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 how's GOP unveils a plan to
Speaker 1: raise the debt limit by four trillion dollars. You'll remember
Speaker 1: that's the party that pretends to care about financial responsibility.
Speaker 1: We have such a great show for you today, talking
Speaker 1: Fed's own Harry Lippman stops by to talk about how
Speaker 1: Trump's corruption in broad daylight can be litigated in the courts.
Speaker 1: Then we'll talk to Run for Something's own Amanda Lippman
Speaker 1: about her new book, When We're in Charge, the Next
Speaker 1: Generation's Guide to Leadership. But first the news.
Speaker 2: So Molly, Jake Tapper, and Alex Thompson have this book.
Speaker 2: Everybody's touting is going to be all the rage of
Speaker 2: gossip through the whole early summer about how President Biden
Speaker 2: had no idea where he was and that he's out
Speaker 2: to watch. So the first excerpt from it has come
Speaker 2: out and it's not feeling that exciting. Right.
Speaker 1: Look, the right really wants there to be a conspiracy here,
Speaker 1: that there was some kind of setup, and the reality is,
Speaker 1: and we've talked about this on podcasts before, and we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about it again, and we may end
Speaker 1: up talking about it again and again and again. Getting
Speaker 1: old is not a conspiracy being an old guy. Again.
Speaker 1: When you read John Allen and Amy's book about Biden's election,
Speaker 1: you see that he had gone to Europe twice and
Speaker 1: then he had come and done this debate and had
Speaker 1: been a disaster. This is the old guy. Being old
Speaker 1: is not a conspiracy. And I'm going to point to
Speaker 1: a man called Donald Trump, who is now the oldest
Speaker 1: president ever, who twice today wandered off after giving a talk. Right,
Speaker 1: Trump gave a little talk and then forgot to sign
Speaker 1: the executive order he was going to sign, so they
Speaker 1: had to bring him back. And there was another time
Speaker 1: when he did something similar to too old to hold elected office.
Speaker 1: Now is it a conspiracy? No? Is it a conspiracy
Speaker 1: in the fact that American politics is Democrats are too
Speaker 1: polite and they let people stay too long, and they
Speaker 1: don't I mean, everything I've read so far, and i
Speaker 1: haven't read the book, but I've just read excerpts of
Speaker 1: it shows people who are too polite to tell Biden
Speaker 1: the truth. Is that a conspiracy? It's a conspiracy in
Speaker 1: the fact that it is just infuriating to me, Right,
Speaker 1: I find that infuriating. But what the right desperately wants
Speaker 1: is some kind of cabal that kept Biden in charge
Speaker 1: as opposed to a more likely scenario. And again I
Speaker 1: wasn't there, so I don't really know, but my guess
Speaker 1: is a more likely scenario of polite people trying not
Speaker 1: to upset someone, which in itself is infuriating. Right. I
Speaker 1: almost would rather have a secret cabal of people trying
Speaker 1: to keep them in power, because at least it would
Speaker 1: show a kind of intentionality which I do not think
Speaker 1: is there. I just want you to realize this story
Speaker 1: is being used by the Right as a way of
Speaker 1: maligning Democrats, and I just think that should be something
Speaker 1: you think about when you think about this story, is
Speaker 1: what is the purpose of this, Why is this out there?
Speaker 1: And what is the play? And that I think is
Speaker 1: something that you should think about very strongly when you
Speaker 1: read this book. And look, I just don't think I
Speaker 1: wish the Democratic Party were capable of doing such high
Speaker 1: level operating, because then none of us would be in
Speaker 1: this situation. But they're not, and that's why we're here.
Speaker 2: Solid point speaking of not the best strategizing and things
Speaker 2: not really going well. Representative shre Thnadar today introduced impeachment
Speaker 2: of Trump into the.
Speaker 3: House, right.
Speaker 1: This is why it is a group that can't shoot straight.
Speaker 1: And that's what we're talking about here. So there's no
Speaker 1: numbers to impeach Trump. They don't Democrats don't have the votes.
Speaker 1: It is absolutebolutely insane. It's just crazy. Right, This is
Speaker 1: what it is. There are are members of the House,
Speaker 1: they want to do something, and they're right to want
Speaker 1: to do something, and we want them to do something.
Speaker 1: But since there aren't the votes for impeachment, what will
Speaker 1: happen if you start the clock on this is it's
Speaker 1: just going to fail and it's going to help Trump.
Speaker 1: And again, talking to Harry Litman, you're going to hear
Speaker 1: this on the podcast. We're talking about this. And I
Speaker 1: actually wonder. I have a theory I've concocted which I
Speaker 1: think may actually be right, which is that focus on
Speaker 1: the illegality around Trump because that is often more blatant.
Speaker 1: And there's a reason that Rudy Giuliani is in the
Speaker 1: place he is right now and everyone else around Trump. Right,
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen went to jail. All of this happened because
Speaker 1: the people around Trump are doing similarly illegal things. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the point of this is that this is not the
Speaker 1: moment for impeachment proceedings. Moment for impeachment proceedings is, hopefully
Speaker 1: when if Democrats win the House, and when and if
Speaker 1: Donald Trump does something that is actively impeachable, which I'm
Speaker 1: sure you will, because let's be honest, it's not safe.
Speaker 2: Bet if I've ever taken with Yeah. So, in addition
Speaker 2: to all this debt raising in the GOP budget, we
Speaker 2: also have Medicaid work requirements, which is a cursed phrase
Speaker 2: I hope to never say. But what are you see
Speaker 2: in here?
Speaker 1: So here's the deal. Republicans need to cut eight hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty billion dollars in Medicaid. And they don't need to.
Speaker 1: They want to. They want to do it why so
Speaker 1: that they can keep these tax cuts for very rich people,
Speaker 1: perhaps pass more tax cuts and make it look like
Speaker 1: it makes financial sense. It is very hard to cut
Speaker 1: eight hundred and eighty billion dollars for Medicaid. Again, do
Speaker 1: I think the tax cuts. I think they should let
Speaker 1: the tax cuts expire. I think the tax cuts. I
Speaker 1: think it's really disgusting. I think that they should raise
Speaker 1: taxes on very wealthy people. It's just my take. By
Speaker 1: the way, my favorite thing. Last week, Donald Trump pretended
Speaker 1: that he wanted to raise taxes on people who make
Speaker 1: over two and a half million dollars a year, a
Speaker 1: group that can heartily and absolutely afford to pay more taxes,
Speaker 1: and then he was like, no, it would be bad.
Speaker 1: Then Democrats can say, read my lips new to taxes.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: The truth is he can't do it because the people
Speaker 1: who put him in office are like, you're not going
Speaker 1: to fucking raise my taxes. We put you in here
Speaker 1: to not raise our taxes. So look, I think that
Speaker 1: when Democrats get back into power, prayer hands, that that happens.
Speaker 1: They must create a bracket for people who make over
Speaker 1: two point five million dollars a year. That is like
Speaker 1: not even a question. That should absolutely happen one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: And the fact that that was even floated at all
Speaker 1: in a Republican administration means that Democrats must do it asap.
Speaker 1: Hard to find eight hundred and eighty billion in medicaid,
Speaker 1: they're going to try low hanging fruit, which is like
Speaker 1: work requirements and this and that. Look, they're not going
Speaker 1: to get there from here. Okay's those are big cuts.
Speaker 1: By the way, they can get that money from the
Speaker 1: Department of Defense, which will now be spending one trillion dollar.
Speaker 1: The Department of Defense budget is going up. Okay, so
Speaker 1: more money for Pete hegsath and it just the whole
Speaker 1: thing is completely FORGOCTA. Again. The only good part of
Speaker 1: this story is that it will be bad for red states,
Speaker 1: which will be bad for elected Republicans. I don't want
Speaker 1: anyone to suffer. I don't want red state voters to suffer.
Speaker 1: I don't want blue state voters to suffer. But I
Speaker 1: do think there is a particular irony and the fact
Speaker 1: that a lot of these people who will be kicked
Speaker 1: off healthcare, and if they do this, we will see
Speaker 1: the number of people with health insurance down by more
Speaker 1: than eight million by twenty three four.
Speaker 2: So, Mali, the latest state of play if the Trump
Speaker 2: administration versus the courts is now is a lot of
Speaker 2: veiled threats, And by veiled, I mean there's probably a
Speaker 2: lot of rips in the veil. Are Stephen Miller basically
Speaker 2: threatening the court what he talked about getting rid of
Speaker 2: habeas Corpus last week, and now we have Trump basically
Speaker 2: trying to bully them as well.
Speaker 1: So the Trump administration keeps losing in court, and they
Speaker 1: keep losing in court because they want to do illegal stuff. Okay,
Speaker 1: they keep losing in court because the illegal frameworks they're
Speaker 1: trying to use are wartime frameworks. We are not at war,
Speaker 1: we are not even in some kind of cold war.
Speaker 1: There's nothing. There's only Trende Aarragua, which is a Venezuelan
Speaker 1: gang that literally no one had heard of before twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four when Donald Trump read about conspiracies that they
Speaker 1: had taken over a apartment building in Aurora, Colorado. You
Speaker 1: remember that from season two? I sure do. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: this is a gang that is Venezuelan. It's not that
Speaker 1: many people all Donald Trump has decided it's the major
Speaker 1: danger to American life. It is not. This is a
Speaker 1: fucking bullship premise yet again to try and get people
Speaker 1: to get the judiciary to sign off on some of
Speaker 1: Trump's dumb stuff. And I think that it's important to
Speaker 1: remember that Trump has really as much as the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court is installed by him, filled with conservatives who align
Speaker 1: with him, he has squandered a lot of their good
Speaker 1: will through attacking them and through just these very stupid cases.
Speaker 1: The reason that they're looking at the birthright citizenship case,
Speaker 1: and again you can say they're playing three dimensional chess,
Speaker 1: and maybe it's true. Maybe they're doing it to shoot
Speaker 1: it down to show they're not complete craven sycophans to Trump.
Speaker 1: But either way, the birthright citizenship case, they're not going
Speaker 1: to take away birthright citizenship. I mean, that's just I
Speaker 1: don't think that's how this is going to go. So
Speaker 1: he has really kind of squandered what lot of positive
Speaker 1: feeling there was towards him. We're going to see just
Speaker 1: more Trump attacks on the courts. And the reason only
Speaker 1: Trump is attacking the courts, and I think this is
Speaker 1: really important to remember, is because this is the only
Speaker 1: checks and balance that's checking him. Right. The Congress has
Speaker 1: rolled over and played dead. They're not interested. The Republicans
Speaker 1: are too scared, the Democrats are not in the majority,
Speaker 1: and a little bit too disorganized. So there are a
Speaker 1: few who are really doing a good job. This is
Speaker 1: what we're going to do here. They're going to try
Speaker 1: look some of these lines. I want you to just
Speaker 1: I'm going to reach you a line about Republicans wanting
Speaker 1: work requirements. And you tell me if you don't see
Speaker 1: where this is going.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, okay, show me, miss clear, show me the future.
Speaker 1: Right exactly, Washington can't afford to undermine the program Medicaid
Speaker 1: further by subsidizing capable adults who choose now to work.
Speaker 1: You can tell that's the best they could think of
Speaker 1: for this. So look, and Josh Hall everyone's favorite.
Speaker 2: Oh, definitely mine.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing, Josh Holly, Okay, this guy is
Speaker 1: a super big Republican, very sort of read in on
Speaker 1: the world of Republican politics. His wife argues him friend
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. He says, slashes to the safety net
Speaker 1: would be morally wrong and politically suicide. Harry Litman is
Speaker 1: a former US attorney and the host of the podcast
Speaker 1: Talking Feds. Oh Yes, Oh yes, oh yes.
Speaker 4: It is the latest Molly mashup Talking Feds and Molly
Speaker 4: Jong Fast for Fast Politics, where I pose her political
Speaker 4: questions and she retorts with legal ones. But today I
Speaker 4: want to start not exactly either, because Mollie John Fast
Speaker 4: is everyone in America I to know, has a new
Speaker 4: book coming out in next month. You want to take
Speaker 4: a moment to explain a little bit about that. First
Speaker 4: of all, congratulations a new book. Wow. Second, let's hear
Speaker 4: about it.
Speaker 1: So I wrote a book called How to Lose Your Mother.
Speaker 1: It's a book about the worst year of my life
Speaker 1: and how I got through it. And I wrote it
Speaker 1: because I wanted people to be able to live through
Speaker 1: something that feels unlivable and get through it. And that
Speaker 1: is why I wrote the book. And hopefully people will
Speaker 1: like it. The early reviews are very good, but who knows.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean a lot of it is about family dynamics.
Speaker 4: But I'll just say to people who don't know, which
Speaker 4: may be nobody, both your mom and your grandfather, you're
Speaker 4: really from a writer's family. And that's a big part
Speaker 4: of the backdrop here. What do you got?
Speaker 1: So much of this seems as non as a non
Speaker 1: lawyer to be illegal. Trump has this The Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has basically given him a broad, sweeping immunity to do
Speaker 1: crimes or whatever, things like the cryptocoin the taking the
Speaker 1: four hundred million dollar plane from the Qataris what is
Speaker 1: illegal here and what is not illegal? And what is
Speaker 1: the recourse?
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's the big question, the last one, and it
Speaker 4: is crimes or whatever. So he is a walking Emolument's
Speaker 4: clause violation. He wasn't his first term, but that was
Speaker 4: chump change all the stuff with his hotels, four hundred
Speaker 4: million dollar palace in the sky as they call it.
Speaker 4: That's some serious, groundbreaking historic emolument clause violation right there
Speaker 4: in the Constitution. So much of what he's doing, Mollie,
Speaker 4: if you had to give a broader theme to it,
Speaker 4: is just completely eviscerating any role of Congress to decide things.
Speaker 4: And we're in the Constitution. It says in black and white.
Speaker 4: Is that in parchment paper that it's got to go
Speaker 4: through Congress, for example, the Emolument's clause, Then it's as
Speaker 4: illegal as can be. You put your finger on it.
Speaker 4: Though when you talk about remedy, because at least there
Speaker 4: if we want to stick with plane, it's patent that.
Speaker 4: What the Framers had in mind is Congress should decide
Speaker 4: we don't want some big national political debate, will use
Speaker 4: Congress to make the judgment is this fair game or not?
Speaker 4: You know, Lincoln wanted this fancy elephant. They said, no
Speaker 4: Obama to turn down the million bucks for the Nobel Preprize.
Speaker 4: What Trump has to do and is not doing it
Speaker 4: is patently illegal. Is serve this up to Congress and
Speaker 4: says right there in the Constitution and in general, there's
Speaker 4: many things he's violating. And I think you're right. The
Speaker 4: court has given him a free pass on crimes, but
Speaker 4: that doesn't mean a free pass on illegalities. For instance,
Speaker 4: in immigration the interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, but
Speaker 4: this one totally illegal. But what's designed as a congressional
Speaker 4: remedy you do have. In fact, let me turn this
Speaker 4: back on you, though it wasn't my thought, I do
Speaker 4: think here you have cruised this morning saying I don't
Speaker 4: know man Katar Saudierra, Yeah, you have certain what you need.
Speaker 4: The Martin nomination just went down. He starts with a
Speaker 4: pretty close margin, and it does seem like maybe there's
Speaker 4: this much daylight beginning to form between him and the Senate,
Speaker 4: him and the Congress. What do you think about that
Speaker 4: at the political level, which my final answer to you
Speaker 4: is so much of it rests with Congress, and they've
Speaker 4: made it clear to date they're not going to do anything.
Speaker 1: So I actually interviewed Tammy Baldwin and she said there
Speaker 1: are Republican senators who believe in the power of the Senate.
Speaker 1: So what has to happen here, I think is that
Speaker 1: Democrats have to win back the House. Number one. We
Speaker 1: have to protect our elections, and Democrats have to win
Speaker 1: back to the House. I think Trump is now a monarch.
Speaker 1: I don't think he can be charged with anything. I
Speaker 1: don't think. I think that's a fool's errand, but I
Speaker 1: do think people like Stephen Miller and people like you
Speaker 1: think about the people around Trump who are doing things
Speaker 1: that are illegal. Maybe Stephen Miller know, but certainly there
Speaker 1: are people who are violating. I'm thinking about Pam Bondy.
Speaker 1: She got one hundred and fifteen thousand dollars a month
Speaker 1: from the Katari government as a lobbyist. So are there
Speaker 1: emails between her and the Qatari is is it on
Speaker 1: her private email or her public email? Does it look
Speaker 1: like extoration, you.
Speaker 4: Know, or at least a quid pro quo, which I
Speaker 4: think both politically and legal, that would be a real inchpin, right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I have to wonder if some of the mistake of
Speaker 1: Trump one point zero was that maybe instead of going
Speaker 1: after Trump, they should have gone after every single person
Speaker 1: around him. Because going after Trump was seen. I don't
Speaker 1: think it was true because the guy did all these
Speaker 1: things that were illegal, but it was seen as political,
Speaker 1: whereas going there's clearly she has encouraged a certain lawlessness
Speaker 1: that well, he can't be torched with it. The people
Speaker 1: around him can. And I think that supply gotcha.
Speaker 4: It's a really interesting point because like the big indictment
Speaker 4: by Smith, he made a point of Trump only I
Speaker 4: think for speed. But you're certainly right, everyone you know
Speaker 4: meadows on that has gotten a walk.
Speaker 1: And you also see when you look at like the
Speaker 1: Rudy case or the Rogerstone, the people around Trump tend
Speaker 1: to do stuff that's really not okay.
Speaker 4: All right, you're turned.
Speaker 1: I wonder sort of when you think about the DOJ,
Speaker 1: the Republicans. There's a lot of stuff they're doing at
Speaker 1: the DJ right now, which is they're stopping prosecuting some
Speaker 1: white collar crime because they want to be focused on
Speaker 1: the border. There's not a huge amount of stuff going
Speaker 1: on at the border right it's the numbers are down
Speaker 1: to the lowest they've been a long time. Is there
Speaker 1: any way to get the DJ to do its job
Speaker 1: and not to nor crimes.
Speaker 4: I think the short answer to that is no, and
Speaker 4: I'm overall seguin about our endgame here, which we can
Speaker 4: talk about if you want to. But I think the
Speaker 4: DJ is beyond repair, beyond reclamation. This is from talking
Speaker 4: to people in there. It's like a post apocalyptic zone
Speaker 4: with a few zombies kind of wandering around dazed and confused.
Speaker 4: They have really brought the hammer down. People who haven't
Speaker 4: done the kinds of cases they want or are being fired.
Speaker 4: That's sort of unheard of. Everyone is being it's coming home,
Speaker 4: right ed Martin just turned down. But meet the new boss,
Speaker 4: same as the old boss. You're going to have someone
Speaker 4: who is just as much takes this view that's just
Speaker 4: like against It's not a little off, it's against DOJ
Speaker 4: you know, Bone Marrow, DNA, that they are the president's
Speaker 4: lawyers and not the constitution and rule of law. Lawyers
Speaker 4: hold hartments are being eliminated, civil rights, voting sections, public integrity.
Speaker 4: Just today we learned about a really important prosecutorial entity
Speaker 4: that you had them in every office for organized crime
Speaker 4: and drug stuff. So I think everyone's keeping their head down.
Speaker 4: Everyone's scared to talk. People are trying to figure out
Speaker 4: is this a good time to go on in the market,
Speaker 4: which is actually saturated with other DOJ types, Bondie and
Speaker 4: Bovart disasters, who you know lie daily about the supposed
Speaker 4: politicization of prosecutions under the old regime and they're doing nothing.
Speaker 4: But here, I think inside the place, it's a real
Speaker 4: disaster zone included, but also outside because judges maybe juries.
Speaker 4: We don't know yet, But it used to mean so
Speaker 4: much to you. It's so much of a tailwind when
Speaker 4: you stood up Molly John Fast for the United States,
Speaker 4: and that's really be eroded. In general. I think the
Speaker 4: calculations I make with the DOJ is will it ever
Speaker 4: be the same? How long intel norms norms, for example
Speaker 4: involving the White House, you know, politicizing things and telling
Speaker 4: them what to do. How long will it ever be
Speaker 4: right again? But I think of it as basically a
Speaker 4: wasteland as long as you know Trumps president in BONDI
Speaker 4: is ag. I'm not monolithically pessimistic across the board, but
Speaker 4: DOJ is just fucked, I'm sorry to say.
Speaker 1: But can the other states do stuff to hold them
Speaker 1: in check? Because California, Yeah, talk to me about like
Speaker 1: con democratic ags sue the DOJ. I mean, is there
Speaker 1: a world where that happened.
Speaker 4: You know, it's funny. So the different one, we were
Speaker 4: just talking about a monument's clause and there was a
Speaker 4: big lawsuit by state ags before saying when you take
Speaker 4: the when you do these violations, it has I think
Speaker 4: you put your finger on it. And your listeners probably
Speaker 4: know about this stuff. Everyone's taking a crash course and
Speaker 4: a low as they're standing. The short answer is some
Speaker 4: courts will say yes, some courts will say no, and
Speaker 4: there is ability by and large I think of the
Speaker 4: sanctuary movements and stuff for the states to assert themselves,
Speaker 4: for the states to actually regulate. DOJ say hey, wait
Speaker 4: a second, that's against the law, you can't do that,
Speaker 4: or even I want this case not UFBI. The play
Speaker 4: is really narrow. I think federal law enforcement is not
Speaker 4: doing bad stuff, but not doing good stuff basically for
Speaker 4: as long as as Trump is around. So look, that's
Speaker 4: part of the solution. State if everything goes awry, if
Speaker 4: the court lets them go, if Congress stays supine, is
Speaker 4: state in federal power. But really it's you know, popular
Speaker 4: discontent and unrest. And you know you've pointed out, actually
Speaker 4: let me let me turn things now, because your recent
Speaker 4: Vandy fair article is about Americans turning against Trump somewhat,
Speaker 4: and that's the true. Let me just say, not even
Speaker 4: as a partisan, but as an objective commentator, they don't
Speaker 4: seem to be turning toward, you know, Democrats, or they're
Speaker 4: they're turning away from doesn't seem to augur a real
Speaker 4: you mentioned can the can the Dems take the House?
Speaker 4: That seems pretty pretty uphill battle. What's your thought about A,
Speaker 4: why the losses for Trump are not don't seem to
Speaker 4: be true? Well, A, if it's true, and B, if so,
Speaker 4: why the losses for Trump, he's now at the lowest
Speaker 4: of anyone after this amount of time of president since
Speaker 4: they've been doing polling, are not translating into commensurate or
Speaker 4: anything like commensurate gains for Dems.
Speaker 1: I think Democrats can win back the House. I think
Speaker 1: what happened in in Wisconsin with that judicial election is
Speaker 1: pretty clear case that the Republican brand is not good.
Speaker 1: By the way, you know whose brand is the only
Speaker 1: person who was really a much worse brand than Trump
Speaker 1: is our friend Elon mush who really I mean, if
Speaker 1: you look at that, if you go in and look
Speaker 1: at those exit poles, like only five percent of voters
Speaker 1: were more likely to vote for the Republican because of
Speaker 1: the Elon endorsement. I mean, completely crazy, and that was
Speaker 1: a very expensive race. So I think Democrats can win
Speaker 1: back the House. I think the reason the brand is
Speaker 1: in the Crapper is because I'll give you the sort
Speaker 1: of the reasons. People are mad, right, they are not happy.
Speaker 1: They do not feel good about the twenty twenty four cycle. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think on the Democratic side they feel I mean
Speaker 1: I ask them all the time, and from what I
Speaker 1: understand this is they feel angry that Democrats are not
Speaker 1: doing more. Though really, what can they do? Right? They
Speaker 1: have a mic, they have a sort of they can
Speaker 1: draw attention to things, but they can't necessarily, you know,
Speaker 1: they can't hold rooms, they can't really move things. They
Speaker 1: can't legislate, they can't do this, they can't do that.
Speaker 1: But what they can do is they can you know,
Speaker 1: do things like the Philibuster. Like people loved that Booker Philibuster.
Speaker 1: Millions of people loved it. So the question is do
Speaker 1: they love Corey Booker's very centrist policies. Maybe not. I mean,
Speaker 1: like all of these Democrats, I mean, if you think
Speaker 1: about the if you ask people who are in the party,
Speaker 1: what they who they like. They'll say AOC Bernie Chris Murphy,
Speaker 1: Corey Booker, Jasmine Crockett. Here are five people who have
Speaker 1: almost no you know, their Centrists, their leftists, they're socialists.
Speaker 1: There's no unifying governing principle except another one Pritzker is
Speaker 1: they are team fight. So team fight people like, and
Speaker 1: team cave people don't like. So I would say, if
Speaker 1: you're going to fight, I think there's a place for
Speaker 1: you in the Democratic Party. If you're going to cave
Speaker 1: and that and interesting like there are a bunch of
Speaker 1: senators who are retiring on the Democratic side, like Gary Peters,
Speaker 1: people who maybe in a normal democracy you could have
Speaker 1: the temperament for the Senate. But if Trump leaves office
Speaker 1: when his term is up, which is a real if
Speaker 1: if he does, there will be a reconstruction of American democracy,
Speaker 1: which will be loud and painful and really a lot
Speaker 1: of people screaming at each other at best and best
Speaker 1: and the people who are on the Democratic side and
Speaker 1: on the Republican side, but on the Democratic side are
Speaker 1: going to need to really have a spine.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's a great point and sort of what I
Speaker 4: was thinking about DOJ, I'm overall sanguine, but man, oh man,
Speaker 4: the cleaning of the stables after it's going to be
Speaker 4: rough hurriculean.
Speaker 1: My question is what are people doing in the Trump
Speaker 1: DJ right now that is illegal?
Speaker 4: Okay, So it's a really good question because first you
Speaker 4: got to think about abnormal. When I hear about certain things,
Speaker 4: my head goes three sixty degrees. But it's not technically
Speaker 4: speaking illegal for the White House to do certain things.
Speaker 4: I think they are violating the nineteen seventy eight Civil
Speaker 4: Service reformat right and left. They're firing people. Tell you
Speaker 4: can't do that. You've got they get certain due process.
Speaker 4: They're doing things specifically in violation. You could either say
Speaker 4: the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment because people take certain positions,
Speaker 4: righteous positions, you know, the Adams prosecution, whatever, and they're
Speaker 4: getting fired for that. The big thing they're doing mind
Speaker 4: very effectively, but you know, will there be remedies? Is
Speaker 4: hollowing out the department all that sort of knowledge of
Speaker 4: the place. The way it works is there are anywhere
Speaker 4: sort of handful of people, You come to them, you
Speaker 4: work through them together. They're all gone, they've been demoted
Speaker 4: to you know, asset forfeiture in Kentucky or whatever, and
Speaker 4: the culture of the place that's been so comprehensively denuded
Speaker 4: and is so making it ineffective. Then I think there
Speaker 4: are some flat out violations of lawn in general. You know,
Speaker 4: I'm a fraud lawyer, and when you lie about stuff
Speaker 4: and make a scheme, this is what Trump was charged
Speaker 4: with before he had immunity. That can be a crime,
Speaker 4: and a vigorous Department of Justice will never see it
Speaker 4: will never happen even later, would construct certain things that
Speaker 4: Bove is doing and Bondie is doing, because all they're
Speaker 4: trying to do is serve his political interests, which do
Speaker 4: not coincide with the law. But the bigger stuff, I mean, look,
Speaker 4: there's an overall less and a bitter lesson of the
Speaker 4: last few months or even you could say last eight years,
Speaker 4: which is that at the end of the day, the
Speaker 4: government runs on norms, good faith, integrity, ways of doing
Speaker 4: things that people have different views accept and it's really
Speaker 4: that that they've totally raised and so the impact is terrible.
Speaker 4: And then in addition, I could maybe make some US
Speaker 4: versus Bondie arguments, US versus bov argument but the real
Speaker 4: terrible damage is sort of at the cultural functional level.
Speaker 4: All right, I want to throw you a it's not
Speaker 4: it won't be a curveball for you, but a curveball
Speaker 4: in our conversation because I just had a long talk
Speaker 4: with Jonathan height t you may know from NYU, and
Speaker 4: his big spiel is how terrible social media has been
Speaker 4: for younger voters and what a disaster it is for
Speaker 4: younger generation. And you on the on your on the
Speaker 4: Zdeo podcast, you really the hardest working woman in podcastree,
Speaker 4: I must say try and said the fundamental problem with
Speaker 4: Democrats among the older generation is they can't get online,
Speaker 4: which is kind of the very opposite of his diagnosis,
Speaker 4: at least for younger Dems. So I thought that was
Speaker 4: pretty interesting and I wanted to ask you to splash
Speaker 4: that out a little.
Speaker 1: The problem is communication, right, Nobody will argue, maybe they won't,
Speaker 1: but they're wrong. Joe Biden passed a lot of legislation,
Speaker 1: really good legislation right on shoring manufacturing, chips and sciences,
Speaker 1: the thing that Donald Trump just did a whole fuck
Speaker 1: up about right on shoring manufacturing. Biden actually passed something
Speaker 1: that would have and has to some extent, got semiconductor
Speaker 1: chips going in the United States making semiconductor chips. This
Speaker 1: is seismic stuff. The reason why Biden was unpopular was
Speaker 1: inflation and an inability to transmit what he was doing.
Speaker 1: Nobody knew. In fact, you know, there's these Google searches
Speaker 1: of election Day where people went on their computer to
Speaker 1: see who was running for president because they thought Biden
Speaker 1: was still running for president. So this is a big
Speaker 1: fucking problem. And it comes from the supposition that politics
Speaker 1: runs downstream of culture. This is a Andrew Breitbart ism.
Speaker 1: Andrew Breitbart, right wing lunatic died. That guy said politics
Speaker 1: runs downstream of culture. And what Donald Trump did was
Speaker 1: he got into the bloodstream of the culture, and so
Speaker 1: he won the presidency. What Democrats have done studiously is
Speaker 1: completely stay outside of the culture. And they've done it,
Speaker 1: I think because they're being advised by people who are
Speaker 1: terrified of their own shadows. So this is why sometimes
Speaker 1: you will have a elected who you'll get on your
Speaker 1: podcast and you'll ask them a question and they'll say
Speaker 1: ameer Ca because it's Emera and it's c and you'll
Speaker 1: think this doesn't make any sense, and what the fuck
Speaker 1: are they doing You've had those elected, and that is
Speaker 1: the consultant class getting in their brains, making them think
Speaker 1: that saying nothing is better than saying something. And the
Speaker 1: reality is the more democrats say nothing, the more they
Speaker 1: open the door to a Donald Trump to another Donald
Speaker 1: Trump to And that is how we got here, and
Speaker 1: that is the only way to get out of it
Speaker 1: is to have people who run for office, who say
Speaker 1: English words and are real people and say things like
Speaker 1: this is what I'm gonna do and this is what
Speaker 1: I'm not going to do, and really let you in
Speaker 1: or at least pretend to enough. Anyway.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Always good and always fun talking to you, Molly.
Speaker 4: Good luck with the book and see you next month.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Amanda Littman is the co founder of Run
Speaker 1: for Something and the author of the new book When
Speaker 1: We're in che The Next Generation's Guide to Leadership. Welcome
Speaker 1: to Fast Politics, Amanda Litman, Thanks Molly.
Speaker 3: Always delighted to chat.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about this book, tell us everything.
Speaker 3: So the book is called When We're in Charge. It's
Speaker 3: out this week. It is the Next Generation's Guide to Leadership.
Speaker 3: And I would say the like one sentence summary is
Speaker 3: it's how to be an effective leader in this moment
Speaker 3: without being an asshole to the people you lead.
Speaker 1: Ooh, so what does that look like?
Speaker 3: It looks like what does it really mean to be
Speaker 3: authentic in a way that is not about ego but
Speaker 3: about serving your team and how you can show up
Speaker 3: for them. It's about transparency, It's about work life balance.
Speaker 3: It's about being like a better parent as part of
Speaker 3: your work, and how you can think about your caregiving responsibilities.
Speaker 3: It's about your career and ambition. I really I heard
Speaker 3: someone describe it as like unlike any other business book
Speaker 3: you've ever read, in a good way. And I like
Speaker 3: that summary.
Speaker 1: Right now as actually reading an article you were quoted
Speaker 1: in today in The Atlantic about these retirements and that
Speaker 1: they're actually kind of a good sign. So talk us
Speaker 1: through why you think that. So.
Speaker 3: I think it is a good thing that we have
Speaker 3: older democratic leaders retiring. I think they open up space
Speaker 3: and competitive primaries where the party can really decide what
Speaker 3: we believe. I think we get to celebrate these leaders'
Speaker 3: legacies in a way that I think is good for them.
Speaker 3: When they retire. They get to go out the front door,
Speaker 3: as I like to describe it, get to like to
Speaker 3: find their legacy really be celebrated. If they stayed in,
Speaker 3: almost certainly all of them would be getting challenged, and
Speaker 3: then they would have to get into a really nasty
Speaker 3: campaign that would often center about their personal failings. I
Speaker 3: don't think that would be fun for anyone. So I'm
Speaker 3: glad to see folks like you know, Gary Peters, Tina Smith,
Speaker 3: Dick Durbin, and others step aside because it means we
Speaker 3: get to really like, look at them as patriots. Is
Speaker 3: putting public service above their egos.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's right. Trump Is polling is bad,
Speaker 1: but so we're Democrats, right, their polling is also bad.
Speaker 1: It seems as if it's largely cave versus fight, not
Speaker 1: an ideological hostility. The voters are having more of a
Speaker 1: they don't feel like their people are doing enough for them.
Speaker 1: What do you think? I mean? I've asked a lot
Speaker 1: of elected what they could be doing more of. You
Speaker 1: are pretty versed in all of this, So what do
Speaker 1: you think they should be doing more of?
Speaker 3: I think there are things like not confirming any of
Speaker 3: Trump's nominees through the Senate.
Speaker 1: So talk us through how that would work.
Speaker 3: Well, I am not an insider when it comes to
Speaker 3: Senate procedure, but it was for what I have read,
Speaker 3: there are mechanics procedural moves in which they need Democrats
Speaker 3: to vote to approve many of these nominees for things
Speaker 3: like the Justice Department, some of the judges they want
Speaker 3: to move through other Senate confirmed positions. Democrats just don't
Speaker 3: have to give them the votes that we can put
Speaker 3: sand in the gears in a way that at the
Speaker 3: very least slows it down because floor time is one
Speaker 3: of the only resources they cannot get back at some
Speaker 3: point they have to close out the session. So if
Speaker 3: we can grind the gears down to a halt, even
Speaker 3: if we can't ultimately stop some of the harm they're doing,
Speaker 3: you know, that makes a difference.
Speaker 1: Do you think it would have been a good idea
Speaker 1: to shut down the government?
Speaker 3: I think it's hard to say. I think it would
Speaker 3: have been a good idea if we knew we were
Speaker 3: going to vote to keep the government open to have
Speaker 3: gotten something for that, But that's what I and you have,
Speaker 3: like extracted any kind of pound of flush in exchange
Speaker 3: for it. The problem was that Schumer put up a
Speaker 3: strong posture up until the day of and then was like, oh,
Speaker 3: just kidding. Here you go, you get my vote, you
Speaker 3: got a couple others, godspeed, at least get something for it.
Speaker 3: My dude.
Speaker 1: It feels like Democrats are still not quite hard enough
Speaker 1: on Republicans. So we have Chris Murphy has been out
Speaker 1: there just a ton, which I think has been really good.
Speaker 1: And then we had Corey Booker do this filibuster which
Speaker 1: was pretty epic. But a lot of Democratic senators we
Speaker 1: just haven't seen out there. Am I missing anyone? I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously in the House we've had AOC, We've had Bernie Rocket,
Speaker 1: Maxwell Frost, But what would you like to see Demko
Speaker 1: sort of what's your dream to see? You know, if
Speaker 1: you could say to Reuben Diego, who's a guy with
Speaker 1: a lot of ambition, like what I'd like to be
Speaker 1: seeing you doing?
Speaker 3: Or you know, I think actually Chris van Holland modeled
Speaker 3: something good here where he has like used his physical
Speaker 3: presence to push the needle, like going down to El
Speaker 3: Salvador demanding a meeting with a Brago, like putting out
Speaker 3: photos and explaining how the photos that they put out
Speaker 3: were propaganda.
Speaker 1: Like that's good.
Speaker 3: More of that, I would say we had in Worcestern Massachusetts.
Speaker 3: One of the city council members there, whose name I'm
Speaker 3: going to butcher because I've only ever read it and
Speaker 3: never said it. So comes a woman adal A Jaj
Speaker 3: I think who has a run for something, alum who
Speaker 3: literally put her body in front of ice trying to
Speaker 3: detain a young woman and her child, Like, put your
Speaker 3: body on the line, make it, make a spectacle. Spectacle
Speaker 3: is good. Spectacle gets attention, Attention gets reached, reach gets
Speaker 3: votes ultimately eventually.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a really good point. What I think is interesting.
Speaker 1: So for example, Trump is wants to get this plane
Speaker 1: from the Qatari royal family. It's a four hundred MILANDAR plane.
Speaker 1: There are a number of reasons why Trump shouldn't have
Speaker 1: his plane, right from the emolument's cause to the national
Speaker 1: security problems.
Speaker 3: Going to be chock full a spyware. What do we
Speaker 3: do when there.
Speaker 1: At every point this is an insane idea. It's so
Speaker 1: insane that Cynthia Lumis when asked about it, burst out laughing. Okay,
Speaker 1: Cynthia lumis pretty trumpy, burst out laughing. So question is here,
Speaker 1: what can Democrats do? Like is there a legislative push,
Speaker 1: Like what can Democrats do here can they get hearings going?
Speaker 1: I mean, what can what's the play?
Speaker 3: I think, drawing as much media attention to it as possible.
Speaker 3: I know I was talking without this so so and
Speaker 3: is sort of like divorced from politics yesterday last night,
Speaker 3: and they were trying to explain to me, like it
Speaker 3: feels so obviously corrupt that it can't be true. It's
Speaker 3: almost ludicrous, like, of course, you can't take a four
Speaker 3: hundred million dollars million dollar plane on a foreign government
Speaker 3: that you can then keep after it. That's that's like
Speaker 3: so quid pro quo corruption that it feels ludicrous. But
Speaker 3: I think for most people that are like, well, it
Speaker 3: can't happen, but we got to keep just calling attention
Speaker 3: to it, Like I want to see members of Congress
Speaker 3: standing in front of clodiums, going in front of town halls,
Speaker 3: storming podcasts, talking about how you know, you don't feel
Speaker 3: getting feel safe getting on a flight right now because
Speaker 3: he fired all those air traffic controllers, he's taken a
Speaker 3: four hundred million dollar jet from Qatar. That I mean,
Speaker 3: pretty compelling storyline even right now, forget about the corruption,
Speaker 3: Like we don't feel safe getting on a plane he's
Speaker 3: getting on one funded by the Qatari government.
Speaker 1: So we are coming down the sort of the beginning
Speaker 1: of the runway for the midterms is going to be
Speaker 1: probably the most consequentrol mid terms of our young lives.
Speaker 1: I love that I'm making it sound like we're this image.
Speaker 1: What since we're both in our early thirties, what are
Speaker 1: you hearing? What are you seeing in Run for Something world?
Speaker 1: And what is giving you hope?
Speaker 3: So Run for Something has had more than forty five
Speaker 3: thousand people raise their hands to say they want to
Speaker 3: run just since the election. That's six months. That's more
Speaker 3: than we had in the first three years of Trump's
Speaker 3: first term. So huge ways of young people saying I
Speaker 3: want to run for office. I eyve even a handful
Speaker 3: of them, more than a handful really do get on
Speaker 3: the ballot in twenty twenty six, which I expect you
Speaker 3: will see. They are going to change what the Democratic
Speaker 3: Party looks like, both quite literally, They're going to be
Speaker 3: a different kind of Democrat. They're going to communicate differently,
Speaker 3: They're going to show up in different communication channels, they're
Speaker 3: going to use the Internet differently, and so many of
Speaker 3: them are running on things that are really practical to
Speaker 3: folks like affordable housing, stopping book bands, spanning health care access,
Speaker 3: and also being able to tell the story of how
Speaker 3: they've been fired or gotten screwed over by Trump and Elon.
Speaker 3: I think it's really personal stories in a way that
Speaker 3: drives a good store of the narrative or a good campaign.
Speaker 3: I do think housing is going to be the thing
Speaker 3: on the local level more so than anything else, because
Speaker 3: it is the thing that is directly affecting people's cost
Speaker 3: of living, and Trump's going to crash the housing market,
Speaker 3: which is already really bad.
Speaker 1: Do you feel like the people you're getting are people
Speaker 1: who are angry about the status quo, about what democrats
Speaker 1: have done? What does it look like the people who
Speaker 1: are coming to you.
Speaker 3: It's definitely a lot of folks who are like, why
Speaker 3: are my leaders not fighting for me? Where are the
Speaker 3: folks who are like, really going to pay attention to
Speaker 3: how this is affecting my life. I am really inspired
Speaker 3: by the people who are looking around at the kind
Speaker 3: of harassment attention that some elected officials are getting and
Speaker 3: saying I'm going to do this anyway, Like I'm going
Speaker 3: to be brave enough to change my life and change
Speaker 3: my career, think, Oh, we're hearing from a lot of
Speaker 3: folks that they are running on representation in kind of
Speaker 3: a different way than you might think, Like it's not
Speaker 3: just you know, there's no women, there's no people. Call
Speaker 3: it all that, like, there's no one who understands what
Speaker 3: it's like to be a normal person right now, no
Speaker 3: one in this body of government will understands what it's
Speaker 3: like to be a renter, who understands what it's like
Speaker 3: to have kids in childcare, who understands what it's like
Speaker 3: to you know, have your fellow ship gate defunded by
Speaker 3: the federal government. It is really sort of like a
Speaker 3: lived experience failure on behalf of our elected leaders. And
Speaker 3: the finolopiece i'd say is we're getting a lot of
Speaker 3: people who are like, I am so angry. Why is
Speaker 3: my leadership not as angry as I am. They're making
Speaker 3: me feel gas lit, They're making me feel crazy for
Speaker 3: being this nad and they shouldn't, like I'm right be pissed.
Speaker 3: So I think that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: Ted is a good thing. I want you to say
Speaker 1: more about the housing stuff.
Speaker 3: One of the things that runs for something civics, which
Speaker 3: is our c three ARM is going to be doing
Speaker 3: over the next couple of years. Hopefully is be trying
Speaker 3: to get more renters to run for office. Ninety three
Speaker 3: percent of elected officials are homeowners. Thirty five percent of
Speaker 3: Americans are renters, and that number is going up as
Speaker 3: the housing market gets harder and harder to enter. In
Speaker 3: some states, the number of rent of homeowners. I think
Speaker 3: it's only one state within where homeowners breaks fifty percent.
Speaker 3: Among young people, we go under thirty five. It is
Speaker 3: so hard right now if you are a twenty or
Speaker 3: thirty something to buy a home. Invent is getting more
Speaker 3: and more expensive everywhere, urban environments, rural environments, suburban everything
Speaker 3: in between. And you know, I am a big believer
Speaker 3: in that every story is a housing story, kind of
Speaker 3: like you know, New York, every story is a real
Speaker 3: estate story. Every story is a housing story. The loneliness
Speaker 3: crisis is about housing. Build. The return to office situation
Speaker 3: is about housing. Childcare is about housing because if you
Speaker 3: can't afford to live where you want to live, you
Speaker 3: can't afford to live how you want to live. It's
Speaker 3: about autonomy, it's about the American dream. Housing is all
Speaker 3: of it. So one of the reasons that we want
Speaker 3: to make sure we're getting more renters to run for
Speaker 3: office is because we need folks who personally understand how
Speaker 3: it feels to be a twenty or thirty something entering
Speaker 3: the housing and rent market right now, and two who
Speaker 3: come in with a different lived perspective on why we
Speaker 3: need to build more housing as homeowners no offense. I
Speaker 3: don't know if you own your apartment or when where
Speaker 3: you live by like homeowners psychologically don't necessarily want more
Speaker 3: housing to get built because it may lower the value
Speaker 3: of their home and that's usually where most of their
Speaker 3: wealth is. That's a problem because we need to build more.
Speaker 3: So I'm really excited about this effort and excited to
Speaker 3: keep talking about it. And I think is important to
Speaker 3: raise the identity of renter or tenant as part of
Speaker 3: your political identity because it changes the way you think
Speaker 3: about how you show up at the polls. Who's fighting
Speaker 3: for you as a renter.
Speaker 1: That's interesting. There's been a lot of talk about it
Speaker 1: is a democratic tea party. It strikes me that Democrats
Speaker 1: had a chance to stop a Democratic tea party and
Speaker 1: they didn't, and that what they're going to see in
Speaker 1: the midterms is going to be the kind of rage
Speaker 1: is going to be because they were insufficiently hysterical about
Speaker 1: trump Ism, and that had they been a little more
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen ish, they wouldn't be losing their jobs the
Speaker 1: way they're going to in the midterms. Do you think
Speaker 1: that's right, and say more totally. I think that's right.
Speaker 3: I think being an incumbent is such an advantage, Like
Speaker 3: it's really hard to unsee an incumbent in a primary
Speaker 3: and in a general, but especially in a primary. You
Speaker 3: have every possible political connection, you can raise a fuck
Speaker 3: ton of money. It's just it's so beneficial that if
Speaker 3: you are feeling afraid for your job, if you feel
Speaker 3: like a primary challenge is actually threatening you, it's because
Speaker 3: you're not doing a good job, Like you have every
Speaker 3: possible advantage. If you lose a primary, it's because you
Speaker 3: have failed to meet the moment in some meaningful way.
Speaker 3: They could have fixed this early on. Now there's candidates
Speaker 3: all across the country who have already launched campaigns and
Speaker 3: aren't preparing to launch campaigns against incumbents. I think those
Speaker 3: will be good because the incumbents that win, great, They're
Speaker 3: going to move on to the general, and the ones
Speaker 3: that lose weren't doing it doing it right to be
Speaker 3: in the first place.
Speaker 1: So when you look at the map right now, in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty six map, I think a lot about
Speaker 1: a candidate in Nebraska called Dan Osborne. He rejected the
Speaker 1: Democratic moniker. He said he was an independent. He may
Speaker 1: run again. Talk us through if you think there's a
Speaker 1: future in red states for candidates like that.
Speaker 3: I definitely think that there is an opportunity for candidates
Speaker 3: to set themselves apart from the party. There's certainly a
Speaker 3: challenge in terms of ballot access and how it works
Speaker 3: in any given state of a kind of infrastructure you're
Speaker 3: able to access as an independent, but it's so place
Speaker 3: and race specific. But I think certainly positioning yourself as
Speaker 3: an outsider or a challenger against the party is a
Speaker 3: good thing in many places.
Speaker 1: But is there room for a kind of populist wing
Speaker 1: of the party. One of the things that Trump was
Speaker 1: able to do was he was able to secure white,
Speaker 1: non college educated and also some minority voters. I think
Speaker 1: it may not be the numbers which were advertised, but
Speaker 1: so he got a share of the working class that
Speaker 1: Democrats maybe gave away, maybe because they felt they couldn't
Speaker 1: promise them things that they wanted. Do you think there's
Speaker 1: an opportunity for Democrats to connect with that working class voter?
Speaker 1: And if so, what do you think the things they
Speaker 1: should be doing are.
Speaker 3: I think it's really messenger specific. I think that there
Speaker 3: are candidates who can outperform the top of a ticket
Speaker 3: and who data worn to tap of the ticket in
Speaker 3: a meaningful way. I also, I'm really curious to see
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty six how many of those folks fall
Speaker 3: away from the Republican Party when Trump is not on
Speaker 3: the ballot. That's not to say I don't think Democrats
Speaker 3: shouldn't fight for them, shouldn't make a case for them,
Speaker 3: should be present. But you know, Trump is kind of
Speaker 3: an anomaly, not in his necessarily his policies, but in
Speaker 3: the brand that he has built. You know, the entire
Speaker 3: party holds his beliefs at this point, but they don't
Speaker 3: always win when they espouse them. And we've seen this
Speaker 3: in like the Republican primary process in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3: You know, Ron DeSantis tried to be Trump Junior or
Speaker 3: Trump light rather, and it doesn't work because if you
Speaker 3: don't have his Chrismon. You don't have his brand, you
Speaker 3: can't stick. So I'll be really curious to see, with
Speaker 3: Trump never being on the ballot again, which he will
Speaker 3: not be, what happens with the Republican Party. Actually, I
Speaker 3: don't think we talk enough about that of Trump's a
Speaker 3: lame duck while watching his cabinet members sort of position
Speaker 3: themselves already. JD. Vance is not going to walk into
Speaker 3: that primary without a fight. It could be fun to
Speaker 3: watch them eat their own Can.
Speaker 1: You imagine, like JD. Van to v Marco v. DeSantis,
Speaker 1: I mean against Christine Nome. Don't forget her little police
Speaker 1: barbide Christine Nome. Jesus Christ. It's hard to imagine there's
Speaker 1: a clear front runner in that crew.
Speaker 3: No, and I don't think it'll be easy for any
Speaker 3: of them because while they're all shameless and bi get
Speaker 3: it in their own right, none of them can do
Speaker 3: it in the same way that Trump can do.
Speaker 1: Not envy their futures, yeah, h I do not either
Speaker 1: a man, and also I don't envy any of our futures. Well,
Speaker 1: Amanda Litman, I hope you'll come back.
Speaker 3: I will always come back. Thank you for giving me
Speaker 3: a chance to talk politics and also remind me able
Speaker 3: to pick up my book, which is now out in
Speaker 3: stores when we're in charge wherever you get your books.
Speaker 1: No moment, Jesse Cannon.
Speaker 2: My so, over the weekend Trump enacted price controls for
Speaker 2: drugs and I was told during the twenty twenty four
Speaker 2: presidential campaign that that was downright communist and comrade Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris doing that or Burnie, Oh my god, what are
Speaker 2: we thinking? And then now Trump has done it. RFK Junior,
Speaker 2: though funny enough, has a theory. What's behind this?
Speaker 1: Yes, tell me more.
Speaker 5: President Trump was taking money from the pharmaceutical industry to
Speaker 5: the way they think, you know, one hundred million dollars.
Speaker 5: He can't be bought, unlike most of the politicians in
Speaker 5: this country, and he is standing here for the American people.
Speaker 5: I don't know what you know. There's there's writers like
Speaker 5: my Lord Elizabeth Warrener Robert Reichler just saying that President
Speaker 5: Trump is on this side of the oligar.
Speaker 1: What of eloquid speaking to see where his head is at?
Speaker 1: You know, this is a man who swims in Rock
Speaker 1: Creek Park. Damn. I was going to get to that.
Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, everyone's favorite. Look, I don't know, maybe
Speaker 1: some of that Rock Creek water is true telling serum.
Speaker 1: Oh that's a great philosophy.
Speaker 2: Sodium pedothal in the sewage water?
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, the best Heliody Impede all in
Speaker 1: the sewage order.
Speaker 2: Right, sounds like one of his conspiracy theories. Truth be told.
Speaker 1: Listen, man, it's not surprising, but it is insane, like
Speaker 1: everything in this administration. That's it for this episode of
Speaker 1: Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday
Speaker 1: to hear the best minds and politics make sense of
Speaker 1: all this chaos. If you enjoy this podcast, please send
Speaker 1: it to a friend and keep the conversation going. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening.