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 White House has deleted the
Speaker 1: COVID resource website and replaced it with a lab Leak
Speaker 1: promotion page, which makes Fox News look like the New Yorker.
Speaker 1: We have such a great show for you today. MSNBC's
Speaker 1: own Ellie Vitelli stops by to talk about democratic politics.
Speaker 1: Then we'll talk to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel about
Speaker 1: how democratic ags are fighting back against the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: But first the news.
Speaker 2: So May yesterday, it was quite shocking to see Senator
Speaker 2: Chris van Holland from the great state of Maryland go
Speaker 2: down to El Salvador and meet with Kilmar Abrigo Garcia.
Speaker 1: So all people want, all they want is for their
Speaker 1: electeds to stand up and fight for them. And what's
Speaker 1: really cool is that Maryland Senator Chris van Holland did that.
Speaker 1: He got on a plane, he flew down to El Salvador,
Speaker 1: he met with the Vice president. The vice president told
Speaker 1: him no, and then he sort of fought with him,
Speaker 1: and then he got to sit down and make sure
Speaker 1: that Garcia was okay, And look, here's the thing. You
Speaker 1: don't have to like Garcia. You don't have to believe
Speaker 1: in him. You don't have to believe that he's a
Speaker 1: good guy. You don't have to believe in any of that.
Speaker 1: You just have to believe that he is entitled to
Speaker 1: do process, just like the Supreme Court, the wildly leftist
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, who said nine zero that Garcia is entitled
Speaker 1: to do process, that even though you know, he's not
Speaker 1: a United States citizen, he's still entitled to due process.
Speaker 1: And by the way, that's like what our democracy has
Speaker 1: founded on. Good for him. I think Republicans see what
Speaker 1: a loser this issue is for Trump. By the way,
Speaker 1: the fact that they're like, you know, they said they
Speaker 1: were going to deport like one hundred million people. Ten
Speaker 1: million people right there, barely can deport as many people
Speaker 1: as Biden did, so that which is sort of popular.
Speaker 1: Deporting people. I don't know why it's popular, because I
Speaker 1: think it's gross. And by the way, we need those
Speaker 1: people to work because we have a very tight labor market.
Speaker 1: But even that is not popular. It is popular. Trump
Speaker 1: world can't figure out how to do it because they're
Speaker 1: super incomfident Trump World thinks they're going to win on
Speaker 1: Van Holland going down to meet with this guy to
Speaker 1: make sure he's okay. And you know what, they're wrong.
Speaker 1: People hate this. People don't like you know, they don't
Speaker 1: like America sending whoever to El Salvadoran prisons. This is
Speaker 1: a loser for them, and they think the optics of
Speaker 1: it make them look good. They're wrong. I think they're
Speaker 1: really wrong on this, and I'm glad they're wrong on
Speaker 1: this because it's horrifying.
Speaker 2: I think one of the funniest things is that, you know,
Speaker 2: for years we were told, you know, nine thousand dollars
Speaker 2: hammers in the government could easily find all these things
Speaker 2: to cut. You could easily find all these immigrants. And
Speaker 2: I don't even doubt that that's true, but they say
Speaker 2: it can't seem to do it.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: And also it's why we don't put a ton of
Speaker 1: people at GIMO. It's really expensive, Like it's cheaper to
Speaker 1: put them in private prisons in America. I mean, like
Speaker 1: the reason they're doing this is because they think that
Speaker 1: it's like good for the brand or whatever. But like
Speaker 1: you're flying people, tell Salvador, you're putting them in Seacott.
Speaker 1: You're being built by the El Salvadorian government. I mean
Speaker 1: it's just very expensive. It's also just crazy and stupid
Speaker 1: and a huge I mean waste of money, waste of time,
Speaker 1: waste of everything. Just to sort of like make a
Speaker 1: point that they think will be good. On Fox News
Speaker 1: sixty Minutes report, they write, the administration hates sixty minutes
Speaker 1: because Donald Trump like lives in nineteen ninety seven, so
Speaker 1: he's like obsessed with sixty. I also sixty, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: like there are nine people watching sixty minutes, of one
Speaker 1: of them is Donald Trump. I mean that's not true.
Speaker 1: A lot of people watch sixty minutes, but ultimately all
Speaker 1: traditional media is in decline. A sixty Minutes report found
Speaker 1: most of the two hundred and thirty at Venezuelan and
Speaker 1: sent to Seacott on several planes last month and no
Speaker 1: apparent criminal record. So you're sending people to jail who
Speaker 1: may not have even done crimes, some of whom were
Speaker 1: protected by the federal government until Donald Trump became president.
Speaker 1: So I don't know how you square this circle. Stration
Speaker 1: has defended its use of the law arguing gang violence,
Speaker 1: because why wouldn't they.
Speaker 2: So Bally in reaction to Trump defying the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: and thinking that just because they ship people to Salvador,
Speaker 2: they don't have to listen to our courts. We've started
Speaker 2: to see some calls for impeachment and.
Speaker 1: Fucking impeach the guy. I mean, come on, he's you know,
Speaker 1: he's ignoring the Supreme Court, he's ignoring the courts. We
Speaker 1: are like beyond constitutional crisis. Now. Look, you know, the
Speaker 1: Republicans in Congress have been unbelievably cowardly and craven. And
Speaker 1: in fact, one of the things so we saw this
Speaker 1: week was Lisa Murkowski saying what all of us knew
Speaker 1: but we hadn't heard any Republicans say, which is the
Speaker 1: Republicans are scared. And I think that was really important
Speaker 1: because that's how we got here, is these people, Republicans Democrats,
Speaker 1: all scared of Trump, scared of the administration, scared of
Speaker 1: the mean phone calls, the mean tweets. So they're just
Speaker 1: rolling over and I'm glad to see Democrats doing this.
Speaker 1: By the way, public polling is with the Democrats. People
Speaker 1: don't like this. This is We've been a democracy for
Speaker 1: a long time, and people don't Autocracy is actually just
Speaker 1: not that popular, and it's happening so quickly, and that
Speaker 1: is also a big problem. So we got Boseberg saying again,
Speaker 1: I just want to point out one last thing. In
Speaker 1: order to impeach Trump, you need to have the House.
Speaker 1: Democrats don't have the House yet. There is the three
Speaker 1: vote majority of Republicans have. There are some Democrats who
Speaker 1: are old and sick. There are two who died. Their
Speaker 1: seats are not being allowed to be filled because they're
Speaker 1: in red states, and the red state governors are doing
Speaker 1: things that are pretty craven on lawless. Now that said
Speaker 1: pretty sure, Kathy Hogel did the same thing, you know,
Speaker 1: made sure that that other seat wasn't filled either. So
Speaker 1: we're really sort of in an impass here. And until
Speaker 1: Democrats win the House, I think it's going to be
Speaker 1: hard to impeach Trump. But they should try, like they
Speaker 1: should put pressure. And by the way, keep calling your representatives,
Speaker 1: call your congressman, call your senators, Blue states, red states,
Speaker 1: remind them that you don't like any of those.
Speaker 2: So my David Hogg, previous guest of this podcast, was
Speaker 2: elected vice chair of the DNC and he has really
Speaker 2: pissed off the establishment dons here yeh.
Speaker 1: Yes, actually such an interesting story. So David from David
Speaker 1: from David Hogg, not to be confused with David from
Speaker 1: We Love You. David from David Hogg is a vice
Speaker 1: chair of the Democratic National Committe, got this job this year.
Speaker 1: They're a couple of vice chairs. It was pretty contentious,
Speaker 1: these plans to spend twenty million dollars to primary older
Speaker 1: Democratic incumbents. This is something that a lot of us
Speaker 1: think is probably the right thing. We have people in leadership,
Speaker 1: and not just in leadership, just you know, we have
Speaker 1: people in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party too, but
Speaker 1: you know, there's nothing we can do there who are
Speaker 1: in their eighties or some of them are in their
Speaker 1: high seventies, and they rank for another six year term
Speaker 1: which will get them somewhere in their eighties. It is
Speaker 1: probably the moment, especially right now, when so much is
Speaker 1: on the table, and like what I just said about
Speaker 1: these two Democrats who died in office, it really is
Speaker 1: a sense that is the right time for this. That
Speaker 1: said Democrats are passed. So since they were pissed, and
Speaker 1: since they're so brave, they all spoke anonymously, because why
Speaker 1: wouldn't they a smear campaign against me to destroy my
Speaker 1: Repi Tach and forced me to stop doing this. They're
Speaker 1: just not happy. Axios did not receive a response. So
Speaker 1: leaders we deserve is this group. There's some infighting here
Speaker 1: and a lot of good Anonymous angry octagenarians complaining about
Speaker 1: David probably a good sign for.
Speaker 2: David my In more disturbing news, Trump has revamped Schedule Left,
Speaker 2: making it easier to cut federal workers, which we knew
Speaker 2: was going to happen because we've read Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we read it. We did a video series on it,
Speaker 1: and then Americans just decided to go for them anyway
Speaker 1: because they like the sneakers and the NFTs. So Schedule
Speaker 1: app will make it easier to cut federal workers. We
Speaker 1: knew this was coming. The idea here is stripping civil
Speaker 1: protections from about fifty thousand people, two percent of the
Speaker 1: federal workforce. This will make it easier to fire people.
Speaker 1: A nonpartisan role is traditionally that you know, they're not political,
Speaker 1: but Trump wants to replace them with loyalists. Of course,
Speaker 1: this is what he wants to do because remember Trump
Speaker 1: felt that he was not able to enact his craziest
Speaker 1: stuff because he felt the deep state was against him.
Speaker 1: So now he'll be able to cut people who are
Speaker 1: working on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Some of them will
Speaker 1: be working on whatever the coding or the you know,
Speaker 1: things that are not partisan one way or the other.
Speaker 1: But he'll replace them with people where he can fire
Speaker 1: them or do whatever he wants. And it's going to
Speaker 1: be totally It's just exactly what we knew was coming,
Speaker 1: and it's very annoying and also super upset. Ali is
Speaker 1: an NBC News correspondent and the author of Electable, Why
Speaker 1: America hasn't put a woman in the White House yet.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Fast Politics, Ali.
Speaker 4: Vitally real to be back, Molly John Fass.
Speaker 1: You and I are in the salt mines mining the content.
Speaker 1: Can we just talk about the Congress and what the
Speaker 1: fuck they're doing right now? Because like, we have a
Speaker 1: wrongly deported guy. We have Senator Chris van Holland he's
Speaker 1: wrongly deported. The Supreme Court said nine to zero, you
Speaker 1: have to bring him back. Okay, we don't know anything
Speaker 1: except you have to bring him back. Right, It's pretty
Speaker 1: big deal.
Speaker 4: Despite the White House wanting to will fully misread that decision,
Speaker 4: in part the Supreme Court gave them some loopholes, right right.
Speaker 1: No, No, it's a Supreme court. They suck. I mean,
Speaker 1: you don't have to say they suck. I'll say they
Speaker 1: suck because I'm on the opinion side. But they were like,
Speaker 1: you need to bring him back. Okay, So Chris van
Speaker 1: Holland goes to see him, make sure he's not dead
Speaker 1: because he's been in elcot So there's a real chance,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, it's not impossible. This is not
Speaker 1: a prison known for it's you know, it's not known
Speaker 1: for the.
Speaker 4: Spa luffy pillows.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so explain to me what Congress is doing. They're out,
Speaker 1: they're out for two weeks.
Speaker 4: Ago, they're out for two weeks. But recess is just
Speaker 4: another it's it's a different now to lose. There's two
Speaker 4: pieces of this that I think are really important. There's
Speaker 4: the way that Senator Van Holland is going to check
Speaker 4: on his constituent, which I've seen competing ideas on whether
Speaker 4: or not this was a good idea about idea like
Speaker 4: the basis clamoring for fight nothing, he says, fight, but
Speaker 4: getting on a plane going to El Salvador and being
Speaker 4: like knock knock, I'm here, let me see my guy.
Speaker 4: The other pieces of this is the way that it's
Speaker 4: percolating among voters, and I think that there is a
Speaker 4: nuance to this that is intant. Right, Like, I spend
Speaker 4: a lot of time in Iowa because I'm sick and
Speaker 4: I love campaigns, and so every three years I spend
Speaker 4: of Iowa exactly in Des Moines. I love this place.
Speaker 4: As a New Yorker, those are words I never thought
Speaker 4: I would say.
Speaker 1: But you live in DC, so the bar is pretty low.
Speaker 1: Go on, yes, that's true.
Speaker 4: The veteran senior Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is hearing from
Speaker 4: his elderly more older constituents. You see it in that video.
Speaker 4: Why can't you bring this guy back? It's not the
Speaker 4: job of commerce. Okay, that's true. There's no like congressional
Speaker 4: right to bring back a deported person. And that's fine.
Speaker 4: It's not an impoundment, which they do have rights on, right.
Speaker 1: Right, right, I mean, god forbid, though didn't want to
Speaker 1: use them, but yes, didn't want to make trumpt.
Speaker 3: Correct, right.
Speaker 4: But the fact that you're being asked about it there
Speaker 4: in Iowa, in a red state, really struck me as notable,
Speaker 4: and I think that the White House was struck by
Speaker 4: that too, Maybe not the Iowa specifically of it, but
Speaker 4: broadly because we've forged to go on offense this week,
Speaker 4: showing the work that we've all been asking them to show,
Speaker 4: why do you debort this guy in the first place,
Speaker 4: and then also trying to shift the narrative not to
Speaker 4: the central question here of due process, the constitution, and
Speaker 4: how we do legal justice in this country, but instead
Speaker 4: shifting it to unrelated though tragic conflicts and tragedies between migrants,
Speaker 4: undocumented migrants, and American citizens. In this case, they're pointing
Speaker 4: to a Maryland case with Rachel Morin, but they're trying
Speaker 4: to shift the narrative, and I think that it's a
Speaker 4: sign from them that they're not going to back down.
Speaker 4: They want to have this fight, but they needed to
Speaker 4: do more, and we watched them change this week.
Speaker 1: I think one of the big problems we saw with
Speaker 1: the trade stuff was that it's very hard for an
Speaker 1: administration that is makes George W. Bush look like Lincoln.
Speaker 1: A good example of trade wars. You can't have a
Speaker 1: trade war with China when you're also having a trade
Speaker 1: war with everyone else.
Speaker 4: Discuss well, I've been covering Trump for a really long time, right.
Speaker 4: I started covering him during the twenty fifteen campaign. I
Speaker 4: think I got their two week's post escalator, and every
Speaker 4: single time you were eleven, I was eleven years old,
Speaker 4: very eager to get started, right exactly. But every time
Speaker 4: from that moment all the way through now, when he
Speaker 4: finds himself in hot water on anything, he pivots hard
Speaker 4: back into immigration. And that is why I think you're
Speaker 4: right to tie tariffs and the way that polling shows
Speaker 4: he's losing steam on confidence from Americans in his economic
Speaker 4: handling to pivot back to something where the polling actually
Speaker 4: shows that this is probably where the bulk of his
Speaker 4: power lies, not just with MAGA, because I think that's
Speaker 4: more integrated with cultural issues and everything else, including immigration,
Speaker 4: but with Independence and others who voted for him in
Speaker 4: twenty twenty four. Immigration is where they feel like they
Speaker 4: can really flex their muscle and maybe distract from the
Speaker 4: tariff news, which is hard for even Republicans on Capitol
Speaker 4: Hill to stomach, who seem to have a bottomless amount
Speaker 4: of goodwill towards the president, or at least fear of
Speaker 4: stepping out of line from him, so I think you're
Speaker 4: right to tie those.
Speaker 1: We had Lisa Murkowski yesterday. I say people are scared
Speaker 1: to speak at against him, something we had known. But
Speaker 1: to have Lisa Murkowski say it, and even not to
Speaker 1: have Susan Collins say it, who is up for reelection
Speaker 1: in twenty six, I think is meaningful. You tell me
Speaker 1: why you think it's meaningful.
Speaker 4: The dynamics are different between Alaska and Maine, but we
Speaker 4: talk about both of these women a lot because they
Speaker 4: are the consistent Republicans that are willing to stand up
Speaker 4: and say, actually I disagree, which should not be notable.
Speaker 4: But is I think two fold right. The fact that
Speaker 4: Murkowski is willing to just say politically in my party
Speaker 4: right now, I am afraid in a safety sense. Not
Speaker 4: afraid politically, though that's swirling too. I'm afraid in a
Speaker 4: safety sense for what it might look like to speak
Speaker 4: out against the president who I have policy disagreements with.
Speaker 4: I think that is just such a stunning commentary on
Speaker 4: where our politics are right now. And I always check
Speaker 4: in with the Capitol Police on where the numbers are.
Speaker 4: Threat levels towards members of Congress have only been rising
Speaker 4: since the start of the first Trump administration, and I
Speaker 4: think Murkowski saying that is really an important sign post
Speaker 4: to us that it's not just political disagreement anymore. There
Speaker 4: are really tangible, scary threats attached to this for lawmakers
Speaker 4: and their family. Tom Tillis is another one. His office
Speaker 4: has sent to us examples of the kinds of calls
Speaker 4: and threats that he and his office are getting. He's
Speaker 4: someone who's even just toyed with stepping out of line
Speaker 4: with the administration, and he's in and on year. He's
Speaker 4: a twenty twenty six guy. It's scary. It's a scary
Speaker 4: commentary on our politics.
Speaker 1: So let's talk for a minute about what the landscape
Speaker 1: looks like here. I talked to Anne Applebaum yesterday. Anne
Speaker 1: Applebaum said, there is nothing more important than this next election.
Speaker 1: The democracy literally hinges on this next election in twenty six.
Speaker 1: So Democrats need to win back the House. That is
Speaker 1: pretty likely. I think, talk me through why you think
Speaker 1: it might not be likely.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I mean I covered ceaselessly the prior to years of
Speaker 4: a Republican controlled Congress, and it was absolute dysfunctional cast.
Speaker 4: And when I say dysfunctional, I mean it was not
Speaker 4: functioning for like literally weeks because they ousted their own speaker,
Speaker 4: and all the Democrats to do is stand back and watch.
Speaker 4: And I remember the conversations I had the sources then saying,
Speaker 4: if you don't flip the House in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't know what we're doing here, and
Speaker 4: obviously you know they didn't. And you can make a
Speaker 4: redistricting argument for that, losing three seats in North Carolina.
Speaker 4: The three seat margin is what you've got right now. Fine,
Speaker 4: I hear that as an argument, but no one really
Speaker 4: cares when you're arguing technicalities. They just care about what
Speaker 4: the actual circumstances. And you have a Republican majority now, however,
Speaker 4: thin it is.
Speaker 1: Right, So okay, So Democrats need to win the House,
Speaker 1: and then the senatemap is really hard. So I mean,
Speaker 1: the House is hard, but the setamap is really fucking hard.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about this Senate map. In twenty six
Speaker 1: we have Maine, tell mey, Maine, North Carolina, we have
Speaker 1: maybe Nebraska, we have New Hampshire which is already blue.
Speaker 1: For Democrats to do this, they have to run the
Speaker 1: fucking tables.
Speaker 4: Yes, And I also think I brought up New Hampshire
Speaker 4: and I brought up Georgia, which are currently blue, but
Speaker 4: they are also in cycle. And I think those are
Speaker 4: actually going to be stories of candidate recruitment on the
Speaker 4: Republican side, because perhaps the strongest person who could have
Speaker 4: flipped the New Hampshire seat would have been the former
Speaker 4: governor Chris Nunu, and he said no, thank you, even
Speaker 4: after trump pit said I would back him, which was
Speaker 4: definitely a brush off of Tim Scott at the NRSC. Also,
Speaker 4: if they don't get Brian Kemp to run in Georgia,
Speaker 4: that's also going to be a really tough slog for Republicans,
Speaker 4: but those were their two seats for expansion. Then you
Speaker 4: start getting into places like Maine and Nebraska. Nebraska, the
Speaker 4: guy is running as an independent. It's the same guy
Speaker 4: who challenged deb Fisher, and so yeah, like.
Speaker 1: I fucking rules, So I mean he is amazing.
Speaker 4: We'll see, right, and then we're starting to see the
Speaker 4: field take shape up in Maine at this early point.
Speaker 4: But Democrats threw tens of millions of dollars at that
Speaker 4: race the last time that Susan Collins was up with
Speaker 4: Sarah Gideon, and it didn't ultimately work out. I mean,
Speaker 4: the thing that people have to remember is it's really
Speaker 4: hard to take on incumbents, and there is such a
Speaker 4: muscle memory for voters who might not see it as
Speaker 4: partisan ly and that could be in this world here.
Speaker 1: There are other seats that seem less likely, but for example,
Speaker 1: if you were to have share a Brown run in Ohio,
Speaker 1: that could work.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, I am also someone I've covered all of
Speaker 4: Shared Brown's re elections, and I think that he was
Speaker 4: the tough recipient this cycle of how much sway Trump has,
Speaker 4: but he regularly outperforms Democrats in the Obama years. This
Speaker 4: was true, So there's a potential there, especially that there's
Speaker 4: no presidential when he would go back up in cycle.
Speaker 4: He is a singular figure I think in democratic Ohio politics.
Speaker 4: That's really fascinating. Tim Ryan, I think, is also similarly
Speaker 4: situated and would be interesting there, but has seemingly resisted
Speaker 4: those calls, at least for now. I think he's got
Speaker 4: his eye on something else that he's also run for
Speaker 4: in the past.
Speaker 3: Potentially president president.
Speaker 1: Tim Ryan is going to run for president.
Speaker 3: I don't know that.
Speaker 4: I'm just looking at the landscape and I think that
Speaker 4: anyone who saw a fertile ground in twenty twenty and thought, sure,
Speaker 4: let me join the pack. That's the Seth Multon's, the
Speaker 4: Eric Swalwells, the Tim Ryans. Right, there is way more
Speaker 4: of a case to be made for running on the
Speaker 4: twenty twenty eight fertile soil of there is literally no
Speaker 4: leader of this party right now. I couldn't tell you
Speaker 4: who the front runner would be, Like why wouldn't you
Speaker 4: make a second go of it, especially now that your
Speaker 4: national profile in your donor base is that much bigger.
Speaker 4: But I mean, I don't capital ka know that. But
Speaker 4: if I'm musing and putting together the loose list of
Speaker 4: presidentials that I always put together, like, yeah, he'd be
Speaker 4: on it.
Speaker 1: Somebody has me this at breakfast today. Who is the
Speaker 1: leader of the Democratic part It's like the worst thing
Speaker 1: ever When people ask you that at a cocktail party,
Speaker 1: You're like, fuck you, I.
Speaker 4: Need to go to a different party. That's the question
Speaker 4: of the cocco.
Speaker 1: So who is the leader of the Democratic perkat.
Speaker 4: Oh, there's like the technical answer that I actually give
Speaker 4: at cocktail parties, which is like you've got Senator Schumer
Speaker 4: and you've got leader Jeffreys, and those are your two
Speaker 4: Democratic leaders.
Speaker 1: That gets people really mad, right, I know it does.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And I ask this actually to every Democratic elected
Speaker 4: that I interview, and all of them sort of pivot
Speaker 4: to that answer too. But I think that the more
Speaker 4: honest answer and the less technical one is like there
Speaker 4: is not one, and like that's just the reality of
Speaker 4: the situation. I think that it leaves governors, though, in
Speaker 4: a very interesting position to try to figure out what
Speaker 4: it looks like to lead in this environment. Is it
Speaker 4: Gavin Newsom trying to understand and make sense of the
Speaker 4: MAGA movement while trying to preserve progressive credentials? I don't
Speaker 4: know with the podcast. Is it Gretchen Whitmer, who's trying
Speaker 4: to get stuff done for her state because she's in
Speaker 4: a very purple state. Maybe yeah?
Speaker 1: Is it?
Speaker 4: You know Andy Basheer is trying to do some mix
Speaker 4: of those two things in Kentucky. I think governors have
Speaker 4: a real opportunity because they're not tied to the mess
Speaker 4: of Washington. They are their own executives, and so I
Speaker 4: think any name is a good name to throw out
Speaker 4: there right now, and that's probably why the field is
Speaker 4: going to be absolutely massive.
Speaker 1: I want you to talk about Gretchen Whitmer because I
Speaker 1: talked to another smart analyst who is in our business,
Speaker 1: who's a friend of ours, and she was like, Whitmer
Speaker 1: did the right thing. And I was like, Whitmer was
Speaker 1: hiding behind a fucking envelope. Like, if your life gets
Speaker 1: you to a place where you're hiding behind an envelope,
Speaker 1: something has gone horribly wrong.
Speaker 4: Discuss there are so many moments I've wanted to hide
Speaker 4: behind an aye, Like, honestly, I felt.
Speaker 1: That who we even knew that was available.
Speaker 4: I did not know that was available, but I felt
Speaker 4: I felt that when I saw those pictures of her.
Speaker 1: Look.
Speaker 4: I mean, on the one hand, you've got to expect
Speaker 4: that if you're going to the White House to meet
Speaker 4: with Trump as she has done, and I get why
Speaker 4: she's trying to do that.
Speaker 1: I think I get it.
Speaker 4: Typically for her job. She is doing the right thing
Speaker 4: for Michigan when they needed FEMA funds, they needed emergency relief.
Speaker 4: She has a lot of red coalitions in her state,
Speaker 4: Like this makes sense from a Michigan perspective, And I
Speaker 4: think we can't expect people to do their current jobs
Speaker 4: while looking ahead to potentially maybe one day wanting to
Speaker 4: run for present. I don't think we can ask people
Speaker 4: to do that, But I think you also have to
Speaker 4: go in with a plan expecting that the president who
Speaker 4: loves to pull one over on Democrats and anyone else. Frankly,
Speaker 4: Democrats are Republicans, Like, you got to go in with
Speaker 4: a plan for that, and the plan is not a
Speaker 4: Manilla folder.
Speaker 1: Well was blue?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 1: Sure. The thing that is interesting though is I have
Speaker 1: seen people and I want to talk about this, Like,
Speaker 1: for example, a really great example is the mayor of Washington,
Speaker 1: d C, Mariyo Baussar. She has had very good success.
Speaker 1: Washington DC was in this terrible situation where they were
Speaker 1: about to lose all their money and end up as
Speaker 1: like a principal of you know nothing, I'm.
Speaker 4: A DC resident, I was walking closely.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and she ended up being able to manipulate Trump
Speaker 1: into doing what she wanted. Now, there is a thin
Speaker 1: line between manipulating Trump and just going along with him.
Speaker 1: Maybe many an institution has cratered on the thought that
Speaker 1: they were manipulating Trump when really Trump was just running
Speaker 1: all over them. So explain to me what the difference
Speaker 1: here is.
Speaker 4: I think Pelosi is a good case study in this
Speaker 4: from the first term. Right understood her leverage her power
Speaker 4: the ways that she could as someone who have at
Speaker 4: least some understanding of a relationship with Trump before right,
Speaker 4: you can gain wins and notch wins. I just think
Speaker 4: that this version of the administration is so different because
Speaker 4: he is unencumbered it used to be in the last administration.
Speaker 4: You have competing views there, and that's why Democrats like
Speaker 4: Pelosi or even Schumer could make inroads in some of
Speaker 4: the those meetings. I remember, you know them sitting around
Speaker 4: and seeing them be able to pull leverage points. I
Speaker 4: think those days are gone though, because this administration is
Speaker 4: so into the red meat. They're like died in the wool.
Speaker 4: Everyone in there is marching to the same beat in
Speaker 4: the same direction. You're not having dissension in the ranks
Speaker 4: this time, and I think it leaves very little room
Speaker 4: and input for Democrats except in the rare instances like
Speaker 4: what we've talked about. I mean, Whitmer had a targeted goal.
Speaker 4: She went in there. She wants to make inroads on
Speaker 4: tariffs because autos in Detroit are going to be heavily
Speaker 4: hit by that. You've got the same thing from Maria Bowser.
Speaker 4: You can't have the entire district of Columbia decimated because
Speaker 4: of conservative budget priorities taking precedence. I mean, like that
Speaker 4: can't work, But I think the opportunities are limited, and
Speaker 4: Democrats are now really stuck between their base, absolutely hating
Speaker 4: any idea of going to Trump for anything, even though
Speaker 4: the reality sometimes demands that where are you going to
Speaker 4: get the FEMA funding from? If it's not from the
Speaker 4: federal government and you're a governor whose state just got hit.
Speaker 4: I mean politics has to be put aside there, even
Speaker 4: though I know Trump never does that like other people
Speaker 4: have to.
Speaker 1: So this is a real thing. You can't be seen
Speaker 1: with him, but you desperately need him.
Speaker 4: To the extent that anyone needs a president.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, I mean they control the whole federal government.
Speaker 1: When people say they need to do something, Democrats need
Speaker 1: to do something, what's available for them to do?
Speaker 4: This is like the central question, and I fully feel
Speaker 4: the visceral angst at all of these town halls. I've
Speaker 4: been to several of them for Democrats who are like, please,
Speaker 4: Dear God, just do something, And I ask voters, what
Speaker 4: do you think they should do?
Speaker 1: What are your ideas.
Speaker 4: I mean, what would you tell your lawmaker if they said,
Speaker 4: I'll do whatever you want me to do, just tell
Speaker 4: me what it is. And many of them don't know.
Speaker 4: They just want to see the fight, and so actually
Speaker 4: to bring it back to where we started, like someone
Speaker 4: like Chris van Holland physically going like it shows an
Speaker 4: out of the box way of trying to show that
Speaker 4: something is being done, when the reality of at least
Speaker 4: Congress is that if you're in the minority, you're just
Speaker 4: not afforded a lot of room to flex muscle. You
Speaker 4: can gum up nominations. Brian Schatz is doing that, Reuben
Speaker 4: Gaego is doing that, some others are trying to do that. Okay,
Speaker 4: that's an option, but there's really not much that you
Speaker 4: can do other than voting no and viscerally explaining why
Speaker 4: this would be bad for the American public. And they're
Speaker 4: trying to do that. There's competing views on like should
Speaker 4: it just be on the economy, should it just be
Speaker 4: on the constitution. Like there's so much debate inside the
Speaker 4: party right now about what the fertile ground is to
Speaker 4: fight on that it does waste time and it muddles
Speaker 4: the message. But like every Republican strategist that I talk
Speaker 4: to says that if Democrats can actually get their act
Speaker 4: together with a cohesive economic message and the tariff driven
Speaker 4: economy that we're seeing right now remains, which is to say, skittish,
Speaker 4: erratic all over the place, then Republicans are worried about
Speaker 4: what that would look like in the midterms. But there's
Speaker 4: just such a long time to sustain between today April eighteenth,
Speaker 4: nineteenth twentieth and twenty twenty six November. It's just an eternity.
Speaker 1: Ali Vitally, thank you.
Speaker 4: I don't know that I brought humor, but I tried
Speaker 4: to bring joy. I brought diet coke, so I definitely
Speaker 4: brought joy for myself.
Speaker 1: You spark to joy. Dana Nssel is the Attorney General
Speaker 1: of the Great State of Michigan. Welcome to Fast Context.
Speaker 1: Dana Nassel, thank you so much for having me. So
Speaker 1: you are the Attorney General of the State of Michigan.
Speaker 1: What is going on?
Speaker 3: I mean, how many days do we have for this podcast?
Speaker 1: How are you doing this? And also how hard is it?
Speaker 1: And also what is the federal government doing? Well, that's
Speaker 1: a lot.
Speaker 3: I will say this, you know, I've taken the position
Speaker 3: since not just this term enough, but when I first
Speaker 3: frand profits in twenty eighteen that it was really important
Speaker 3: to hold the federal government accountable for trespasses of the
Speaker 3: people of our respective states. As attorneys general, that is,
Speaker 3: in fact our jobs. And you know, we did that.
Speaker 3: Then the Democratic Ags formed a coalition and we filed
Speaker 3: you know, dozens and dozens of laws suits, and I
Speaker 3: look back on it now. We were very successful. We won,
Speaker 3: you know, well over eighty percent of our cases. And
Speaker 3: sometimes I think maybe we were too successful. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: often think that so many of the worst policies of
Speaker 3: the Trump first Trump administration never went into effect because
Speaker 3: of the work that the Democratic Ages did and a
Speaker 3: lot of other partner you know, organizations, nonprofits and law
Speaker 3: firms who you know, who took on the administration. But
Speaker 3: I think people didn't remember how bad it was in
Speaker 3: the first administration because so many of these policies didn't
Speaker 3: take effect only because of our lawsuits. But it just
Speaker 3: emboldened him to be even more aggressive the second time around.
Speaker 3: And I will say this, I was thinking about it
Speaker 3: this morning. Everybody you know of a certain generation remembers
Speaker 3: where they are when JFK was murdered or my generation,
Speaker 3: we all remember we were for nine to eleven, you
Speaker 3: know what we were doing. But for me personally, I
Speaker 3: remember what I was doing when the Trump immunity decision
Speaker 3: came down from the United States Supreme Court, because I said,
Speaker 3: this is going to change America forever if we have
Speaker 3: a president who not just has inclinations to be completely
Speaker 3: lawless and disregard federal law and disregard to Constitution and
Speaker 3: disregard people's civil rights, but he now has the legal
Speaker 3: authority to do it, as granted to him by the
Speaker 3: highest court in the land. And I think so we've
Speaker 3: seen that happen repeatedly since day one that he's been
Speaker 3: in office this term.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so where are you right now? Would led to
Speaker 1: what's happening?
Speaker 3: Well, when you say with legislation, I mean you know that's.
Speaker 1: I mean with I'm sorry, with litigation, I mean litigation
Speaker 1: and not legislation. God forbid, nobody's legislating, just litigating.
Speaker 3: No, we only have two branches of office government right now. Yeah,
Speaker 3: Congress has given up yeah, right, the executive and the
Speaker 3: courts the end. So Michigan at this point, and I
Speaker 3: have to look at like what day of the week
Speaker 3: it is to know this. We have either initiated litigation
Speaker 3: or jointed litigation in ten separate cases, and we have
Speaker 3: filed a meeky briefs and well over that in supporting
Speaker 3: other parties who have brought suit.
Speaker 1: But you know, I will say.
Speaker 3: That generally speaking, our litigation has been pretty successful in
Speaker 3: many different fornts, and it especially has been the case
Speaker 3: when you have the federal government just flagrantly violating their
Speaker 3: contracts with the States to fund all sorts of things,
Speaker 3: and whether it's our most major and important programs like
Speaker 3: Medicaid and Headstart and meals on reels, I mean snap programs.
Speaker 3: The list goes on and on, whether it has to
Speaker 3: do with NIH funding medical experiments and treatments, whether it
Speaker 3: has to do with you know, public education grants or
Speaker 3: grants that were to our public health departments. I mean,
Speaker 3: the list goes on and on and on. We have
Speaker 3: been pretty successful in getting courts to say you have
Speaker 3: to reinitiate the funding for this money that was promised
Speaker 3: to the states and promised to the grantees from the States.
Speaker 3: And of course we've had other cases like you know,
Speaker 3: birthright citizenship, which is now on its way to the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court in a variety of other cases.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's been a lot, so you keep winning, right,
Speaker 1: and that's what we're seeing in the courts, like none
Speaker 1: of this is legal. All of this is not. So
Speaker 1: Harvard's a great example, Like Harvard didn't agree to go
Speaker 1: into receivership because why would they and also because they
Speaker 1: have enough people there to know that it's completely not legal.
Speaker 1: So explain to me why anyone does things this administration
Speaker 1: wants when we know so much of it is not legal.
Speaker 3: I'm really glad that you asked this question because I've
Speaker 3: been talking to so many different stakeholders and I will
Speaker 3: tell you this and candidly, I was just on the
Speaker 3: phone before, you know, our conversation with somebody from my
Speaker 3: alma mater, the University of Michigan, which I used to
Speaker 3: have great pride in leaders in best But to me,
Speaker 3: they have largely capitulated to the administration and many different things.
Speaker 1: But to what end?
Speaker 3: Because the next day you find out that more of
Speaker 3: your grants have been terminated there. And if we've learned
Speaker 3: anything from for instance, whether it's what's happened at Columbia,
Speaker 3: whether it's what's happened with many of the law firms
Speaker 3: that struck agreements with Trump and the administration, it's never enough.
Speaker 3: And the very next day, whatever agreement you think you have,
Speaker 3: you don't really have an agreement, because Trump is not
Speaker 3: a good faith actor. He does not keep his word,
Speaker 3: and it doesn't matter what sort of agreement you believe
Speaker 3: you have, it will never be enough for him. And
Speaker 3: that's why I have been so dead set against those
Speaker 3: who have sought to appease the president. And of course,
Speaker 3: you know there's that old Churchill quote. An appeuser is
Speaker 3: one who feeds the alligator hoping that he will be eaten.
Speaker 3: Lath and I might have paraphrased that it might be
Speaker 3: a crocodile and not an alligator, right, And they won't
Speaker 3: be Eventually, they're going to get eat it's just how
Speaker 3: long will it take to get to them? Right? So,
Speaker 3: to me, the only way that we can truly have
Speaker 3: any level of six is to have as many stakeholders
Speaker 3: as possible, all joining together and saying this is not right,
Speaker 3: this is not okay. We are not going to just
Speaker 3: accept whether it's the flagrant racism and sexism, and xenophobia,
Speaker 3: or the openly violation of court orders over and over again,
Speaker 3: or kidnapping legal asylum seekers or student visa holders off
Speaker 3: the streets, and all the rest of it. But we
Speaker 3: all come together and push back and say this is
Speaker 3: not okay. We're going to join forces their strength in numbers,
Speaker 3: and we're not going to look back in this period
Speaker 3: of time and say we could have done more to
Speaker 3: save our democracy and to save the reputation and the
Speaker 3: sanctity of the United States of America.
Speaker 1: We just chose not too. We took another route. So
Speaker 1: let's talk about that. Because there's so many people in
Speaker 1: this country who desperately want their electeds to stand up
Speaker 1: for democracy, and there are so few Democrats who are
Speaker 1: actually doing it. Why is that?
Speaker 3: You know? I can't speak for anybody else, but I
Speaker 3: will say to those Democrats that have not stood up
Speaker 3: more strongly, I think we're going to have a limited
Speaker 3: period of time where we can still do this. And
Speaker 3: at some point we're going to see the insurrection actor invoked,
Speaker 3: which I think is probably going to happen sooner rather
Speaker 3: than later, and we're going to see armed military personnel
Speaker 3: and National Guards troops in the streets, and we are
Speaker 3: going to see the complete erosion of the federal government,
Speaker 3: whether it's you know, the Security Administration, the Department of
Speaker 3: Health and Human Services, you know, the list goes on
Speaker 3: or on.
Speaker 1: What do you do?
Speaker 3: Then, Well, what I think is is this, and this
Speaker 3: is what I've been promoting, is that the only real
Speaker 3: way I think that we have a chance at salvaging
Speaker 3: the country that we've all grown up to know and
Speaker 3: love is to be as bold as possible in fighting back.
Speaker 3: To let us let our neighbors, our friends, you know,
Speaker 3: our co workers, our families understand exactly how bad these
Speaker 3: policies are and to not be shy about it. And
Speaker 3: for those of us who have some supporters in their
Speaker 3: family to really take the time instead of just avoiding
Speaker 3: the Papa ball together, take the time to make them
Speaker 3: understand what it means when we lose social security, what
Speaker 3: it means when the CDC shuts down, and now it's
Speaker 3: impossible to fight the next to bola or bird flu,
Speaker 3: these erratic tariffs, and what that's going to mean for
Speaker 3: our savings and our ability to afford basic necessities of life.
Speaker 3: To have those conversations, but to make people understand why
Speaker 3: we are out there peacefully and lawfully protesting the government,
Speaker 3: and candidly for people to talk to their family members
Speaker 3: and their friends that they know who are in active
Speaker 3: military service or who do serve in our state's national guards,
Speaker 3: and so that when we are out in the streets,
Speaker 3: and studys have shown it only takes three point five
Speaker 3: percent of a nation's population to peacefully fight back in
Speaker 3: order to stop a country that is sliding very quickly
Speaker 3: from a democracy into an autocratic regime. You know, on
Speaker 3: April fifth, we got like five and a half million
Speaker 3: people out there to do it. It only take maybe
Speaker 3: twelve million people in the United States to come out
Speaker 3: till I think we'll see maybe Congress will finally start
Speaker 3: to take back their authority, understanding that they have the
Speaker 3: legal right and opportunity, and I would argue the obligation
Speaker 3: to actually start taking back their power, and they would
Speaker 3: win in the courts if they challenged it. And there
Speaker 3: needs to be the threats by Congress against a president
Speaker 3: that you will face impeachment if you don't work with us.
Speaker 3: And here's the thing that I find to be so
Speaker 3: insane about it is, if you look at all the
Speaker 3: most important pieces of legislation that have had long time
Speaker 3: impact on our country. And whether it's the you know,
Speaker 3: the ACA under Obama, or the Civil Rights Act or
Speaker 3: Voting Rights Actor or LBJ or even more recently, you know,
Speaker 3: the Inflation Reduction Actor and the Infrastructure Act by Biden.
Speaker 3: Could you imagine if any of them tried to do
Speaker 3: that by executive fiat, by signing an executive order instead
Speaker 3: of negotiating with Congress. So Congress, take back your power
Speaker 3: that again Article one, the very first article of the
Speaker 3: Constitution that was provided to you, and make sure the
Speaker 3: president knows that if he does not abide by that,
Speaker 3: then Congress is going to go to the courts for
Speaker 3: the certain when on a number of different issues that
Speaker 3: you know, the state ags have had to file on
Speaker 3: in many other parties. But for civilians, in terms of
Speaker 3: what they can do, they can go out to these
Speaker 3: rallies and again not be violent, not be aggressive, not
Speaker 3: just quite law enforcement, because law enforcement they need to
Speaker 3: understand this too. Many of them are going to lose
Speaker 3: their job. And for members of the military, they need
Speaker 3: to look at how this administration has treated veterans and say,
Speaker 3: you know, don't shoot your grandma in the face. For
Speaker 3: this guy. I mean, it's not worth it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, don't treat your grandma in the face for
Speaker 1: this guy. That's pretty disturbing. So you think we're going
Speaker 1: to need to get to this trades.
Speaker 3: I think it's going to be one of the most
Speaker 3: important things that we can do, if for no other reason,
Speaker 3: to send the message to Congress that we're not okay
Speaker 3: with this and that as as Americans, we are going
Speaker 3: to fight again, lawfully and peacefully for all the rights
Speaker 3: that we cherish in this country and where we are
Speaker 3: not okay with becoming an oligarchy or a regime that
Speaker 3: is anything other than a democracy.
Speaker 1: It is good news. So and you tell me if
Speaker 1: you think this is true that the tariffs have really
Speaker 1: had an effect. People understand that the Emperor has no clothes,
Speaker 1: true or falls?
Speaker 3: Yes, and no, I would say, I think because Trump
Speaker 3: keeps rolling things back so quickly. You know, it's always
Speaker 3: on the cusp of doing something, and now there's a
Speaker 3: nine a day repriet and now there's an exemption you
Speaker 3: know for this product or that product or the others.
Speaker 3: So I think it's left for people really confused, and
Speaker 3: some of the things that I think would be most
Speaker 3: hard hitting. It's not clear that it's making an impact yet,
Speaker 3: but I do think that people see the mass chaos
Speaker 3: and disorganization is being bad, and certainly the stock market
Speaker 3: has suggested that. So a lot of people have lost
Speaker 3: their fur. One ks are a substantial portion of it.
Speaker 3: But then again that everybody has a qoro one k.
Speaker 3: So I think there are still a lot of Trump
Speaker 3: supporters out there that haven't been fully impacted by it,
Speaker 3: but they will. It's only a matter of time.
Speaker 1: But you don't need all the Trump supporters, you just
Speaker 1: need some, right there are some Trumpers who will never
Speaker 1: ever ever leave him. You know.
Speaker 3: If I could use this as an example, I've been
Speaker 3: going all around the state of Michigan and talking to
Speaker 3: different stakeholders. And I went to southwest Michigan last week
Speaker 3: and I talked to a group of farmers out there,
Speaker 3: and many of them had their grants or their contracts
Speaker 3: with the federal government terminated. Some of them were USAID contracts,
Speaker 3: some of them were suppliers to the food banks, some
Speaker 3: of them were with USDA, and there were many others.
Speaker 3: And so I said to them, I go, what are
Speaker 3: you going to do? I mean, you planted crops, you
Speaker 3: purchase supplies, you hired workers, all in anticipation that the
Speaker 3: government would keep their end of the deal. Because at
Speaker 3: the end of the day, a lot of this is
Speaker 3: just basic contract law. Like if this was a vendor.
Speaker 3: If this was you know, a company that you did
Speaker 3: business with and they just all of a sudden ghosted
Speaker 3: you one day, it'd be pretty mad and you wouldn't
Speaker 3: do business with them again, and you would probably sue
Speaker 3: them in court.
Speaker 1: But I had this farmer say to me.
Speaker 3: He's like, well, yeah, this has been paused, but what's
Speaker 3: to say that's not going to start up again? I said,
Speaker 3: how did you How did you find out about it?
Speaker 3: I go, did the Trump administration or somebody from us DA?
Speaker 3: Did they call you? No?
Speaker 1: Did they email you?
Speaker 3: No? Was there any form of communication at all before
Speaker 3: you went to the bank and you saw that you
Speaker 3: didn't get paid? Like, did they even tell you about it?
Speaker 1: And he said no.
Speaker 3: I go, well, does that sound like a good fad
Speaker 3: actor that's probably eventually going to start paying you again,
Speaker 3: or does it seem like somebody who doesn't care at
Speaker 3: all about the fact that you were literally on the
Speaker 3: cusp of losing your seventh generation family farm and he
Speaker 3: got kind of quiet after that. And you know, I
Speaker 3: think it's coming to terms with the fact that somebody
Speaker 3: that you supported, maybe you went to rallies to support him,
Speaker 3: maybe you invested in a you know, make America Great
Speaker 3: Again hat that was made in China. Now you get
Speaker 3: to deal with the fact that this guy's not who
Speaker 3: you thought he was. And I think it's hard for
Speaker 3: some people to come to grips with that. But my
Speaker 3: hope is that enough of those folks will say, yeah,
Speaker 3: you know, this isn't what we signed up for. This
Speaker 3: is not him keeping his end of the deal for me,
Speaker 3: for my family, from my community, from my state, for
Speaker 3: my country.
Speaker 1: Dana Nassau, thank you, thank you, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having.
Speaker 2: Me no moment perfectly Jesse Cannon, Somali. Despite Trump's attempts
Speaker 2: to fire many, many, many, many federal workers, along with
Speaker 2: thoss A, judges blocked them from laying off ninety percent
Speaker 2: of the CFPB.
Speaker 1: This keeps happening, right, Trump keeps losing in court. You
Speaker 1: know why, because they're trying to do leave legal stuff.
Speaker 1: That is why he keeps losing in court. If you
Speaker 1: are Harvard or Columbia or any of those places. You
Speaker 1: can see that this doesn't work, So just ignore them.
Speaker 1: Just keep going fighting in court. Like I think about Maine, right,
Speaker 1: the governor in Maine, Janet Miles. You'll remember she was
Speaker 1: the one who was like, I'll see you in court. Well,
Speaker 1: that governor, you know, she keeps winning in court too, right,
Speaker 1: So don't fucking let this administration bully you. They keep losing.
Speaker 1: It just keeps working out that way. None of this
Speaker 1: is legal, or much of it is not legal. Just
Speaker 1: keep fighting back. Do not let them do this stuff.
Speaker 1: It's not legal and they won't get away with it.
Speaker 1: So a little bit of what they're doing to the
Speaker 1: federal government, these state governments can do back. That's it
Speaker 1: for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday,
Speaker 1: and Saturday to hear the best minds and politics make
Speaker 1: sense of all this chaos. If you enjoy this podcast,
Speaker 1: please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.