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, and the gloves if they were ever on,
Speaker 1: are off between Donald Trump and Ron De Santis. We
Speaker 1: have a show you don't want to miss. A minute
Speaker 1: of Congressman Adam Ship stops by to talk about why
Speaker 1: he is the right cant todate in California's contentious Democratic primary.
Speaker 1: Then we'll talk to Congressman Chris Deluzio about his new
Speaker 1: legislation to make our railways safer. But first we have
Speaker 1: Nay Rals Angela Basquez Jirou. Welcome back to Fast Politics. Angelo,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you for having me. I'm excited to
Speaker 1: chat about the horrifying state of affairs. We're you know,
Speaker 1: so super interesting. Something we had talked about. I think
Speaker 1: you thought it was my worried notion, but it was actually,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, something that Robin Marty had told me.
Speaker 1: Robin Marty, the woman who wrote the post Row Handbook,
Speaker 1: who works in what was an abortion clinic in Alabama
Speaker 1: and is now a women's health clinic because they have
Speaker 1: no abortion in Alabama, which is she wasn't seeing in Alabama,
Speaker 1: the doctors were stopping treating the highly political condition of
Speaker 1: being pregnant. Talk to me about what's happening now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I think when we first were worried about
Speaker 1: what exceptions and exemptions to the lawment and what the
Speaker 1: decision to overturn ROW could mean, a lot of folks
Speaker 1: were worried about this initial state of chaos and confusion,
Speaker 1: right because what the law says doesn't always match how
Speaker 1: medicine works. And that's you know, always been a problem
Speaker 1: when it comes to aborsion, but especially now. Doctors have
Speaker 1: said in countless places, I think most recently in Texas,
Speaker 1: that they don't know when they're allowed to do something.
Speaker 1: They don't know when you know, how close to death
Speaker 1: do I have to be before you're allowed to treat
Speaker 1: my ectopic pregnancy? How close to death do I have
Speaker 1: to be before I'm allowed to have Miffie pristone? Those
Speaker 1: things aren't clear. We're asking doctors to take on a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount of risk, and you know, I think now
Speaker 1: where we are with hospital systems, they're starting to see
Speaker 1: that you can't have a labor and delivery unit without
Speaker 1: having proper abortion care because abortion care. As you've said before,
Speaker 1: it as we've all said, it is healthcare. It is
Speaker 1: a critical part of that cycle of your reproductive life.
Speaker 1: And you can't promise or even attempt a safe pregnancy
Speaker 1: if you don't have abortion care as part of your practice. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, it just seems completely crazy we're seeing this
Speaker 1: kind of movement away from treating pregnancy. Yeah. It's also
Speaker 1: you know, there's this failed, kind of naive idea, right
Speaker 1: that you can create these laws that only impact people
Speaker 1: in certain situations, right, like this idea of there are
Speaker 1: good abortions and there are bad abortions. It's okay to
Speaker 1: get an abortion if you didn't want to have the
Speaker 1: sex that led to the pregnancy, but it's not okay
Speaker 1: have an abortion, you know, if you were having sex
Speaker 1: outside of marriage. Laws don't apply that way, and neither
Speaker 1: does medical care. So, like a lot of folks predicted,
Speaker 1: you know, Robin, most prestiently, these laws, they don't stop
Speaker 1: at some fictitious borders that you know, right to life
Speaker 1: ers think they do. They impact the entire scope of
Speaker 1: healthcare and the lives of you know, anyone who can
Speaker 1: be pregnant. And that's why now we're seeing this is
Speaker 1: you know, I hate to say it because I don't
Speaker 1: like to be a pessimist, but it's this is just
Speaker 1: the first domino to fall. We'll see more hospitals who
Speaker 1: feel like they can't provide appropriate care anymore. Even though
Speaker 1: the letter of the law doesn't say it's illegal to
Speaker 1: treat pregnancies now, but it does say enough that it
Speaker 1: stops it from happening. What I think is so interesting,
Speaker 1: and again I don't want to say interesting, because the
Speaker 1: whole thing is just a fucking nightmare and it's so upsetting.
Speaker 1: But one of the things that I think is really
Speaker 1: interesting is that you are seeing. The reason in nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy three the role was decided so broadly by many
Speaker 1: conservative judges was because what ultimately was happening was doctors
Speaker 1: were afraid to treat women right, no matter what, they
Speaker 1: were afraid to treat them because they didn't know what.
Speaker 1: You know, Again, once you get law and medicine together,
Speaker 1: it's always a fucking disaster. So you had all these
Speaker 1: women who could not get treated, and now we're seeing
Speaker 1: again a return to women being unable to be treated. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a thing that we say that, you know, another
Speaker 1: one of these mottos that sounds a little pithy at first,
Speaker 1: but then plays itself out in real time. You know,
Speaker 1: in a post for a world, is a ban is
Speaker 1: a ban? Is a ban? You ban you know, abortion
Speaker 1: after twelve weeks, you're also banning all abortion before twelve
Speaker 1: weeks because doctors aren't going to stick around in practice
Speaker 1: in this limited scope where it's all confusing anyway, it
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense to continue to believe that that it's
Speaker 1: possible to legislate what happens in a moment of crisis. Right.
Speaker 1: There's just no place that I can think of where
Speaker 1: this lens of law is applied to situations where you know,
Speaker 1: a life hangs in the balance in a matter of minutes,
Speaker 1: and what you're supposed to call your malpracticed lawyer and
Speaker 1: get the hospital board together to make a decision. No, right,
Speaker 1: And like we knew the answer to this in the seventies,
Speaker 1: you know, like we didn't even know that smoking was
Speaker 1: bad in the seventies, but we knew how to do
Speaker 1: this right. So it's very colossally confusing to me about
Speaker 1: why it's so hard now and the answers it's not hard,
Speaker 1: we know this, but there's a small vocal and somewhat
Speaker 1: powerful segment of Zealots who don't care. I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about this Texas case because you know,
Speaker 1: we've talked about her a little bit. It's really meaningful
Speaker 1: explain to us a little bit about that. Yeah. So,
Speaker 1: there's an organization that formed expressly for the purpose of
Speaker 1: trying to outlaw medication at board. They've filed suit in
Speaker 1: Texas with a specific court, a specific judge who they
Speaker 1: all will rule in their favor, and it will ruin
Speaker 1: our ability to access most medication abortion. The suit actually
Speaker 1: asked the FDA ask the court to force the FDA
Speaker 1: to withdraw its approval for Miffi pristone, which is one
Speaker 1: of two drugs used in the Medication Abortion Protocol. This
Speaker 1: drug was approved decades ago, it's been in use for
Speaker 1: more than twenty years, safer than thailan all. They're coming
Speaker 1: for it now because political reasons. Right. A part that's
Speaker 1: so devastating about this and horrifying is that this case
Speaker 1: in Texas would impact every single person in the country.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're in California, you're still going to
Speaker 1: lose access to Miffi pristone if you're in Michigan, You're
Speaker 1: going to lose access to MIFFI pristone. We did some
Speaker 1: research at NYALL and we found that at least sixty
Speaker 1: four point five million people would be impacted by this decision.
Speaker 1: That's more than are currently living without abortion access due
Speaker 1: to the decisions. So to classify this as seizemic is
Speaker 1: almost an understatement. But it's impossible, as all of these
Speaker 1: impacts have been to really understand how bad things can
Speaker 1: get until it happens, which is almost anticipating a healthscape, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I just am shocked. Can you explain where
Speaker 1: we are now with this? Because this was a case
Speaker 1: where the organization chopped for a venue, found a venue
Speaker 1: where they knew they would only get one judge. The
Speaker 1: judge it's a part of Texas. The judge is a
Speaker 1: very conservative judge appointed by Trump, very active and anti
Speaker 1: choice legislation, anti choice activisty. He now is trying to
Speaker 1: figure out if he can do this right right. The
Speaker 1: read on the ground from a lot of lawyers who
Speaker 1: are watching us closely is that he's, you know, he
Speaker 1: has made up his mind. He will rule in probably
Speaker 1: the worst way imaginable, But he is now sort of
Speaker 1: pantomizing the motions of what it would look like if
Speaker 1: he were actually considering our gus. He had a hearing
Speaker 1: last week which he tried not to publicize. He wanted
Speaker 1: to have this in secret so that no one would
Speaker 1: have and no one would hear what was happening. And
Speaker 1: in that hearing it was pretty clear from the questions
Speaker 1: he was asking that even though to rule that to
Speaker 1: force the FDA to withdraw approval for a drug would
Speaker 1: be unprecedented, but the fact that that was set out
Speaker 1: loud by the plaintiffs and he didn't really have a
Speaker 1: reaction to it, right, everything that we're seeing on the
Speaker 1: ground is telling us that this will be bad. And
Speaker 1: you know, I know there is a lot of great
Speaker 1: hot takes and legal conjecture out there about whether it
Speaker 1: would actually do anything, whether this ruling would actually have
Speaker 1: an impact. But if there's one thing, especially folks and
Speaker 1: reproductive rights have learned over the last three or four years,
Speaker 1: it's that there's a first time for everything, and it's
Speaker 1: usually the first time for a worse time for us. Right,
Speaker 1: no one thought SVA in Texas was going to stand,
Speaker 1: and then it did. I actually thought SBA in Texas
Speaker 1: was going to stand. I thought they're going to fuck
Speaker 1: us now, you know, I thought that, But I also thought, well,
Speaker 1: but there's where I still had this tiny shred of sacred,
Speaker 1: you know, feeling for the Supreme Court that, like, you know,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that they're filled with, you know, these
Speaker 1: conservative activists who are just hell bent on returning us
Speaker 1: to eighteen ten, you know, but they stand on precedent
Speaker 1: and they won't rule against something that's clearly unconstitutional. And
Speaker 1: you know that band aid was ripped off real fast
Speaker 1: for me there. I think that's sort of why I
Speaker 1: have this position now, right is I don't think that
Speaker 1: they're going to be a backstop or a protector for
Speaker 1: us on this. They weren't on SBA, so why would
Speaker 1: they pass up a chance to do it here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make any sense. I mean, just so so
Speaker 1: incredibly upset and I'm just so grim. What else are
Speaker 1: you seeing? I mean, again, this will get if he
Speaker 1: does enact this on the banning the pills, they will
Speaker 1: it will go up to the next court, which I
Speaker 1: think is the fifth Circus Circuit right, Yes, Circus though
Speaker 1: is kind of a good um good for how it
Speaker 1: feels sometimes to deal with these courts. It would go
Speaker 1: next to the Fifth Circuit. Obviously there would be some
Speaker 1: appeals or request for a stay, So there is a
Speaker 1: chance that, you know, whatever decision we get might not
Speaker 1: be implemented right away. That's important to note, especially for
Speaker 1: folks who are concerned about access, as all of us
Speaker 1: mostly are. We might not lose access the day of
Speaker 1: the court decision, but we will have again as we're
Speaker 1: having now mass confusion about what's allowed where. You know,
Speaker 1: if you if you can get pills delivered to your
Speaker 1: house across the border. All of those things are going
Speaker 1: to be thrown back into the complete chaos no matter
Speaker 1: what happens, no matter what the ruling is or the
Speaker 1: timing of it. But you know, the hope is that
Speaker 1: cooler judicial heads will prevail and that there will be
Speaker 1: some relief. If the decision is bad, If the Fifth
Speaker 1: Circuit rules, you know, to override this and to keep
Speaker 1: the Hills legal, it will go to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: You know, the Supreme Court is always going to make
Speaker 1: the worst possible decisions at every stage. Yeah, that's where
Speaker 1: the heartbreak is, right that we don't have what we
Speaker 1: thought we had. An elementary school which as a you know,
Speaker 1: an impartial branch of government that was there to save
Speaker 1: us from ourselves, and it seems like, you know, instead,
Speaker 1: what we have is this court that's been packed with
Speaker 1: anti abortion activists and they're not going to stop. They're
Speaker 1: going to stop until they fanned abortion, all abortion everywhere.
Speaker 1: And again, I think the Biden administration has done a
Speaker 1: lot of really good things. But do you think that
Speaker 1: they made a mistake by not pushing harder on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court? I mean, we know that we have a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court that is just beyond the pale. I mean
Speaker 1: when it comes to women's rights. We're seeing what's happening
Speaker 1: here firsthand, in front of our very eyes. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think that the Biden administration should have done more?
Speaker 1: I mean, again, you know we're in very murky legal
Speaker 1: water here, but I mean, do you think that they
Speaker 1: should have pushed harder? You know, it's a really hard
Speaker 1: question to answer without you know, obviously we have the
Speaker 1: benefit of hindsight, and anything more than what anyone did
Speaker 1: would have been helpful. Right, But looking forward, we do
Speaker 1: have a chance now, including in partnership with a Biden
Speaker 1: administration as a sort of movement to look at what
Speaker 1: meaningful court reform would be. You know, we do have
Speaker 1: a court system right now that is has been rigged
Speaker 1: in favor of of conservatives, has you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of unelected power, with unchecked unelected power, and there are
Speaker 1: things we can do to offset that, to change it,
Speaker 1: to remove some of those bad actors. And I think
Speaker 1: that's where some where a lot of our energy and
Speaker 1: focus needs to be next. This is the last frontier.
Speaker 1: You know, we don't we don't elect judges, but we
Speaker 1: do elect the people who do. And we do have
Speaker 1: some levers that we can pull, and we do have
Speaker 1: some things we can organize around, and court reform is
Speaker 1: certainly one of those things that for the future of
Speaker 1: our movement, in the future of democracy, we need to
Speaker 1: fix it fast. Yeah. Wait, I want to ask one
Speaker 1: more question. What else is Neirau working on? This is
Speaker 1: such an important time. You're from Nerau. What else is
Speaker 1: Neirau working on? Well, we are working hard on making
Speaker 1: sure that folks know what's at stake right now. One
Speaker 1: thing we're finding is that now that the folks know
Speaker 1: about this Texas case, or if they do know, they're
Speaker 1: not sure that it actually impacts them so a big
Speaker 1: part of our work right now is making sure that
Speaker 1: we're talking to people that people like you are talking
Speaker 1: to your listeners and your audience. And then the other
Speaker 1: part is getting ready for this decision. Know, when this happens,
Speaker 1: there's going to be confusion, there's going to be anger,
Speaker 1: and it's our job as an organization that's built on
Speaker 1: the power of people, of people organizing each other and
Speaker 1: organize themselves, to help direct them into the places where
Speaker 1: they can be productive and make the most positive and
Speaker 1: powerful change. So really it's spreading the word, getting ready
Speaker 1: for the decision, and once that happens, it's getting folks
Speaker 1: organized and mobilized. Thank you so much, Angela, absolutely anytime.
Speaker 1: Congressman Adam Schiff represents California's thirtieth district and is running
Speaker 1: for the open California Senate seed. Welcome to you, Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: Congressman Adam Chief. Thank you. It's great to be with you.
Speaker 1: We're delighted to have you. Now we're all in California,
Speaker 1: so I can bitch about how cold it is here.
Speaker 1: So California, you are in the beginning of this primary race.
Speaker 1: Talk to me about this race and about how it's
Speaker 1: going and what the landscape looks like. You know, I
Speaker 1: think the race is going really well. We launch short campaign,
Speaker 1: I guess about six weeks ago and at a tremendous response,
Speaker 1: with support coming in from every county in this and
Speaker 1: my colleagues have been hugely supportive of me as well.
Speaker 1: Speaker Policy early endorsed me. Now more than half of
Speaker 1: my California House colleagues are supporting me, as well as
Speaker 1: local and state officials up in down California, and we've
Speaker 1: been traveling to state meeting with constituents, meeting with voters,
Speaker 1: and the response has been terrific. So I feel very
Speaker 1: good about it. And what I'm enjoying the most, I
Speaker 1: have to say is traveling to other parts of this
Speaker 1: state and sitting down with people, getting to know some
Speaker 1: of the unique challenges that people face and getting some
Speaker 1: great ideas and how I can help them meet those challenges.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about SVB Bank because
Speaker 1: it's a pretty interesting article about how that has become
Speaker 1: a sort of moment in the campaign that everybody's kind
Speaker 1: of weighing in on. Will you talk to me a
Speaker 1: little bit about that, you know, I think this was
Speaker 1: a terrible tragedy for the state and potentially a terrible
Speaker 1: tragedy for a lot of employees who have had their
Speaker 1: bankroll done at SBB without even knowing it. We were
Speaker 1: desperately concerned that there could be hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: people who wouldn't get paychecks when this bank failed, who
Speaker 1: had no fault of their own, simply had their payroll
Speaker 1: done SVB. But this is I think a tremendous failing
Speaker 1: of the management of the bank, as well as a
Speaker 1: tremendous failing of regulators and oversight. The overseers at the
Speaker 1: FED saw that there were problems at SBB, saw that
Speaker 1: the bank was at a huge percentage of its deposits
Speaker 1: and uninsured accounts because there were accounts over two hundred
Speaker 1: fifty thousand. Saw the bank was invested in a lot
Speaker 1: of long term debt that was diminishing in value as
Speaker 1: interest rates were going up. And yet nothing was done
Speaker 1: and certainly nothing commensurate with the risks to fend off
Speaker 1: what ended up being this run on the bank and failure.
Speaker 1: But the primary responsibility were the bank executives, and I've
Speaker 1: introduced legislation to fall back their stock profits and bonuses
Speaker 1: because those bank executives took excessive risk, which enriched themselves
Speaker 1: but nonetheless put depositors at tremendous risk and ultimately put
Speaker 1: a chuck of the banking system at risk. And I
Speaker 1: was grateful to see after I introduced the bill that
Speaker 1: President Biden announced that he was also going to support
Speaker 1: legislation in Congress helped clawback that compensation from banking secutives.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about that, because they're
Speaker 1: really the tides have turned on bailouts, and I mean,
Speaker 1: if they ever were pro bailout, but there certainly have
Speaker 1: been times in American life where these banks were very,
Speaker 1: very precarious and much of the economy seemed like it
Speaker 1: could collapse. Now it feels like a lot of these
Speaker 1: banks were short up. I mean, is your sense now
Speaker 1: that this crisis has been averted largely? It has largely
Speaker 1: been averted, but clearly there are still other shoes that
Speaker 1: are falling. The near collapse of Credit Suite and its
Speaker 1: takeover by UBS shows that the shockwaves started in California.
Speaker 1: They were reverberated to a regional bank that failed, also
Speaker 1: in New York and around the world. And I think
Speaker 1: the market is still trying to settle down, but it
Speaker 1: points up to points up some real continuing failures, and
Speaker 1: that is banks that are of the size of SBB
Speaker 1: don't have the same level of oversight. They don't go
Speaker 1: through the same liquidity tests and stress tests by regulators.
Speaker 1: And now we're discovering that you can be much smaller
Speaker 1: and still be too big to fail, and so we
Speaker 1: need to, I think, strengthen the oversight of these midsize
Speaker 1: banks or smaller banks, because they too can create a
Speaker 1: contagion that really threatens the whole system. So I want
Speaker 1: to ask you about this idea of how this happened.
Speaker 1: I mean, do you think ultimately this is a failure
Speaker 1: of regulation. I think it's certainly, without doubt a failure
Speaker 1: of the regulators. It's also failure of the management of
Speaker 1: the bank Congress also, and I voted against this weekend
Speaker 1: Dodd Frank that oversight regime by essentially in twenty eighteen
Speaker 1: watering down dot Frank and allowing banks of this size
Speaker 1: to undergo less regulatory scroup. But even with that, the
Speaker 1: regulators were apparently aware of this, aware of the danger,
Speaker 1: and didn't act with sufficient urgency defended off. So I
Speaker 1: think that movement twenty eighteen was in the wrong direction,
Speaker 1: and I opposed it. But even so, regulators saw the
Speaker 1: risk and just failed to do enough about it. And
Speaker 1: for the bank executives, they were willing to take the
Speaker 1: risk because it made the more money it made, the
Speaker 1: more bonuses, it increased the value of their stock, and
Speaker 1: they were essentially gambling with other people's money to potentially
Speaker 1: disastrous effect. We had Katie Porter on this podcast. We
Speaker 1: may have other people running. Tell us why you're the person.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is such an interesting center race because
Speaker 1: it is completely decided at the primary level. So tell
Speaker 1: us why Democrats would do better with you than with
Speaker 1: Katie Porter. You know, I think all of us that
Speaker 1: are running order or relieve myself, we're all progressives. It
Speaker 1: will be hard for people to distinguish a lot about
Speaker 1: our voting records that are all pretty progressive. I think
Speaker 1: what voters are most looking for is who's going to
Speaker 1: make progress, Who's going to be able to tackle the
Speaker 1: problem of homelessness, Who's going to be able to increase
Speaker 1: the safety of our neighborhoods and the quality of our
Speaker 1: public schools. Who's going to be able to deal with
Speaker 1: the utter unaffordability of housing for billions of California families
Speaker 1: who in the Central Valley, can do something about some
Speaker 1: of the worst air quality in the country and a
Speaker 1: lack of adequate drinking water. And I think the reason
Speaker 1: why so many of my House colleagues and the Speaker,
Speaker 1: and so many elected officials that have experienced with all
Speaker 1: three of us have decided to support me is they're
Speaker 1: looking for someone that can work within the Senate to
Speaker 1: get things done to approve the quality of life for Californias,
Speaker 1: And this is what I'm offering. I think I have
Speaker 1: a record of getting things done, and more than that,
Speaker 1: on some of the seminal issues of the day facing
Speaker 1: the country, threats to our democracy. I think I've shown
Speaker 1: the kind of leadership that California has come to expect
Speaker 1: of its senator. We all had the opportunity to fight
Speaker 1: back against the effort to tear down our institutions during
Speaker 1: the last administration. We had not the opportunity. We have
Speaker 1: the responsibility to do it. But I think that my
Speaker 1: record is distinguished in the prominent role I played in
Speaker 1: that and continue to play in that because directly, our
Speaker 1: democracy is still very much at risk. So you were
Speaker 1: very involved in the impeachment, very involved in Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Kevin McCarthy seems to completely hate you, which is probably
Speaker 1: a good sign. Like Eric Swawell, if you frequent flyer
Speaker 1: on this podcast, you're the constant target of Kevin McCarthy.
Speaker 1: As a senator, a junior senator from California, how would
Speaker 1: you be able to sort of enact that same kind
Speaker 1: of muscle. First of all, it's very rare for a
Speaker 1: House member to have the kind of voice that I've
Speaker 1: been able to have as a House member. I would
Speaker 1: begin the Senate, I think as a very atypical junior senator.
Speaker 1: I would begin my effort and the Senate very well
Speaker 1: known to the people of California and to the people
Speaker 1: around the country, and I think I can use that
Speaker 1: prominent position to defend our institutions. We are not out
Speaker 1: of the woods at all, as we see with what
Speaker 1: is likely to happen this week in New York for
Speaker 1: a former president and lashing out against the rule of law.
Speaker 1: I'm on the Judiciary Committee now, since McCarthy took me
Speaker 1: out the Intel Committee. I told how King Jeffreys put
Speaker 1: me where I could be useful, and he said I
Speaker 1: want to put you in my seat as a senior
Speaker 1: member of the Judiciary Committee. Well, Jim Jordan is now
Speaker 1: trying to interfere with the Manhattan District Attorney's office and
Speaker 1: the rule of law, acting again as Trump's Carol defense counsel.
Speaker 1: I'm going to push back on that in the House.
Speaker 1: I'll be even more able to push back on those
Speaker 1: kind of assaults on the rule of law in the Senate.
Speaker 1: But equally important, one of the things that I've been
Speaker 1: championing for years now is the inter relationship between the
Speaker 1: weakness the fragility of democracy and the flaws the structural
Speaker 1: problems in our economy. The fact that the economy is
Speaker 1: not working for millions of people, that at a time
Speaker 1: of historically low unemployment, people still can't afford a place
Speaker 1: to live, They still can barely afford to access healthcare,
Speaker 1: many millions can't. Many others see their quality of life
Speaker 1: to something below that of their parents. All of that
Speaker 1: leaves people vulnerable to a demagogue who comes along and
Speaker 1: promises that they alone can fix it. And so I've
Speaker 1: been very focused on trying to build an economy that
Speaker 1: works for everyone. This is really a central focus of
Speaker 1: my campaign, and I think I can do that. It's
Speaker 1: even greater effect In the Senate. I wanted to ask
Speaker 1: you about that. Some of the big problems in California
Speaker 1: are also problems we have in New York. Homelessness, super
Speaker 1: expensive housing. You know, these problems, they seem almost insurmountable.
Speaker 1: I mean, how do you even begin to start getting
Speaker 1: serious of effecting them. Well, first of all, I think
Speaker 1: we have to recognize that the fact that is not
Speaker 1: working for millions of people is not an accident. It's
Speaker 1: not the product as my Republican friends would like us
Speaker 1: to believe, the product of some impersonal forces, the Adam
Speaker 1: Smith's invisible hand. This is often the result of a
Speaker 1: very visible hand by very powerful special interests. And to
Speaker 1: give you just a couple examples, during the pandemic, when
Speaker 1: we want to double the child tax credit, something I
Speaker 1: fought hard to ensure, we lifted forty percent of the
Speaker 1: kids in the country who are in poverty out of Parker.
Speaker 1: That single step of increasing that single provision of the
Speaker 1: tax coat had such a demonstrable impact. And that should
Speaker 1: tell us a couple of things. That should tell us
Speaker 1: that this isn't rocket science. We don't have to wait
Speaker 1: to be inspired by some bolt from above. But it
Speaker 1: also should tell us this is a policy decision we've made.
Speaker 1: And when Congress allowed that child tax credit increased to
Speaker 1: expire and millions fell back into poverty, that was also
Speaker 1: a policy choice. And we've made scores of these choices.
Speaker 1: When we treat the carried interest of hedge fund managers
Speaker 1: as a capital gain rather than ordinary income, we're deciding
Speaker 1: as a policy matter that we should help the most
Speaker 1: successful do even better, and we let the child taxpread expire,
Speaker 1: we should let those who are strugg in the most
Speaker 1: struggle even more. And so it's not just a tax code.
Speaker 1: Of course, there are a myriad of ways in which
Speaker 1: the Congress has decided who should win and who should
Speaker 1: lose in our economy, and the result is the economy
Speaker 1: that's just not working for millions of people, and we
Speaker 1: need to change that. I think there are lots of
Speaker 1: ways we can change that. In terms of the most
Speaker 1: graphic illustration of an economy that's not working, and that
Speaker 1: is people living on the street. We need to better
Speaker 1: identify what's working what's not working. People are generous and compassionate.
Speaker 1: They want to help people find a place to live
Speaker 1: and get off the street. But they also want to
Speaker 1: make sure they're not spending taxpayer dollars on things that
Speaker 1: don't work. And so I think one of the things
Speaker 1: that we can do that I would certainly pushed, let's
Speaker 1: have greater accountability over what's working and what's not invest
Speaker 1: in the things that can cost effectively move people into housing.
Speaker 1: My experience as people in comparsion if they want to help,
Speaker 1: but they also want to know that it's being done
Speaker 1: in a way that is cost effective. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: it seems really like not an easy situation. Let's talk
Speaker 1: for two seconds about this Trump whatever is coming down
Speaker 1: the pike, and this will air on Wednesday. So he
Speaker 1: may already be indicted, he may not be indicted, he
Speaker 1: may never be indicted. Do you think that Mary Garland
Speaker 1: waited too long? I do, And I've been a very
Speaker 1: outspoken and critical of the delay at the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: And I came out of the Justice Department. I spent
Speaker 1: almost six years as an assistant US attorney. I have
Speaker 1: great love and affection for the Department. But for almost
Speaker 1: a year it appear the department did nothing except focus
Speaker 1: on those who broke into the Capitol that day and
Speaker 1: beat police officers. And that works if you're going to
Speaker 1: roll up people who are sort of foot soldiers on
Speaker 1: the higher ups, if it's a case involving a single
Speaker 1: line of effort to overturn the election. But of course
Speaker 1: there were multiple lines of effort. There was a president
Speaker 1: on the phone with Georgia, with the Secretary of State
Speaker 1: trying to grabbe at him into finding eleven thousand, seven
Speaker 1: hundred eighty votes that don't exist that his own attorney
Speaker 1: general told them were bs. There were efforts to put
Speaker 1: pressure on the vice president. There was a whole fake
Speaker 1: electro plot. Those other matters the Just Department didn't seem
Speaker 1: to even be looking into until a year after the fact.
Speaker 1: It is so unusual that a Congress, in the January
Speaker 1: sixth Committee, which I was so proud to serve on,
Speaker 1: should be so far ahead of the Justice Department in
Speaker 1: an investigation. But we were, and as a result, Manhattan
Speaker 1: appears poised to go forward with charges which, while very
Speaker 1: serious a campaign fraud scheme is very serious, are not
Speaker 1: as serious as an attack on our democracy, a violent
Speaker 1: insurrection incited by a president who wanted to stop the
Speaker 1: piece transfer of power. If the Justice Department had moved
Speaker 1: with more swiftness and following the evidence where it led,
Speaker 1: and it led to Donald Trump. The first prosecution would
Speaker 1: be by the Justice Department, which has the resources, the wherewithal,
Speaker 1: and most importantly, the jurisdiction or the most serious potential
Speaker 1: charges against the former president. We have a situation now
Speaker 1: where it looks like the state charges are going to
Speaker 1: come before the DOJ charges, If the DOJ charges come
Speaker 1: at all. There are a number of problems with that,
Speaker 1: as you well know, including that the you know, there's
Speaker 1: the appearance of partisanship because these are elected officials, and
Speaker 1: also there is a real question over whether or not
Speaker 1: these state charges. The thinking is that the dug would
Speaker 1: rather go first. And having waited so long, I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think that there's a chance here that we'll
Speaker 1: see accountability or now? I certainly hope to pray that
Speaker 1: we see accountability, because one thing that we have seen
Speaker 1: time and time again with Donald Trump is and he's
Speaker 1: not held accountable, it leads him to commit worse and
Speaker 1: worse misconduct, abuse and offenses. When he wasn't held accountable
Speaker 1: for his Russian miss conduct, he engaged in worst miss
Speaker 1: conduct vias in the Ukraine. When he wasn't held accountable
Speaker 1: for that, he engaged in even worse miss conduct, leading
Speaker 1: to a violent attack on the Capitol. If we should
Speaker 1: have a precedent where a corrupt former president can escape
Speaker 1: accountability because it would be perceived as too controversial if
Speaker 1: he were held to justice, then then either he or
Speaker 1: someone else in the future will do even worse. I
Speaker 1: understand the concern around New York, but at the same time,
Speaker 1: a much bigger concern from my point of view, is
Speaker 1: establishing a precedent that a president can be wallless and
Speaker 1: there's no way to hold them account. You can't hold
Speaker 1: them to account while they're in office. You can't hold
Speaker 1: them to account whether or out of office. The Founders
Speaker 1: would have never subscribed to such a dangerous idea. And
Speaker 1: so if the Manhattan Grant Jury has probably caused to
Speaker 1: believe Donald Trump committed a crime, and the District Attorney's
Speaker 1: office believes it can prove that crime, it not only
Speaker 1: should go forward, it really must go forward, right, no question. Now,
Speaker 1: I have one last question for you, because we're almost
Speaker 1: at a time, explain to us why Gavin Newsom had
Speaker 1: said originally that he would, you know, put, there hasn't
Speaker 1: been a black woman in the Senate since our vice president.
Speaker 1: The Senate has been very white, add very male for
Speaker 1: a long time. Explain to us why, you know, in
Speaker 1: my head, I'm really just thinking about it in my head.
Speaker 1: If I'm voting in this primary, explain to us why
Speaker 1: the vote should go to you. Yeah. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: first of all, I think that voters are going to
Speaker 1: consider issues of race and gender, and I think they
Speaker 1: should think that diversity is extremely important. And I've been
Speaker 1: very proud over the last six to eight years as
Speaker 1: the national Battleground Finance Chair for the Congressional Campaign arm
Speaker 1: to go around the country and help elect money for
Speaker 1: campaign for stumped for an incredibly diverse set of candidates
Speaker 1: for the House and for the Senate. I've been very
Speaker 1: proud of the work that I've done to do that,
Speaker 1: and so I think voters are going to consider those issues.
Speaker 1: I think they'll consider my track record. I also think
Speaker 1: they'll consider what is the leadership ability of the different candidates,
Speaker 1: What is their ability to get things done on behalf
Speaker 1: of the American people, What kind of skills are most
Speaker 1: in need at a time of such fragility and our
Speaker 1: democracy and at a time when our economy is simply
Speaker 1: not working for so many people. And above all, I
Speaker 1: think the voters have a choice to decide who they
Speaker 1: think is the best person right now, and I'm making
Speaker 1: the case why what I offer is the most compelling.
Speaker 1: But I have great respect for my two colleagues are
Speaker 1: also running, and I want to do my best to
Speaker 1: be articulating the case for myself, not the case against anyone.
Speaker 1: And I think the case for myself is really one
Speaker 1: based on my leadership ability and the ability to get
Speaker 1: people gettings done for the people of California, to help
Speaker 1: attack the problem of homelessness and the unaffordability of housing,
Speaker 1: to create safe neighborhoods for people and their families, to
Speaker 1: support the public education, and to make sure that people
Speaker 1: can access healthcare of the very kind of bread and
Speaker 1: butter that people are looking to their elected officials to
Speaker 1: try to address. Thank you, thank you, thank you, great
Speaker 1: to be with you. Thanks for having me on. Congressman
Speaker 1: Chris Delusio represents Pennsylvania's seventeenth district. Welcome too Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Congressman Delusio, Molly, thanks for having me talk to me
Speaker 1: about how this train and derailment entered your life. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I represent Western Pennsylvania District. One of the counties represent
Speaker 1: is Beaver County, and my constituents, my neighbors in Beaver County,
Speaker 1: they border Ohio, they border East Palestine. People in Darlington
Speaker 1: Township there were within the evacuation zone. Lots of folks
Speaker 1: have been upended by Norfolk Southern's derailment. People evacuate out
Speaker 1: of their homes, a bunch of farms in that area,
Speaker 1: small businesses nearby impacted and worried about the economic costs
Speaker 1: for years to come. And so my team and I
Speaker 1: immediately started working on federal resources for folks on the
Speaker 1: one hand. But then the other side of this is
Speaker 1: rail safety legislation. To make sure that these railroads can't
Speaker 1: just dictate terms. They've got to have some safety rules
Speaker 1: and requirements coming out of the Congress, I think to
Speaker 1: really change what they're doing. And listening to the workers
Speaker 1: in this industry, you've been sounding the alarm. I think
Speaker 1: for a long time that the railroads have been squeezing
Speaker 1: them and everybody else, putting profit way above safety. In
Speaker 1: the communities I represent, who these tracks run right through
Speaker 1: our neighborhoods, like a lot of folks in this country. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think this is an incredible kind of moment here
Speaker 1: where we have seen the rail workers from long time.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you read any of the reporting you
Speaker 1: know to twenty eleven, twenty twelve, twenty thirteen, you know
Speaker 1: they're saying, you know, they're cutting corners, they're taking safety risks.
Speaker 1: If we're going to squarely look at how something like
Speaker 1: this happens, I mean, I want you to talk to
Speaker 1: us about it. Seems like you cannot trust these industries
Speaker 1: to regulate themselves. Absolutely not. And I think the rail
Speaker 1: industry is a good example. For years, they've been doing
Speaker 1: everything they can to squeeze every penny of profit out
Speaker 1: of their operations as they can. Precisions scheduled railroading PSR
Speaker 1: has been a doctrine. Wall Street loves it. Right. You
Speaker 1: lengthen the trains, you reduce the staffing, you reduce the inspections,
Speaker 1: You do everything you can to choose profits. And the
Speaker 1: people who pay for that are the workers and the
Speaker 1: communities like the ones I represent. When these trains run
Speaker 1: through our towns and our neighborhoods, and ultimately and eventually
Speaker 1: and unfortunately, the rail and you have what happens at
Speaker 1: East Palestine to my neighbors in Beaver County where there
Speaker 1: are toxic chemicals released. So this this idea that railroads
Speaker 1: or any other other industry, if left to their own devices,
Speaker 1: will just keep us safe. It's it's crap. I don't
Speaker 1: know where else we need to see you to know that.
Speaker 1: If we're thinking about the lack of railroad regulation and
Speaker 1: railroad accidents, imagine what's happening that we can't even see
Speaker 1: in technology. Yeah, again, you listen to the workers in
Speaker 1: this industry or others. I sat down with a union
Speaker 1: carman in my district. There's a rail yard the north
Speaker 1: from southern owners of my district that I was talking
Speaker 1: with him about you know, what do you see on
Speaker 1: the ground, what do you and your co workers experience?
Speaker 1: And he told a pretty basic story to me about
Speaker 1: how much time they have to inspect a car. Not
Speaker 1: that long ago, it was three minutes a car. Years
Speaker 1: before that, it was as long as something like five minutes.
Speaker 1: They have one minute to inspect each of these cars,
Speaker 1: and the reality is that's not enough time, and so
Speaker 1: they either do a half ass job or they do
Speaker 1: the best they can in a minute or they risk
Speaker 1: losing their job. And again that puts workers in the
Speaker 1: position of not being able to do their job well
Speaker 1: enough to protect us, and it puts all of us
Speaker 1: a risk. And it's the same thing over and over,
Speaker 1: certainly in this industry and with this railroad. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: I want you to explain the landscape. Is Norfolk Southern
Speaker 1: kind of the train company when it comes to hazardous materials?
Speaker 1: Are there others? What percentage of this situation did they
Speaker 1: kind of control? I don't think it's unique to them.
Speaker 1: And given some of the common carriage rules, you know,
Speaker 1: the railroads have to take the materials that come to
Speaker 1: that subject to whatever rules we've got. So it's not
Speaker 1: unique to Norfolk Southern, which means this and likely will
Speaker 1: happen in other places where it's not just that. But
Speaker 1: they're a big player in terms of tracks and their
Speaker 1: footprint in my neck of the woods, in my district.
Speaker 1: I mean, they own bridges, they've got lines, they've got
Speaker 1: a rail yard that runs through my district. So they're
Speaker 1: they're here in western Pennsylvania. And with the consolidation in
Speaker 1: this industry, which again a similar trend across a heck
Speaker 1: of a lot of industries, fewer and fewer of the
Speaker 1: big railroads to deal with, which means they have more
Speaker 1: and more power over all of us, over Washington, over
Speaker 1: their workers. Do you think that it makes sense full
Speaker 1: make buy backs? Stock buybacks harder for companies to be
Speaker 1: able to do, Like, it seems to me like a
Speaker 1: lot of what we're seeing with these consolidations and the
Speaker 1: you know, is there's a real incentive from these companies
Speaker 1: to do stock buybacks and a very little downside. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and look, this country used to treat stock buybacks as
Speaker 1: market manipulation. Right. Norfolk Southern's a good example. You know,
Speaker 1: in the last couple decades, you know, they've cut their
Speaker 1: workforce around a third, and at the same time they've
Speaker 1: pushed out to their shareholders buy backs and dividends forty
Speaker 1: five percent increase with that money, right, So these companies
Speaker 1: are investing and enriching themselves, and they're doing the expense
Speaker 1: of paying their workers and investing in safety. That's again
Speaker 1: not unique to this railroad. It's a problem, and it's
Speaker 1: a problem that isn't going to be changed by changing
Speaker 1: the hearts to make executives less greedy. Right, It's going
Speaker 1: to be changed by changing the rules in the laws.
Speaker 1: I got lesson for us, right, And that's what I
Speaker 1: wanted to ask you, was the stock buybacks are really
Speaker 1: a case of unregulated financial actions, right. I think so,
Speaker 1: And I think again, we don't. We don't fix this
Speaker 1: just by wishing it to change. We got to have
Speaker 1: concrete action in the Congress, rulemaking in the administration, and
Speaker 1: in concert with each other. Now we get to this
Speaker 1: very exciting bipartisan rail safety bill. Tell us about it. Yeah, look,
Speaker 1: I'm proud to be partnering up with a Republican Nick Loloda,
Speaker 1: fellow Navy guy from New York. We're introducing the Railway
Speaker 1: Safety Act. It's a House companion of the bipartisan Senate
Speaker 1: bill that my Senators Fetterman and Casey introduced with Jade
Speaker 1: Vance and Shared Brown. It shows there is biparts and interest,
Speaker 1: I think, and standing up to this industry and make
Speaker 1: it safer. There's a lot the bill does around safety requirements,
Speaker 1: staffing levels. I mean, look, the railroads have lobbied against
Speaker 1: a two person staffing requirement for these trains. It's crazy.
Speaker 1: It also adds stiffer penalties when they break the rules.
Speaker 1: I mean the penalties now are weak, and I think
Speaker 1: that's an important piece of it. So it does a lot.
Speaker 1: I think it's something we need because these types of
Speaker 1: derailments they're going to continue. I mean, they happen in
Speaker 1: the order of hundreds of them a year. And if
Speaker 1: you'd all change the industry, we'd all change the rules
Speaker 1: around how they operate. They are not going to do
Speaker 1: it themselves. And so I think it's important that we're
Speaker 1: able to do this in a buy partisan way because look,
Speaker 1: I said, in the House Representatives, where the Republicans are
Speaker 1: the majority, if you want to get rail safety reform,
Speaker 1: you got to get some Republicans on board. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: glad Nick's doing this with me. I think we can
Speaker 1: build this out and hopefully get it done. But Republicans,
Speaker 1: I mean, I just want to play Devil's advocate here
Speaker 1: for a second. Republicans, especially these New York Republicans who
Speaker 1: barely won and many of whom won because Democratic Party
Speaker 1: of New York fucked up. I mean, they have every reason. Again,
Speaker 1: we know Republicans doing again. I'm very partisan, so I
Speaker 1: can say this hate doing any kind of governing, but
Speaker 1: I just want to point out there's no incentive to
Speaker 1: let these railroads get away with it. No, And look,
Speaker 1: if you you know you represent an area where the
Speaker 1: tracks come through. If this happens in your district, or
Speaker 1: this hurts your people, you're going to feel that pressure.
Speaker 1: And you should because one of our basic jobs here
Speaker 1: is to make sure our government can keep people safe.
Speaker 1: You know, the tracks in East Palestine look like a
Speaker 1: heck of a lot like neighborhoods all over, certainly Western Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: In this country, they run right through people's backyards, they
Speaker 1: run right through town. Yea, this will happen in other
Speaker 1: places if we don't change this industry. It's going to happen,
Speaker 1: and I hope not be worse than this one was.
Speaker 1: And this was pretty bad. So I think you know
Speaker 1: that the incentives for any member, whatever your party are.
Speaker 1: You gotta do something here because this will continue if
Speaker 1: we don't change this industry and make them operate more
Speaker 1: safely and frankly, make them pay more when they screw up.
Speaker 1: So I just want to I want to ask you
Speaker 1: about how is it going over and East Palestine. Look, people,
Speaker 1: and I should be pretty clear about my constituents are
Speaker 1: just on the state line and Darlington Township right across
Speaker 1: from East Palestine. So I want to speak for the
Speaker 1: folks in Ohio, but what I hear from my constituents
Speaker 1: people are mad at the railroad. They are nervous and
Speaker 1: worried about their health, right, their air, their water, their soil.
Speaker 1: You've got a lot of farms in that part of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: Farmers are worried about crops or cattle or whatever the
Speaker 1: case may be, and whether, if whether one there's going
Speaker 1: to be an issue in terms of health and quality,
Speaker 1: or even if there isn't, whether people aren't going to
Speaker 1: want to buy their stuff because of the stigma. And
Speaker 1: that's a real concern, that's a real business impact for farmers,
Speaker 1: for small businesses all over this part of my state
Speaker 1: and certainly in Ohio. And you know, there's not an
Speaker 1: easy answer for how to make everyone whole. But the
Speaker 1: part that I do not stray from is that this
Speaker 1: railroad has to make everybody whole. And there are costs
Speaker 1: well beyond just the obvious ones of well, we had
Speaker 1: to evacuate and pay for a hotel bill. Well, you
Speaker 1: know you're going to have if there are issues around
Speaker 1: water testing, air testing for years to come if there
Speaker 1: are mitigation efforts that are going to take a long time,
Speaker 1: if you have business impacts in your farm or otherwise,
Speaker 1: those are not short term, easy costs. And I don't
Speaker 1: want any world where they're as a railroad like nor
Speaker 1: Frolk Southern it gets to do this and walk away
Speaker 1: and leave folks holding the bag. No way. Yeah that's right,
Speaker 1: and it's incredible. So what's the meat of the spill. Well,
Speaker 1: the meat of this bill is a bunch of things.
Speaker 1: You know, we require that two persons staffing, which is
Speaker 1: really important to know. Secretary boota judge is working at
Speaker 1: Department Transportation. Do that through rulemaking. I want us to
Speaker 1: codify it. You know, it gives the Secretary authority to
Speaker 1: change the requirements. And what is a hazardous material like
Speaker 1: vinyl chloride which wasn't considered EE hazard and thus not
Speaker 1: eye hazard. Flana will train where there are stricter rules
Speaker 1: around speed and breaking. This requires more advanced notification to
Speaker 1: local communities and states. And you've got something hazardus coming through.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are things in here to reduce the risk.
Speaker 1: And these wheel bearing failures, which seems like was was
Speaker 1: what caused the derailment and he's Palestine. Those detectors that
Speaker 1: didn't do their job, and they're more. There are more
Speaker 1: pieces of this, but the piece I want to hold
Speaker 1: in on too. The penalties for violations go up substantially
Speaker 1: under this legislation. You know, they were very weak in
Speaker 1: some cases go up tenfold if not more, depending on
Speaker 1: the size of the business here. So I think that
Speaker 1: has to be part of this, and beyond just you know,
Speaker 1: my bill, things like what the administration did where the
Speaker 1: EPA now has this order holding Norfolk Southern account for
Speaker 1: all the cleanup cost. That has to be part of
Speaker 1: what we're doing, and they're going to be. There's going
Speaker 1: to be and there is private litigation against the railroad,
Speaker 1: I'm sure. So there has to be a mix of
Speaker 1: not just a week and do in the Congress to
Speaker 1: change the industry, but executive action and private action to
Speaker 1: hold this railroad accountable. Yeah, and the environmental catastrophe here
Speaker 1: seems much larger than what is being sort of cop
Speaker 1: too right now. Well, I think that to me is
Speaker 1: why it's so important that we are doing all of
Speaker 1: the testing and things to understand the scope of the
Speaker 1: problem and what the heck we can do to mitigate
Speaker 1: it for my constituents and for their neighbors and East Palestine.
Speaker 1: You know, this cannot be the railroad cleans up gets
Speaker 1: the tracks going again and issues some you know, small
Speaker 1: checks to people like that's not adequate, right, And you know,
Speaker 1: you if there is contamination and if there are mitigation
Speaker 1: efforts that have to happen for years to come, well,
Speaker 1: you know that's going to affect people's property values for
Speaker 1: a long time. It's going to affect those small businesses
Speaker 1: and farms, and affect people's health for their lifetimes. Right.
Speaker 1: So we can't even begin to understand how we make
Speaker 1: folks whole until we understand exactly what the risks are
Speaker 1: for people. And you know that was why we pushed
Speaker 1: to have not just the EPA, but the CDC there
Speaker 1: to understand if there are things we're picking up. You know,
Speaker 1: folks have reported publicly about symptoms they felled the aftermath,
Speaker 1: so there are you know, there are real risks here.
Speaker 1: And you know, I don't want us to ever be
Speaker 1: whitewashing what's happened in the cleanup, because it's it's not
Speaker 1: over and we're in this for the long haul. Yeah.
Speaker 1: One of the things that We had Aaron Brockvitch on
Speaker 1: this podcast and she talked about animals dying. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: even that weekend. I mean, we saw in public reporting
Speaker 1: really quickly a lot of fish right in the waterways.
Speaker 1: Its palastine. And you know, I've talked with farmers out
Speaker 1: there who you know. I thought, the guy who's got cattle,
Speaker 1: he seemed he seemed fine with where his animals work.
Speaker 1: But I come back to, even if that's if there
Speaker 1: isn't anything wrong, you still risk that someone does want
Speaker 1: to buy your beef because coming from this area. But
Speaker 1: I also think you risk if the beef. I mean,
Speaker 1: we don't even know what the tail on the beef
Speaker 1: looks like. Right, they eat the dead fish. I mean
Speaker 1: they obviously don't eat the dead fish, but they drink
Speaker 1: the water, you know, I mean, they just could go anywhere. Right.
Speaker 1: To me, it gets back to there are a lot
Speaker 1: of questions we still have to answer, and that requires
Speaker 1: substantial investment for testing and resources for a long time.
Speaker 1: And that not just that we identify this stuff. Can
Speaker 1: we figure out how to mitigate and help people be
Speaker 1: made whole? And those to me, are not cost the
Speaker 1: public should be bearing. That's this railroad right exactly. I
Speaker 1: mean just incredible stuff. Do you have anything else you
Speaker 1: want to sort of talk about that's happening in your
Speaker 1: district that is will be just super illuminating for listeners
Speaker 1: of fast politics. I would love to And it's a
Speaker 1: little off topic from Real Safe. It's the biggest newspaper
Speaker 1: in my region, in my district, the Pittsburgh Post. Is
Speaker 1: that the workers they have been on strike for months.
Speaker 1: They have gone without pay raises for more than fifteen years,
Speaker 1: there without healthcare. There's been violence where some workers on
Speaker 1: the pick and line were sent to the hospital. It's
Speaker 1: a brutal fight. They've been really basically standing up for
Speaker 1: dignity on the job in a way that it's sad
Speaker 1: they got to be out in the pick of mine
Speaker 1: doing this, but here we are, and so I'm trying
Speaker 1: to always bring attention to their struggle and make sure
Speaker 1: folks are paying attention that this is probably happening in
Speaker 1: a local media landscape and lots of cities and towns
Speaker 1: around this country where you've seen big papers and big
Speaker 1: groups buy up small outlets and gut newsrooms and gun
Speaker 1: print operations and the rest and Phittsburgh Post Becausett's owners
Speaker 1: have been no different there. Yeah, really important local news
Speaker 1: is something very near and dear to my heart. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Congressman, thank you for joining us. Yeah, Molly,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me on. Molly Jung Fast Jesse Cannon.
Speaker 1: Trump slawyers were deceived by him. I don't get it.
Speaker 1: The sums out of character. ABC News had a big scoop.
Speaker 1: Special Council claims Trump deliberately misled his attorneys about classified documents.
Speaker 1: Can I just say I think that the beginning of
Speaker 1: the problem here is you are a Trump attorney, right,
Speaker 1: do you like getting paid? I mean you obviously don't
Speaker 1: because you are a Trump attorney, and also you like criming.
Speaker 1: So any way, again, this is one of these scoops
Speaker 1: where it's like, obviously, we're only learning a little bit
Speaker 1: of the story, right, because if that means that the
Speaker 1: idea here is that Howell, who's the judge in any
Speaker 1: sealed filing, ordered that Evan Corcoran, one of Trump's many attorneys,
Speaker 1: should comply with a grand jury subpoena for testimony on
Speaker 1: six separate lines of inquiry over which he had previously
Speaker 1: asserted attorney client privilege. So it sounds like Jack Smith
Speaker 1: has a number of possible veins that he could take
Speaker 1: here against Trump again. Trump responded in a very trumpy
Speaker 1: fashion with lots of all caps. Shame on fake news
Speaker 1: ABC for broadcasting Capitol illegal capital leaked false allegations from
Speaker 1: a never Trump now former chief judge. So we'll see
Speaker 1: how this plays out. Not the purple walk we were
Speaker 1: expecting on Tuesday, but certainly something makes our moment of fuckoray.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to your the best minds
Speaker 1: in politics makes sense of all this chaos. If you
Speaker 1: enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to a friend
Speaker 1: and keep the conversation going. And again, thanks for listening.