a bridge, you know, maybe just a four-year, for one-term president and then hand the reins over to somebody else for a contested primary. Do you think that there was something

preventing, I don't know, a more honest conversation about his prospects within Democratic Party? Because like the data was there. Voters were telling us he was too old. Focus groups are telling us he was too old. We just didn't listen to the mounds and mounds of data that was out there. I think that like the the most brutally honest answer to that question is, you know, when you're facing the specter of Donald Trump potentially being reelected to the presidency and you have in the sitting president, the presumptive nominee, it's understandable that you're not going to be inclined to do or say things that might weaken that presumptive nominee against Trump, given the threat that he posed and poses.

But, you know, I think that, look, I think the other piece of this, and one of the reasons that I think, you know, Democrats across the country, you mentioned, you know, they have this, and I hear this everywhere, right, like this longing for public leadership, right, and for folks to follow and for a clear voice and a clear rallying, cry. And I save us with all due respect to the former president. And I think he achieved some pretty extraordinary things while he was in office, things that certainly helped Georgia on insulin prices and clean energy manufacturing. But we did not have a powerful voice communicating

and leading for much of the latter half of that term. And that certainly contributed to the defeat in the election. But you know, what I think what we need that we haven't had in a long time is, you know, a deep and compelling story and vision about where the country is and where the country needs to go. And, you know, so the lack of a strong presidential voice for an extended period there took a toll, no doubt.

Yeah, definitely did. You have a big re-election coming up. I saw outside groups already announcing how many millions are going to spend against you? How are you guys feeling about the state of the what do folks need to know and how can they how can they help you out yeah look this will be the biggest senate race of uh of the midterms and i i i just i keep happening to run in these you know huge consequential uh elections but i'm the only democrat running for reelection

in the state that donald trump won so i'm their number one target they want the seat and what you know a couple of republican colleagues have told me privately is they also the gop wants me gone right for all the reasons that we've just discussed like they don't want fresh voices young you know young blood in the opposition right that sometimes i joke to people no disrespect to anyone out there but you know it's like i work in the most powerful and prestigious senior center in america and um so they have a lot of motivation to to defeat me they spent 310 million dollars or so to try to crazy fend me off the first time so much money for i i expect that they will spend like half a billion dollars to try to beat me this time

And so my message to folks, and I say it like just to be very, very real is please help, right? Go to electjohn.com, support the campaign, do what you can, $10, $15. Just we don't have the luxury of despair right now. We cannot spend the next 15 months wringing our hands and in worry and depression. We have to win these elections. We need to win in a landslide. We need to be in a winning mind. set. We need to recognize that we're facing an unpopular president doing immense damage to the

country. We have the wind at our backs. And as long as we don't defeat ourselves, we're going to win. But it is going to take resources. So please support my campaign. It's a great pitch. You don't think the villages is a more distinguished retirement? Last question. So you have a three-year-old and a four-month-old. Yeah. So between that... That's about the same age as your kids, right? Yeah, I've got a two-year-old and one-year-old. So I guess between that parenting and the reelection, you sleep sometime in 2030, is that the goal? I, God bless my wife. I love you, Alicia.

You know, it's, it is the, you know, the world's tiniest violin and everything, but it is sort of the, the toughest part, obviously, is the time away from kids. Because you know, you've got kids this age. It's physically painful. And, like, when they're so young, every week, it's like a whole number. new, you know, so many new discoveries, new personalities. So, um, but it also motivates me, you know, um, to understand the stakes for the next generation. But, uh, yeah, I mean, my wife's a practicing physician. She's an OB, uh, doctor in Georgia. And we're blessed to have these, these beautiful children. And my God, you guys are a busy house.

Busy. But, you know, people ask me how I'm doing it's like as long as, as long as our children are healthy. Yeah. You know, that's the most important thing. Yeah. Do you guys, um, do you have I don't know if you do screen time. Do you have a favorite show, like Miss Rachel House, Bluey, Daniel Tiger. So Eva, who's the three-year-old, she, she watches a lot of ballet. Okay. She watches a lot of Winnie the Pooh. By the way, a lot, like, we limit the screen time. Of course. But, you know, when, she just got into this, I don't know if I should be like plugging TV shows on the show, but she just started watching, I think it's like an Irish show called

Puff and Rock, which is very cute about little animals living on it. So if you're looking for I'm writing that down for safe nurturing content, you know, I recommend it. My daughter is now doing ballet. Yeah, so is Eva. Okay, but did she do it into like the tap shoes, the old school kind? She's got little like, she's just in like pink socks. Okay, yeah, Lizzie's got little tap shoes and they're fun until she jumps on her brother's foot. Yeah.

Then we got problems. Do you have a preferred duty? Are you like a given bottles, diapers, general tidying? I do it all. Yeah. I mean, and I really relish it. Like my, my team, if they had their way, you know, much love to my team but my team if they had their way would have me you know all day every day

every weekend um when i when i first got to the senate i sat down with like a i mentioned that you know it is a a body of very mature states people um i sat down with a very very very very senior member and sort of asked for some advice and what this senator told me was he was like john i I don't remember a single fish fry chicken dinner, you know, county fair or whatever that I felt like I had to go to, but I missed. But I remember every ballet recital soccer game, birthday party that I miss. Like, don't be like me. So I have just walled off time. Some Cat Stevens, cats in the cradle shit right there.

I have just like walled off time. And, you know, I'm just, I don't want to have the regret of having. missed their childhood no that's stuff well listen it sounds like uh sounds like it's good good life balance there uh senator o'suff thank you so much for doing the show everyone what's that website again it's electjohn dot com hey just one more note like i know it it it is really tough and it's bleak and uh okay but it's not it's not jim crow okay like americans have been through a lot and gotten through a lot and built a better, more beautiful, more just country. So this is our challenge. This is our moment. Let's just rise to it and win.

Yeah. But in 1963, it was pretty scary. Yeah. You know, JFK, getting shot. Jim Crowell. Wise words. Senator, thank you. Thank you. That's our show for today. Thanks to John Asa for coming by. Love it. Tommy and I will be back with a new show on Tuesday. Bye, everyone. If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad-free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to cricket.com slash friends to subscribe on Supercast, substack, YouTube, or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Cricket. Pod Save America is a Cricket Media production. Our producers are David Toledo, Emma Illick-Frank, and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Churlin is our executive editor.

Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seiglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Heffcote, Mia Kelman, Carol Pelaviv, David Tolls, and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

Thank you. POMAYOR. Thank you.