Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds. We are now two hundred days from
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four election, Emir two hundred days.
Speaker 2: We have such a great show for you.
Speaker 1: Today, Senator Mark Kelly talks to us about what's happening
Speaker 1: in Arizona and the implications.
Speaker 2: Of passing AID for Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Then we'll talk to Congressman Dan Goldman about the drama
Speaker 1: in the House of Representatives. But first we have MSNBC
Speaker 1: Daily Editor James Downie.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Fast Politics. Jim.
Speaker 3: Great to be here, as always.
Speaker 2: Yesterday when you listen to this on Friday.
Speaker 1: In the United States House of Representatives, I'm just going
Speaker 1: to read you one little bit of where they are,
Speaker 1: because I feel that our listeners need to glean this
Speaker 1: information firsthand. But basically, from what I understand, House Freedom
Speaker 1: Caucus members, you know them, the best of the brightest,
Speaker 1: and I mean that only ironically are signing up to
Speaker 1: take shifts to guard the House floor in order to
Speaker 1: prevent resolutions they consider unsavory. Imagine what they consider unsavory.
Speaker 1: This is from Olivia, Beaver's at Politico that they consider
Speaker 1: unsavory from slipping through that could.
Speaker 2: Curb their power.
Speaker 1: Per to our sources, this Floor Action Response Team Fart
Speaker 1: Floor Action Response Team fart okay aims to guard against
Speaker 1: a voice vote or unanimous consent vote where action could
Speaker 1: be stealthily taken against them and their members. Resolutions to
Speaker 1: strip Massy Norman Roy from Rules Committee.
Speaker 2: There's a fart Joe.
Speaker 3: Huh, there is. I'm glad you brought it up because
Speaker 3: I was worried about standards.
Speaker 2: There are no standards here.
Speaker 3: I find it's easier to let the host bring the
Speaker 3: fart jokes than to just drop in with them to
Speaker 3: start off. It's remarkable what's happening there. This came at
Speaker 3: the same time that a number of reporters mentioned that
Speaker 3: Johnson was basically surrounded by Freedom Caucus types and at
Speaker 3: some point a non Freedom Caucus member Derek van Orton.
Speaker 2: Who's famous for screaming at interns.
Speaker 3: Yes, that is correct, famous for Yes, he got in
Speaker 3: trouble for screaming atsentate pages. Yes last year. And I
Speaker 3: think at this point we can say has a bit
Speaker 3: of an issue with his temper. Nah No, but he
Speaker 3: I guess decided to butt in and apparently called Matt
Speaker 3: Gates tubby. So things are going extremely well.
Speaker 1: That is terrible, because my man Gates do us so
Speaker 1: much to look beautiful.
Speaker 2: I'm sure that really heard.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean there's a reason why you have so
Speaker 3: many I mean we saw with Mike Gallagher, with with
Speaker 3: the number of other Republicans who are heading for the
Speaker 3: exits because basically the house is so dysfunctional. I think
Speaker 3: you were right. That was Van Orden.
Speaker 1: The thing that's so interesting about Van Orden and his
Speaker 1: just insanity here is that I don't even think. I mean,
Speaker 1: while Mike Johnson has a lot of problems, he's quite
Speaker 1: svelt and adorable.
Speaker 3: And he's made a remarkable change as well in terms
Speaker 3: of his position on Ukraine eate. I mean, it's interesting
Speaker 3: considering that he was against it for so long, and
Speaker 3: yet it seems like since he's moved into leadership, and
Speaker 3: whether it's because of.
Speaker 2: Somebody's explained to him, clearly.
Speaker 3: Somebody sat him down and explained to him, hey, here's
Speaker 3: here's the stakes, here's what's going to happen if we
Speaker 3: don't pass the eight. He seems to have changed his
Speaker 3: mind and he today was quoting Rold Reagan talking about
Speaker 3: peace through strength, and he seems to have really changed
Speaker 3: his view. And obviously the Freedom Caucus does not take
Speaker 3: kindly to losing their leverage to just keep Congress a
Speaker 3: laughing stock. It's incredible.
Speaker 1: What I thought was interesting was somebody said to me
Speaker 1: earlier in the week, Oh, the Democrats are going to
Speaker 1: save Johnson if he votes for AID and Nana. So
Speaker 1: I was like, well, obviously that's what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: So I texted a friend of mine who's a member
Speaker 1: of Congress, and I said, are you guys going to
Speaker 1: save Johnson if he votes for AID? And he said,
Speaker 1: we will only save Johnson if he wants to be saved,
Speaker 1: and right now it does not look like he wants
Speaker 1: to be saved.
Speaker 3: I think it's difficult for Johnson because the moment he
Speaker 3: gets saved by Democrats, it legitimizes the current talking point
Speaker 3: on the far right. I mean, among these Freedom caucas
Speaker 3: types that he's already acting as the Democrat speaker. It's
Speaker 3: difficult right now for him to say the least. I mean, it's,
Speaker 3: you know, a problem largely if his own making to
Speaker 3: some degree of Kevin McCarthy's making to some degree of
Speaker 3: Republicans falling short in the mid terms and Democrats of
Speaker 3: farming in the midterms. That not to the degree that
Speaker 3: the Democrats kept the House, but that they kept such
Speaker 3: a narrow margin so that these freedom caucas types have
Speaker 3: this kind of leverage. If Kevin McCarthy had done what
Speaker 3: he promised to do, the Republicans would have twenty or
Speaker 3: thirty se to play with rather than well, a never
Speaker 3: shrinking amount right now. One, Yeah, there was another congressman
Speaker 3: today and just announced his retirement. I believe the number
Speaker 3: is up to getting to the mid twenties now. So
Speaker 3: now I don't think that person's retiring early, but you
Speaker 3: never know. You get another retirement, and who knows what
Speaker 3: kind of chaos could break out in terms of the speakership.
Speaker 2: If you get another retirement, then it's even right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, assuming it happens before the next special election to fill.
Speaker 1: Right, and some of those seats can't be filled right.
Speaker 1: Oh No, here's another I'm seeing that the Breitbart reporter
Speaker 1: says Tubby was directly directed at Matt Gates.
Speaker 3: Well, there's conflicting sources. In regardless, I think it's clear
Speaker 3: that chaos reigns.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, just such an insane way to run
Speaker 1: a caucus, and you don't think about how much like
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, some people liked her, some people didn't like her,
Speaker 1: but she was wildly effective. And you didn't really get
Speaker 1: to see how wildly effective she was until Democrats lost.
Speaker 2: The House, and now you have really a.
Speaker 1: Group where they just cannot you really see this as
Speaker 1: actually kind of a hard job.
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I think since Pelosi became speaker, there have been
Speaker 3: four different Republicans I believe as speaker of you know,
Speaker 3: like sort of as speaker themselves. You've had Bayner, You've
Speaker 3: had Ryan McCarthy and now Johnson and sort of decreasing
Speaker 3: abilities and even from Bayer, like Bayner struggled with. Bayner
Speaker 3: had to call off votes just before they came to
Speaker 3: a vote in the House because he didn't have the numbers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but at least he didn't lose them.
Speaker 3: At least he didn't lose them. I was I'd say that,
Speaker 3: you know, the ones who've come after him have been
Speaker 3: even less effective. But as you said, I mean from
Speaker 3: the work up we go, you go back to, for example,
Speaker 3: the Affordable Care Act. You know what Pelosi did there
Speaker 3: to keep Democrats in line, to keep some very vulnerable Democrats.
Speaker 3: A lot of them ended up losing their seats in
Speaker 3: subsequent elections because of that vote, but she kept them
Speaker 3: in line and passed both that and a lot of legislation.
Speaker 3: I think that, as you said, that skill is absolutely remarkable.
Speaker 3: And when you write the summary of Nancy Pelosi's career,
Speaker 3: I think it's her vote counting skills that are right
Speaker 3: at the top of her abilities.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it didn't need I mean, you really see
Speaker 1: how much you don't need to fuck up. Like what
Speaker 1: he's doing every time is sort of being like, well,
Speaker 1: it's in the lap of the gods. Like that's a
Speaker 1: crazy way to run a caucus. It turns out that
Speaker 1: Jesus doesn't web votes.
Speaker 3: It turns out his prayers haven't been necessarily answered.
Speaker 1: Right, Like, if I were him, I might think about
Speaker 1: becoming an atheist or maybe changing religions. It's something where
Speaker 1: they're better at vote counting. Talk to me about like
Speaker 1: this trial. When this trial started, there were so many
Speaker 1: people who were like, this is bad, you shouldn't do this.
Speaker 1: There's no reason to try him. Somebody told me they
Speaker 1: were like, you know, presidents do stuff like this. I
Speaker 1: was like, presidents do stuff like paying off an adult
Speaker 1: film star when their lawyer takes a home at what
Speaker 1: he loan, which is technically a campaign contribution.
Speaker 2: And then I mean, just talk us through.
Speaker 1: I mean, what you think about this, because the pictures
Speaker 1: coming out of this trial have been a guy who
Speaker 1: can barely stay awake, and I mean he seems kind
Speaker 1: of slow and also kind of unhinged. I don't see
Speaker 1: how this visual helps him with voters.
Speaker 3: I don't really see either. I think a lot of
Speaker 3: it will be determined by the outcome of the case,
Speaker 3: which we just can't simply know at the moment. But
Speaker 3: I think in terms of bringing the case, I think
Speaker 3: that people who have worked in the Manhattan DA's office,
Speaker 3: you know, who are no longer there, but who have
Speaker 3: worked in that office, have made the case in other
Speaker 3: places that this sort of crime is prosecuted. And we
Speaker 3: talk a lot about nobody being above the law, and
Speaker 3: that should apply to the president. I think one of
Speaker 3: the reasons we consistently get in trouble and it feels
Speaker 3: like Donald Trump is consistently avoids accountability, is that whether
Speaker 3: it be other politicians or banks, or the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: People are reluctant to hold him to the same standard
Speaker 3: that they would hold people who are not Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: and it makes it all the more important that a
Speaker 3: case like this be prosecuted, even if it does feel
Speaker 3: grungy to some people or it feels smaller potatoes than
Speaker 3: the January sixth related cases. That's fine, that's a fair
Speaker 3: feeling to have, but that doesn't mean that you don't
Speaker 3: also prosecute in this circumstance. As well as for Trump's behavior,
Speaker 3: I think, yeah, anybody who's I mean, you have you know,
Speaker 3: you've been watching him for years. On the surface, like
Speaker 3: thirty seconds of watching him at a rally in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty four or twenty sixteen, they might seem the same
Speaker 3: for briefly, but the longer you watch, the more you
Speaker 3: see that this is just a guy who's you know,
Speaker 3: as he talks about sleepy Joe, he's old, He loses
Speaker 3: the plot, he gets bored more easily, he drifts off
Speaker 3: more easily.
Speaker 2: He confuses Nancy Putlosi with Nikki Hali.
Speaker 3: From the work go, there was a lot of eyebrow raising,
Speaker 3: slash terrifying rhetoric at his rallies, but there wasn't the
Speaker 3: same amount of straight up confusion that we see right now.
Speaker 3: And that Let's be real, if Joe Biden made these
Speaker 3: kinds of errors, or if Joe Biden had, you know,
Speaker 3: had closed his eyes briefly during some public appearance, it
Speaker 3: would be all over a lot of media outlets. It'd
Speaker 3: be the front page story. But because it's Trump, we
Speaker 3: have a different standard.
Speaker 1: Trump has just held to a completely different standard than
Speaker 1: everyone else.
Speaker 3: There's no argument. I mean, you get back to even
Speaker 3: something as recent as the you know, right now we're
Speaker 3: talking about the Manhattan the criminal case, but you talk
Speaker 3: about the civil case for example, and the amount of
Speaker 3: second chances that he's been given to come up with
Speaker 3: this bond. He gets his bond or disc he has
Speaker 3: this auto loan billionaire come in and give them.
Speaker 2: A bond that may actually be sketchy.
Speaker 3: Right, the bond that may be sketchy. That's still being challenged.
Speaker 3: That's going to be determined in a hearing next week.
Speaker 4: And also, but.
Speaker 3: Even if it isn't, even if it's declared valid, the
Speaker 3: guy who provided the bond was on the record is saying, well,
Speaker 3: we probably should have charged him a higher fee, like
Speaker 3: I mean, this is just he just gets second chance
Speaker 3: after second chance, and I think that that is why
Speaker 3: it so often feels like he's not gonna face consequences.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, there's a lot of anxiety I feel
Speaker 1: like everywhere that Trump will be president again and that
Speaker 1: it's sort of an inevitability. I don't think that, But
Speaker 1: I would love you to just sort of talk us
Speaker 1: through why actually incumbency is a huge advantage and what
Speaker 1: you sort of what you think.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that this far out you look at
Speaker 3: the polls, is Biden winning.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: But I think that there was a narrative there for
Speaker 3: maybe about particularly six weeks or two months to start
Speaker 3: the year, that oh, Trump's winning, et cetera. I think
Speaker 3: that was always overstated at the time. I think it's
Speaker 3: just actually inaccurate now for the president in terms of
Speaker 3: the incumbency. I mean, I think that Biden being the
Speaker 3: president certainly gives him an advantage in breaking into coverage
Speaker 3: because Trump's always going to suck up so much coverage,
Speaker 3: and even more so with his criminal trials, because I
Speaker 3: mean the criminal trials, I'm like, you know, there was criticism,
Speaker 3: I think quite valo criticism for example of carrying Trump's
Speaker 3: rallies live back in twenty sixteen, which, like political rallies,
Speaker 3: is not unprecedent. A criminal trial of a president is unprecedent,
Speaker 3: right right, as a former president and by being president,
Speaker 3: can break through that can be announcing legislation, can be
Speaker 3: announcing initiatives that can try and cut through it and
Speaker 3: appeal to certain voters. The polls have started to move
Speaker 3: in Biden's direction as more voters have, particularly the Democratic side,
Speaker 3: have started to pay more attention because there wasn't a
Speaker 3: contested primary on the Democratic side. Really, there were some
Speaker 3: attempts by some kas that just didn't catch on.
Speaker 1: There wasn't a real left primary, which is unusual.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think now that voters are starting to tune
Speaker 3: in and starting to come to terms sort of grips
Speaker 3: with a Trump Biden rematch, that the polls are started
Speaker 3: to move a little bit in Biden's direction, And I
Speaker 3: think we'll see what particularly as Biden brings his money
Speaker 3: advantage to bear, I think we'll see to movement. But
Speaker 3: it's going to be a close election, I think, quite
Speaker 3: right to the end.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, I vacillate between thinking that and I've had a
Speaker 1: lot of smart people on here have said that, and
Speaker 1: then I vacillate between thinking like, there's also a possibility that,
Speaker 1: like the unprecedented nature of this creates an unprecedented scenario.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's hard to imagine Trump changing hearts and minds.
Speaker 1: One of the things yesterday that was lost in the
Speaker 1: news cycleon I think think it really was lost in
Speaker 1: the new cycle because Republicans are so good at office scating.
Speaker 1: They had yet another failed impeachment with the first time
Speaker 1: in one hundred years they tried to impeach a cabinet secretary,
Speaker 1: and again my Arcis was not impeached on high crimes
Speaker 1: and misdemeanors. He was impeached on not pleasing the GOP
Speaker 1: bass Can you talk.
Speaker 3: About that absolutely? As you said, the movement to impeach majorcists,
Speaker 3: which had been in the works, you know, on the
Speaker 3: House side for pretty much since I think the first
Speaker 3: day of Biden's presidency, that basically came and went in
Speaker 3: a day. The articles were introduced in the Senate, where
Speaker 3: they were delivered to the Sun on Tuesday. The Senate
Speaker 3: held a vote on Wednesday and decided, as you said,
Speaker 3: that they noted that these charges as you said, first
Speaker 3: of all, this is only the second cabinet secretary ever
Speaker 3: to be impeached. The first one was impeached on bribery grounds.
Speaker 3: The presidential impeachments have been on abuse of office, not
Speaker 3: policy disagreements. So you have Republicans complaining Democrats moved to
Speaker 3: dismiss the articles, to basically table them, and to say
Speaker 3: that what you are accusing Secretary of my Erkus of
Speaker 3: is not an impeachable offense. And you have Republicans out
Speaker 3: there saying, even some who expressed skepticism about the charge
Speaker 3: against my york As, people like Senator Mitt Romney who
Speaker 3: still voted, they wanted to have a debate and they
Speaker 3: were The Republicans are arguing, oh, this is unprecedented. How
Speaker 3: could you This creates a terrible president for future impeachments
Speaker 3: because parties can just dismiss them. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 3: I would argue it's a more terrible president for Donald
Speaker 3: Trump to have not faced but not been convicted for
Speaker 3: January six. But let's set that aside for a second.
Speaker 3: But the fact is that the charges in this were
Speaker 3: entirely unprecedented. In arguing that this was an impeachable offense,
Speaker 3: I don't think anybody's happy with the current immigration system.
Speaker 3: I think that's pretty clear. But we all know that
Speaker 3: Democrats and a few center Republicans struck a deal that
Speaker 3: frankly was way too lopsided anyway towards conservative as I mean,
Speaker 3: Conservatives got basically everything they wanted, Democrats got very little
Speaker 3: of what they wanted. That was the deal, and at
Speaker 3: Donald Trump's beha, Republicans killed it because they don't actually
Speaker 3: want to fix what's going on the board. You know,
Speaker 3: Fox News wants a t for b role, Donald Trump
Speaker 3: wants to campaign on. That's what they want to talk about,
Speaker 3: especially now that they've you know, they're not talking about
Speaker 3: the economy and inflation as much anymore. They aren't talking
Speaker 3: about crime rates as much anymore because I don't know,
Speaker 3: if you saw the reports earlier this week that homicides
Speaker 3: are down and way down in cities around the country.
Speaker 3: You know, they're losing a lot of their main talking
Speaker 3: points against Biden. That was going to be the triumph
Speaker 3: after all that anti woke stuff didn't work in the
Speaker 3: midterms and then again twenty twenty three, there was going
Speaker 3: to be the economy, immigration, and crime. And they've already
Speaker 3: lost big chunks of two of those three, so they
Speaker 3: just want to keep the immigration as a talking point.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true. Thank you so much, Jim. I hope
Speaker 1: you'll come back.
Speaker 3: I'd always love to be here.
Speaker 1: Spring is here, and I bet you are trying to
Speaker 1: look fashionable, So why not pick up some fashionable all
Speaker 1: new Fast Politics merchandise. We just opened a news store
Speaker 1: with all new designed just for you. Get t shirts, hoodies, hats,
Speaker 1: and toe bags. To grab some head to fastpolitics dot com.
Speaker 1: Mark Kelly is the senior Senator from the state of Arizona.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Fast Politics, Senator Mark Kelly. Thank you
Speaker 1: so excited to have you more in Arizona. And I
Speaker 1: mean so you must have known that there was insanity
Speaker 1: in your state house, but now the rest of the
Speaker 1: country knows.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 5: I wouldn't characterize it as it's like that this whole
Speaker 5: issue and where we are with this law from eighteen
Speaker 5: sixty four is not who we are as a state.
Speaker 4: It's the fringe.
Speaker 5: It's a fringe number of people in the state House,
Speaker 5: the state Senate, it's a Supreme Court that surprised us.
Speaker 5: To be honest, I don't think many people were expecting.
Speaker 5: Surprised us with this decision to bring back this one
Speaker 5: hundred and sixty year old draconian law. Now, obviously women
Speaker 5: are scared of this, and the stakes are very high.
Speaker 5: The legislature so far has failed to fix this. They
Speaker 5: need to keep trying because it is putting the lives
Speaker 5: of women at risk.
Speaker 1: So what I'm so struck by with is the Democrats
Speaker 1: in the state legislature, despite the fact that this could
Speaker 1: really help them electorally, are working really hard to try
Speaker 1: to overturn this law, and the Republicans are refusing to budge.
Speaker 1: And in fact, we've seen video offs the floor of
Speaker 1: Republicans hooting themselves and clapping as they continue to really
Speaker 1: sign their electoral defeat warrant for November.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm so struck by Trump would.
Speaker 1: Not allow the border bill to get passed because he
Speaker 1: wanted to run on it, And here are Democrats really
Speaker 1: trying to do the right thing for women.
Speaker 5: Well, I think it's issue after issue, whether it's border security.
Speaker 5: We worked on a bipartisan proposal and we're really close
Speaker 5: to getting it pass in the Senate, and unfortunately, my
Speaker 5: Republican colleagues ran away from it because they thought this
Speaker 5: would help Donald Trump. He didn't want to do it,
Speaker 5: and he needed it for the political purposes, so they
Speaker 5: wanted to continue to have the problem instead the solution,
Speaker 5: which we have to live with this problem every single
Speaker 5: day in Arizona, and I'm going to continue to fight
Speaker 5: to fix this same issue here, you know, sort of
Speaker 5: similar Democrats in the State House the state Senate want
Speaker 5: to fix this because it is a problem that needs
Speaker 5: to be addressed. We can't have women's lives at risk
Speaker 5: because of a law that was passed before Arizona was
Speaker 5: a state in eighteen sixty. More So, I think I've
Speaker 5: seen this story before where myself and my Democratic colleagues
Speaker 5: have been on the side of let's try to solve
Speaker 5: the problem, and unfortunately, in many cases, my Republican colleagues
Speaker 5: have been more about the politics.
Speaker 1: It's not like Republicans have a super majority in the
Speaker 1: state House. They just have a few more votes. But
Speaker 1: they have really stuck on this really extreme position. Why
Speaker 1: do you think that is.
Speaker 5: Well, I think some of them really believe this is
Speaker 5: what our states should look like. Unfortunately, and they do
Speaker 5: feel it's appropriate to criminalize doctors for doing their jobs.
Speaker 5: I don't think that represents most of Arizona. I think
Speaker 5: that's a few fringe figures in the state House in
Speaker 5: the state Senate. But when you're talking about a very
Speaker 5: slim majority one or two seats, a couple individuals really
Speaker 5: have an outsized impact.
Speaker 1: So right now in the Senate you have this foreign surveillance.
Speaker 1: It's come through the House. Now you guys are looking
Speaker 1: at it. Is that what's next on the agenda? And
Speaker 1: can you talk us through it a little bit?
Speaker 5: Vote is open right now on reauthorization of IZA for
Speaker 5: a couple of years or taking the house build There
Speaker 5: were some changes, there's some additional protections, there were some concerns.
Speaker 4: We've made some changes to it.
Speaker 5: We'll have an opportunity to vote on it, and I
Speaker 5: think we'll have the votes to get it passed. It
Speaker 5: is a very important piece of legislation that keeps us safe.
Speaker 5: If we don't get this done here this week and
Speaker 5: it expires a lot of the intelligence that agencies rely
Speaker 5: on to make decisions about our own national security, we
Speaker 5: won't have access to that anymore. So it's important we
Speaker 5: get this pass and I think it's going to pass Today.
Speaker 5: We have our first vote on it going on right now.
Speaker 5: I'm going to leave the studio here and go to
Speaker 5: the Florida vote.
Speaker 1: The other thing that the House is practically in fisticuffs
Speaker 1: over is these foreign aid packages, whatever they look like.
Speaker 2: Ami, are you optimistic?
Speaker 1: David Frum said this the other day when I was
Speaker 1: with him on a show and we were talking, and
Speaker 1: he said, and I don't even realized this, that Republicans
Speaker 1: have never authorized any extra aid for Ukraine since they
Speaker 1: took over the half.
Speaker 5: I mean as a group, yes, I'd say that that's true.
Speaker 5: The legislation we passed about ten weeks ago in the
Speaker 5: Senate that included Ukraine aid for the Western Pacific, which
Speaker 5: is along with China and Israel and you humanitarianate. That
Speaker 5: piece of legislation went over there to the Speaker's desk.
Speaker 5: It's been sitting there. The easiest way to do this
Speaker 5: is for him to bring that to the floor, because
Speaker 5: it does have bipartisan support, it would get publican votes.
Speaker 5: He can send it to the President. He's made this
Speaker 5: other decision to break it up into pieces helps his
Speaker 5: Republican members to not have to vote on something that
Speaker 5: includes Ukraine aid when they don't want to do this.
Speaker 5: They'll pass that with mostly Democrats and some Republicans. Then
Speaker 5: they will put it all back together. So it's like
Speaker 5: taking the jigsaw puzzle, break into the part, voting on
Speaker 5: the pieces, and then putting the pieces back together, sending
Speaker 5: it over here, and then we could pass it as
Speaker 5: one piece of legislation. That's the current plan. You're right,
Speaker 5: there are a lot of Republicans in the House that
Speaker 5: unfortunately are missing the big picture here on Ukraine. Some
Speaker 5: of them, unfortunately, are starting to use some of Russia's
Speaker 5: talking points on this. I think they're unclear where the
Speaker 5: former president and is on aid to Ukraine. He is
Speaker 5: very specific about it. That gives them some level of apprehension.
Speaker 5: The bottom line here is if we don't give Ukraine
Speaker 5: the ammunition they need to be successful, they will lose.
Speaker 5: When they lose, I'm convinced that Vladimir Putin will set
Speaker 5: his sights ultimately on another target, and if that's a
Speaker 5: NATO country, then we will be involved in direct combat
Speaker 5: operations with Russia, and we don't want that.
Speaker 1: Michael McCall, Republican in the House who I'm sure you
Speaker 1: now and said that he had seen members of his
Speaker 1: parties spout in Russian propaganda.
Speaker 2: That struck me.
Speaker 1: And there was another Republican too who said that, and
Speaker 1: I'm wondering what you think about that. And also are
Speaker 1: huge shops that this problem is so bad that Republicans
Speaker 1: are breaking ranks to talk about it.
Speaker 5: I've seen even some of my colleagues in the Senate
Speaker 5: news phrases that you know clearly is you know earlier,
Speaker 5: you know came from somebody in Russia. I've seen that,
Speaker 5: and that's disappointing, and I'm not sure they necessarily know
Speaker 5: that where it came from. My hope is as we
Speaker 5: continue to debate, you know, these issues, they would see that,
Speaker 5: you know, the right thing to do for the future
Speaker 5: of our own country is to support Ukraine. And by
Speaker 5: the way, as we give Ukraine the security assistance it needs,
Speaker 5: which is largely munitions. It's artillery shells, I Mars rounds,
Speaker 5: Patriot you know rounds, and other equipment, it allows us
Speaker 5: to replenish our own munition stores with news new equipment.
Speaker 5: So it's a positive thing for for us too. And
Speaker 5: not all Republicans, I mean, especially in the Senate, I
Speaker 5: mean my Senate Republican colleagues feel as strongly about many
Speaker 5: of them, most of them as supporting Ukraine as I do,
Speaker 5: and I mean they're very frustrated frustrated as well about
Speaker 5: what's going on in the House. Our hope here is
Speaker 5: the House figures out how to do what they're currently
Speaker 5: planning on doing, which is breaking us up, voting on
Speaker 5: the pieces, putting it back together, sending it over to us,
Speaker 5: and we can get this done, this knocked off here
Speaker 5: in the next couple of days or early next week.
Speaker 1: I mean, what I think is so interesting about this
Speaker 1: scorna is it's Taiwan, it's Ukraine, and it's also Israel.
Speaker 5: There's another piece of this that includes REPO, which is
Speaker 5: you know, the way we could, if it passed, take
Speaker 5: the frozen Russian assets that are here, oh yeah, in Europe.
Speaker 5: We could use that to provide Ukraine with munitions or
Speaker 5: for a rebuilding effort. There's also the TikTok bill that
Speaker 5: passes is part of this. There's a fentanyl provision. There
Speaker 5: are a couple other things that may or may not.
Speaker 5: The negotiation is still going on. What there would be
Speaker 5: that would be a separate piece of legislation that would
Speaker 5: have all those specific items, and then there would be
Speaker 5: another thing for Israel, another one for Ukraine, another one
Speaker 5: for into pay Com, which is Taiwan.
Speaker 1: I mean, you have a national security background besides being
Speaker 1: a cool astronaut. Do you you think the TikTok ban?
Speaker 1: I mean, do you think that happens, and do you
Speaker 1: think it's necessary?
Speaker 5: Well, if they pass it in the House and they
Speaker 5: send it over as one big piece of legislation with
Speaker 5: it in there, we could be in a situation where
Speaker 5: it would be hard for us to amend it and
Speaker 5: send it back over because of the challenges the speaker
Speaker 5: is having in getting the votes and the process he's
Speaker 5: having to take to you know, my wife's wife. He said,
Speaker 5: tell me, you don't want to see how the sausage
Speaker 5: is made. This is the making of the sausage. So
Speaker 5: I think we could wind up in a situation where
Speaker 5: we have to vote on it.
Speaker 4: It's a tough issue.
Speaker 5: I mean, you're balancing the rights of Americans to get
Speaker 5: their information where they want to get it from the
Speaker 5: First Amendment rights issue. We also have to understand, especially
Speaker 5: for a lot of young people, they get their new
Speaker 5: they get most of their relevant, you know, important information,
Speaker 5: they get it from TikTok. Would we allow a Chinese
Speaker 5: company to come to the United States and buy let's say,
Speaker 5: one hundred TV stations or one hundred million. The answer
Speaker 5: is no, we would not allow that. Where I sit
Speaker 5: on the Intelligence Committee, we talk about this issue a lot.
Speaker 5: I do have concerns about the Chinese government using this
Speaker 5: platform at some point to attempt to manipulate the American public.
Speaker 5: That's a real threat. So we're continuing to discuss it.
Speaker 5: It's kind of interesting. I've been asking a lot of
Speaker 5: young people about this, teenagers, you know, high school kids,
Speaker 5: kids in college about TikTok, if they use it, how
Speaker 5: they would feel if it couldn't be sold and it
Speaker 5: was shut down in the United States. It's pretty interesting.
Speaker 5: Even among a lot of folks that use it and
Speaker 5: use it routinely, most of them, I would say upwards
Speaker 5: of eighty percent do not have a huge problem with
Speaker 5: their being changes and possibly even at being unavailable. That
Speaker 5: surprised me.
Speaker 1: That is really spressed here. You could also force the sale, right, well.
Speaker 5: That's what the legislation that the House had passed said.
Speaker 5: You know how it would have to be sold in
Speaker 5: six months.
Speaker 3: That if it was a.
Speaker 5: Sold then it would not be available on app stores,
Speaker 5: and so we made the use what they're planning on
Speaker 5: sending over to us.
Speaker 4: I think it extends that to a year, and there's
Speaker 4: some other changes in it.
Speaker 1: You know, when you think about what a big deal
Speaker 1: it is to have China control the flow of information
Speaker 1: to everyone under the age of thirty, I mean that's
Speaker 1: a pretty big deal. It is a concern, yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: TikTok people have started lobbying.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, and we've gotten a lot of calls
Speaker 5: about it. And you know they did on TikTok ask
Speaker 5: a huge number of people to reach out to us
Speaker 5: to lobby for it.
Speaker 4: And by the way, I don't think it's available in
Speaker 4: China and India. Bandit.
Speaker 1: It's a different algorithm that makes people smarter and less insane, right,
Speaker 1: I Mean what is so interesting to me is like
Speaker 1: we've had so little back regulation when you think about Facebook,
Speaker 1: like there's so much opportunity for regulation.
Speaker 2: Are you surprised we haven't had more?
Speaker 5: Congress should have acted on legislation on social media a
Speaker 5: decade a but go, and it's something we talk about
Speaker 5: a lot here. We're trying to do something productive on it.
Speaker 5: I mean, there are a lot of issues, especially with
Speaker 5: young people with teenagers around the amount of time they
Speaker 5: spend on social media about how they I mean psychological
Speaker 5: issues on how people are affected in Congress, like on
Speaker 5: other things, Congress has failed on this issue.
Speaker 1: Do you think that there can be greater regulation now
Speaker 1: for technology?
Speaker 2: Is there an appetite in Condre There is?
Speaker 4: I mean, and it's something you know that.
Speaker 5: I mean, we discuss it a lot, and there are
Speaker 5: bills that are moving forward often, this legislation takes a
Speaker 5: lot longer than I would hope. It's a long process,
Speaker 5: especially in the Senate. I mean the rules of the
Speaker 5: Senate that make things just take a long time. If
Speaker 5: NASA had the rules of the United States Senate, the
Speaker 5: rocket ship would never leave the launch beat.
Speaker 1: This is like a very bad map for Democrats the
Speaker 1: Senate out But these Kuboky candidates seem really bad. I mean,
Speaker 1: are you hopeful and if so, you know, I know
Speaker 1: our listeners would love to know sort of what races
Speaker 1: you're watching that you're sort of the most hopeful about or.
Speaker 5: That you feel needs to bord We've got great candidates
Speaker 5: running for reelection and for open seats like in Arizona,
Speaker 5: in Michigan. You know, Lissa slock In in Michigan, Ruben
Speaker 5: Diego and Arizona are experienced, are smart now the right background.
Speaker 5: Rubens a marine, Alyssa Slockins a former CIA agent.
Speaker 4: These are you know, currently open seats.
Speaker 5: You talk about Texas, we have an opportunity Florida, Texas.
Speaker 5: Colin alrhtt is running against Ted Cruz. These civil rights attorney,
Speaker 5: Member of the House former I think he was a
Speaker 5: linebacker for the Tennessee Titans. Great guy, They're working really hard.
Speaker 5: Then you look at the Democrats that are running for reelection,
Speaker 5: John Tester and Montana, Jackie Rosen in Nevada, Tammy Baldwin
Speaker 5: in Wisconsin, Sheared Brown in Ohio, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 5: Very effective legislators, great leaders who've worked really, really hard
Speaker 5: with a lot of grassroots support, and a lot of
Speaker 5: them happen to be running against just ury wealthy opponents
Speaker 5: that were recruited because they have a big bank roll.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, it's so interesting. Thank you so much, Senator.
Speaker 4: Well you're welcome. Thank you for inviting me on your ship.
Speaker 1: Congressman Dan Goleman represents New York's tenth district.
Speaker 2: Welcome to fast politics. Congressman Goldman, thanks so much for
Speaker 2: havingy Mollik.
Speaker 3: Great to be with you.
Speaker 1: A lot of excitement, and by excitement, i'm me. And
Speaker 1: what even is happening in Congress right now?
Speaker 4: Well, we are seeing a clash of two wings of
Speaker 4: the Republican Party. The one wing is the one controlled
Speaker 4: by Trump and the Maga Republicans, who really don't want
Speaker 4: to govern, do not want to do anything that would
Speaker 4: help the American people, do not really believe in democracy,
Speaker 4: and they're therefore pretty content with supporting Vladimir Putin. I
Speaker 4: call this the Putin wing of the Republican Party.
Speaker 2: So let's just.
Speaker 1: Talk for a second about what's happening right now with
Speaker 1: the supplemental that needs to get through the House. The
Speaker 1: last reporting I read involved these kind of Freedom Caucus
Speaker 1: people setting up a group with the acronym fart.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, it's pretty appropriate. It appears that they
Speaker 4: wouldn't think about what the acronym is, or maybe they did.
Speaker 4: It's appropriate either way. There's a civil war that's more
Speaker 4: or less than resolved in the republic Can Party that
Speaker 4: Donald Trump has won and the Maga Republicans have won,
Speaker 4: and it is anti democratic, it is isolationists, and it
Speaker 4: is really designed to uproot, up end, and overturn all
Speaker 4: of our democratic values and institutions. That has been the
Speaker 4: thread that has kept the Speaker from actually putting Ukraine
Speaker 4: eight on the floor, even though probably three hundred of
Speaker 4: the four hundred and thirty five members of the House
Speaker 4: support Ukraine eight, and he does finally, with the benefit
Speaker 4: of the highest level of intelligence briefings that he gets
Speaker 4: as part of the Gang of Eight, understands the dire
Speaker 4: need that Ukraine has for our assistance and what the
Speaker 4: impact would be if Ukraine doesn't get that aid and
Speaker 4: if Vladimir Putin were to be able to conquer Ukraine,
Speaker 4: and then unquestionably he would continue on his march to
Speaker 4: take over Poland, yeah, or any of the former Soviet states.
Speaker 1: Basically, right now there's machinations about Republicans trying to get
Speaker 1: rid of the motion to vacate to protect Johnson or now.
Speaker 4: My understanding is the latest information is that they will
Speaker 4: not change the rules. But what the Speaker has done
Speaker 4: is because the rules allow for one person like Marjorie
Speaker 4: Taylor Green to completely grind Congress to a halt because
Speaker 4: of this motion to vacate there's outsized influence for each
Speaker 4: individual member, especially in the Republican Party. And the Speaker
Speaker 4: appears to be moving forward with this supplemental and it
Speaker 4: is almost identical to the Senate Eate. There may be
Speaker 4: an additional fourth bill that adds in some other pieces
Speaker 4: of legislation in addition to the Senate ad, but none
Speaker 4: that seemed to be especially controversial. And he finally decided
Speaker 4: that he was going to do the right thing by Ukraine,
Speaker 4: by democracy, by the United States, rather than cater to
Speaker 4: the extremeist wing of his party. And he seems willing
Speaker 4: to take the consequences, whatever they may be. And I
Speaker 4: have to say that I did not expect this from him,
Speaker 4: and I have to applaud him or bucking the arsonists
Speaker 4: on the right and doing what is the right thing
Speaker 4: in putting this bill on the floor.
Speaker 1: But you have to wonder what he must have seen
Speaker 1: in those intelligence briefings that changed his mind. Right, Like,
Speaker 1: remember he was like number five or six in Republican leadership.
Speaker 1: I mean, the guy was barely sort of on the
Speaker 1: radar when he was so trumpy. I mean, someone must
Speaker 1: have showed him something that convinced him.
Speaker 4: Right, Well, we've all gotten some level of classified briefings,
Speaker 4: not with the detail and level that he would receive,
Speaker 4: and it is very parent without getting into any classified information,
Speaker 4: that Ukraine is on the brink right now and they're
Speaker 4: out of ammunition, they're out of materiel, they're out of
Speaker 4: military equipment, and they cannot withstand Russia if they do
Speaker 4: not get some urgently and immediately. And I think what
Speaker 4: listening to him, what really does seem to have finally
Speaker 4: gotten through, is that he realizes that this would be
Speaker 4: the beginning of Vladimir Putin's march, not the end of it.
Speaker 4: And so sixty billion dollars now in military support, eighty
Speaker 4: percent of which by the way, goes to US companies
Speaker 4: defense companies to restore and restock are arsenal. So it
Speaker 4: is also beneficial for the economy, putting aside whatever you
Speaker 4: may think about the defense industrial complex. But he realized
Speaker 4: is that this would be the beginning and the next
Speaker 4: thing that would happen is that Putin would invade another country,
Speaker 4: probably a NATO country, that would then require US to
Speaker 4: send troops. And so a sixty billion dollar investment right
Speaker 4: now that could prevent American troops from going there and
Speaker 4: hundreds of billions of dollars spent on a future war
Speaker 4: is a smart investment, and that seems to finally have
Speaker 4: resonated with him.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about what's happening in New York, because
Speaker 1: you know this New York DA's office, they are zipping
Speaker 1: through picking a jury. I want you to talk about
Speaker 1: what your take is. I mean, you have seen so
Speaker 1: many of these cases. What do you think about what
Speaker 1: you're seeing here? And also how it's affecting Trump.
Speaker 4: I've always eagerly awaited Donald Trump being in a courtroom
Speaker 4: because he has no control in a courtroom. Politics and
Speaker 4: partisanship do not matter. Misinformation, disinformation and outright lies are
Speaker 4: not accepted and not permit. And the rules are the
Speaker 4: rules that apply to everyone, including him, and he generally
Speaker 4: is someone who believes the rules don't apply to him,
Speaker 4: which is part of the reason why he has for
Speaker 4: indictments against him. And so, you know, seeing him or
Speaker 4: hearing about him sitting there watching the jury selection, falling asleep,
Speaker 4: I guess he's too old to be president, falling asleep
Speaker 4: at his own criminal trial. All of the pomp and
Speaker 4: circumstances and bluster and press conferences and all the partisanship
Speaker 4: and all the politicization that he brings to everything that
Speaker 4: he does goes out the window. When you get into
Speaker 4: a court of law, the facts will matter, the evidence
Speaker 4: will matter, and the law will matter, and that's it.
Speaker 4: It will be very interesting to see. I was incredibly
Speaker 4: disheartened to read that at least one juror perhaps there
Speaker 4: are others, begged off of the jury because of fear
Speaker 4: for his or her own safety. And I will tell
Speaker 4: you I've done a number of trials as a prosecutor.
Speaker 4: I picked a lot of juries.
Speaker 6: I did a double murder racketeering trial against the boss
Speaker 6: of the Genevez crime family and two other associates of
Speaker 6: the genevie'z crime family, one of whom ultimately killed Whitey
Speaker 6: Bulger in jail.
Speaker 3: And I never have heard of a.
Speaker 4: Juror genuinely fearing for his or her safety. It can happen.
Speaker 4: But the notion that Donald Trump would invoke such fear
Speaker 4: because of his incitement of violence, because of what he
Speaker 4: did on January sixth, because of the domestic violent extremists
Speaker 4: who he uses as his threatth is a reflection of
Speaker 4: something really rotten. When you start hearing about members in
Speaker 4: the Senate, as Mitt Romney said, who changed their vote
Speaker 4: because they're worried about their own safety. You start to
Speaker 4: realize that this person is a danger far beyond just
Speaker 4: to our democracy, to our norms, but is actually a
Speaker 4: danger to individual safety. And that was really disheartening to read.
Speaker 1: What I'm struck by when we read the reporting out
Speaker 1: of this courtroom is that there's just a lot of
Speaker 1: kind of mafia like tactics that Trump uses, right, a
Speaker 1: lot of intimidation stuff and trying to find out if.
Speaker 2: These jurors are biased.
Speaker 1: I loved when Trump was like, we should move this
Speaker 1: trial to staten Holland what I'm struck by is just
Speaker 1: that he has to like sit there for so many hours,
Speaker 1: and that he's never just had to sit somewhere, and
Speaker 1: he can't play with his phone, I mean, and that
Speaker 1: I think is probably why he keeps falling asleep right now.
Speaker 4: That means seventy seven years old, I don't know, but yeah,
Speaker 4: That's sort of the point. Is that this persona that
Speaker 4: Donald Trump has created that started with the Apprentice and
Speaker 4: worked his way all way up to the presidency, and
Speaker 4: now he has this maga cult that listens to its
Speaker 4: every word, even though he lies right, left and center,
Speaker 4: all of that is gone. He is defendant Donald Trump,
Speaker 4: and that's all that he is. And he's sitting there
Speaker 4: at a table in the courtroom, just like every other
Speaker 4: defendant does, going through the same process that every other
Speaker 4: defendant does. And I actually think that is incredibly important.
Speaker 4: It is incredibly important for the American people to see
Speaker 4: that our rule of law, our criminal justice system, applies
Speaker 4: equally to every single person in this country, regardless of
Speaker 4: whether you are a former president or not. And he
Speaker 4: has the same rules, the same laws, the same procedures
Speaker 4: as anyone else does. And that is the foundation of
Speaker 4: our country. And I think it's really really important that
Speaker 4: the American people watch that happening. Thank you, Congressman, No problem,
Speaker 4: take care, no moment.
Speaker 7: Jesse Cannon, Molly jung Fest. I once read a history
Speaker 7: of the mob in New York at every hour of
Speaker 7: the day, scenes from it just flashed through my head
Speaker 7: during this Trump trial.
Speaker 1: So Fox News hosts Jesse Waters, I mean, they're just
Speaker 1: doing everything they can to try to intimidate these jurors
Speaker 1: into getting Trump off. He broadcasted extensive biographical details about
Speaker 1: jural Number two, her neighborhood, her occupation, education, marital and
Speaker 1: familial status, and what industry her fiance works in. He
Speaker 1: concluded by saying, I'm not cho sure about juror number two.
Speaker 1: By the way, this is such an insane way for
Speaker 1: a television host to act.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is one.
Speaker 1: Of the most insane things I've seen that Fox do,
Speaker 1: and it is insane even for Fox. Jesse Waters is
Speaker 1: our moment of fuck Ray. That's it for this episode
Speaker 1: of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
Speaker 1: to hear the best minds in politics makes sense of
Speaker 1: all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please
Speaker 1: send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again, thanks for listening.