Pod Save America - “We got him !(?)”

Episode Date: March 30, 2023

The Manhattan grand jury indicts Donald Trump.  The right turns a school shooting into a culture war. The Special Counsel gets Mike Pence to testify. Chris Christie wants to destroy Donald Trump. Kevin McCarthy wants Joe Biden to pay an unspecified debt ceiling ransom. And Congress might want to ban TikTok. Then later, Congresswoman Marie Gluesenkamp Perez stops by to talk about her upset win in rural Washington. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, a grand jury in Manhattan votes to indict Donald Trump. The right turns a school shooting into a culture war. Kevin McCarthy wants Joe Biden to pay a debt ceiling ransom. And Congress might want to ban TikTok. Then I talk to the Democrat responsible for the single biggest upset of the 2022 midterms, Congresswoman Marie Glusenkamp Perez. But first, a few housekeeping notes.

The first two episodes of Stiffed are out now. This is the newest series from Crooked Media and iHeartRadio that takes you on a wild ride through the rise and fall of Viva, the erotic magazine for women. In this eight-part series, host Jennifer Romolini takes you back to New York City in 1973, where Porn King publisher Bob Guccione started a magazine that rocked the publishing world. With a team of feminist writers and editors behind it,

Viva had full frontal male nudity, Dan. Whoa. Full frontal. Turn around and pause on that. Check an email and I hear you just yelling full frontal nudity at the top of your lungs. Wanted to make sure you were paying attention during the housekeeping, Dan. A fashion section run by Anna Wintour and cover stars like Bianca Jagger. But were they doomed to fail from the beginning? Find out by listening for free right now on your favorite podcast platform. First two episodes of Stiffed are out right now. Also, Women's History Month may be ending,

but the conversation continues on Crooked Media's hysteria. If you're tired of women's issues getting sanitized and trivialized, Aaron Ryan and Alyssa Mastromonaco are giving their smart, hilarious takes on the political and cultural landscape every Thursday, wherever you get your podcasts. All right, let's get to the news. Dan, we got them. It's done. It's over.

Okay, so here's what happened. Just so you're all following along at home. We recorded the pod, the Thursday pod, and then 10 minutes after it was released, 10 minutes, Dan, we learned the news that Donald Trump has been indicted. I just was sitting at my computer. I saw a Slack message pop up that said,

the Thursday pod curse. What could this be? Could it be the thing? Yes, it was the thing. I was in a meeting and didn't even know any of this was happening. Unusual for me, host of Offline. I had my phone in my pocket.

I wasn't even looking at my phone. Walked back to my desk and then I heard Michael Martinez just said something. Oh, he was indicted. And I something like, oh, he was indicted. And I'm like, wait, he was indicted? What? And then everyone's like, oh, yeah, Trump was just indicted. And I'm like, oh, thank God the pod's not out yet.

And then someone told me the pod hadn't been done out. I have always assumed that the moment Trump was indicted, if you or John or Tommy were in a meeting, someone would come barreling through the wall like the Kool-Aid man to tell you that. I can't believe they're like, I can't. to come barreling through the wall like the Kool-Aid man to tell you that. I can't believe they're like, there's no offense to your media company, which I depend on for my livelihood, that there's no meeting so important

that it cannot be interrupted for news that Donald Trump has been indicted. I think Tommy still doesn't know. He's walking around here somewhere. He hasn't even, yeah. Just like looking at maps of the Donbas. So we can't talk about too much right here because we know very little. By the time you hear this pod, hopefully there'll be more information.

But basically what happened is a couple sources told the New York Times and now NBC, CNN and other outlets have confirmed, every outlet in the world, that the grand jury has voted to indict Donald Trump. We don't know the exact charges just yet. We don't know exactly exact charges just yet. We don't know exactly when he will surrender, though we assume that it's been reported in the New York Times that in the coming days, District Attorney Alvin Bragg will negotiate the terms of surrender with Trump and the Secret Service and his staff, and he will come and he will be arraigned. We will then find out what exactly the charges are. Obviously, they're focused on hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, but there could be other parts to the indictment. Again, we don't know yet, so we're going to wait and find out.

But it's funny because when we originally recorded this pod, we talked about the fact that the Manhattan grand jury was reportedly going on a previously scheduled hiatus starting on April 5th and wasn't going to hear evidence in the Trump case until April 24th. You know, the loophole on that was always, well, maybe they'll vote between now and when they go on hiatus on April 5th. And sure enough, that's what happened. Here we are. Donald Trump has been indicted. What do you think, Dan? What's your take? Let me see. Quick take. My hot take based on no information on something we've been talking about for literally weeks now.

I mean, we tried to do this last week when we thought the indictment was going to drop the next day or moments after that podcast. So I'll try to do this again. I mean, this is a historic moment. And it shouldn't get lost in whatever the absurd truths are going to come, what the MAGA media idiots say is that the former president of the United States and the leading contender to be the Republican nominee for president again was indicted for a crime and is going to be pursuing that presidency while also trying to fight a conviction in court. That is a gigantic deal. And there's a lot of questions to be answered and things to be explored with the fact that most of his party is going to stick with him right through this and defend him to the core, even despite whatever electoral and political

implications this may have. Yeah. Let's remember that much of the 2016 election revolved around the fact that Hillary Clinton clinton was under federal investigation for email protocol um to which she was cleared of any charges and not indicted at all and that still um hurt her considerably and here we are with donald trump actually being indicted oh tommy you want to come in finally someone who interrupted a meeting on a free in the crooked media and now we have donald trump who has been indicted one of potentially multiple indictments and perhaps the least severe indictment in terms of the crime committed and maybe this will sparks an indictment fever among all the other people investigating donald trump i mean one of the questions we asked in the in the old pot in the old part of the pod that you're not going to hear is,

will Jack Smith now beat Alvin Bragg to get the first indictment of Donald Trump? Now it looks like looks like Bragg wins. Bragg wins the race. But but special counsel Jack Smith is out there. He has got a federal judge has ordered Mike Pence to testify of hang Mike Pence fame about his interactions with Donald Trump leading up to January 6th. And another federal judge ordered Mark Meadows and a bunch of other Trump senior staff to testify as well. So the January 6th investigation by the special counsel is proceeding. The classified documents investigation is proceeding, as is the Fulton County DA's investigation into Trump overturning the election in Georgia. And I think if I remember correctly from many pods ago talking about that looming indictment in Fulton County, that grand jury, I think they seek grand juries

on a monthly basis. And next week is the first week in April. So they may get cracking on that one too, because Fannie Wills is sitting on a recommendation, which we don't know, but we've reason to believe is that the people around Donald Trump and possibly Donald Trump included should be indicted. Man, it's indictment season. Here it is. In like a lion, out like a lamb. Okay. So when we come back, you will hear the rest of the show minus the original indictment talk, which is certainly events have overtaken that. And then we'll be back on Monday's pod to have, you know, better takes. Takes that have marinated over a weekend of analysis and possibly more reporting. Yeah, that's what we're going to do.

RIP to our top analysis and excellent jokes from that section of the pod. They're no longer here. All right. We will be right back with the rest of the originally scheduled Thursday pod. All right. We have a few stories to cover, starting with the fallout from another gut-wrenching mass shooting at a Nashville elementary school that left six people dead, including three nine-year-old students. It was America's 130th mass shooting this year. A reminder, it is only the end of March. And the 19th school

shooting. Altogether, we've lost 63 children to gun crimes in 2023. In Nashville, the killer was reportedly a 28-year-old former student at the private Christian school who was able to legally purchase seven firearms, including the AR-15 used in the shooting, despite being under care for an emotional disorder. But the fact that weapons of war are easily accessible to young people with mental health issues hasn't really been mentioned by Republican politicians or right-wing media types who've instead focused on the gender identity of the killer. There is a theory that the trans identity may have played a role in the motivation of the shooting. We also don't know the extent to which drug therapy of any sort, transgender related or non-transgender related, also might have come into play here.

We can only talk about the guns. We can't know what kind of drugs she was taking, what kind of hormones or SSRIs or benzodiazepines. We can only guess. The trans movement is targeting Christians, including with violence. So Christianity and transgender orthodoxy are wholly incompatible theologies. They can never be reconciled. They are on a collision course with each other.

One side is likely to draw blood before the other side. That's just a small sampling of what has quickly become the right-wing obsession of the week. Politicians like J.D. Vance and Marjorie Taylor Greene have also used the shooting to demonize all trans people. It's vile. It is dangerous at a time when violence against trans people is at an all-time high. And it's just gross. What's the best way to respond to that garbage, do you think? I think it has to be stated that just because the one individual who did this heinous act may happen to be trans says nothing about the trans community or any other trans person walking the face of the planet. And to suggest otherwise, as you say, is deeply dangerous.

It is an absolutely dangerous thing to do that could potentially lead to more violence. And so I think it is completely fair to tell these attention-starved hobgoblins to fuck right off for the way they talk about this. It is absolutely – it's disgusting and it's dangerous. Democratic politicians, et cetera, deal with this. And I think it is important to acknowledge that Democrats have a moral obligation, a political imperative to stand up here to defend trans people from these accusations, from the bigotry emanating from Republicans, from the laws that are being passed across this country. We absolutely have to do that. And the way I would do it in this instance is to say that Republicans are trying to demonize trans people and divide this country to distract from the fact that they oppose the common sense bipartisan solutions that would prevent tragedies like these. Bans on assault weapons, universal background checks, red flag laws that would prevent dangerous

people from getting access to guns. That is why they are doing this. And we should call that fact out and not try to ignore this. It's not taking the bait. It is doing the right thing and providing context and facts about what is happening. It is not playing their game. It's calling out their game. Yeah. No, I agree. I mean, look, out of the thousands of horrific mass shootings this country has endured over the last decade, three of the killers have been trans. More than 99 percent of the killers are cisgender. Most are men. Most are white. Most have mental health issues. Some are motivated by hate towards people who are different than them, usually because of their race or ethnicity or religion. people who are different than them, usually because of their race or ethnicity or religion. What they all had in common was easy access to guns, which also, by the way, separates them from all of the cis white men with mental health issues or extremist views in other countries,

because they don't have as easy access to guns in other countries. And so they don't have as many mass shootings. And that's just that's also true. I mean, the right you're calling out the rights game here. And this is this is what they're this is what they've been trying to do now for the last several years. Like they want us to believe that because a mass shooter happened to be trans, that we should be afraid of all trans people, even though trans people are far, far more likely to be the victims of violence and the perpetrators of violence. But, you know, someone's they need a villain. Someone's got to be the villain. Muslims, gays, Jews, immigrants, now it's trans people coming for our kids, right? And it's not like, oh, I have concerns about pronouns or bathrooms or sports. It's now, you hear it from Tucker, you hear it from all these folks on Fox, you hear it from Ben

Shapiro. These are violent radicals who are coming for our kids, right? So we need a parents' rights movement. And it's like, you know what? How about a fucking parents' rights movement for us too? Like, I think parents should have the right to send their kids to a school where they're not going to be murdered in their classroom. And parents should have the right to send their kids to a school where they're going to be taught to show respect and kindness to every other person they meet, whatever they look like, wherever they come from, wherever their family looks like. That's like a parents' rights movement that I think Democrats

should demand. I think we should demand that we should send our kids to school where they don't ban books or try to cover up uncomfortable parts of our history. You know, it's just like, I totally agree that we cannot it's not about taking the bait it's like don't let them own the issue of like what parents want and what's good for our kids because what they want is this is bullshit they are they are trying to play a game where they fucking scare people and they turn people against one another and particularly people against groups who may be different, who people don't have experience with. Right. And so there's,

they know there's a lot of people in this country who maybe don't know a trans person. And so they're going to scare the shit out of those people by making shit up about what the trans people want when all they really want, when all the trans people really want is to fucking be left alone to live their lives. Republican ideology demands a scary other. You can look at every Republican election and they pick one every single time and a societal acceptance grows for those groups. As those groups gain more political power or more civil rights, they move on to the next one. And so in 2004, the Republicans ran a campaign that was based entirely on a completely bullshit constitutional amendment to gin up

homophobia to get their base. And as the country became more comfortable with gay marriage and civil rights for gay Americans, they switched to trans people and they're going to keep going and going and going. That's what they've been doing for the entire history of the modern Republican Party. Yeah. And we should not. And look, there was another PBS poll out yesterday, a Marist poll too, that showed it's like up to 60% of Americans don't support a ban on gender affirming therapy. They don't support a ban on drag shows as is happening in Tennessee and other places. So they don't support this ban on drag shows as is happening in Tennessee and other places. So they don't support this bullshit.

And Democrats should should know that and feel confident about that when you go out and actually do what you said is our moral obligation to actually defend all all groups from Republican attacks that Republicans try to otherize. President Biden and other Democrats have called on Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Democrats in state houses have been trying to pass other gun safety measures like background checks, red flag laws, and raising the age to buy semi-automatic rifles. They keep running into a wall of opposition from most Republicans and even some Democrats. We have the same fucking conversation every time a mass shooting happens. You know, we have the same fucking conversation every time a mass shooting happens. Like, and it feels like nothing ever changes. You know, obviously there was a bipartisan, first bipartisan gun safety legislation in a decade past last year.

So that's good. And yet, you know, every single one of these mass shootings, there's another AR-15 at play here. And there's another someone who had, you know, there should have been a red flag law. Someone who had mental health issues was able to buy a weapon of war. Like how did Democrats start changing the politics on this issue? Where do we even begin? I think there's a misunderstanding about the politics of guns. Democrats have largely changed the politics on the issue. They have changed dramatically in years. The issues that we are talking about, the policies that would go a long way to stopping some of these things from happening

are broadly popular. And they're broadly popular among all groups. And they're even popular in many cases among gun owners. This is not a question about messaging. It's a structural impediment in our system that prevents majority policies from being enacted in our government. It is because of things that we talk about these all the times. The filibuster, the Senate and Electoral College map that give disproportionate political power

to the minority position on issues like guns. And it's the long, hard work of fixing our democracy. It is voting rights. It's getting rid of the filibuster. It's making DC a state. It's giving Puerto Rico the option to be a state. It's reforming the courts because one of the problems we have is that even in states like New York, where Democrats have the power to pass laws, then you have a rigged right-wing Supreme Court who offers completely novel interpretations of the Second Amendment that people wouldn't even begin to proffer for centuries to undercut those laws. And so there is no easy answer. There is no quick

message. There's no bumper sticker. There is the long, hard work of bringing our political system in line with majoritarian positions in this country. hard work of bringing our political system in line with majoritarian positions in this country. Yeah, I don't know. I think that part of this is I just had this interview with Congresswoman Glusenkamp-Perez, who is in a very rural district where she doesn't even support a ban on assault weapons. And when I asked her why, she talked about how, like, just it's a tough issue for people in that district. And I was like, but why? Like, they use a rifle to go hunting.

Like, why do you need an AR-15? And it sounds like that there's just a lot of people who still need convincing that this isn't just, oh, we won the politics and we have the majority position and now we just got to add a couple of states and get rid of the filibuster. Because someone asked John Tester, he's up for reelection. If he wants an assault weapons ban, he doesn't want an assault weapons ban. So there's a bunch that we don't even have that. I don't think we have 51 Democrats for an assault weapons ban. We didn't have a majority of the House last time around.

Right. We didn't have one. Right. assault weapons ban we didn't have a majority of the house last time around right we didn't have one right so obviously there are structural impediments in our democracy to getting through majoritarian positions that have majoritarian support majority support but i also think there's some bottom-up politics and conversations that need to happen to to continue pushing on this issue and i do i do agree that we've made progress, right? Like I was surprised when I did the focus groups for the wilderness last time, how many times, like I wasn't surprised that inflation came up all the time from people

and abortion because of Dobbs. But I would say the third issue that came up, just people on their own bringing it up was gun violence. And these were, you know, I was talking to like people on the excerpts of Pittsburgh who were like, I believe in owning a gun. I believe in gun rights, but I think we need to take some common sense steps. I think we need to get rid of assault weapons. You know, so I do think that we have made some progress on the politics, but I think there's probably a And I think of the three issues that we've talked about here, assault weapons is the most challenging, which seems insane to people like us, but that is the case. And I do think, you know, 51 new state laws last year, gun safety laws, in addition to that federal, the first federal legislation in decades. So you are, and those 51 state laws include, there was an assault weapons ban in Delaware. There was high capacity magazine bans in four other states. So you are starting to see some progress on the state level.

So people shouldn't lose hope. But I do think, look, if I was I think part of this is Democrats shouldn't be afraid. Right. Like, I don't think there's a ton of consultants who would tell you if you're running a race to like run ads about guns and gun violence. But I don't I think that the fact that we're seeing these horrific massacres in schools, I really believe that will connect with parents, even parents who happen to be gun owners in a more visceral way, at least in some communities. All right. Turning to this week's other headlines. All right. Turning to this week's other headlines in special counsel Jack Smith's January 6th investigation into Trump. A federal judge has ordered former Vice President Mike Pence of Hank Mike Pence fame to testify to a grand jury about his conversations with Donald Trump leading up to the day he was almost hung. A judge also ordered Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and other senior White House Trump aides to testify as well. What do you think?

I mean, I think we I think there are two points to acknowledge here. One is these prosecutors absolutely have to get this right. They and that can take time. If there is a hole in one of these cases, a piece of exculpatory evidence missed or something, it will dramatically damage the effort for accountability, both legal and political. Even if nothing happens with a criminal case, I think if there was some screw up by federal, state, or local officials trying to charge Donald Trump with a crime, that would be weaponized in a way that could be very damaging to the effort to hold him accountable. The second point here is I think as we are looking at the clock here, it seems to me to be possible, maybe even probable, that we will reach Election Day and none of these cases will come to a conclusion.

Maybe he'll be indicted for multiple crimes in multiple districts, but it seems very, very possible that there will not be a trial, a conviction, or anything else. It seems very, very possible that there will not be a trial, a conviction or anything else. And that once again brings us back to where we have been for so many years, which is the only people who can solve the Trump problem are the voters. It's all of us. It is to beat him and beat him badly enough this time that it is a mortal blow against mag extremism. I just don't think that we can wait for Fannie Willis or Jack Smith or someone or Alvin Bragg to solve this problem for us. I don't think that's going to happen. But it could also be Chris Christie, Dan. He is the newest potential primary opponent for Donald Trump. He was in New Hampshire this week testing the waters with a town hall where he said that Republicans need a candidate who isn't afraid to take on Trump directly. Let's listen.

You better have somebody on that stage who can do to him what I did to Marco. Because that's the only thing that's going to defeat Donald Trump. You have to be fearless because he will come back and right at you and so you need to think about who's got the skill to do that and who's got the guts to do it because it's not gonna end nicely Donald Trump said a couple weeks ago I am your retribution guess what everybody no thanks the only person he cares about is him and if we haven't learned that since election day of 2020 to today then we are not paying attention what do you think dan is uh chris christie the one we've been waiting for why is he doing that weird stage whisper thing

i don't know. turned Trump advisor, turned Trump debate critic, turned almost Trump victim, turned Trump critic again. I don't think that's a real thing. I do. If Chris Christie's goal is to get in the race and just be the anti-Trump person and the one to have the quote unquote courage to call Trump a loser repeatedly, that probably has some marginal value

to defeating Donald Trump. I don't think it ends in Chris Christie getting more than 2% of the votes, but I think he's someone who gets press attention. He's a pretty good performer on stage. You could see him getting under Trump's skin in debate. So, you know, I guess in the sense that it's marginally helpful content for us, kudos. Welcome to the race. Two points here. One, I had to go back. Is that your prediction for how he finishes? Two points? It's like Connor Roy. I'm worried that they're worried that I'm going to get squeezed down from 1%.

Isn't 1 the lowest number? That's Christie and Pompeo and the rest. That's Christie and Pompeo and the rest. Number one, I went back because I forgot what the debate moment between the specifics of the debate moment between Christie and Rubio. Now that Chris Christie is out there basically saying that his main credential for running against Donald Trump in 2024 is that he brutally assaulted Marco Rubio on a debate stage. And it's like Marco Rubio gives this dumb memorized 25 second speech about, you know, Barack Obama and Chris Christie points out that it's a, that it's a memorized speech. That's talking points.

And then like a little later, Marco, because he's a dumb ass trips on his own feet again and just walks right back into the attack by repeating again the 25-second speech about Barack Obama. And Chris Christie merely points out that he did. That was it. That's why we need Chris Christie in that arena, because he was able to point out that the blow-drag talking points candidate repeated himself again on a debate stage look he took out the one of the least talented people to ever run for president in the history united states kudos to him and also you alluded to trump almost making him the victim i forgot like

trump knew he had covid didn't tell anyone goes goes to debate prep with Chris Christie, gives Chris Christie COVID, puts him in the hospital, calls Chris Christie. And instead of saying, how are you doing? Says, are you going to tell people that I was the one who gave it to you? Which Chris Christie did not do until his book came out long after the election. Right, right. That was still not enough for chris christie because months after the 2020 election after that happened to him laura ingram's like okay so would you vote for joe biden if it's trump biden and 24 again and chris christie's like

no i would not vote for joe biden he didn't say he he didn't say he would vote for donald trump he also didn't rule it out. But, like, come on, man. The guy almost killed you. And then you're in the hospital and he calls you up and he's like, hey, you got a tattle on me? That's fucking real. Love it. These people are just pathetic.

Love it. Love it. But you're right. Yeah. Anytime he's out there attacking Donald Trump, great. We'll take it. Alright, let's finish up here with Congress, where both parties may soon come together to ban TikTok, even as they

remain incapable of simply paying the bills necessary to stave off a global economic crisis. This is of course all thanks to Kevin McCarthy and House Republicans, who sent a letter to the White House this week that whined about Joe Biden's refusal to engage in hostage negotiations. And they also laid out a few vague demands that include massive spending cuts, reclaiming unspent covid funds, work requirements for Medicaid and food assistance, lower energy costs and increased border security. Biden wrote back and food assistance, lower energy costs, and increased border security.

Biden wrote back and basically said, come up with an actual budget proposal like I did, and maybe we can talk. What do you think McCarthy's up to here? What do you think of Biden's response? And should we be hiding our money in mattresses yet? Do we have any current mattress sponsors? Yeah, so yeah, grab your,

get your Helix. There's a spot in the Helix for your money. Yes. Okay. Anyhow, um, McCarthy, I believe it's always hard to tell like how,

why he does certain things, but he, I think he recognizes that he is at a disadvantage here because the things that his party wants are deeply unpopular. And were he to put out a budget, people would know that fact. And if he doesn't put out a budget, it looks like he's not serious. So he's trying to move the conversation to areas where he might have a little more political support, notably the very famous budget issues, lower energy costs and border security.

issues lower energy costs and border security. Look, that is an area where Republicans have some advantage on Democrats in some polls. The problem with that for him is it gives up the game because it proves that he's not in this for – the debt ceiling is not a budget issue. He's only trying to get a Democratic president, Democratic Senate to do things they would not otherwise do if someone wasn't threatening to blow up the global economy if they didn't do it and so he's trying to kind of he explicitly said that this week because someone's like some reporter was like what about your budget proposal he's like the budget has nothing to do with the debt ceiling it's separate like yeah exactly it's i mean he's so dumb he is incredibly done the thing to worry about here is Exactly. It's, I mean... He's so dumb.

He is incredibly dumb. The thing to worry about here is not, because if this were to stay on its trajectory, Republicans could still stumble ass backwards into a default for sure. Kevin McCarthy's always capable of that. And there are reasons to be very worried, but Democrats definitely would,

if they held together, would, I believe, in combination with some Senate Republicans, be able to force the House Republicans to do some things they wouldn't otherwise do. The challenge here is the one and only Joe Manchin, who decided to take to the pages of The Wall Street Journal to write an insane op-ed attacking Joe Biden and somewhat not so vaguely threatening to work with Republicans on the debt ceiling for unspecified spending cuts. He's going to be a real pain in the ass on this. Yeah, it seems that way. Because his approval rating in West Virginia took a real dive after he supported the Inflation Reduction Act. And now he thinks he wants to maybe run again, clearly. And it certainly seems like he's going to try to set himself up

to either leave the party, become an independent, or just, you know, if not, run against Joe Biden, the Democrats in this race, because that's probably the only key to his political survival. You Can Put Me Down is extremely worried about default, particularly after I read a couple quotes from Patrick McHenry, who's the Financial Services Committee chair, and he's like a McCarthy ally. He's seen as like a serious budget person. He's also sort of been acting as a bridge between McCarthy and the kooks in the caucus. And he said just this week,

I don't see how we get there. I don't even see a path. I've never been more pessimistic about where we stand on the debt ceiling. And we've been in some bad situations before. Yikes. Yeah, it's not, as they say, not great. this one because it's like yeah i think that the biden and the democrats have the upper hand right now because mccarthy's an idiot and clearly they can't even come up with the budget they can't agree on in order to take a hostage you got to figure out what your uh demands are you can't try to take the hostage and then threaten to kill the hostage but you're like unless you give me i don't know i'm not sure yet you you tell me what i'm supposed to ask for that's what that's what

he's saying right now. So, like, yeah, despite the fact that he's a dipshit, it seems pretty dark right now. I don't know how. I think either Kevin McCarthy loses his job or we default. I don't know that Kevin McCarthy can keep his job and we lift the debt ceiling at this point. I don't know. his job and we lift the debt ceiling at this point. I don't know. The folks at Punchbowl reported this week that McCarthy is considering a short term to pass a short term extension to get to try to line up the debt ceiling and the budget fight for government funding, even though he thinks they don't have to do it. Yes, even though they have no religious out of coincidence. That's

what that would happen. And that that will be how that plays itself out will tell us a lot. Does he do a clean extension? Does he do what they did in 2011, which is pass a short-term extension with a spending cut attached to it, like a little haircut as they call it? Do Democrats go along with that? It's going to sort of give us the contours of it. But their time is running short here, and we are not making real progress. And that's kind of the wrong framework to look at it, because progress is Republicans passing it. Progress is not some fake meeting. It's do they do their actual job? And they have shown less inclination to do so

than they did at the outset. So put your money in that mattress. Put your money in the helix. All right. I mentioned a potential TikTok ban, which has united politicians from both parties after the company's CEO testified before Congress last week. The goal was to put lawmakers at ease about Chinese ownership of the platform. He did the opposite. There's now a bipartisan bill that would give the federal government the authority to regulate technology produced by countries like China that have an adversarial relationship with the United States. McCarthy says he's interested in moving something like this legislation through the House. The bill has about 22 sponsors in the Senate, and the White House says that they support it as well.

You wrote a message box on this topic last week. What do you think should happen, and what are the politics here for Biden and the Democrats? I don't know what should happen, and really no one does. Because it seems pretty clear that the members of Congress and the administration who have seen the intelligence on whatever the connections are, and then the activity with the Chinese government and TikTok are worried. They see there's a threat. They have not told us what that is, other than the fact that we know that TikTok has already admitted to spying on a US journalist who was during reporting on the company, which seems like, I don't know, a giant fucking red flag.

But if there is going to be something as drastic as a ban, I think the federal government and the intelligence have to be as transparent as possible about what the reason is. You can't just say, trust us. The intelligence agencies have not earned that right to say that. And I know that's complicated because the information is classified and revealing it could disclose the people and the methods that got us that information. But you can't ban the most popular social media app in the country without explaining it. So I think that if they're going to do that, they have to do it. The White House's support for the bill is interesting because this is really like the Hot Potato Act. It's like Congress isn't going to ban it. They're going to give Joe Biden the ability to ban it. The reason the White House supports it is to increase leverage on ByteDance to sell TikTok to a US company, which is what the government is trying to force TikTok to do, which would solve a lot of these problems short of a ban. The politics are complicated.

The American people have never seen China as a greater threat than they do right now, at least in the decades that Gallup has been polling opinions on China. The approval rating of China is 15% in the United States. To put that in perspective, Russia is at 9%. So deeply unpopular. There are majorities of just about every single group support banning TikTok. Almost two-thirds believe that the Chinese government is accessing our data. Majorities believe that the Chinese government is using TikTok to is accessing our data. Majorities believe that the Chinese government is using TikTok to influence American politics. The only groups that oppose a ban are Democrats and younger voters who are disproportionately Democrats and dependent, and that Democrats depend on to win elections. So there are no easy politics in whichever way

you go here. Yeah. And I do think this is tough. I mean, you raised the concerns about the Chinese government collecting data through the app, which again, a lot of that information is classified, so we don't know. But even that aside, the fact that Chinese Communist Party controls all companies in China and therefore controls maybe one of the most popular and powerful algorithms in the world right now. And certainly one that a lot of the Americans use that maybe a hundred million Americans use. That's concerning. This is an authoritarian government. This is a government who is like, you know, supporting Putin in his war that is like his trampled minority rights in China. Like this is not this is not just some some random government across the world that it's only like xenophobia that's driving this.

Right. They are they are an authoritarian government that has an adversarial relationship with the United States and controls this algorithm and potentially is collecting data from us. Like, I do think it's a tough one. It's not just like, well, a lot of young people like the app, so we can't do anything. I mean, we've seen foreign governments use American-owned apps to influence our politics, much less popular ones than TikTok. I think we have to be careful on how – I laid out what the polling says. I think it's possible the politics of a ban are slightly overstated. It's pretty demeaning to young people to suggest that there are all these young people who

care about access to abortion and civil rights for all Americans and climate change and all this other stuff. But if you ban their favorite social media app, they'll sit out the election. I don't think that that... Yeah, yeah. But you can see how right-wing forces would weaponize a ban on TikTok to try to drive a wedge between the young voters Democrats need and the 80-year-old president running for re-election. Like that is Biden's hardest group always is younger voters. So that would be one more brick on the load, one more thing that the Democrats and Joe Biden would have to navigate to engender the support and turnout levels you need among that group to win in 2024.

So it's complicated. And how many young people who are using the app who suddenly see it go away if a ban goes into effect have heard the reasoning for banning the app in the first place right or they just hear something about china and they're like what are they talking about that's crazy you know i mean it's a tough it's a tough argument to not only to make but to make sure that everyone hears yeah you've just taken away the way in which they get news and now you need them to get information so it's like yes are they going to get it dying Twitter? I do think some progressives have been making the argument like, well, there's plenty of other American social media companies whose algorithm is bad, like Facebook and Twitter.

I'm like, yeah, no, I know. They're very bad too. We should do something about them as well. We should regulate them all. We should regulate them for sure. It's not an either or in my mind. Let's not stop at the TikTok algorithm. That's my position. Okay, when we come back,

I'll talk to the new Democratic House member from one of the reddest districts in America, Marie Glusenkamp-Perez. Joining me now is a Democratic freshman representing Washington's 3rd District, Congresswoman Marie Glusenkamp-Perez. Welcome to the pod. Thank you so much. So glad to be here. So you are a 34-year-old auto repair shop-owning pro-choice mom who pulled off the biggest upset of the 2022 midterms in a rural district that

Donald Trump won twice. Two questions to start. Why did you do it? And how did you do it? Because I didn't want to be represented by a fascist in Congress. That's good. Good answer. There's no one else stepping up. So I was running against this guy, Joe Kent, who's like besties with Matt Goetz. And they like wear each other's t-shirts. He was like holding fundraisers for him. It's cute, but it's horrifying. 20 years to reestablish a white majority um and like bananas right and i really believe like the antidote to this sort of brand of extremism is not like white dudes who have a law degree and no kids it's people that work in the trades and who live in rural communities and can directly address like the reality of families in America today. Yeah. And so how did you pull it off? Because I know the district was represented before by Jamie Herrera Butler, and then Joe Kent wins the primary on the Republican side.

And so we have an extreme Republican candidate, but in a district that's still really tough for a Democrat to win. And I know you won by about 1%. So how did you do it? How did I pull it off? Barely. So like it was a squeaker. So a couple of things. National players never got involved in my

race so i never got coaching on how to sound like smart and polished and i just got to be myself and i really believe what people want is is normalcy like we want people that pay their own taxes and like you know that are on all the wait lists for daycare and are trying to navigate the world like running a small business like that's what people want and when we're able to communicate that like that is how we can be relevant in rural communities people that you know work for a living so um yeah i think i i think and i also think i'm not like i'm not that special like there are candidates like me all over the place that um we could be recruiting like we could be supporting and and we're not And we need to do a better job of changing the criteria of who we think makes a good candidate. I'm sure you must have encountered quite a few undecided voters during the campaign,

either folks who would normally vote Republican who probably supported Herrera-Butler in the past, weren't sure what they were going to do, Some people who weren't sure if they were even going to vote. What was the most common thing you said or the most common argument you made that sort of changed people's minds, got them off the fence? Yeah. Like the things in America are not going to get better until we start electing a Congress that looks more like America. Like, you know, and, and just like, so my opponent, Joe Kent, is going to be like, he's like the anointed candidate in my race. And this is a guy that's talking about banning, you know, right. So when you repeat what he says, people listen to that. And, you know, when we talk about the reality, listen, like nobody stays awake at night worrying about the southern border.

Like that's just not people stay awake at night worrying that their kid is going to relapse or that, you know, someone's going to drop out of school or they're going to lose their house. Like those are the things that, um, not socialism. And I think that's been the most frustrating thing about being actually in DC is that we're like voting on the horrors of socialism. And it's like, that's not what matters to people. When you talk about what really matters, um, you know, that, that is when that's, that's when people listen. Why do you think Democrats don't often win districts like yours, rural districts, working class districts, particularly white working class districts? What's your assessment of where the party has gone wrong? I think that a lot of these races, people have been left to like self funders. I think that a lot of these races, people have been left to like self funders. And so I think we're not, we're not pulling from the sort of median of the world.

I think that's, that's a part of it for sure. So it's not, it's not just about like having the right focus group and the right words. There's not like a magic password to being relevant in the trades and in rural communities. It is literally about like, I get my internet from a radio tower. I get my water from a well. I heat my house with wood. Like, and having candidates that reflect their communities and reflect the experience of their communities, because it changes how you think about issues and it changes um what you know what your priorities are so um you know when you've got a wildfire next door it's really relevant to to to you know our our timber policies like i don't like you mentioned

i you know my husband and i own an auto repair shop, work in the garage. When it's 117 degrees outside, I can't work. I can't pay my mortgage. And so Democrats often like talk about climate justice and these abstract terms that are not relevant. Like you have to talk about the actual reality of like people who work in the trades can't make money. We can't function like I'm going to get heat stroke. Yeah. Working outside. There are Democrats who argue that most white working class voters didn't vote for Donald Trump because of his populist grievances, but because of his racial grievances. What do you think about that? Well, I well, for one thing, I think that there's a tendency to sort of be patronizing towards people that work for a living and explain their thoughts in less than relevant ways. I also think that anger burns hot and Trump really utilized anger and fear. I don't know how durable that is when you see like, okay, being angry doesn't fix things.

And I also think that they have spent so much time talking about or like problematizing and like highlighting issues that aren't really relevant to making solutions that it's left open this this huge gap so like i'm on ag um the ag committee and i've been holding a bunch of Farm Bill listening tours. And you know what farmers are talking about? They're talking about antitrust issues, because there's been insane consolidation in meatpacking and transportation and marketing. They're talking about antitrust. I'm not hearing Republicans pick that up and run with it. So there are these places that we are not, like Republicans are not playing in that really really really matter

to rural communities to people who work for a living and and they matter to us and so there there is an opportunity if if we can listen to people respectfully and take their concerns seriously yeah it's interesting hearing you say we need to run candidates who look like the rest of America. I feel like for the last decade or so, the Democratic Party has done a great job putting forward candidates who look like America in terms of race and gender diversity. I do wonder if I've wondered if we have a problem with class diversity as well. I'm so fucking well, you know, and like we have a as as the Democratic coalition becomes more college educated. I think the college educated part of the coalition, it's more activists. You

have people who are engaged, who are participating. and those are the people that you hear a lot. And that's great. But I do wonder if that leaves us open to, you know, the charges that we're not – we don't understand how most people in this country live of all races. Yeah. Yeah, no. And it is paramount that we have equity like in education systems. Like that is paramount but also how fucked is it that we don't respect or listen to people until they have a college degree like that's shame you know and i see that all the time like you know i go to these these meetings and people are like they love like

democrats love to do this rags to riches story of like, I'm the first person in my call and family to go to college and like, my dad was a janitor and like, I look at me now here I am, you know, wearing, you know, Brooks Brothers and you know, like, and like, you know what, like, I like your dad. I like that your dad worked for a living. Like, I respect people that fix things and keep the wheels on the bus. And it is not a reflection on anyone's intelligence, whether or not they have a plaque on their wall saying they went to college. Like, there are so many ways to be smart. And until we start valuing that and respecting that like things aren't going to get better yeah uh what do you think of congress so far i think that congress has run i so many staffer bros here so many like so funny to me um as a as a former staffer bro, I know that's true. It's fine.

It's true. It's wild. It's wild. It's kind of a badge of honor that I get stopped by security that much and have my wardrobe, you know, like the sergeant at arms is like, ma'am, are you wearing jeans? like ma'am are you wearing jeans so I think there's a lot of opportunities to make progress I'm really encouraged that people seem to want to listen to what I'm talking about like that is that is great news like I said, like I'm not super duper special. Like we can we can we can do this. This can be like a model. And it's imperative that we're doing that work. like every other parent in America. I know that you're a gun owner who's also in favor of common sense action to reduce gun violence. Why not reinstate the assault weapons ban that has been

proven to have worked when it was in effect over 10 years? I struggle with like, why is it more important for people to have access to the AR-15s that seem to be involved in every single mass shooting? Like, why do people need that? Well, I mean, I think that, yeah, A, and this is like, whatever, not to like. I have a like, yeah, like you said, like your chances of being shot as a member of Congress go through the roof. And there are very real credible threats that we get, like all the time. There's also a constitutional right to bear arms. And I think that, you know know people that want to have like

i i think the deal is like go talk to your uncle go talk to your brother-in-law like build a consensus like do the groundwork of having community that believes in things having community that believes in things and not expecting top-down legislation. Those hard conversations, like the person-to-person conversations, I think is where the work needs to happen. But yeah, I mean, yeah, absolutely. My kids going to public know, those are the kinds of things that keep people up at night and they deserve serious attention and serious work. Do you support an assault weapons ban? No, no, I don't.

Why not? Because there's a constitutional right to it. right to it and so you know if we if we can build the national consensus that a constitutional you know that's that's a different question than should congress who by and large by the way is represent like there are a lot of members from rural districts there are not that many members who actually live in the rural parts of their rural districts. And so like it, like it really, it is different living in places where the sheriff is not going to be there for an hour. There's not, there's never going to be that. Right. I guess my question is, and again, I'm speaking as someone who has not, I'm not a gun owner. I've never fired a gun. I don't know

a lot about gun culture. So copping to that that for sure but i understand why some people might want a handgun for self-defense i understand why people are hunters uh they go shooting right even if you know but i don't understand the ar the need for the ar-15 the need for the the weapons of war the that many rounds right like because you're right even if the sheriff's not going to be there for an hour, like someone's going to be able to do a lot more damage in a school with a semi-automatic rifle than they are if they were, if they could only buy a handgun. Yeah, I mean, the, like, so my opponent Joe Kent talks about, like, he is talking about civil war all the time and like

yeah he is talking about like he believes that like if the military has the weapon the us population should have it so like tactical nukes like you know um and it's it's like which by the way i don't think we should have tactical nukes you know put you down for that yeah um but like it's it is um it's in the constitution and it's something that like was not addressed like the cons like we we have to have these conversations on a person-to-person neighbor-to-neighbor thing like i don't think the federal government is the tool to address all these you know to address this so if you if you can have these conversations person to person get a community to agree then get like a state to agree on an assault weapons ban like you you're

saying you sort of start from there you start at the local level and work your way up i think that's right i think that that is the work of rebuilding like we don't want to have difficult conversations with each other we want to have a hammer you know or a bludgeon and like you you have to understand how differently different communities work and and that requires knowing your neighbors getting out from behind like a bumper sticker and having like a real relationship and conversation like you should be friends like you should be friends with republicans like you should have those like you should go drinking with republicans because otherwise like you're that's part of the problem is that we're not doing that. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think that one thing that has happened is as the country has become more geographically polarized, especially that you just don't like all the Republicans that I used to hang out with Republicans. They've all become Democrats now.

You know, I've lived in urban and suburban areas. Yeah, dude. They used to be Bush voters and now they're, you know, now they're Biden voters. Well, so I live in Skamania County, Washington, where 80% of employed people are employed outside of the county because there are no jobs left in Skamania. So it's like, and that, frankly, that absolutely goes back to market consolidation. That absolutely goes back to market consolidation. We have got to have jobs in rural communities so that a diversity of people can stay. And by the way, that also goes back to having rural broadband.

If you don't have broad, I believe I'm the only member of Congress that broadband at home. And that means that so many people can't work. So we all get funneled into one job or one industry. And then when that industry goes belly up, we're all hosed. You know, we're all. So there are basic infrastructure issues that have to be addressed. And you're a district that I think voted for Obama, right? And then. Oh, no, no, no, no.

My oh, no, my district voted for Obama, yes. And then twice for Trump, right? Yes, absolutely. It's fascinating to me. I know it's fascinating to a lot of people that there exist a lot of voters out there who cast a ballot for Barack Obama and Donald Trump. More than you would think. Yep. Yep. Which goes to show, like, you know, that, like, the, like, arguments for hope are really, really powerful. But when those arguments aren't backed up by substantive, like, we have to back up substantive issues.

Like, permitting reform? Fucking critical. Like, at every level. Is that why you're supporting the HR1, the House Republican energy package? Yeah. Is it mainly because of the permanent? Yes. Are you worried?

How worried are you about the, you know, that it's going to require all these, like, more lease sales for oil and gas? Yeah. Well, so it's going to the Senate, which is, like, the saving grace of this bill. the saving grace of this bill. And my hope is that it goes to the Senate and they pass back something that strips the partisan parts out of it and keeps the substantive things that we have to have.

There are so many renewable projects that can't be hooked into the grid or do anyone any good because they can't get the permits to make more power lines. It's asinine. It's asinine.'s asinine and like and on a broader on a broader level like i think for a long time the sort of group think for democrats has been

democratic policy has been we are going to advance green energy by making fossil fuels more expensive. And we can not advance green energy on a moral basis. It has to be on an economic basis because people who work can't fucking pay. Like we're not buying Teslas spoiler alert, like people that get pay stubs and look at them aren't buying a tesla and and so we have got to win this by frankly advancing nuclear um small nuclear reactors not your grandmother's nuclear like um fusion fission like we have got to solar um so we've got to compete on an economic basis, not off the backs of people that are driving their 1990 Honda Civic. Yeah. Well, and you have to get those people's consent to pass legislation, which is something that we often forget about, too.

You know, like you could be mad that they don't want to support X or Y, but like you got to convince people. What do you most want to get done in these next two years? That's a great question. I mean, one of the big deals for me in running for Congress is right to repair legislation. I think that is one of, that is something that I can see. And that, so that's something that touches everyone, not just people that fix cars for a living, but like it's, you know, it's being able to put a new battery in your iPhone. It is being able to change a gasket or a battery out in a home medical device. And it is absolutely tied to environmental. Like we are filling up our landfills with disposable consumer

products and a generation you know like 20 years ago these things were all designed to be repaired and maintained and the big players here want us to have disposable you know like disposable cars disposable um you know electronics so that we're on this constant cycle of buying the newest thing because we can't fix the old thing and um i i really believe like our cultural heritage as americans is this like diy belief of like can, we can fix our own things. We understand the technology we rely on. And so I, you know, I'm a, the lead on the repair act is my, my, my big act. And also the smart act, which are more, you know, those are more automotive oriented, but it's,

it's groundwork for reaching into more of the things that touch our lives. And, and like. And like, I've never bought a new car in my life. Like the middle class relies on a secondary market, on a used market for so many of the biggest purchases we make. Yeah. And, you know, for all the coastal libs who are listening, who don't understand the right to repair idea, it's just, you know, if my iPhone breaks, I can go to the Apple store down at the Grove a mile away, and they'll fix it.

I was reading you said somewhere that the nearest Apple store is like three hours from where you live. And so if your phone breaks, what are you going to do? Yeah, you're going to take off from work, and you're going to go down there and, you know, like, you know, these like these things can be done at home. And basically at its core, it's an antitrust issue. That makes sense. Thank you so much for for joining and and giving us the perspective of, you know, probably most Americans and most Democrats

and a lot in a big chunk of Democrats that doesn't often get heard. So we appreciate you coming. Congresswoman Marie Glusenkamp-Perez, good luck and come back again soon. Thank you so much. I'd love to. All right. Thanks to Congresswoman... Wait, wait, wait, John. John. Yes.

Before we go, can we have a quickie? We can have a quickie, yes. Oh, is this another promo for Stift? So the phrase, a quickie? Here's a piece from Politico. Uh-oh. Oh. Just jumping right into it. Uh-oh. Oh. Just jumping right into it.

Uh-oh. Giving this man a mic kit was such a mistake. Just do one take today. Just one take. All right, fine. Whatever. From Politico, a piece titled, Why Glenn Youngkin Would Be Crazy Not to Run for President. I know this one.

Of course. Here's the stop header the virginia governor offers two things republicans need a non-hostile alternative to trump and a compelling centrist challenge to biden have a quickie i uh this this was is by uh politico i don't know what he calls himself now, John Harris one of the first Politico people now he's just writing columns every once in a while I find him quite annoying always have

some of it's personal but it's okay this was excerpted in Playbook the other day and I immediately copy pasted the paragraph and sent it to Tommy and Dan Ben Rhodes and say and said, this guy sucks. So that was my take on this piece. And I had no idea you were going to bring it up today. I just think it's so funny that there's a chance you has have either of us, but particularly Jon Favreau read the John Harris

Politico column. Of course, there's no way to avoid it. Politico forces it into your brain via Playbook. But Elijah, the line that really got me was the one that was excerpted in Playbook, which was something about like, do Republicans need someone who's just going to embrace Trump, or do they need someone who's going to focus on the cultural excesses of the ideological left and win that way? Just assuming that there are cultural excesses of the left that Republicans can run again. Just assumes it. I enjoyed the end where he said a young king candidacy,

the importance of a young king candidacy would be that it would be an entertaining addition to the 2024 race. So that's important. So I will say this, John Harris is a very, very smart guy. And I have talked to him and work with him many, many, many times over the years. I think the defining way to understand this column is that when John Harris and Jim Vande Hei, who was the other original Politico founder and now the founder of Axios. Also the founder of the Innovation Party. Let's keep those 2017 hits coming. When John Harris and Jim Vande Hei were pitching the idea to investors for Politico.

They described it as an ESPN for politics. And that explains that last lesson. Now, that was a phenomenally, phenomenally successful business endeavor. I think it is very debatable, the impact it's had on journalism and politics. Whether that has been as positive, I would say no. Would you? Is that where you come down on that? I positive, I would say no. But that would that I would, I would and I have it will again. But that like that, that is ESPN for politics. Let's do it because it'll be entertaining to this entertainment thing that does not really affect my

life as a wealthy media baron. What does a non-hostile alternative to Trump mean? It means he's wearing some sort of fleece vest. That's what I interpreted it as. Yes. Well, thank you, Elijah. Thanks for riling us up one more time before the end of the pod. Thanks also to Congresswoman Glusenkamp-Perez for joining us. Don't forget to follow us at Crooked Media on Instagram andiktok before it's banned uh and at pod save america on twitter subscribe to pod

save america on youtube for access to full episodes and other exclusive content and you know what drop us a review share it with a friend tell your friends to listen who haven't listened yet we appreciate that uh everyone have a great weekend and we will talk to you next week. Bye everyone. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineered the show. Thanks to Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Sandy Gerard, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montu. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash pod save America.