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 Facebook will no longer be fact
Speaker 1: checking Donald Trump. We have an interesting show today. Ambassador
Speaker 1: Gordon Somlin stops by to talk to us about his
Speaker 1: time under Trump and his new book, The Envoy. Then
Speaker 1: we're joined by Nick Turner, President and Director of the
Speaker 1: Vera Institute, who will talk to us about crime and
Speaker 1: the effect it had on the mid terms. And lastly
Speaker 1: we are joined by the one and only George Conway
Speaker 1: for our moment of Fuccory and to talk about former
Speaker 1: President Trump's stay at a jail run for President gambit.
Speaker 1: But first we are joined by editor in chief of
Speaker 1: The Recount, Slade Sommer. Welcome to Fast Politics, Slade. It
Speaker 1: is always a pleasure to be year and I cannot
Speaker 1: wait to discuss some stories with you. We are giddy
Speaker 1: today because we had the mid terms. The Republicans do
Speaker 1: they even yet officially control the House? I don't think
Speaker 1: it's official, but you're stuck at to eighteen, I think right,
Speaker 1: And yeah, I don't think it's official, but I think
Speaker 1: it's as as solid as can be Yeah, they're going
Speaker 1: to control the United States Congress by two three seats, right, yeah,
Speaker 1: probably three or five seats. But I will say something
Speaker 1: we did at the recap yesterday. These things fluctuate within
Speaker 1: each Congress. It is entirely possible that with some reservations
Speaker 1: and some debts and you know, all that kind of
Speaker 1: maccab you never know, special elections, there was no red wave.
Speaker 1: Very disappointing. Turns out, shockingly, those very right wing trafogar
Speaker 1: poles done by the guy with the mustache and the
Speaker 1: bow tie, those were not very good pole, not very
Speaker 1: good calls at all. It's pretty wild. I feel like
Speaker 1: I saw that he had Peter Welch in a runoffof
Speaker 1: like heat. You'll remember Peter Welch being the congressman from
Speaker 1: Vermont running for the non Bernie Sanders the Pat lay
Speaker 1: He Senate seat. It was not even close. Yeah it was.
Speaker 1: I think he was off by thirty seven points, but
Speaker 1: who's counting. Yeah, you don't look that that's close enough.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, the whole idea is just to
Speaker 1: get close. It's been a rough time for them. They
Speaker 1: did not win, They did not win back the Senate.
Speaker 1: They did not now they're going right now, the Senate
Speaker 1: is uh. Democrats have fifty seats, Republicans have forty nine seats.
Speaker 1: On December six, we're gonna see a run off off
Speaker 1: in Georgia between herschel Walker heard of him, perhaps you've
Speaker 1: heard of him, and Reverend Warnock herschel Walker. If he
Speaker 1: gets all of his children to vote for him, it's
Speaker 1: still not enough. Oh, I don't know. I was gonna say,
Speaker 1: with the landslide, I don't think so. Yeah. And and
Speaker 1: it looks like Mitch McConnell's not going to be spending
Speaker 1: a bunch of money there or any money. You know,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a lot of private money coming in
Speaker 1: and stuff like that. But this seat is necessary. And
Speaker 1: the number of times I've been seen people on Twitter
Speaker 1: and elsewhere saying like, well, as long as we have
Speaker 1: the fifty, we should be fine. It's like Kirsten Cinema
Speaker 1: is in an election year. She's now in an election cycle.
Speaker 1: She did not come out to a single Arizona event
Speaker 1: supporting anyone in the Democratic Party. She has been seen
Speaker 1: cavorting with Republicans. You absolutely need that Georgia seat, like
Speaker 1: I think anyone who's complacent about this is crazy. But
Speaker 1: there's also even more minutia, which is that if you
Speaker 1: have fifty one seed, two have more power on the committees.
Speaker 1: To absolutely absolutely there's I mean, I think the number
Speaker 1: of people who fully understand discharged position petitions and committee
Speaker 1: gamesmanship is one. Yeah, Like, I think that's such a
Speaker 1: low number. Suffice it to say, you want that fifty
Speaker 1: first seed, you really do. Yeah, So let's talk about
Speaker 1: what's happening. So we got this runoff, it's happening in
Speaker 1: a little more a little less than a month. Then
Speaker 1: we have this incredible contest. Now Republicans are there trying
Speaker 1: to figure out who to blame for what happened, because
Speaker 1: they're very into blaming. Here are the choices Trump, right,
Speaker 1: Some of them are blaming Trump voters. A lot of
Speaker 1: them are blaming voters not scared enough about crime. I'm
Speaker 1: sure you saw Jesse Waters saying that single women were
Speaker 1: to blame. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we we blew that up absolutely.
Speaker 1: You know, him saying that that single women were captured
Speaker 1: by the Democratic Party, I think is the way that
Speaker 1: he said it. We gotta wife those people up, amazing, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it one might think like a normal party
Speaker 1: would stop and say, like, I wonder why people hate
Speaker 1: our policies, but that is not what's happening here. No,
Speaker 1: and then the last person I would put on that
Speaker 1: list is also Mitch McConnell, taking a lot of smoke
Speaker 1: from the MAGA wing. And you know, the funny thing
Speaker 1: about that is like they're kind of right, but not
Speaker 1: for the reasons that they think. Like Mitch McConnell did
Speaker 1: everything he could to get Republican candidates across the finish line.
Speaker 1: He actually was a bit of a savior at the
Speaker 1: end of the day. The problem with McConnell is he's
Speaker 1: the guy who ram through a couple of Supreme Court
Speaker 1: justices that pushed through Doubs. But you know, he's now
Speaker 1: in a kind of cold war with the guy who
Speaker 1: we name. We don't say because we don't want to
Speaker 1: get suited, no, but it rhymes with that's my spiel.
Speaker 1: Good call. Yeah, yeah, No, I certainly will not say that.
Speaker 1: You know, he's probably drinking the blood of twinks as
Speaker 1: we speak. The thing I thought of, and I never
Speaker 1: tweeted this because I didn't want to get in trouble,
Speaker 1: but I'll say it here because you know, I do
Speaker 1: want to get in trouble. Was that I did think
Speaker 1: Blake Masters, who is eleven years old, looked a lot
Speaker 1: like a blood boy. Yeah, he very much had that
Speaker 1: like Nicholas Holt from mad Max Fury Road thing going on. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, he's just he is a blood bag what
Speaker 1: guy Masters? And I'm like, like, this is the poster
Speaker 1: boy for every kind of under I don't know how
Speaker 1: old is he? Forty something? Yeah, like you know every
Speaker 1: under forty kind of towing the line between maga ridiculousness
Speaker 1: and like libertarian techno libertarian bullshit. It's quite wild. And
Speaker 1: you know, the blame game is fantastic. I'm enjoying the
Speaker 1: out of this. One of the really interesting speaking of
Speaker 1: Blake Masters data points is so in Arizona, Blake Masters
Speaker 1: did not win, and neither did everyone's favorite election denier
Speaker 1: Filtered former local news anchor Carrie Lake, and so now
Speaker 1: Republicans instead of being like, wow, ore swing state candidates sucked,
Speaker 1: they're like, which I think a normal party was there,
Speaker 1: Like you're seeing so many of these MAGA people being
Speaker 1: like they were really talented candidates. I hope they run again, really,
Speaker 1: I hope they run again too. Yeah, I I certainly
Speaker 1: hope they run again. You know, it's one of those
Speaker 1: things where, like the other Mitch McConnell thing here is
Speaker 1: that he's very on record as saying, you know, candidate
Speaker 1: quality matters, and everybody really told them to shut the
Speaker 1: hell up, even liberals, you know, even you know, even
Speaker 1: people on the left who were saying, like, you know, no,
Speaker 1: like uh uh, like it doesn't matter. You know, everyone's
Speaker 1: just gonna vote across party line if they have an
Speaker 1: R next to their name. I think I said that
Speaker 1: too on this very podcast a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 1: you know, and and you know, thankfully you know a
Speaker 1: bunch of these cases, you know that that didn't play out,
Speaker 1: but you know, the Republican civil war that is gonna
Speaker 1: unfold over the next you know, two to three weeks, uh,
Speaker 1: if not longer, when Trumpet to Santa's getting to uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the big boy fight. Um, this is really
Speaker 1: fun to watch. You know. We we should get into
Speaker 1: the fact that Rick Scott another kind of blood bag
Speaker 1: seeming gentleman, you know, Rick Spott, he's now fully entering
Speaker 1: the challenge to McConnell race, the minority leader race, and
Speaker 1: to bring this back to our Pat Lahey in vocation
Speaker 1: before Pat Lahy was in all the Batman movies. I
Speaker 1: am sitting over here with full Joker Heath Letterer Joker paint, saying,
Speaker 1: away we go. I want to quote young Tommy Tuberville,
Speaker 1: who is right now the dumbest member of the Senate.
Speaker 1: That can all change in December if herschel Walker gets elected.
Speaker 1: But Tommy u Fill supports McConnell but wants to wait
Speaker 1: until everybody. We have everybody here, we don't know whether
Speaker 1: herschel Walker is going to be here or not. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, like, amazing, amazing, amazing that they're all
Speaker 1: kind of saying the same thing, which is, you would
Speaker 1: be disrespectful to herschel Walker. And it's like herschel has
Speaker 1: no idea what a Senate leadership election. He literally there's
Speaker 1: no chance that herschel Walker is like, I feel disrespected
Speaker 1: by you guys having this without me. He's probably like,
Speaker 1: you know what happens if I win? But I put
Speaker 1: my feet up on this desk, like there's just not
Speaker 1: each chance that he has any idea what's going on. Well,
Speaker 1: and also I think it's been very clear that herschel
Speaker 1: Walker is going to vote however they tell him to vote,
Speaker 1: which is why they want him in the first place. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, it's just amazing the idea that
Speaker 1: we're gonna wait for herschel Walker decide the leadership um.
Speaker 1: But I would also like to just point out for
Speaker 1: a minute that you have Rick Scott, who is I mean, again,
Speaker 1: we don't know the internal machinations of what happened. I'm
Speaker 1: sure there will be more reporting, but he's certainly from
Speaker 1: the outside, he looks like he did a terrible job, right.
Speaker 1: And then we have Mitch McConnell, who right, you know,
Speaker 1: he didn't like the he doesn't like Trump World, but
Speaker 1: he's been very effective. And now we're going to have
Speaker 1: the two of them face off. Yeah, and it's big,
Speaker 1: big let them fight energy. I don't really quite understand,
Speaker 1: you know, where Rick Scott gets off thinking that he
Speaker 1: deserves anything in this life. They lost a seat in
Speaker 1: an election with an unpopular Democratic president. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: enough for you to be shunned from the party for
Speaker 1: a lifetime, let alone you thinking you deserve higher leadership capabilities,
Speaker 1: especially after it came out that you were sitting on
Speaker 1: a yacht, you know, as a hundred something million dollars
Speaker 1: was being squandered. I just like, whatever you think about
Speaker 1: the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, he should have
Speaker 1: zero support, less than zero sports Brettiston ellis less than
Speaker 1: zero time. I fully just don't really understand. Like it's
Speaker 1: one thing for a lot of mediocre white guys like
Speaker 1: myself to fail up privately, it's to fail up publicly,
Speaker 1: like to be in the public eye, and fail up
Speaker 1: is such an accomplishment. So I don't know. Maybe I'm
Speaker 1: giving him less credit than he deserves. I guess the
Speaker 1: lesson here is that Medicare fraud is easier than Republican politics. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think so. I think so. I mean, it's a
Speaker 1: good gig if you can get it right exactly. But yeah,
Speaker 1: House Republicans met on Tuesday. It seems like Republicans voted
Speaker 1: one eighty eight to thirty one to nominate McCarthy for
Speaker 1: speaker over Andy Biggs. So that sounds like McCarthy's got it.
Speaker 1: McCarthy will now be the slave of Marjorie Taylor Gren
Speaker 1: And I say this as as nonpartisanly as possible for
Speaker 1: someone as dumb as Kevin McCarthy. Yeah, because they're Republicans.
Speaker 1: Seemed great. I definitely want in on that's right, go on. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I just think that Kevin McCarthy is not a very
Speaker 1: smart guy, and he's not a very talented politician, and
Speaker 1: I don't really quite understand how he's made it this
Speaker 1: far handsome, and I do not envy him, Like his
Speaker 1: next two years are going to be freaking hell on
Speaker 1: Earth as he tries to placate you know, he was
Speaker 1: not easy for Nancy Pelosi to have a very big
Speaker 1: tent around a lot of issues and corral every single
Speaker 1: Democrat to do what she wanted, which she did. McCarthy
Speaker 1: only really has two wings at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: and that's like establishment rich tax cut Republicans and mega
Speaker 1: rich tax cut Republicans, and like, I still don't know
Speaker 1: that he's gonna be able to corral all those people.
Speaker 1: I was looking forward to some sort of big challenge
Speaker 1: that went completely chaotic and ended up with Tulsie Gabbert
Speaker 1: as speaker. Well, they would like Trump as speaker, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean there's always I think my favorite process story
Speaker 1: in all of politics is when you get that story
Speaker 1: about which non sitting member of the House should be
Speaker 1: the speaker because nobody could agree. And I saw Tulcie's
Speaker 1: name floated and I laughed for two hours. Low steaks,
Speaker 1: that would be the funniest political story of our lifestymes
Speaker 1: every day. Yes, I agree, but the real speaker will
Speaker 1: be Marjorie Taylor Gran I know, yeah, I mean, look
Speaker 1: that the best thing that Marge ever did was figure
Speaker 1: out how to raise a lot of money, and you know,
Speaker 1: I had a lot of airtime, and you know, she
Speaker 1: would be relegated to the dustbin of history if you know,
Speaker 1: if she weren't such an effective fundraiser and shameless communicator.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean, he's got whatever the right word
Speaker 1: is for the Freedom Caucus, because it's certainly not freedom.
Speaker 1: You know, he's gonna have a real, real tough time
Speaker 1: raining these people in Gates came out for Jordan yesterday,
Speaker 1: who then immediately turned around. It was like no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I'm good. I'm with McCarthy. So so some wires got
Speaker 1: cross there. If Jordan's mounted a serious challenge, I do
Speaker 1: think this would have gotten interested. Jordan's obviously is a
Speaker 1: very smart guy and he wants to be I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say Obviously, Jordan is a smarter guy than he looks
Speaker 1: and he sounds. And I do think that him knowing
Speaker 1: that he's going to be the chair of the Judiciary
Speaker 1: Committee is a way easier and better job than speaker.
Speaker 1: So you know, I give him a lot of kudos
Speaker 1: for that. But you know, I don't know, like I
Speaker 1: think Kevin McCarthy, who has been over his head for
Speaker 1: years is going to absolutely sink in the next six
Speaker 1: to twelve months. Oh yeah, even a talented politician wouldn't
Speaker 1: be able to do this, So yeah, totally. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, I will say, for all Pelosi's faults, and
Speaker 1: I do think that she has faults, I do not
Speaker 1: think that Nancy Pelosi is nearly as infallible as a
Speaker 1: lot of the folks who made the memes of her
Speaker 1: clapping are. But you know, at the same time, like
Speaker 1: she was able to corral that Democratic Caucus in a
Speaker 1: way that I I have not seen in a really
Speaker 1: long time. I mean, I think we're gonna look back
Speaker 1: at the one Pelosi era as like, holy fucking shit,
Speaker 1: how did she do that? Yeah, she's been very effective.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Rona McDaniel Romney, when you said ron
Speaker 1: I was like, are you gonna go Johnson to Santas
Speaker 1: or no? McDaniel on this one. I can't believe ron
Speaker 1: Ann got re elected. Rhonda, Rhona McDaniel, mcdonna, Romney. She
Speaker 1: really not great, not great. Anytime you can sit there
Speaker 1: and lose the Senate and a couple you know, lose
Speaker 1: the mid term election in two eighteen, lose the presidential
Speaker 1: election in lose the mid term in two and then
Speaker 1: have the goal to reach out to people and say
Speaker 1: please congratulate me online, which is something that she did
Speaker 1: according to reporting. Just unbelievable, just unbelievable. Yeah, it's such
Speaker 1: a weird time for these Republicans, and they really are.
Speaker 1: They seem to be kind of more like you know,
Speaker 1: they're the people who are trying to kind of like
Speaker 1: back way slowly from Trump without him noticing, right. And
Speaker 1: then there are the people you know you're seeing, like
Speaker 1: since I saw Cynthia Loomis from Wyoming, right, a state
Speaker 1: with seven people. Um, she I'm sorry. If you're a
Speaker 1: Wyoming person, I'm sorry you have hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: people in your stadum. Sorry, but but she was sort
Speaker 1: of backing away slowly. You're seeing some of that, but
Speaker 1: then you're seeing at least Stephonic, a very ambitious woman,
Speaker 1: has already indorsed Donald Trump even though he hasn't announced. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was crazy to me. I mean, especially because when
Speaker 1: at least Stephonic got elected, she did present herself as
Speaker 1: like a rational person who wasn't going to, you know,
Speaker 1: go full right wing. She wanted to work in a
Speaker 1: bipartisan way. That first impeachment she just saw the light
Speaker 1: and went for it. And the fact that she endorsed
Speaker 1: before it was even a reality, I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: right now. I know, just is Craven. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just craven. But you know, with Ronald McDaniel. Oh and
Speaker 1: by the way, I should say, it's Cynthia Lummis. And
Speaker 1: the only reason why I know that, the only love
Speaker 1: that is because she had like they get to know
Speaker 1: me thing in the Senate where she did a rhymes
Speaker 1: with hummus and brought out hummus, which was an incredible
Speaker 1: side story. And that's Cynthia because I went and did
Speaker 1: like lumus pronunciation once and it's like her holding a
Speaker 1: bowl of humus, and I was like, Okay, this woman
Speaker 1: is amazing or crazy amazing. I know she's very into
Speaker 1: crypto too. Man, good week for her, then, that's right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: just unbelievable stuff. I mean, look, the one thing I'll
Speaker 1: say is if if you want to put a bow
Speaker 1: on this conversation, you know, the one thing I will
Speaker 1: say is that everything we just laughed at, you know,
Speaker 1: everything that we think is crazy, everything that we think
Speaker 1: is off the charts absurd, will come back to bite
Speaker 1: us in the s you know there were in six months.
Speaker 1: The tide will turn, something will happen all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: Republicans will be in favor of it again, and we're
Speaker 1: gonna look like absolute clowns for for laughing at this.
Speaker 1: Let's hope. I don't hope, but I agree. It's the
Speaker 1: law of punditry is said, sooner or later this will
Speaker 1: be used to uh ends. Gordon Sandland is the former U.
Speaker 1: S Ambassador to the EU and author of the Envoy
Speaker 1: Welcome Too Fast Politics. Ambassador Gordon Snlon, are you still
Speaker 1: called ambassador or honorable? Well, I'll tell you a better story.
Speaker 1: When I first got the title ambassador, after I took
Speaker 1: the youth of office, the first person who addressed me
Speaker 1: was my then wife who said, Mr Ambassador, would you
Speaker 1: please take out the fucking garbage? It doesn't help. Right,
Speaker 1: You're apparently accorded the title for life, but it's up
Speaker 1: to you if you want to use it. You know,
Speaker 1: it's funny because it's like, you were so instrumental in
Speaker 1: that first Trump impeachment. You were a witness, you were
Speaker 1: really interesting part of that, and then now we've come
Speaker 1: back to that whole story has really dominated the new cycle.
Speaker 1: So let's first talk about that first impeachment. How do
Speaker 1: you even get there? Well, I think this conversation is
Speaker 1: about the new book I just released. Yes, let's talk
Speaker 1: about that. So in the Envoy you talk about this,
Speaker 1: but talk to us our listeners who may have not
Speaker 1: read the book yet, about how exactly you got there. Well,
Speaker 1: I got there because apparently someone listened in on the
Speaker 1: conversation between President Trump and President Zelenski and decided to
Speaker 1: take it upon him or herself to create a whistleblower
Speaker 1: sort of framework in that they thought that the conversation
Speaker 1: was highly inappropriate, which then ultimately resulted in the impeachment
Speaker 1: inquiry and the impeachment without a conviction of President Trump.
Speaker 1: My own feelings based on having been deeply involved in
Speaker 1: the process, including the benefit of hindsight, that nothing that
Speaker 1: happened at that time warranted an impeachment. That was a
Speaker 1: ballot box issue. I think the issue was well aired.
Speaker 1: The transcript of the call was made public, and the
Speaker 1: voters could decide in whether they wanted to re elect
Speaker 1: President Trump or not based on that and a lot
Speaker 1: of other things that he did or didn't do. You
Speaker 1: felt like that conversation between Trump the this is the
Speaker 1: famous conversation was not impeachable. Explain it was not impeachable.
Speaker 1: It was not perhaps appropriate. He was conflating two different
Speaker 1: things in that call. What to things? Well, he was
Speaker 1: obviously at the you know, once the call became public,
Speaker 1: he was conflating concern about his opponent and his opponent's
Speaker 1: son with a discussion with a foreign leader about a
Speaker 1: meeting in the Oval office. And I didn't think it
Speaker 1: was appropriate the way that call was handled. Was it
Speaker 1: an impeachable offense? Was it a high crime and misdemeanor?
Speaker 1: In my view, this is my personal view, I don't
Speaker 1: think so. I'm curious, So you think it's okay for
Speaker 1: presidents to do stuff like that. I didn't say that Molly,
Speaker 1: I said, I wouldn't have handled it that way. I
Speaker 1: also understand the gravity of taking a duly elected politician, Democrat, Republican, whatever,
Speaker 1: and impeaching them every time they do something that we
Speaker 1: think as an appropriate or we don't like. I don't
Speaker 1: feel that way about January six. I do believe that
Speaker 1: January six was impeachable. I did not think the Ukraine
Speaker 1: situation was. You had already been this ambassador to your
Speaker 1: pen union, you had been on many calls like this.
Speaker 1: But had you ever heard a president sort of say like,
Speaker 1: if you do this, I'll do that. I just heard
Speaker 1: Joe Biden say it to the Saudis, please don't reduce
Speaker 1: oil production until after the mid terms. Well, alright, Molly,
Speaker 1: it's completely equivalent. I heard President Obama speak with President
Speaker 1: Medvedev and say I will have more flexibility after the election.
Speaker 1: I've heard many, many, many presidents conflate their own political
Speaker 1: aspirations with US foreign policy. I did not think that
Speaker 1: President Biden or President Obama should be impeached on either
Speaker 1: of those conversations. I think they were inappropriate. However, so
Speaker 1: you think the trying to keep gas prices down is
Speaker 1: the same as trying to get on your opponent. I
Speaker 1: do really. Yeah, what you're doing is you're basically taking
Speaker 1: an asset of the United States, which is the leverage
Speaker 1: that you have with a foreign country, and saying this
Speaker 1: will help me in my election or in the election
Speaker 1: of my colleagues. If you artificially do something differently than
Speaker 1: you normally would do for my benefit, and then after
Speaker 1: the election transpires, then do what you have to do. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: it's equivalent. I can't believe you don't see it that way. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, I also believe that Opek is price fixing schemes,
Speaker 1: so I don't think that lowering gas prices. I don't
Speaker 1: disagree with you that he wasn't lowering gas prices, right, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying to make a case for lowering gas
Speaker 1: prices when Americans were suffering at the pump. It may
Speaker 1: eventually benefit Biden, though it may not. Write. We saw
Speaker 1: the voters didn't really care about gas prices in this election,
Speaker 1: and they certainly could have, and most predictions where they
Speaker 1: would have. Let's get back to the real point here,
Speaker 1: which is when does one use impeachment in the House
Speaker 1: and then a conviction in the Senate to deal with
Speaker 1: polite call disagreements or even disagreements of propriety versus what
Speaker 1: I think the Framers wanted impeachment used for which was
Speaker 1: a high crime and misdemeanor. You can shoehorn almost anything
Speaker 1: into that if you wish. I really like settling these
Speaker 1: things at the ballot box. I don't think when January
Speaker 1: six occurred and we didn't properly turn the keys over
Speaker 1: to Biden and the election was questioned when it was
Speaker 1: clear that the election. Even though yes, I think there
Speaker 1: was some election fraud, I think Biden was the dually
Speaker 1: elected president. I don't think whatever election fraud occurred rose
Speaker 1: to a level that changed the outcome of the election.
Speaker 1: And I think the insurrection and violence at the Capitol,
Speaker 1: the treatment of the vice president were despicable, and I
Speaker 1: do think that was an impeachable offense. I just want
Speaker 1: to get back because you have a really interesting story
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways. You have Jewish parents, you
Speaker 1: grew up in Washington State, very ambitious. Remind me of
Speaker 1: a lot of people I know in my life. Donor
Speaker 1: to Jeb Bush, I know a lot of people like that,
Speaker 1: to giving money, getting in a bassadorship. I have a
Speaker 1: lot of friends who've had that experience. Somehow during this
Speaker 1: process you went MAGA or you went along with MAGA,
Speaker 1: And so I'm curious, like, how does that happen? No, no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: no no no. First of all, my first political donation
Speaker 1: was to Senator Henry Jackson, a Democrat. I served under
Speaker 1: Governor Ted Kolanowski for two terms as the chairman of
Speaker 1: his Video and Film office, a Democrat. No, I'm making
Speaker 1: a case that you are that you come from a
Speaker 1: very middle of the road Republican party. I come from
Speaker 1: a centrist place. My candidates were George Bush forty three,
Speaker 1: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and then finally the
Speaker 1: one that got elected at a time where I was
Speaker 1: able to serve because I was not able to serve
Speaker 1: as an ambassador when George Bush was president it was
Speaker 1: too soon in my career. It happened to be Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was the Republican elected president. And if you're
Speaker 1: gonna get an ambassadorship, you don't say no, you take,
Speaker 1: you know, because you never you never know when it's
Speaker 1: going to come along again. Was I a member of
Speaker 1: the MAGA movement. I was never a member of the
Speaker 1: mega movement. I don't even own a mega hat. Well,
Speaker 1: that's probably good. An ambassadorship is amazing. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just an incredible opportunity. But I'm curious to know where
Speaker 1: you like. But I have to do it with this
Speaker 1: president where you like? I can't, you know, I mean
Speaker 1: Jeb Bush was not a Trump fan. Well, let me
Speaker 1: tell you something. The more I got into the job,
Speaker 1: and the more I understood where we were visa v
Speaker 1: the EU and I understood the specifics of what I
Speaker 1: had to do, I supported a great deal of President
Speaker 1: Trump's policies. I continue to support President Trump's policies like what,
Speaker 1: Oh my god, the list is endless. Just to be clear,
Speaker 1: what I don't support, and I've said this publicly, is
Speaker 1: I don't support President Trump being the nominee. I think
Speaker 1: those policies can be ably carried forward by one of
Speaker 1: the six or seven or eight candidates that are out
Speaker 1: there on the Republican side, who I think are all
Speaker 1: qualified to be president and could hit the ground running,
Speaker 1: many of whom would use those policies. But what about like,
Speaker 1: I mean, like, for example, you're the ambassador to the
Speaker 1: European Union for a president who hate NATO. He doesn't
Speaker 1: hate NATO. I mean, I can find a bunch of
Speaker 1: things he said about NATO. He does not like NATO.
Speaker 1: I mean, didn't you find that kind of crazy? Do
Speaker 1: you want to tell me what he likes or do
Speaker 1: you want me to tell you my experience. I want
Speaker 1: you to tell me your experience. My experience was that
Speaker 1: he correctly observed that we were picking up the lion's
Speaker 1: share of the bill, allowing the other NATO members to skate.
Speaker 1: And he was the first president, all the presidents brought
Speaker 1: this up quietly and privately. He was the first president
Speaker 1: to say, this is bullshit. We're here, we're your friends,
Speaker 1: were your allies, Do your part, write your checks, join
Speaker 1: us in defending yourself. And frankly, even the Secretary General
Speaker 1: of NATO told me in a quiet moment, best deuced
Speaker 1: collector we've ever had, because he publicly prodded, particularly the Germans,
Speaker 1: who were terrible on this, to step up and do
Speaker 1: their part. But then what about like Trump discusses pulling
Speaker 1: us from NATO, Like, I mean, you think he was
Speaker 1: just joking, I mean, what do you think that was? No?
Speaker 1: I think he was I think he was doing what
Speaker 1: any negotiator does in any negotiation, and that is something
Speaker 1: again that we're not used to seeing in a politician.
Speaker 1: It's very counterintuitive and it's very contrariant. He was saying, Look,
Speaker 1: I have to find points of leverage in order to
Speaker 1: get people to do things that are in the United
Speaker 1: States interest. And everyone does that. And the way I
Speaker 1: do that is by threatening to pull up my marbles
Speaker 1: and go home. Was he ever really going to do that? No,
Speaker 1: I don't think he was, but I'll tell you it
Speaker 1: had the intended effect on those sort of recalcitrant members
Speaker 1: of NATO who are getting by with murder frankly for
Speaker 1: the last twenty years in terms of their payment history.
Speaker 1: So your feeling is that Trump was doing three dimensional chess. Really,
Speaker 1: that's a bold, bold statement. I'm curious, then, like Trump's
Speaker 1: relationship with and you've talked about this and you've written
Speaker 1: about this, Rudy Giuliani, does that fall into the three
Speaker 1: dimensional chess mill? You? No, thanks for the mill? You
Speaker 1: I like that. I'm fancy You're fancy. No. No, Rudy
Speaker 1: Giuliani was brought into this Ukraine thing over the strenuous
Speaker 1: objections not only of me but of Ambassador Kurt Volker
Speaker 1: of Secretary Perry. We thought that Rudy Giuliani had no
Speaker 1: business being involved in this at all, but Trump insistent
Speaker 1: he's the president, and our choices were very simple. We
Speaker 1: had gone to the inauguration of Zelensky, We spent a
Speaker 1: lot of time with Zelensky, and we thought Zelenski was
Speaker 1: really someone that the United States could do business with.
Speaker 1: And we were very disappointed that Trump sort of dismissed
Speaker 1: it off hand and said, I don't want to deal
Speaker 1: with this. Talk to Rudy. And we all looked at
Speaker 1: each other and said, what did Rudy have to do
Speaker 1: with this? He's your lawyer, He's not a member of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Unfortunately, Rudy was involved and he shouldn't
Speaker 1: have been. Did you try to ever talk to Rudy
Speaker 1: and what was it like? Well, I don't know Rudy.
Speaker 1: There was this There was these stories going around that
Speaker 1: Rude body and I were off cooking up deals or
Speaker 1: this or that. I never even met Rudy until August
Speaker 1: of that year, long after we had met with President Trump,
Speaker 1: and I only met him by text. How are his
Speaker 1: text I mean, he's like famous for calling journalists, and
Speaker 1: you know, you've been very frank about a lot of things.
Speaker 1: What was your hot take on Rudy. I don't think
Speaker 1: Rudy was effective in what we were trying to do,
Speaker 1: which was simply to get an Oval Office meeting for
Speaker 1: Zelenski with Trump without any preconditions. But Rudy went to Ukraine, right,
Speaker 1: Rudy was doing all kinds of things that we were
Speaker 1: not aware of. Rudy was intersecting his work for Trump
Speaker 1: as Trump's lawyer, his own private business, and god knows
Speaker 1: what else. That was the problem with having anyone like
Speaker 1: a Rudy involved in a serious diplomatic initiative. You're very generous,
Speaker 1: as I think, well you should be with a lot
Speaker 1: of these career public servants in the Foreign service, and
Speaker 1: one of the things we saw after the impeachment was
Speaker 1: at a bunch of them really got the wrong end
Speaker 1: of Trump is um? I mean, how do you swear
Speaker 1: that like a Marie Ivanovitch or I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: some of them went on to be more political, others
Speaker 1: did not. What was your take on that? Well, again,
Speaker 1: all I can speak to is my own personal experience
Speaker 1: with any of these people. I'm not going to comment
Speaker 1: on news reports are on third party views. No, but
Speaker 1: I mean you liked Maria Ivanovitch. You thought she was
Speaker 1: very talented, and then her career ended. No, I said,
Speaker 1: both in my testimony and in my book, I dealt
Speaker 1: with her on a limited basis. I went to Odessa
Speaker 1: in February of nineteen. She was the sitting ambassador at
Speaker 1: the time, and she had a role to play. She
Speaker 1: was just great. She was hospitable. She gave us some
Speaker 1: good insight as to poor Ashenko, who was the sitting
Speaker 1: president at the time. I spent some time with Porschenko.
Speaker 1: She called me a couple of times after I after
Speaker 1: that trip, uh, and my dealings with her were fine.
Speaker 1: They were very professional. She wasn't a friend. I didn't
Speaker 1: like her. I didn't dislike her. I mean, she was fine, right,
Speaker 1: But how do you square that with that she sort
Speaker 1: of had her career smushed by Trump? Is um? I
Speaker 1: can tell you that in the transcript if you read
Speaker 1: the transcript of the call that Trump made was Zelensky.
Speaker 1: Zelensky wasn't very happy with her and told Trump that, yeah,
Speaker 1: but tit doesn't make the rules. Well, Molly, Molly, Molly, Molly,
Speaker 1: come on, you're smarter than that. You have the leader
Speaker 1: of a country telling the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: I don't think your ambassador that you've put here is
Speaker 1: very effective. That's gonna resonate with the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, and he has the prerogative, just as Joe
Speaker 1: Biden does right now, to say I'm gonna make a
Speaker 1: change and put someone there that that's going to be
Speaker 1: more effective in representing my interests. Again, I'm not suggesting
Speaker 1: that Maria Ivanovitch did anything wrong, but Trump certainly has
Speaker 1: the right to do that. So do you think Trump
Speaker 1: fired her because of that? Because that's the inference you're making. No,
Speaker 1: I don't know why Trump fired her. But it's interesting
Speaker 1: that when you become an ambassador, just under just remember this,
Speaker 1: When you become an ambassador, you have to pass what's
Speaker 1: called a Grammont. Do you know what that is? No,
Speaker 1: tell us. When you're nominated your host your country. In
Speaker 1: this case, the United States sends a letter to the
Speaker 1: host country saying we are thinking of nominating Molly john
Speaker 1: Fast to be the ambassador of x France. That's a
Speaker 1: really good one. Yeah, yeah, I know, because you want
Speaker 1: to sit in equiscent, I got it. I mean, no,
Speaker 1: it's just a very good ambassadorship. And you know it's
Speaker 1: or Italy. I'll take Italy. It's a great ambassadorship. So
Speaker 1: the letter goes to the President of France, the head
Speaker 1: of state, not the head of government, the head of state,
Speaker 1: and they take anywhere from one to four weeks to respond,
Speaker 1: and they can say we decline this person, and they
Speaker 1: don't have to give a reason. They generally don't. They
Speaker 1: generally don't. They generally accept whoever is put forth, or
Speaker 1: we can accept them. And then once they've been accepted,
Speaker 1: then that person goes through all the vetting that the
Speaker 1: US government does, the Senate confirmation, the security clearance, all
Speaker 1: that stuff. If they don't even get to square one
Speaker 1: with their host country, their name is withdrawn. So clearly,
Speaker 1: had Marie Ivanovich is named been put forth to Zelenski,
Speaker 1: she was already the ambassador, so Zelensky really, you know,
Speaker 1: didn't have to deal with this issue. But had she
Speaker 1: been a new ambassador and had her name been put forth,
Speaker 1: based on what Zelensky said on that call, he may
Speaker 1: very well have rejected her before Trump had a chance
Speaker 1: to fire her. And again I'm speculating, who knows you
Speaker 1: are speculating. This was very interesting. Tell me one last thing.
Speaker 1: Do you think, now that we're ensconced in this situation
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, how do you think this is going to
Speaker 1: play out? Well, I'll tell you. Boris Johnson just wrote
Speaker 1: a terrific op ed in the Wall Street Journal. His
Speaker 1: op ed argues, and this is where I'm fully supportive
Speaker 1: of the Biden agenda in this case, which is to
Speaker 1: put the pedal down and end this war. We need
Speaker 1: to give the Ukrainians full support, our allies need to
Speaker 1: step up, and the war needs to end. There is
Speaker 1: no negotiated end, as Boris Johnson argues, and I agree
Speaker 1: with him completely. There is only a negotiated end when
Speaker 1: there's a military end, and the only military end is
Speaker 1: the eradication of the Russians that don't belong there from Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So I agree with what President Biden is doing right now.
Speaker 1: I wish he would do more, and I wish he
Speaker 1: would do it more intensely, because that's what's protracting this conflict.
Speaker 1: But he is on the right track, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Nick Turner is president and Director of the Vera Institute
Speaker 1: as well as head of VERRA Action Welcome to Fast Politics.
Speaker 1: Nick Turner, Thank you. I could not be more excited
Speaker 1: to be here. So first, Nick, I need you to
Speaker 1: tell us what VERA is and what it does. So
Speaker 1: the VERA Institute of Justice is a national organization works
Speaker 1: to end over criminalization, so reduce the rests of people
Speaker 1: in this country and then to reduce mass incarceration. And
Speaker 1: we work with impacted communities all around the country and
Speaker 1: leaders of government who are committed to making the same
Speaker 1: kinds of changes that we're seeking to make. This is
Speaker 1: like the absolutely the worst thing I've ever heard. There
Speaker 1: used to be a ban on PELL grants for incarcerated students.
Speaker 1: There did explain to us what PELL grants are and
Speaker 1: how this works. So PELL grants are are federal financial
Speaker 1: aid for UM for students in in need, so for
Speaker 1: low income students. And back in Congress past bill that's
Speaker 1: referred to us, I'm bill that eliminated the use of
Speaker 1: PELL grants for incarcerated students. And what that did is
Speaker 1: that essentially ended all of the revenue streams that were
Speaker 1: necessary for colleges to run programs in prison. So like,
Speaker 1: if you do that before and after, like right up
Speaker 1: until that moment, they're about seven hundred programs in college
Speaker 1: programs in prison, and then there were only eight after
Speaker 1: that action took place. So back in December, Vera with
Speaker 1: a broad coalition, actually worked to put those PELL grants
Speaker 1: back in place and got Congress to allow them. And
Speaker 1: so we're right now on the process of getting colleges
Speaker 1: and prisons ready. It's actually in forty eight different states
Speaker 1: around the country. There two hundred three colleges that are
Speaker 1: already serving students, and then that number is going to
Speaker 1: really grow once the PELL grants turn on in full
Speaker 1: in July three. So that's a great example of the
Speaker 1: kind of work that we do. So so important because
Speaker 1: we have a large number of incarcerated people and they're
Speaker 1: just you know, this is an opportunity for them to
Speaker 1: get back into the world. It's an incredible thing. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a it's like the kind of smart, common sense
Speaker 1: bipartisan justice reform that you know that we're seeing all
Speaker 1: around the country where it works well for people who
Speaker 1: have paid their dues to society. They're ready to come
Speaker 1: back to their families, to earn an income, to get
Speaker 1: a job. And what we've seen is that the you know,
Speaker 1: the the mere investment of PELL grants to give these
Speaker 1: to give incarcerated students a chance, increases their opportunities, you know,
Speaker 1: to get a job, to have a higher income. It
Speaker 1: reduces sas recidivism exactly like, so they you know, and
Speaker 1: and helps them to you know, be the kind of
Speaker 1: role models that they want to be for their for
Speaker 1: their kids, and to reduce the likelihood of their kids
Speaker 1: going into prison. So it's like a win win, win,
Speaker 1: win win, and just the kind of thing that we
Speaker 1: need to see in the justice system. So one of
Speaker 1: the things that Fox News spent a lot of time
Speaker 1: talking about this election cycle was crime and how crime crime, crime, crime, crime.
Speaker 1: There's even a video who people screaming crime. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I believe it right again, I don't know why what
Speaker 1: explained us how Democrats? Because it does seem to me
Speaker 1: like everything they're thinking about is just explain to me
Speaker 1: what is happening here? Yeah, you know, I mean what
Speaker 1: you observed is is right. And there are these you
Speaker 1: know here in New York where you and I are,
Speaker 1: I mean the Republican candidate, you know, Zelden. I remember
Speaker 1: seeing ads on TV of just these montages of security
Speaker 1: camera videos showing violent acts taking place. He obviously ran
Speaker 1: on you know, tough on crime platform and said that
Speaker 1: hocol was really soft on crime. But the but the
Speaker 1: point that you made about Fox News and sort of
Speaker 1: the media infrastructure of the right is totally true. And
Speaker 1: what we saw in Republican campaigns, I think Republicans spent
Speaker 1: more money on crime ads, like it was over a
Speaker 1: hundred fifty million dollars then they spent on you know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats are messing up the economy ads, which I
Speaker 1: think they spent around a hundred dollars and a hundred million.
Speaker 1: And the reason that that happens is that people were
Speaker 1: worried about safety and security. Crime has risen in the
Speaker 1: past two years, and it's a way to sort of
Speaker 1: like tap into what I describe as like the lizard
Speaker 1: brain of people like you. People are fearful, so like
Speaker 1: tap right into that. That's been an old political ploy
Speaker 1: for years and years and years. And you you probably
Speaker 1: remember this, but goes back to Willie Horton. And it's
Speaker 1: not assume I'm many older than I am, but yes,
Speaker 1: I do remember, yes, and never ever yes, yes, But
Speaker 1: I think that's a good point. Let's like deep down
Speaker 1: dive on this, like Republicans do feel like and we
Speaker 1: see in the mainstream media a lot like Republicans have
Speaker 1: the lock on crime people want, But what what is
Speaker 1: the Republican plan on crime? That's a great question. And
Speaker 1: and you would think with the kind of spending and
Speaker 1: the push that the Republicans made all of the what
Speaker 1: I will say is sort of inaccurate and inflammatory direct
Speaker 1: in the you know, in the campaigns that they would
Speaker 1: in fact have a lock. But one of the things
Speaker 1: that we saw in the camp post election was actually
Speaker 1: it wasn't a referendum in favor of the Republicans. Voters
Speaker 1: pretty much said across the country as we want something different.
Speaker 1: Yes we want safety, and safety is important for all
Speaker 1: of us, and it doesn't really matter what the color
Speaker 1: of our skin is or like where we live. We're
Speaker 1: concerned about that, but we don't believe in the zero
Speaker 1: sum game that you're peddling, because basically what the Republicans
Speaker 1: peddled in the election was Democrats aren't keeping you safe.
Speaker 1: You know, we need to be tough on crime, we
Speaker 1: need to lock people up. The problem is all of
Speaker 1: these reforms that Democrats have put into place, whether it's
Speaker 1: bail reform or you know, progressive prosecutors around the country
Speaker 1: and we're gonna and we're gonna toughen things up. But
Speaker 1: but people generally didn't didn't buy into that. You know,
Speaker 1: I could give you a few examples, but I think
Speaker 1: the really important thing to note is that on some level,
Speaker 1: what the campaign argument was was you want safety, you
Speaker 1: can't have justice. And what we know the American people
Speaker 1: want is we want safety, but we believe we can
Speaker 1: have justice too, and we demand it. So there can
Speaker 1: if I can, just you know, allow me to sort
Speaker 1: of nerd out here a little bit. Yeah, please, that's
Speaker 1: what we do here. Verra Action did an exit poll
Speaker 1: and it showed that sixty percent of voters of actual
Speaker 1: voters said that crime was one of their top issues.
Speaker 1: But another really important poll that came out also showed
Speaker 1: that sevent of likely voters thought it was really important
Speaker 1: to reduce jail and and and prison populations and supported
Speaker 1: justice reform, and that included a high percentage of Republicans
Speaker 1: and independence. So what people are calling for, what voters
Speaker 1: are calling for, is not this lock them all up.
Speaker 1: We feel unsafe, but we feel unsafe, But what we
Speaker 1: want our on a solutions. We don't want to go
Speaker 1: back to the old police jail's prisons are the thing
Speaker 1: that keeps us safe because we don't believe in it,
Speaker 1: right well, And it is also I mean, it's interesting
Speaker 1: to see this because we here, we are in this
Speaker 1: country where a lot of Americans, and I mean, even
Speaker 1: like the don or class, which tends to be very
Speaker 1: slow in certain ways, has decided that like mass incarceration
Speaker 1: doesn't serve anyone, right right, I mean, and you know
Speaker 1: you're seeing like the Koch brothers are you know, so
Speaker 1: I mean, and it's also i mean, besides that, it's
Speaker 1: also very expensive. It's like not a great thing to
Speaker 1: do to people, and it doesn't help them, it doesn't
Speaker 1: rehabilitate them, and it's also very expensive. So I'm curious
Speaker 1: to know, like, what do you think the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: should be doing in order to message crime better? That
Speaker 1: is such an important question. I'm really one of the
Speaker 1: reasons why the why we saw Republicans investing so heavily
Speaker 1: and using this, you know, the inflammatory rhetoric and putting
Speaker 1: all of this money into making Democrats look soft, is
Speaker 1: that when you look at voters as a general matter,
Speaker 1: voters tend to trust historically Republicans more than they have
Speaker 1: trusted Democrats. So the Republicans have preyed upon that sort
Speaker 1: of soft label. What we need from Democrats, and this
Speaker 1: is really important, We need it from democrats, We need
Speaker 1: it from anyone who believes in justice and fairness and
Speaker 1: wants to advance reform is a really solution based response
Speaker 1: to people's concerns about crime and safety. And by that,
Speaker 1: you know, what I mean is that it's a mistake
Speaker 1: to be silent about it. You know, what we saw
Speaker 1: some candidates do. Republicans would attack them and then they
Speaker 1: would quickly deflect and talk about something else. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about January six. And so what that told voters is like, hey, like,
Speaker 1: this is a kitchen table thing. I'm nervous about this,
Speaker 1: and I don't hear you addressing it. So the first
Speaker 1: thing that I think is really important for Democrats to
Speaker 1: do is to address people safety and concern issues and say, yes,
Speaker 1: I hear you. Everyone has a right to be safe
Speaker 1: and secure, and we have the solutions. What we don't have,
Speaker 1: what we're not interested in doing is is applying scare
Speaker 1: tactics and uh, you know, and hyperbole. But hear what
Speaker 1: the solutions are, you know, and there are strategies that
Speaker 1: really the work to deliver safety. That to invest in
Speaker 1: you know, UH, mental health specialists to handle nine one
Speaker 1: one calls when someone is having a breakdown, UM, you know,
Speaker 1: rather than sending the cops. To invest in uh something
Speaker 1: called restorative justice, which victims appreciate, UM. And to invest
Speaker 1: in re entry programs so that when people are coming
Speaker 1: out of prison they are given the kinds of supports
Speaker 1: that they need to be successful and to and to
Speaker 1: not as to you know, as you said earlier, like
Speaker 1: to recitivate. Democrats have to have to address that safety issue.
Speaker 1: I think we have been a little hesitant to do. So.
Speaker 1: It's funny because I'm thinking a lot about Val Demming's
Speaker 1: who I've had on this podcast in a number of times,
Speaker 1: and who was a police chief and a member of
Speaker 1: Congress and married to a mayor of Tampa, Florida, and
Speaker 1: he was a policeman too. She is as pro police
Speaker 1: as you can get. And her message was like, there
Speaker 1: are some places that you shouldn't send the police, right
Speaker 1: like that you need to, you know, when with the
Speaker 1: mental health stuff, and we've seen think of all the
Speaker 1: videos we've seen of the police killing mentally ill people, right, like,
Speaker 1: those are not the times to call the police. And
Speaker 1: then there are times to call you know, like there
Speaker 1: there's a place for social workers in crime, yeah, or
Speaker 1: quote unquote crime. That's exactly right. Look, I mean there's
Speaker 1: this fact. I mean, if you look at arrest that
Speaker 1: happened in the country, that around ten million arrests every year,
Speaker 1: and if you break them down, five percent of them
Speaker 1: or for violent crimes, yes, the police are the appropriate
Speaker 1: responders for that. But then if you like eight of
Speaker 1: those arrests are for conduct that relates to poverty or
Speaker 1: mental illness, or homelessness or substance use. And so just
Speaker 1: the point that you're making, and that you know, Demmings made,
Speaker 1: that we have available to us other responders mental health specialists,
Speaker 1: homeless you know, and housing specialists for homeless people who
Speaker 1: might be in the you know, in the subway here
Speaker 1: in New York or elsewhere, or substance use specialists, and
Speaker 1: to use not only not just rely as we have
Speaker 1: in this country on sort of traditional law enforcement, but
Speaker 1: to rely on the public health system to provide some
Speaker 1: of the responses that ultimately keep the community safe. I
Speaker 1: think there's one, you know, one of the things that
Speaker 1: I think is really hard for Democrats. And I understand this,
Speaker 1: and I understand it also as a as a reformer,
Speaker 1: and why we've sometimes it's been hard for us when
Speaker 1: we see UH people or when people talk about crime
Speaker 1: and safety. We don't want to engage the conversation so
Speaker 1: much because public safety has always been used as the
Speaker 1: argument like public safety for whom it's always been the
Speaker 1: argument for more police, more jails, and more prisons. But
Speaker 1: the important thing for us in the reform community and
Speaker 1: for anyone who supports justice to recognize is that our
Speaker 1: communities demand safety just as much as so. I'm black
Speaker 1: and Filipino, and I remember conversations with my uncle uncle Clyde,
Speaker 1: you know here in Brooklyn, who I would talk a
Speaker 1: lot about the justice reform to this organization that my
Speaker 1: organization VERA was doing, and he was and he would
Speaker 1: always ask about, well, is that going to keep me safe?
Speaker 1: Am I gonna be safe walking on the sidewalker or
Speaker 1: in the subways? And I didn't do a good job
Speaker 1: of answering that initially, and I and I recognize that
Speaker 1: that's really that that's a fundamentally important thing for us
Speaker 1: to to answer. But what I also know about my
Speaker 1: uncle Clyde is that he didn't believe in the same
Speaker 1: old solutions of stop and frisk or you know, or
Speaker 1: or more jail in prison. He just he wanted he
Speaker 1: wanted a solution. And black communities in this country, right
Speaker 1: do want a solution for crime, do want a solution.
Speaker 1: But there's been hesitance to acknowledge that. Yeah, And I
Speaker 1: think that that is, you know, we have no mental
Speaker 1: health system for these people, so it's like jail is
Speaker 1: where they go. And I think that that it's such
Speaker 1: an interesting time in American life because like, these are
Speaker 1: people who don't I mean, like the person who is
Speaker 1: sitting on my you know, block is not a criminal,
Speaker 1: but they do need you know, they're they're probably in
Speaker 1: need because it's very cold out, you know. And that's
Speaker 1: the thing we don't have, you know, a great way
Speaker 1: to look at this problem that's both compassionate and we
Speaker 1: we haven't traditionally. But you know, I have to say
Speaker 1: that I I think we despite everything that we saw
Speaker 1: in the election and all the at the video that
Speaker 1: you talked about, I think that that we are making
Speaker 1: progress and and so you know, I so you know,
Speaker 1: I see all around the country their municipalities that are
Speaker 1: that are starting to respond in the exact way that
Speaker 1: you just mentioned. In Denver, in Albuquerque, here in New York,
Speaker 1: in West Hollywood, and lots of different places are hiring
Speaker 1: mental health specialists, safety ambassadors, so not necessarily relying on
Speaker 1: cops who are getting out of their car with side
Speaker 1: arms to address a matter that is really not a
Speaker 1: criminal matter. It's a different kind of need. So we're
Speaker 1: seeing that in many, many places around the country. And
Speaker 1: we're seeing, like we just talked about when we were
Speaker 1: discussing pal you know, forty eight states around the country
Speaker 1: that are saying, look, we've got to do something smart here.
Speaker 1: People have paid their debt and we want to help
Speaker 1: prepare them to succeed. A college education is hugely important
Speaker 1: force getting gaining employment now, and so so the rhetoric
Speaker 1: is something, but the American people want something different. And
Speaker 1: all around the country we're seeing a pretty profound movement
Speaker 1: to get the kind of stuff done that we've been
Speaker 1: talking about. And I'm and I'm really hopeful about that.
Speaker 1: That's fantastic. Thank you so much for joining us. This
Speaker 1: was so interesting and I'm really glad that we go
Speaker 1: to chat about this. Thank you, Molly. I'm really grateful
Speaker 1: to be able to chat with you about it too.
Speaker 1: George Conway, what h I'm sorry, I just woke up.
Speaker 1: Something put me, something put me to sleep. George is
Speaker 1: here for our special post Trump announcement recat. I need
Speaker 1: some coffee. Whoa that was? That was? That was me?
Speaker 1: He made Jed Bush look like a nuclear power plant.
Speaker 1: That was so low energy. I mean, do you think
Speaker 1: MAGA now stands for make America groggy again? He was
Speaker 1: teleprompter Trump and it was that sleepy not you know,
Speaker 1: he's bored when he can't say something to I'm reading
Speaker 1: this and can't say mean things about Ron the sanctimonious.
Speaker 1: And also the crowd wasn't the typical queue and on
Speaker 1: Crazy's it was so low energy as well. The guy
Speaker 1: who wears the wall suit was there. You know that's
Speaker 1: the only wall he ever really Bill, Yeah, that guy
Speaker 1: when he is an incredible mustache. I was there, right,
Speaker 1: Pillow guy was there. Ivanka was not. Maybe this was
Speaker 1: just a pillow advertisement. That's it. That makes now, it
Speaker 1: makes sense. The top lines that I saw and CNN
Speaker 1: did twenty five minutes, and they got so bored with
Speaker 1: it they you know, they went back. They cut it off.
Speaker 1: Even Fox I heard cut it off for five minutes. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: you gotta make it's short and sweet and punchy. And CNN,
Speaker 1: I mean, CNN did have Daniel Dale onto fact check.
Speaker 1: Daniel Dale. Man, he's he's he's back in business, exactly,
Speaker 1: back in but we saw him on the strategic Daniel
Speaker 1: Dale was making excuses for Trumps is there are not
Speaker 1: as many lies as his normal speech because he's reading
Speaker 1: off teleprompter. But there's still a lot of lies, and
Speaker 1: let me go through them. But that thing that's interesting
Speaker 1: about Trump, even at his best behaved, he's still like
Speaker 1: stuck on all of these ninety nineties things. So he
Speaker 1: complained about how the American people don't spend enough time
Speaker 1: worrying about nukes, which I think we do, and then
Speaker 1: he said that Biden emptied the strategical petroleum research is
Speaker 1: essentially he actually did as well, It's actually true that
Speaker 1: the strategic petroleums went down apparently during Trump's time in office.
Speaker 1: And then, I mean, it feels like silly to fact
Speaker 1: check him because because he's it's like what you expect
Speaker 1: me to actually say say accurate things. We don't. Although
Speaker 1: he said the missile struck fifty miles inside Poland, it's like, no,
Speaker 1: four miles, everybody said four miles. You know, somebody should
Speaker 1: just send him the classified information so that you will
Speaker 1: have the accurate information. Well, I mean, I think either
Speaker 1: way you send him the classified information, you send him
Speaker 1: the unclassified information. Either way he's going to have it wrong.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I had like a little bit of
Speaker 1: an existential crisis while I was watching it, because I
Speaker 1: was like, we've been fucking doing this since two thousand
Speaker 1: and fifteen, Like those hours of my life I will
Speaker 1: never get back. I'm going through Twitter now seeing quotes
Speaker 1: from parts of the speech that I didn't see because
Speaker 1: CNN cut away and I fell asleep. Um, Maggie Haberman
Speaker 1: saying that he said I'm a victim. I'm such a
Speaker 1: victim that one. Yeah, I didn't see that, but yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I think that it does feel like, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just the same thing he always does. Now. The
Speaker 1: question is, I think the million dollar question for all
Speaker 1: of us is like, will the Republicans come to their
Speaker 1: senses this time? Or will they just you know, they
Speaker 1: bought the ticket. Are they going to take the ride? Yeah, yes, ma'am.
Speaker 1: What do you think I think that he's going to
Speaker 1: win the nomination because I don't think there's anybody gonna
Speaker 1: be taking it away from him. I don't think the
Speaker 1: Santis is going to run. I don't think Pence can
Speaker 1: do it. You know, I just think he's going to
Speaker 1: walk to the nomination even if he gets indicted. The
Speaker 1: party is going to vote for him no matter what.
Speaker 1: And that's more than enough to win, particularly in a
Speaker 1: in a multi party, multi candidate race, and so and
Speaker 1: then he just loses again and then finally that does it.
Speaker 1: But it's not going He's not going to lose quietly.
Speaker 1: He is going to, you know, if he gets indicted,
Speaker 1: he is going to incite problems. And he's even said
Speaker 1: he's going to do that. I mean, he said there
Speaker 1: will be big problems if I'm ever invited. He's basically
Speaker 1: said that in substance. I mean, he's basically we're gonna
Speaker 1: you know, he's going to basically it's going to be
Speaker 1: a call to arms again. And he has no compunction
Speaker 1: about causing violence as we've seen, so that's not really,
Speaker 1: I'm not really hopeful of you know, I don't think
Speaker 1: he's gonna win, but I think we're we're in for
Speaker 1: a rough, you know, for a rough two years. That's
Speaker 1: it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday,
Speaker 1: and Friday to your the best minds in politics makes
Speaker 1: sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what you've heard,
Speaker 1: please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Speaker 1: And again, thanks for listening.