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 Matt Gates's newest aid self describes
Speaker 1: as a raging misogynist. We have a jaw dropping show today.
Speaker 1: Democratic Congressional whip Congresswoman Catherine Clark stops by to talk
Speaker 1: to us about the Democratic budget proposal and how it
Speaker 1: helps the American people. Then we'll have Republican Operative Carlton Huffman,
Speaker 1: who accused SEPAC chairman Match Lap of unwanted sexual advances.
Speaker 1: But first we have the host of NPR's Full Disclosure,
Speaker 1: Robin Farzad. Welcome to Fast Politics, Robin, thank you, Molly.
Speaker 1: Good to be back. So we got to start with
Speaker 1: the bank run. Talk us through Silicon Valley Bank. I
Speaker 1: did not become aware of this until my husband disappeared
Speaker 1: for three days. But explain to me what happened here?
Speaker 1: What makes this run different from all others? That's right?
Speaker 1: For this run, we sit reclining, we eat only bitter herbs. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so explain to us what happened was Silicon Valley Bank.
Speaker 1: This started on Thursday. Well, here we are a week ago.
Speaker 1: You know, concentrating on the world of the Fed, probably
Speaker 1: raising by another half a point. All eyes are inflation.
Speaker 1: The system is hail and hardy. Nobody's really worried about
Speaker 1: any bank runs. And here you have otherwise pretty successful
Speaker 1: regional bank out in Silicon Valley, out in California that
Speaker 1: has to do a capital raise because it has a
Speaker 1: bit of a hole in its balance sheet or it
Speaker 1: took on a paper loss. The hole was caused by
Speaker 1: what inbarstment. Look at it this way. You take on
Speaker 1: depositor money. Typically it's great, but in this case it
Speaker 1: was almost an embarrassment of riches. And everybody got complacent
Speaker 1: in this environment because that depositor money. In a zero
Speaker 1: yield environment, you have to reach out farther on the
Speaker 1: yield curve or take on more incremental interest rate risk
Speaker 1: to get any yield right. The way the bank makes
Speaker 1: money is it takes depositor money in this case pays
Speaker 1: nothing and hopefully wants to collect a couple of points
Speaker 1: over that. You could do that by loaning it out
Speaker 1: in net interest margin whatever it was. It has a
Speaker 1: very homogeneous client base. It went out because there was
Speaker 1: no yield to be having had in short term safer securities,
Speaker 1: and it bought longer term treasury and mortgage backed securities.
Speaker 1: And then the Fed does this whiplashing shift last year
Speaker 1: and hikes interest rates in one year more than it
Speaker 1: had I think since the early eighties. In a concentrated period.
Speaker 1: You go from zero interest rate policy to about four
Speaker 1: and a half percent, where we are right now on
Speaker 1: the brink of five. And these guys get caught unawares.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, well, they could have privately gone
Speaker 1: out and raised some money to plug the hole in
Speaker 1: their portfolio, because a paper loss is a paper loss, right,
Speaker 1: You're gonna have to sell those bonds. But the thing
Speaker 1: that happened at the same time was you had all
Speaker 1: these depositors, with the slowdown in Silicon Valley and everything
Speaker 1: in cash flow issues being different, drawing down on these accounts.
Speaker 1: So to make to pay out those depositors, they had
Speaker 1: to raise some money. Had that been done quietly as
Speaker 1: opposed to them coming out and fessing up to this.
Speaker 1: Add to that the social media aspect of it, yelling
Speaker 1: fire in a crowded movie theater and everybody on Twitter
Speaker 1: as an expert, and you have self important venture capitalists
Speaker 1: and private equities ours and hedges by the way, some
Speaker 1: of whom I have short positions, that's right, and who
Speaker 1: are trying to serve themselves on their shores. One minute
Speaker 1: you have the sixteenth largest bank in the United States.
Speaker 1: The next you have a client of the state and
Speaker 1: the second biggest bank failure in history. Now we don't
Speaker 1: have subprime stresses or anything else. No two crises look
Speaker 1: the same, like the SNL crisis or OH eight. But
Speaker 1: this was just getting pretty and getting foolish. I take
Speaker 1: the criticism that deregulation after the financial crisis was a
Speaker 1: big reason why this was allowed to happen. I want
Speaker 1: to get into this for a minute, because it is
Speaker 1: interesting that you have the train deregulation and you have
Speaker 1: four Norfolk Southern derailments this year, and then you have
Speaker 1: the deregulation of these regional banks and you have a collapse.
Speaker 1: So a lot of members of the right will say
Speaker 1: they don't I don't know if you know this, but
Speaker 1: they don't like regulations. They feel that it's anti capitalists
Speaker 1: and they're wrong. But I want to get into this
Speaker 1: with you for a second, which is they will say
Speaker 1: their favorite thing to say is well, regulation wouldn't have
Speaker 1: prevented this. Tell us why that's bullshit. And I'm still
Speaker 1: trying to read between the lines here. But deregulation, I
Speaker 1: mean after the pendulum always swings. Clearly, we were underregulated
Speaker 1: before the Great Financial Crisis and subprime and you had
Speaker 1: all these investment banks rolling subprime falafel in the interest
Speaker 1: of extending the American dream and country ide and blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah. But in the end, it was
Speaker 1: it was a big game, right, it was a diffusion
Speaker 1: of responsibility. We're passing that onto the taxpair. It was
Speaker 1: kind of a perfect crime, and very few or no
Speaker 1: one went to prison for it. Right in this case,
Speaker 1: you have no one really betting on anything. Nobody's speculating,
Speaker 1: but kind of stupid risk management or being pretty in
Speaker 1: a period of zero interest rates just makes people complacent
Speaker 1: and they do stupid things like a Minsky moment. A
Speaker 1: Minsky moment. Can you explain a Minsky moment for our listeners?
Speaker 1: As I understand it that even in a great economy,
Speaker 1: prettiness is going to sow the seeds of its own demise,
Speaker 1: that reckless speculation that in a bullish period you're gonna
Speaker 1: have people to kind of poke the bear. And I've
Speaker 1: mixed the million metaphors. But you saw Bear Sterns do that,
Speaker 1: You saw Lehman brothers do that. And so a sudden
Speaker 1: decline in in sentiment out of a period of quiet
Speaker 1: and zero interest rate policy and complacency causes everybody to
Speaker 1: shift the pendulum to oh, my gosh, the world is ending.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of arguably in hindsight, they might refer
Speaker 1: to this as a Minsky moment. I you know, I
Speaker 1: think about this, and yes, this was a very calm
Speaker 1: environment just a week ago, and you had a very
Speaker 1: routine thing. But interest rate hikes the weight the likes
Speaker 1: of which we saw last year are going to hurt people.
Speaker 1: It's going to hurt consumers, car dealerships, and it hurts
Speaker 1: the market, and it hurts confidence. In this case, you
Speaker 1: can't hike rates as much as you did without revealing
Speaker 1: which banks were out there kind of speculating. But it
Speaker 1: wasn't done in the interest of you know, I think
Speaker 1: raw avarice or anything or greed. It was kind of
Speaker 1: done in complacency and sloppiness. And shouldn't a bank that
Speaker 1: was sloppy be taken out and executed summarily like this,
Speaker 1: And that's a big question. Can Peter Tell be blamed
Speaker 1: for any of this? You know, the yelling fire in
Speaker 1: a crowded movie theater. It's one thing. If we're dealing
Speaker 1: in a world of press releases and fax machines and
Speaker 1: copper wire phones, it's another one. We're all experts on Twitter,
Speaker 1: and if you're a VC and you could barket your
Speaker 1: portfolio companies, get out of this situation, get out of
Speaker 1: this situation. You're effectively it's the self. You control the
Speaker 1: self fulfilling prophecy, you control the destiny, and you could
Speaker 1: look smart afterwards. Well, look, I told you it was
Speaker 1: going to fail, and it did fail because you pulled
Speaker 1: your money out right, so you can create a crisis
Speaker 1: and then look good. That's what bothers me is the
Speaker 1: asymmetry of it. It's still private profits and socialized risk.
Speaker 1: Because in the end, the FED did show its hand,
Speaker 1: the FDIC showed its hand, Treasury showed its hand and
Speaker 1: said we're going to make depositors whole, and this is
Speaker 1: just one example in the market. Meanwhile, goes out and
Speaker 1: shoots no shortage of regional banks and forces them to
Speaker 1: come out and say that we're hail and hearty and
Speaker 1: opens that opens them to that kind of that downward speculation.
Speaker 1: Say it again, the line I that you just said
Speaker 1: privatizes profits and socializes risk. Yeah, that was that was
Speaker 1: the knock in subprime private profits, socialized risk. All these
Speaker 1: bankers who made these securities and everything they profited, they
Speaker 1: didn't comback their profits. The risk was ultimately borne by
Speaker 1: the taxpayer. Now you have DC saying that the taxpayers
Speaker 1: not bearing these risks. But for yeah, after one hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars of whatever the FDIC account that's depleted and
Speaker 1: whatever levies that you charge on the industry, which by
Speaker 1: the way, they lobbied against. What about this FED window,
Speaker 1: this FED facility to buy um, you know, subpar securities
Speaker 1: off of banks. Who's paying for that? That's a being
Speaker 1: a question mark to me. I mean, it's a kind
Speaker 1: of an existential question. Is the FED just not Is
Speaker 1: it just its own entity, its own balance sheet? Does
Speaker 1: that not recourse to the taxpayer? All sorts of moral
Speaker 1: hazard has been kind of re revealed and rekindled by this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's my feeling too. I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about now the anxiety this weekend was that there was
Speaker 1: going to be contagion. Right, There was a lot of
Speaker 1: anxiety about contagion. So is the pandemic over the pandemic
Speaker 1: I mean COVID or the anxiety of contagion and the
Speaker 1: anxiety of contagion. The echo chamber is thing like it was.
Speaker 1: And they go back on YouTube and look at videos
Speaker 1: of the crash of eighty seven or the Savings a
Speaker 1: loan crisis. There. We weren't even tweeting this much, not
Speaker 1: nearly this much in two thousand and eight and two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine. You just have these prominent financiers and
Speaker 1: self made experts out there saying that I sent a
Speaker 1: problem with this or I heard this. That's not regulated.
Speaker 1: You are effectively allowed to yell fire in a crowded
Speaker 1: movie theater, and whatever the feds want to do, whatever
Speaker 1: bumpers they want to put up, whatever backstops, it's still
Speaker 1: up to the consumers to pull their money. Some atavistic
Speaker 1: tendency takes hold, like you're thinking, all right, it's my
Speaker 1: money cut the BS do. I have to get it out.
Speaker 1: As I've said before, when I have Iranian relatives call
Speaker 1: me and ask me about something, it's hit a certain
Speaker 1: trip wire, which it did. I had a cousin contact me,
Speaker 1: you know, five days ago, and say, should I be
Speaker 1: spreading money around several different accounts in Los Angeles? I
Speaker 1: was like, well, you're with Wells Fargo. You know. The
Speaker 1: asymmetry of this is Wells and City Group and Bank
Speaker 1: of American JP, Morgan Chase, some of the original sins
Speaker 1: of prime. They're too big to fail banks. They're going
Speaker 1: to become even bigger. Right. That's another worry that a
Speaker 1: lot of people have, is that the too big to
Speaker 1: fail banks are now going to get bigger. I want
Speaker 1: to ask you, was this caused by woke banking? I mean,
Speaker 1: I love this Republican talking point. The Silicon Valley Bank
Speaker 1: has the money of founders fund, Peter Teel, many Peter
Speaker 1: Teel portfolio companies. It is run by all white guys,
Speaker 1: and yet somehow this is all the fight of woke banking.
Speaker 1: Explain that's a canard in this case. I just don't.
Speaker 1: I don't buy any have that it was. Was there
Speaker 1: nosed the function of kind of woke board governorship, I
Speaker 1: mean corporate governance? I mean, you had you had strange
Speaker 1: people on that did anybody at any point say here,
Speaker 1: come prick my finger and show me how this thing works. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the risk controls were terrible in this case. And they
Speaker 1: teach you in finance one on one. But the thing
Speaker 1: about finances, and I saw Elizabeth Warren on TV, I
Speaker 1: think she was Rachel Maddow is there are people out
Speaker 1: in the world that think banking should be boring, and
Speaker 1: there are others that believe banking is a kind of
Speaker 1: a calling your lubricants to kind of capital formation, and
Speaker 1: you're doing good for society, making a market, and you
Speaker 1: should be able to make a killing at the same time.
Speaker 1: And they don't want it deregulated, just like the airlines
Speaker 1: don't want you telling them that you can't pack your
Speaker 1: jetliners and then refuse somebody their seat because you have
Speaker 1: load capacity numbers and you have this tried and true
Speaker 1: formula of paying a person for getting bumped. They don't
Speaker 1: want that. They want to avail themselves of complete flexibility,
Speaker 1: complete pricing power, and that to the banks. They've had
Speaker 1: it here. They've had zero interest rates for the longest
Speaker 1: time you could be in hog Heaven. I think JP
Speaker 1: Morgan in twenty twenty one had more than a forty
Speaker 1: billion dollar net profit. What's not to love. You're getting
Speaker 1: money for nothing, in the words of Dire Straits, and
Speaker 1: yet one of the most successful banks in the country
Speaker 1: managed to turn that into a catastrophe. I mean, what's
Speaker 1: wrong here? Yeah, no, I know. So now we got
Speaker 1: these in place numbers today. I'm sure you saw all
Speaker 1: those different alerts where some are saying this was good
Speaker 1: news and some are saying it's bad news. Inflation is
Speaker 1: going down, it's just taking longer than anyone hoped. And
Speaker 1: you know what, this is stale news at this point
Speaker 1: because what just happened this week is certainly psychologically a
Speaker 1: deflationary shock. But the market's trying to force the ft
Speaker 1: at the very least say we're done hiking, and in
Speaker 1: fact the worm is turned soon we're going to be
Speaker 1: cutting rates because this is, unfortunately the codependency that's been
Speaker 1: set up this century. We've had so many years of
Speaker 1: emergency low interest rate policy that people have come to
Speaker 1: expect it, and if you don't do it, it's like crying.
Speaker 1: I'm crying uncle. Look, the market's crying uncle. The banks
Speaker 1: are failing. It's bloodshed out there, and that forces the
Speaker 1: Fed's hand. I need you to talk through this for
Speaker 1: a minute. I know what you're talking about, but I
Speaker 1: need you to go slower on this. What happened with
Speaker 1: the failure of Silicon Valley will ultimately have a deflationary effect.
Speaker 1: Can you explain that? Yeah, people perceiving that there was
Speaker 1: a shock just Silicon Valley and isolation that for a
Speaker 1: good twenty four hours. There were many portfolio companies and
Speaker 1: many vcs are like, WHOA, our slowdown right now is
Speaker 1: a downright crisis because there are firms that are going
Speaker 1: to fail if they can't get their cash out. I
Speaker 1: have no idea. Tell me more. BuzzFeed, Fox, Roku companies
Speaker 1: worried about making payroll. Perhaps company is worried about making Yes, Yes,
Speaker 1: I have the vcs we know and love. Perhaps spent
Speaker 1: the whole weekend screaming about how we had to yes,
Speaker 1: and some to their credits said, will be a backstop,
Speaker 1: will be a bridge loan to these companies to make payroll.
Speaker 1: But what they wanted all along was for that above
Speaker 1: two hundred and fifty thousand dollars insurance thing, that taboo
Speaker 1: to be shattered, and they effectively got that. But they
Speaker 1: had to tweet a lot about it. First, they had
Speaker 1: to tweet a lot about it and wax wax, kind
Speaker 1: of martyr about this. We're dying to the cause. I now,
Speaker 1: poor bunnies. But look at everybody else. Look at first
Speaker 1: Republic had to go through a hell, Charles Schwab, all
Speaker 1: these other things. And meanwhile everyone around the country is
Speaker 1: calling everyone else and saying, should I move my money
Speaker 1: to JP, Morgan Chase or a Well or one of
Speaker 1: these things that is already the designated is a too
Speaker 1: big to fail bank, And that's just going to worsen
Speaker 1: the outlook. If you're expecting to get money on your
Speaker 1: deposit to compensate for inflation and everything. The big banks
Speaker 1: don't want to do you a favor. The small banks
Speaker 1: are there to hold your hand and get through payroll
Speaker 1: and everything. Right now, they're just scrambling into telegraph to
Speaker 1: the market that we're okay and that that kind of
Speaker 1: talk is cheap. And I wonder why the FED doesn't
Speaker 1: have a kind of a good housekeeping seal or a
Speaker 1: real time you know, like even in New York, you
Speaker 1: eat at a dumpy sushi restaurant and you can see
Speaker 1: that it says BC on the outside and you're taking
Speaker 1: your life into your own hands. You can't you know,
Speaker 1: you can't with the bank because many are are not
Speaker 1: susceptible to these stress tests. I don't get it. I
Speaker 1: know that a lot of people I know and love
Speaker 1: are mad at Elizabeth's Warren. But this is a regulatory failure.
Speaker 1: I think it is because they're not being regular related
Speaker 1: the way the larger banks are. Federal banks have a
Speaker 1: different regulatory standard and which they lobbied for. All of
Speaker 1: these guys flew under the radars somehow. That do you
Speaker 1: tell me how that a majority of their deposits were uninsured,
Speaker 1: i e. Over the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: FDIC protection limit and the FED or no mechanism came
Speaker 1: in and said, you need to husband a ton of
Speaker 1: this cash in the event that something happens. Suppose I
Speaker 1: don't know. Suppose it's an awful earthquake, the big one,
Speaker 1: the nineteen oh six one that hits the Bay area again,
Speaker 1: they're going to see runs on everything. You're going to
Speaker 1: see a regional depression. Why wasn't anybody there simply for
Speaker 1: that pH test. That's what's stocking to me. And I
Speaker 1: can see why Elizabeth Warren and Sheila Bear and the
Speaker 1: like are kind of apoplectic about this. Yeah, and I
Speaker 1: do think like, ultimately, you cannot trust these companies to
Speaker 1: regulate themselves, which means and I want to just have
Speaker 1: two more seconds on this. If we have banks doing
Speaker 1: shit like this, and we have trained companies doing shit
Speaker 1: like this, imagine what tech companies are doing. But here's
Speaker 1: a problem. Here's where I don't have faith the many
Speaker 1: octogenarians in the Senate, in the House. You're gonna have
Speaker 1: to present this on a CD ROM to them like
Speaker 1: they're gonna be fighting the last battle. Look how long,
Speaker 1: Look how long it took them to kind of you know,
Speaker 1: Sarbanes Oxley and all the subprime deeds that were kind
Speaker 1: of the crimes of two thousand and three to two
Speaker 1: thousand and seven. And now we've already we already kind
Speaker 1: of took care of this after subprime we regulated the banks.
Speaker 1: They were all saying, this is deeply unfair. You get
Speaker 1: a president who comes in whose deeply deregulation, as Ronald
Speaker 1: Reagan was in his first term, and you kind of
Speaker 1: undo things like this. It could have been somewhere else.
Speaker 1: You could have seen bodies buried elsewhere. Nobody really expected
Speaker 1: this to emanate from Silicon Valley, which is one of
Speaker 1: the foremost think about its Silicon Valley Bank, Molly. I
Speaker 1: had a doorman when I lived in New York from Tanzania, right,
Speaker 1: and I remember during the financial crisis, he called me cousin,
Speaker 1: and back and forth, I'd call him cousin. He comes
Speaker 1: from the cradle of civilization. I would that if you
Speaker 1: do a cheek swab test, we're probably distant cousins. He
Speaker 1: was a day trader, and he would day trade on
Speaker 1: the side, and he always talked to me about apple
Speaker 1: options and everything. And at some point in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, two thousand and nine, I think Bank of
Speaker 1: America stock was in the low single digits, and he
Speaker 1: turns to me as I'm going to work or going
Speaker 1: to catch the bus outside, and he goes, cousin, do
Speaker 1: you really think the Central Bank, the Federal Reserve will
Speaker 1: let Bank of America fail? Think about it, cousin. And
Speaker 1: so similarly Silicon Valley Bank. I mean, that's so iconic.
Speaker 1: Would you let the Bank of New York film? We
Speaker 1: danced with it with Lehman Brothers, and it was catastrophic
Speaker 1: over a weekend. And that's where speculators have everybody else
Speaker 1: kind of over a barrel. And that's that's still rankles,
Speaker 1: you know. So the fan won't raise rates now because
Speaker 1: they're too free down. I just don't know how they
Speaker 1: come out and do this. You can't have a special
Speaker 1: rate that's for let's say real estate which is too hot,
Speaker 1: or fomo hospitality spending which is too hot, but the
Speaker 1: banks pay another rate. You're having the banks effectively send
Speaker 1: distress signals to the Federal Reserve. They might at worst
Speaker 1: kind of put them on a hold. And let's see
Speaker 1: to what extent the system can kind of the panic
Speaker 1: can heal itself through the summer. But this is a
Speaker 1: treacherous time. That's why no one has ever no one
Speaker 1: has ever remembered a period where the Fed is hiked
Speaker 1: this much without causing a deep recession. Right, And the
Speaker 1: thing is we have now because of this bank run.
Speaker 1: This should cool the economy. I feel it's deflationary. Like
Speaker 1: what I said about those firms, is all of them
Speaker 1: if they're suddenly trigger shy, if you were going to
Speaker 1: go get another round of venture that's already been slow,
Speaker 1: everybody else is thinking about signing off on an investment
Speaker 1: or something, but more worried over the last you know,
Speaker 1: seventy two hours about cash management and getting their money back.
Speaker 1: It's about return of your capital, not return on your capital,
Speaker 1: and that's always chilling, you know. Yeah, so interesting, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. This was great my pleasure. Mount Congresswoman
Speaker 1: Catherine Clark is the Democratic whip and represents Massachusetts fifth
Speaker 1: Congressional district. Welcome to Fast Politics, Congresswoman Clark, Oh, I
Speaker 1: am so pleased to be here with Yumali. Well, we're
Speaker 1: delighted to have you. I think we should start with
Speaker 1: the budget. This is like such an interesting and I
Speaker 1: think kind of brilliant development. The Biden administration offered up
Speaker 1: a budget. The Republicans are now coming back with the budget.
Speaker 1: The House Republicans. This may actually be someone playing three
Speaker 1: dimensional chas you know, a budgets. There always a reflection
Speaker 1: of our values and what we see. And President Biden
Speaker 1: is that he sees us, he sees women, he sees families,
Speaker 1: he sees communities, and that is reflected in what he's proposing,
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's childcare, the reinstating the child tax credit,
Speaker 1: paid leave addressing maternal health, having people of high wealth
Speaker 1: and large corporate rations pay their fair share so we
Speaker 1: can invest in climate rescue and invest in in our
Speaker 1: families in this country. That's what his budget is doing.
Speaker 1: And what we are seeing from the Republicans is not
Speaker 1: much of anything. They are refusing to put forward a plan,
Speaker 1: and they're trying to distract us from what they already
Speaker 1: said they would do, which is roll back the inflation
Speaker 1: rejection at roll back the cost savings we've already put
Speaker 1: in place, and double down on their anti healthcare, anti abortion,
Speaker 1: cuts to social security and medicare agenda. So let's talk
Speaker 1: about abortion, because those of us who cover abortion and
Speaker 1: those of us who watch our rights being taken away
Speaker 1: from us. You know, there is a case in Texas,
Speaker 1: Texas the place where all women's civil rights go to
Speaker 1: die with the pills right now, and there's a judge
Speaker 1: who may end up making it impossible for women to
Speaker 1: get these pills, which are used also in miscarriage management.
Speaker 1: You have been very public on your miscarriage. Talk to
Speaker 1: us about what it's like to watch our rights being
Speaker 1: taken away and what you think Democrats in the House
Speaker 1: can do. It is terrifying to watch what is happening
Speaker 1: to watch this judge out of Texas. That really is
Speaker 1: one of the worst cases of form shopping to get
Speaker 1: these cases in front of this particular judge. And you know,
Speaker 1: we will see what this opinion ends up being, but
Speaker 1: we are anticipating that this judge is very willing to
Speaker 1: substitute his personal beliefs and opinions or an FDA approval
Speaker 1: process and meditation that has been safely used for decades.
Speaker 1: And that should be frightening to any American, no matter
Speaker 1: what your views on abortion are, because that is such
Speaker 1: a government intrusion and putting one person's belief systems over
Speaker 1: science over healthcare for so many And I recently went
Speaker 1: to Texas and met with providers and navigators and advocates,
Speaker 1: and it was one of the most chilling visits in
Speaker 1: conversations that I have had, just to see what women
Speaker 1: are struggling with to get basic healthcare and being told
Speaker 1: when they had a situation that is very common one
Speaker 1: that I lived through where you have a miscarriage but
Speaker 1: it is partial and you need to have abortion care
Speaker 1: to prevent infection. These women are being told to go
Speaker 1: home and wait till infection sets, so they spiked a
Speaker 1: fever and the tails of sepsis, of women losing limbs
Speaker 1: because of sepsis because they could not get the care
Speaker 1: they needed. This should not be America in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: but it very much is, and it is terrifying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I mean and it's also I mean, I think
Speaker 1: a really important data point here is its minority rule. Right,
Speaker 1: American people are largely pro choice. This is a really
Speaker 1: a safe and I would actually, I'm hoping you could
Speaker 1: talk just for a minute about the FDA approval process
Speaker 1: that these drugs go through, because they actually go through
Speaker 1: a higher standard of FDA approval than normal drugs, that's right,
Speaker 1: And it is a rigorous process, and you know with
Speaker 1: abortion medication, it is one that took place in decades ago.
Speaker 1: So not only do we have a very top approval
Speaker 1: process for these drugs, but we have decades of use
Speaker 1: where we know they are safe and affectives and what
Speaker 1: we are seeing your point about the American people understand
Speaker 1: what is at stake here, but this is a fundamental
Speaker 1: freedom and that if local politicians are going to come
Speaker 1: into your life and tell you if and when to
Speaker 1: have children, regardless of your family situation, your doctor's advice,
Speaker 1: your particular faith. That is an intrusion into fundamental liberty
Speaker 1: and it is an economic issue. And so I think
Speaker 1: it's why we saw that when abortion bands were on
Speaker 1: the ballot in Kansas and Montana, in kntuct that they
Speaker 1: were defeated because people understand and the American people are
Speaker 1: for access to healthcare and the GOP is way at
Speaker 1: a step with where we are, but in certain states,
Speaker 1: in fourteen states, this has taken the holes. And the
Speaker 1: danger of this potential decision out of Texas is that
Speaker 1: it really is a step towards a national band. That
Speaker 1: is really hard to comprehend how we are in this
Speaker 1: situation and how we need to stay together to fight
Speaker 1: back with everything that we have. I mean, I agree,
Speaker 1: and it's completely almost shocking. So I want to ask
Speaker 1: you this weekend, it was a pretty rough weekend for
Speaker 1: those of us in the tech sector and all tech
Speaker 1: adjacent with the Silicon Valley bank situation. Can you talk
Speaker 1: me through just a little bit of how was the
Speaker 1: decision to backstop that and how and the things the
Speaker 1: government is doing now to make sure that this doesn't
Speaker 1: that there isn't more contagient. The weekend was definitely spent
Speaker 1: on the phone with people who were impacted. And in
Speaker 1: my communities, right you have a lot of tech in
Speaker 1: Boston too. We have a lot of tech in biotech.
Speaker 1: Fifty to sixty percent bank with Silicon Valley Bank because
Speaker 1: they are quite established in this area. And I also
Speaker 1: heard from childcare centers that also bank there because they
Speaker 1: took over a Boston bank a few years ago. And
Speaker 1: so it was everything from small businesses too large that
Speaker 1: were very concerned they weren't going to be able to
Speaker 1: make payroll. And as we are on the cusp of
Speaker 1: implementing all the climate protection policies and programs and construction
Speaker 1: that we were able to put in the inflation reduction,
Speaker 1: that this threat to the tech sector was really brought home,
Speaker 1: and this threat to small businesses in my communities and
Speaker 1: around the country. So our priorities were very clear. We
Speaker 1: had to protect those businesses, investors, stockholders, they could ride
Speaker 1: this out, but we needed to make sure that people
Speaker 1: who for no fault of their own, were caught up
Speaker 1: in this. And we're looking at payroll not being met
Speaker 1: and all the ripple effects of that furlough notices and
Speaker 1: layoff notices being sent out because companies had to get
Speaker 1: rid of their payroll that they were afraid they weren't
Speaker 1: going to be able to access. So I commend the
Speaker 1: administration and Treasury in the FDIC for prioritizing those businesses
Speaker 1: and making sure that when these banks opened on Monday,
Speaker 1: that that was there, that depositors knew they could get
Speaker 1: a hundred percent of their money back, and that was
Speaker 1: our number one priority in making sure that their needs
Speaker 1: were met and that at this still challenging post pandemic
Speaker 1: part of our economy, that we were not going to
Speaker 1: see widespread layoffs and failure to make payroll around the country.
Speaker 1: Is this a regulatory failure? It could be. I think
Speaker 1: we have to look at where we are at some
Speaker 1: of the regulatory rollbacks from the Trump administration. Our number
Speaker 1: one priority was making sure people could access their money
Speaker 1: and make sure that these businesses, large and small, we're
Speaker 1: not going to be forced to shut down. And we
Speaker 1: wanted to make sure this did not become systemic with
Speaker 1: regional banks around the country and that we stopped the
Speaker 1: run on these banks. But we have to look into
Speaker 1: the full investigation of what happened here, and hold those
Speaker 1: bankers responsible for what they did, and also look to
Speaker 1: our regulatory schemes and how we can further strength and
Speaker 1: our banking system to make sure that they are operating
Speaker 1: with stability and not taking too big a risk with
Speaker 1: depositors Funday, yeah, exactly. Republicans have this very small margin,
Speaker 1: but they still do have the House. How worried are
Speaker 1: you about this debt ceiling crisis? It's not a crisis yet,
Speaker 1: right theoretically. I mean, this whole crisis is one that
Speaker 1: they had made up to further take a blow at
Speaker 1: families in this country. It is a manufactured crisis, and
Speaker 1: we only have to look back to the Trump administration
Speaker 1: where one quarter of all the debts, all the deficit
Speaker 1: in our country was brought on us by the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: which is really one of the few areas of overachievement
Speaker 1: of that particular administration that they could do that or
Speaker 1: sort here. I shouldn't laugh, because we all suffered. But yes,
Speaker 1: and then you know, then what we saw during those
Speaker 1: four years were the GOP coming without any reservation to
Speaker 1: raise the debt ceiling because they understand that that is
Speaker 1: debt that they have already accrued, and that is what
Speaker 1: we need to do. I mean, if we think this
Speaker 1: banking situation was a crisis, I can't even imagine what
Speaker 1: is going to happen if Republicans allow our economy and
Speaker 1: the global economy to go over the cliffs. And what
Speaker 1: they have said consistently until very recently is this is
Speaker 1: the way that they can cut Social Security and Medicare.
Speaker 1: And now the times to you know, cover that off
Speaker 1: and backtracked on that. But it's out there. It's what
Speaker 1: they wrote down, it's what they said on video on television,
Speaker 1: and they don't have a plan. They want to say,
Speaker 1: you know, the president needs to come and negotiate with us,
Speaker 1: all right, put your terms out there, but they don't
Speaker 1: want to show their cards because they understand that it
Speaker 1: will be totally rigged against the American family and that
Speaker 1: they are very clear who they work for. The first
Speaker 1: build they put on the floor in their new majority
Speaker 1: could have been about a million things that American people
Speaker 1: care about, what's lowering the cost of healthcare, creating good jobs,
Speaker 1: paper communities. But instead they protected high wealth tax chiefs.
Speaker 1: That was their first of all, and their second and
Speaker 1: third were about further anti abortion measures. So that's what
Speaker 1: they are, and how they come out of this get
Speaker 1: feeling crisis that they have manufactured is going to be
Speaker 1: up to them. But we are here with the President's
Speaker 1: budget that reflects the values of creating an autonomy that
Speaker 1: works for everyone, and we're ready to negotiate with them
Speaker 1: on all of this. But their focus isn't on the
Speaker 1: American people. It's with power. It is with consolidating their
Speaker 1: own power, and it's rewarding the very wealthy. And we
Speaker 1: just can't let them make the winner circle in this
Speaker 1: country so small. And we're going to continue to push
Speaker 1: for all all those pieces of the budget and our
Speaker 1: autonomy that work for families, because that's how we regain
Speaker 1: our economic strength and grow for the future. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's such a small majority, and you know, I mean
Speaker 1: it's four or five seeds and Santos. The fact that
Speaker 1: he's still even in there as kind of mind blowing.
Speaker 1: I mean, do you think there's a world in which
Speaker 1: Democrats are able to do I mean, if you just
Speaker 1: look at the math, some of these candidates have one
Speaker 1: in these very swingy districts. I mean a lot of
Speaker 1: them won in New York. I mean do you think
Speaker 1: there's a world where you could lull one or two?
Speaker 1: You know, you really only need to lull like three
Speaker 1: or four right over. I think that we have the
Speaker 1: ability to work around like, let's say, the death feeling
Speaker 1: that there are Republicans who understand how devastating taking our
Speaker 1: economy into a deep recession. I don't think we really
Speaker 1: even understand what would happen if we jeopardize our economy
Speaker 1: in this way. So I think we're going to continue
Speaker 1: to reach out and look for those partners. But we
Speaker 1: are so focused on they have a five person majority
Speaker 1: and we need to win the House in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: And I can tell you that Democrats are optimistic. We
Speaker 1: are energized, and we are fueled by meeting the needs
Speaker 1: of the American people, putting people over politics, and we're
Speaker 1: going to continue our work of loring costs, creating great,
Speaker 1: paining jobs, and safer communities. That's where our focus will remain,
Speaker 1: and the American people are with that agenda. It's why
Speaker 1: we were able to defy political gravity in twenty two,
Speaker 1: and it's why we're going to win in twenty four.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you, thank you. Congresswoman Clark Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Molly. So good to be with you. Carlton
Speaker 1: Huffman is a Republican operative. Welcome to you Fast Politics, Carlton.
Speaker 1: Definitely a pleasure to be on the show, even if
Speaker 1: I regret the circumstances. First of all, how did you
Speaker 1: meet matchlap I just happened to be working on the
Speaker 1: Hershel Walker for US Senate campaign as a regional director
Speaker 1: for the Atlanta metro region, and he was coming to
Speaker 1: Georgia for an event in Perry on October the nineteen
Speaker 1: and needed a ride back to the Hilton Garden End
Speaker 1: that day, and that was the first time I'd ever
Speaker 1: met him. Explained to me a little bit about whatever
Speaker 1: you feel comfortable telling. Man. It started out as a
Speaker 1: normal day. We were coming back from Perry, where I
Speaker 1: had picked him up, and we drove back to his
Speaker 1: hotel in Atlanta that day, and it was an interesting conversation.
Speaker 1: He talked about Disney firing him for his comments about
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter, spoke very fawningly about Kerry Lake, and
Speaker 1: managed to sneak in some compliments to Victor Orbond throughout
Speaker 1: that nation. While processing all of that got him back
Speaker 1: to the hotel. Thought that that was the end of it,
Speaker 1: and thought that would be the last guy I'd ever
Speaker 1: see of him. And then I found out that he
Speaker 1: had technically invited himself to a rally the next day
Speaker 1: that was going to be in Macon, Georgia. And then
Speaker 1: I received a text from him that afternoon invited me
Speaker 1: to come out to drinks at the Capitol Grille and
Speaker 1: Buck and seemed to be a normal livitation. I had
Speaker 1: been around a lot of Principles before and surrogates and
Speaker 1: had been invited to dine or have a beer with
Speaker 1: multiple ones, and thought that this was going to be
Speaker 1: just like one of those, when it ended up going
Speaker 1: quite the opposite direction. When did you realize that this
Speaker 1: is not what you thought it was? I would say
Speaker 1: at the Capitol Grill whenever he had finished dining with
Speaker 1: a donor, he came out from that dinner and then
Speaker 1: joined me at the bar, and at that point seemed
Speaker 1: to make the conversation entirely about personal things and tried
Speaker 1: to focus the conversation on me as opposed to keeping
Speaker 1: it at a professional level, and made the point multiple
Speaker 1: times that he was sorry that the bar was dead,
Speaker 1: and seemed to want to go to a livelier place.
Speaker 1: And then that's whenever I suggested Manuel's Haven there close
Speaker 1: to midtown Atlanta, and we went down there, and definitely,
Speaker 1: within a few moments of sitting down at Manuel's cavern,
Speaker 1: it took a turn from the weird to the very uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: Can you say a little more about that. So it's
Speaker 1: a bar stool set up, and so we're sitting next
Speaker 1: to each other on the bar stools, and I've been
Speaker 1: with friends to that place, and I never got as
Speaker 1: close to them as he got to me too, literally
Speaker 1: to the point that he had full thigh on thigh
Speaker 1: contact and it was sustained contact, and I tried to
Speaker 1: move away from him. I tried to make it subtle
Speaker 1: so it didn't seem too obvious and make the situation awkward.
Speaker 1: And that's whenever he turned into me very closely. And
Speaker 1: that's whenever he bumped into it. Being Georgia a constitutional
Speaker 1: carry state, so I was carrying my firearm with me
Speaker 1: and he bumped into it and he asked what it was,
Speaker 1: and I said, it's my sixth hour and he goes,
Speaker 1: what's a sixth hour. I'm like, it's my firearm. And
Speaker 1: then mister defended the Second Amendment goes, well, I grew
Speaker 1: up in Kansas, so I don't know that much about guns,
Speaker 1: and but that was how little close that he was
Speaker 1: to me. And I was like starting to get very
Speaker 1: uncomfortable at that point, and so I intently turned away
Speaker 1: and was focused on the baseball game that was only
Speaker 1: at the time. And then he said to me, in
Speaker 1: a tone that I will never forget for the rest
Speaker 1: of my life, do you have a problem looking at me? Yeah.
Speaker 1: I turned and made just very brief eye contact with
Speaker 1: him and just tried to alk, really say, well, we're
Speaker 1: just two dudes having a drink watching sports. But just
Speaker 1: the look in his eye I could tell that it
Speaker 1: was not an innocent look. And I was very quickly
Speaker 1: at that point wanting to get out of that bar,
Speaker 1: get him back to his hotel, and be done with
Speaker 1: that night. And then you still had to drive him
Speaker 1: other places, right, I had to drive him back to
Speaker 1: his hotel, which was a Hilt Garden in in College Park.
Speaker 1: And that's when the most agregious grouping went on. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So literally after we af you turn off of Highland Avenue,
Speaker 1: you turn onto the John Lewis Freedom Parkway, and before
Speaker 1: you get on the interstates and you see the entire
Speaker 1: Atlanta skyline spread in front of you. And it was
Speaker 1: right at that point. I mean, there's about a fifteen
Speaker 1: twenty minute drive, and but then just a few minutes
Speaker 1: of that drive starting, he put his hand on my
Speaker 1: leg and left it there for pretty much the duration
Speaker 1: of the drive back to the parking lot of the hotel.
Speaker 1: So were you completely surprised by this or had did
Speaker 1: you have some hint that this was not totally unusual
Speaker 1: behavior for him. Subsequent to this happening and talking to
Speaker 1: more people that are in his orbit, became aware that
Speaker 1: he did have a certain inclination. But before that I
Speaker 1: had no clue whatsoever. I definitely would not have accepted
Speaker 1: an invitation to go out that evening. And also, you know,
Speaker 1: you should be free to go wherever you want without
Speaker 1: being harassed. I mean, you know, even if you knew that,
Speaker 1: he still doesn't have a right to do it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: for me, it's a kind of a weird thing too
Speaker 1: that in my head I would have probably if he
Speaker 1: had kept it to what happened at the bar, I
Speaker 1: probably would not have said anything. I would have just
Speaker 1: chalked it up to the fact that the man's been drinking.
Speaker 1: He had at least eight Tito's and bob Ga and
Speaker 1: water Jesus at evening. So I would have chalked about
Speaker 1: to say, okay, the man was drinking and forgot himself,
Speaker 1: and I would have left it alone. But the that,
Speaker 1: but after his hand was on my leg, just as
Speaker 1: we were getting back to the Hilton Garden inn is
Speaker 1: whenever he reached over and groped me for at least
Speaker 1: five seconds. Then he texted you after that. He actually
Speaker 1: called me too, he asked after he had groped me,
Speaker 1: and I was just since dounn silence up to the entrance.
Speaker 1: He asked if I wanted to come up with him,
Speaker 1: and I declined, both out of just number one, just
Speaker 1: shock at what had just happened, and also just wanting
Speaker 1: to I mean, I've been wanting to get away throughout
Speaker 1: most of that evening, but now I definitely wanted to
Speaker 1: get as far away from him as possible. And shortly
Speaker 1: after I left, he called, and I just was eager
Speaker 1: to just get the conversation over with, and so I
Speaker 1: just told him like, yeah, this is the plan for
Speaker 1: tomorrow morning, and at what time do we need to
Speaker 1: be ready, and I immediately began texting and calling several
Speaker 1: close friends and folks that I've been talking to throughout
Speaker 1: that day and began to let them know immediately what
Speaker 1: had happened. And by the time I got to the
Speaker 1: place I was staying at in Atlanta, just broke down.
Speaker 1: Tell me about your decision to come forward. The very
Speaker 1: next morning, I just knew that I had to tell
Speaker 1: the campaign because I was not going to be alone
Speaker 1: in a car with him to me, and if I
Speaker 1: had gone through with it, I'd have been alone again
Speaker 1: in a car with him for hours that day, and
Speaker 1: I just was not going to do it. And so
Speaker 1: the Walker campaign. Whatever else folks may say about that campaign,
Speaker 1: the folks that handled the situation handled it perfectly. They
Speaker 1: believed me, They took every action that could to protect me,
Speaker 1: and I cannot say enough great things about those individuals
Speaker 1: on the campaign. It's good, I will say. As far
Speaker 1: as publicly coming forward, I just knew that I could
Speaker 1: not let him get the opportunity to do this to
Speaker 1: anybody else without the world knowing the kind of man
Speaker 1: that he is. He came forward to the people in
Speaker 1: the campaign. But when did you decide to really come
Speaker 1: out with the allegation. I knew that in the campaign
Speaker 1: I wanted to keep off the radar. Obviously, the October
Speaker 1: was not the kindest month to the Heart Correction campaign. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean, and it felt like I mean, I am
Speaker 1: a hartisan Republican. I wanted us to win that race,
Speaker 1: so I did not want to serve as a distraction.
Speaker 1: But I knew if he had attempted to disrupt my
Speaker 1: professional well being at that time, I would have said something.
Speaker 1: But I definitely knew that as soon as the campaign
Speaker 1: was over at the right time, I was going to
Speaker 1: say something to be sure that whether he's held to
Speaker 1: account by a judicial standard or not, that the world
Speaker 1: is at least going to know the kind of man
Speaker 1: that he is. Yeah, and when that happened, what was
Speaker 1: it like? I mean, like a lot of people will
Speaker 1: have experiences like this, don't want to come forward because
Speaker 1: they're worried about what happens once you come out. So
Speaker 1: tell us a little bit about what happened when you
Speaker 1: came out. I would say for every person who has
Speaker 1: had trepidation about coming forward, I mean, I can definitely
Speaker 1: speak to that experience firsthand that it is rough. I
Speaker 1: will say that I have had the blessing of people
Speaker 1: believing me, But at the same time, the opposition has
Speaker 1: been very vociferous, if not just downright ruthless in terms
Speaker 1: willing to go through every bit of my past, and
Speaker 1: I will admit that I do not have a perfect past.
Speaker 1: It's a past that I've turned away from in many regards.
Speaker 1: But still at the same time, it comes out in
Speaker 1: this context, it's going to be used against you. And
Speaker 1: I've suffered as a result of this because Tom Tillis
Speaker 1: said you were a very good campaign aid. Like I said,
Speaker 1: I cannot send up nice things about Senator Tillis personally
Speaker 1: and politically. Like I said, he's a good man. And
Speaker 1: I've had a lot of other folks too behind the
Speaker 1: scenes that have been willing to give words of support
Speaker 1: and encouragements, and not just words, but have taken actions
Speaker 1: as well. So I consider today that dedicated my professional
Speaker 1: life to the advancing conservatism and advancing the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: This episode has definitely disrupted that and will likely do
Speaker 1: so indefinitely, But I still consider it worthwhile if it
Speaker 1: means that not one more person has to go through
Speaker 1: what I went through at the handsome match lap because
Speaker 1: the behavior that he exhibited that night, it was not
Speaker 1: behavior that you would say as a one off kind
Speaker 1: of episode just because that they were drinking. Do you
Speaker 1: feel like there were people who turned away from you
Speaker 1: because your allegations were about their guy? I would say that,
Speaker 1: I mean the majority of people, at least that I
Speaker 1: know firsthand. I mean, I have not had anybody in
Speaker 1: my personal or professional life turn against me because of
Speaker 1: the allegations. I know that some people have had to
Speaker 1: distance themselves from me because of the APO jumps that
Speaker 1: the other side has done on me, and I definitely
Speaker 1: understand their reasoning for it, because I've never wanted to
Speaker 1: be a cause of damage to anybody that I've worked
Speaker 1: for or worked with. I want to like talk through
Speaker 1: the timetable of this. So you come out as an
Speaker 1: anonymous source, yes, but people behind the scenes know who
Speaker 1: you are, but not publically. And then at some point
Speaker 1: you are forced could come out publicly. Can you explain
Speaker 1: what happened there? Well, you had several folks that were
Speaker 1: associated with the slaps that went ahead and put my
Speaker 1: name out there. Right, that's a very trumpy thing, right,
Speaker 1: And without getting into the who and their background, but
Speaker 1: they went ahead and put my name out there, and
Speaker 1: it was shortly thereafter that someone who was associated with
Speaker 1: some Shenanigans during the twenty twenty campaign that I worked
Speaker 1: with was the one who put together the APO that
Speaker 1: was sent to the North Carolina Legislature that calls me
Speaker 1: to resign my position. The OPO contained views that I
Speaker 1: had once expressed that I had long walked away from.
Speaker 1: But at the same time I acknowledged the ugliness of
Speaker 1: them and regret them and definitely don't just apologize for
Speaker 1: offense that they caused anybody else, But I mean they
Speaker 1: are an offense to me that I ever helped them.
Speaker 1: But I can sit here and say that I turned
Speaker 1: away from them, not just in words but indeeds. The
Speaker 1: fact that I expressed Coro Confederate views and nationalist views
Speaker 1: gave way to a place in my life where in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, I attended a Black Lives Matter rally in
Speaker 1: support of the memory of George Floyd and a mod
Speaker 1: Rbory and definitely have made a point of standing up
Speaker 1: and saying that black lives matter to the point that
Speaker 1: it cost me several conservative friends, because I felt it
Speaker 1: was the right thing to do so the ugliness that
Speaker 1: I once held in my heart back in the late
Speaker 1: two thousand oughts and then the early two tens gave
Speaker 1: way to a very different person by the time two
Speaker 1: twenty had come around. But at the same time, when
Speaker 1: it comes to politics, people are going to dig, and
Speaker 1: I unfortunately gave them some opo to use and they
Speaker 1: used it. So this lawsuit made it so you had
Speaker 1: to come out. You revealed yourself to the Washington Post. Yes,
Speaker 1: and that was a pretty big deal. What happened then, Well,
Speaker 1: the other side definitely, I mean definitely come out at
Speaker 1: trying to dig and try to put out other stuff
Speaker 1: as well. I will say, as far as the issue
Speaker 1: of Raleigh that was reported, can you talk to us
Speaker 1: about the nineteen year old woman Without getting too much
Speaker 1: into detail about it, I will just simply say it
Speaker 1: was a party that took place from the night of
Speaker 1: February the fourteenth and to the night or to the
Speaker 1: morning of February fifteenth. With that incident, it was investigated
Speaker 1: by the Raleigh Police Department. It took both their testimony
Speaker 1: and my testimony, and I will just simply refer back
Speaker 1: to what the Raleigh Police detectives who investigated the case
Speaker 1: said to me, a crime did not occur here. The
Speaker 1: case is closed. And so if I was in any
Speaker 1: way guilty of any or at least had given enough
Speaker 1: calls for any kind of behavior, I would not be
Speaker 1: standing here just as a plaintiff. I would be sitting
Speaker 1: here in a very opposite way in terms of the
Speaker 1: criminal justice system. Right, but this woman was granted a
Speaker 1: protective ordiner who was Can you just is strapolate on
Speaker 1: that for a minute? Is that sort of standard? This
Speaker 1: is my first time dealing with the situation like this,
Speaker 1: so a right, I mean beyond just the fact that
Speaker 1: I'm confused by the situation, by the simple fact that
Speaker 1: the Roley Police Department investigated it and found no calls
Speaker 1: for charge. So why after the fact that protective order
Speaker 1: was sold and granted. I can only testify that that's
Speaker 1: the decision of the judge in that case. Right explained
Speaker 1: us where you are now, You're out there, people know
Speaker 1: who you are. You are. I mean, what is the
Speaker 1: next step here in your case against match Lab? We
Speaker 1: go forward with my name on the case that we
Speaker 1: are going to go forward and we'll see, I mean,
Speaker 1: what the timeline is on that one. It is something
Speaker 1: that could stretch well into later this year or into
Speaker 1: next year. But at the same time, I know the
Speaker 1: truth about what happened on occover of the nineteenth, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, and Matt knows it too, and we're going
Speaker 1: to do I mean, as far as myself, I'm going
Speaker 1: forward on this case and the truth will be bore out.
Speaker 1: Have you heard from anyone else? I would say privately, quietly,
Speaker 1: I have heard from some folks, but nothing, nothing with
Speaker 1: any specificity. So that's sort of interesting. Do you think
Speaker 1: that there'll be other people coming forward? I can only speculate.
Speaker 1: I can definitely say if people witness what is happening
Speaker 1: to me, I can understand any trepidation about coming forward
Speaker 1: about stuff like this, whether it's in regards to the
Speaker 1: specific individual or others. But for me, I feel that
Speaker 1: the victory has already been one in the sense we'll
Speaker 1: be able to protect themselves against anything that Matt Slat
Speaker 1: will do, whether it's behavior that is tied with alcohol
Speaker 1: or it is who he is periods. But I can
Speaker 1: just sit here and say that I am satisfied that
Speaker 1: people will be able to protect themselves in regards to him,
Speaker 1: and that's a victory in another itself at the end
Speaker 1: of the day and makes whatever I'm going through worthwhile. Carlton,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us and talking through this.
Speaker 1: I know that there's a lot of not the funnest
Speaker 1: use of twenty minutes for you, So I really appreciate
Speaker 1: you joining us. I appreciate to you give me the
Speaker 1: time and your coverage of this. Molly junk Fast, Jesse Cannon.
Speaker 1: So my moment of fuckery today is about an industry
Speaker 1: that is near and dear to my heart because my
Speaker 1: beloved husband is a venture capitalist. It's about venture capital.
Speaker 1: Over this weekend, the sixteenth largest bank in America, Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley Bank, had a run on It was unable to
Speaker 1: raise the capital it needed and was seized by the
Speaker 1: federal government. And over the weekend a lot of Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley people were pretty freaked out. And in the end,
Speaker 1: the federal governments stepped in on Sunday and did the
Speaker 1: right thing and shored up the bank and was able
Speaker 1: to prevent a bank run, which was very good. Now again,
Speaker 1: is it good. It's good that there wasn't a bank run.
Speaker 1: Is it complicated, Yes, it's complicated. Our venture capitalists now
Speaker 1: congratulating themselves mercilessly. Yes, you guys, the government helped you
Speaker 1: shut the fuck up. And I say this as someone
Speaker 1: who loves many venture capitalists. It looks very bad when
Speaker 1: you take a victory lap when you've had help from
Speaker 1: the federal government, especially because a lot of you are
Speaker 1: not big fans of the federal government. And for that
Speaker 1: it is my moment of fuckery. I feel like all
Speaker 1: these people thought they were John Gulf before the weekend
Speaker 1: and then really have changed over to really loving that
Speaker 1: government subsidy. I would say they and rant and found
Speaker 1: out that's really good. That's it for this episode of
Speaker 1: Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday and Friday to
Speaker 1: your the best minds in politics makes sense of all
Speaker 1: this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send
Speaker 1: it to a friend and keep the conversation going. And again,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening.