Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Incognate. You know, one of the things we talk
Speaker 1: a lot about on this podcast is trust, who deserves
Speaker 1: it and who doesn't. And lately I've been thinking about
Speaker 1: how much of our personal information is just floating around online.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about phone numbers, home addresses, emails, even information
Speaker 1: about your family, all sitting on websites you've probably never
Speaker 1: heard of. In the scary part, that information can be
Speaker 1: used by scammers and identity thieves to piece together enough
Speaker 1: details to impersonate you, target you, or worse. That's where
Speaker 1: incognate comes in. Incognate works behind the scenes to track
Speaker 1: down and remove your personal data from hundreds of websites,
Speaker 1: things like online directories, people search sites, and even commercial
Speaker 1: databases that collect and sell your data without your consent.
Speaker 1: The process is automated, and because data can pop back
Speaker 1: up again, incognit keeps monitoring and removing it for you.
Speaker 1: And one feature I really like its custom removals. If
Speaker 1: you find something about yourself online that you want eliminated,
Speaker 1: it's a listing, an old record, or something you just
Speaker 1: don't want publicly available, you can send incognit the link
Speaker 1: and a dedicated privacy expert handles the removal for you.
Speaker 1: It's a great way to reduce your digital footprint and
Speaker 1: protect yourself from scams and identity theft. Right now, you
Speaker 1: can get sixty percent off an annual incognyplan. Just go
Speaker 1: to incognit dot com, slash Chuck podcast and use the
Speaker 1: code Chuck podcast. Use the code you get a discal again,
Speaker 1: that's in cogni dot com slash Chuck podcast and use
Speaker 1: the code Chuck podcast to get sixty percent off and
Speaker 1: start taking control of your personal data today. Trust me,
Speaker 1: I'm constantly working on this for years myself, and here's
Speaker 1: an opportunity for you to take matters into your own
Speaker 1: hands as well. So a few months, a few weeks back,
Speaker 1: I spent a lot of time talking to you guys
Speaker 1: here in these and in fact I did a subsetecon
Speaker 1: about this that I said, you know, at the age
Speaker 1: of a warm is coming, and the question was just
Speaker 1: sort of when it would begin, And I used the
Speaker 1: bipartisan endorsement. The first Republican to endorse my next guest bill,
Speaker 1: a constitutional amendment that he is proposing. It's a Democratic
Speaker 1: Congressman Johnny Oldchesky from Baltimore, and it was Don Bacon
Speaker 1: became the first Republican to sign on. And it's essentially
Speaker 1: a pardon nullification constitutional amendment. It uses in some ways
Speaker 1: the same structure of a congressional override of a presidential veto.
Speaker 1: It's very similar in its structure. But it was I
Speaker 1: saw it as an opportunity because this was done in
Speaker 1: such a way that it didn't feel specifically targeted to
Speaker 1: one president. We know we've had abuses of the pardon power,
Speaker 1: but by both this one and the previous one, and
Speaker 1: you could argue multiple presidents going forward, going backward. And
Speaker 1: there's some argue the that the pardon clause in our
Speaker 1: constitution is the biggest you might say, loophole there is
Speaker 1: between a small D democracy and a small A authoritarian
Speaker 1: UH regime. And so with that, I thought it would
Speaker 1: be nice to hear from the author of this amendment himself,
Speaker 1: Congressman Johnny Oh. He says, we can call him Johnny Oh.
Speaker 1: We'll find out if I'm going to have to start
Speaker 1: having a you know, use the code. My my friend
Speaker 1: Tony Kornheiser, Congressman, loves Johnny O Polo shirts and they
Speaker 1: advertise on his So maybe at this point people will
Speaker 1: think it's you advertising.
Speaker 2: It's the number one gift I get when I talk
Speaker 2: to Chambers of congresces, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's the has You know they have that third
Speaker 1: button right that that's what what's what guys like. It's
Speaker 1: like that it's a three button polo rather than sometimes
Speaker 1: the two button polo. So there is something about you know,
Speaker 1: it is.
Speaker 2: A nice print, a nice constitutional amendment.
Speaker 1: Here. There you go. It's a mighty fine constitution you have.
Speaker 1: There be ashamed, mighty find republican. There be shame if
Speaker 1: we lose it. All right, Look, I want to bring
Speaker 1: you on on this, but look we'll talk. I want
Speaker 1: to talk a lot about sort of how to make
Speaker 1: congressman Congress functional again. But this is an important step
Speaker 1: because constitutional You know, I am one of the reasons
Speaker 1: I'm long term optimistic, even if I'm short term pessimistic
Speaker 1: about the direction of our republic is that when we've
Speaker 1: had moments like this before we've used the tools in
Speaker 1: our toolbox. We haven't done it very often. We need
Speaker 1: to use them more, but we don't. We're in and
Speaker 1: around the Civil War, we did in and around Teddy
Speaker 1: Roosevelt throughout the r we did, and I think we're
Speaker 1: in one of those periods again. And you update your constitutions,
Speaker 1: and the same reason why you put a new roof
Speaker 1: on your house, you know it. Sometimes you know you realize, oh,
Speaker 1: it's kind of an old structure that's going to have leaks.
Speaker 1: We kind of need to put new technology in here.
Speaker 1: And so the updating of the constitution I think is necessary.
Speaker 1: But I'm curious where are we Do you have more
Speaker 1: than Don Bacon on board the parton amendment? And since
Speaker 1: I've been on here, am I missing a piece of
Speaker 1: the amendment that you think is important for my listeners
Speaker 1: and viewers to know. I think you pretty much hit it.
Speaker 2: We have a part of it where the petitioning for
Speaker 2: review is a pretty narrow approach. Twenty members of the House,
Speaker 2: five members of the Senate can petition for that vote,
Speaker 2: and so part of it is just by having the
Speaker 2: ability to review it, our hope is that presidents will
Speaker 2: think twice before issuing these egregious pardons. But yeah, it
Speaker 2: is very much modeled after a veto override, which I
Speaker 2: thought it was a modest but important step forward to
Speaker 2: say some of these pardons that really are beyond the pale,
Speaker 2: especially under this president, are in need of that kind
Speaker 2: of reform. And so I appreciate Don stepping on and
Speaker 2: really stepping into this in a moment where we're so polarized.
Speaker 2: But that's why we structured that way. And I think
Speaker 2: that as a new member of Congress, having someone who's
Speaker 2: a veteran who really I think understands the institution and
Speaker 2: why this is important. We are now actually this week,
Speaker 2: we're going to be opening up for co sponsors, and
Speaker 2: so we're hoping to see Democrats and Republicans alike join.
Speaker 2: I know it's going to be harder because I think
Speaker 2: people view it as going after President Trump, and in
Speaker 2: some ways like his have been especially worse in my opinion,
Speaker 2: But as you as you point out, I think the.
Speaker 1: Preemptive partons were terrible. I mean, there's really no defending
Speaker 1: the preemptive partons and what he did. And and I
Speaker 1: might have empathy for Tony Fauci on a personal level,
Speaker 1: Lis Chainey in a personal level, there's no doubt there
Speaker 1: there could be attempts. But what really set me off
Speaker 1: about those pardons were they where they get out of
Speaker 1: jail free cards for his family members. That felt like,
Speaker 1: what are you doing to prevent what you think the
Speaker 1: next president is going to do? You just gave him
Speaker 1: precedent to do it with his own family m And.
Speaker 2: I suspect he will and.
Speaker 1: What will he say when he does it, just like
Speaker 1: the previous psident.
Speaker 2: That's right, absolutely, And I think this is part of
Speaker 2: the larger issue. This is one of many places where
Speaker 2: I think Americans are so frustrated with all of us
Speaker 2: because the wealthy and the well connected and those who
Speaker 2: are in power or are privileged or getting away with
Speaker 2: you know, literally crimes I don't want to say murder,
Speaker 2: but like they're getting away with pretty serious crimes. They're
Speaker 2: lining their pockets, and everybody else is getting crushed. And
Speaker 2: so I think it's pastime, especially in this space, to
Speaker 2: look at the Constitution and say this is you can
Speaker 2: drive a truck through this loophole.
Speaker 1: I like to think that.
Speaker 2: Our founders had some better sense, that the better angels
Speaker 2: of those who were presidents would not have abused it.
Speaker 1: In these ways. But here we are.
Speaker 2: And you know, I'm a Democrat who can say that
Speaker 2: presidents I didn't Clinton others also abuse this whether it
Speaker 2: was Clinton's half brother.
Speaker 1: Do you do any research on this as to why,
Speaker 1: I mean, what are my favorite I find the pardon
Speaker 1: I inclusion in the Constitution one of the biggest head scratchers,
Speaker 1: Like if I could go into a time machine, because
Speaker 1: here's a group of men and it was obviously we
Speaker 1: know it was all men who were so concerned about
Speaker 1: a monarchy and about preventing a monarch as the leader
Speaker 1: of our country that they wrote this pretty incredible document
Speaker 1: that has stood the test of time but created a
Speaker 1: loophole right out of a monarchy. And it is one
Speaker 1: of those how the heck did this get into the
Speaker 1: Constitution in the first place.
Speaker 2: It's pretty wild considering all the checks and balances that
Speaker 2: are otherwise written into the Constitution. I mean, they were
Speaker 2: so deliberate about, to your point, preventing a return of
Speaker 2: the monarchy, and I think that they would be surprised
Speaker 2: by the amount of presidential authority being exhibited today. Generally,
Speaker 2: I think that the inclinations of those founding fathers were
Speaker 2: actually have as strong legislative branch that could sort of
Speaker 2: help dictate and set the pace for our governance. So
Speaker 2: I did not go that far back in terms of
Speaker 2: my history on the pardon, but I was intrigued to
Speaker 2: learn that there actually was a very similar amendment put
Speaker 2: forward following the pardon of Richard Nixon, almost exactly the
Speaker 2: same in terms of a twoth thing that happened.
Speaker 1: To It installed, obviously, but like, why did you get no?
Speaker 1: But did you get some understanding? Who stalled it? Why
Speaker 1: did it stall? This was a not a super majority
Speaker 1: of Democratic majorities, but pretty close in seventy six and
Speaker 1: seventy eight.
Speaker 2: My sense is that it ended up not being bipartisan,
Speaker 2: which is why we were so deliberate starting this out.
Speaker 2: I didn't want to drop this, this legislation, this constitutional
Speaker 2: amendment until we had a Republican on board, And you know,
Speaker 2: having Don agreed to do this was a game changer.
Speaker 2: And it's really open doors to my Republican colleagues at
Speaker 2: a time where it's really hard for us to have
Speaker 2: conversations about anything. But I like to think that both
Speaker 2: he and I approach our work in a way where
Speaker 2: we may have pretty strong philosophical differences on any number
Speaker 2: of issues, but that we treat each other in our
Speaker 2: colleagues with some decency and respect, and that we can
Speaker 2: approach this issue with the seriousness that it deserves, and
Speaker 2: we're hopeful that, if not under this Congress, that in
Speaker 2: a subsequent Congress, we actually do get this done, because
Speaker 2: this is more than just I mean, I want to
Speaker 2: see this done.
Speaker 1: Beyond right, I assume your goal is you'll introduce this,
Speaker 1: assuming the voters of Baltimore send you back, that you
Speaker 1: will do this every Congress until you get us right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think it's one of many reforms that
Speaker 2: we should be looking at. I mean, the fact that
Speaker 2: we can't get a decent stockband passed, for example, is
Speaker 2: sort of beyond beyond me. These are things that are
Speaker 2: supported by eighty percent of the voters out there, Republicans
Speaker 2: and Democrats alike. And so I'm I'm a firm believer
Speaker 2: that one of the things we have to do, whether
Speaker 2: it's as Democrats or as members of Congress, is have
Speaker 2: people believe in the institution again. And that's sort of
Speaker 2: holding ourselves to a higher standard and living that standard
Speaker 2: a little bit. So this is one place where I
Speaker 2: had a chance and step and lead.
Speaker 1: And sort of know. It is a modest I mean,
Speaker 1: I'll just be honest, It is a somewhat modest proposal.
Speaker 1: I you know, I don't know if one individual should
Speaker 1: have this kind of power. And whether you thought of
Speaker 1: creating a pardon board, you know, that might be made
Speaker 1: up of the two most senior justices, the Attorney General,
Speaker 1: maybe the chairs of the Senate Judiciary and House Judiciary.
Speaker 1: Whatever you could create, we could just in the same
Speaker 1: way we have the Gang of Eight for intel briefings
Speaker 1: that administration. You know, you could put together a pardon
Speaker 1: board where you would just like anything. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think plenty of states have taken the power away from
Speaker 1: the governor, created these boards with the governor having ultimate
Speaker 1: sort of thumbs up, thumbs down sign off. Essentially they
Speaker 1: will sign off or they won't sign off. Did you
Speaker 1: think about adding that or were you fearing that was
Speaker 1: too complicated that it would sort of sort of take
Speaker 1: the eye off of the focal of the focal point here,
Speaker 1: which is just putting a check on his part and power.
Speaker 2: Part of it with simplicity and aligns with the check
Speaker 2: that already exists in Congress on other bills where there's
Speaker 2: a conflict between the two branches. And frankly, the other
Speaker 2: piece is most other boards. I guess it depends on
Speaker 2: the state, but you sort of get into the questions
Speaker 2: of does the governor or the president still have the
Speaker 2: ultimate authority? And if they do for me, it doesn't
Speaker 2: actually address the problem. And if they don't over the board,
Speaker 2: then I think it could have been more challenging to
Speaker 2: get Republicans on board to this idea, especially under this trank.
Speaker 2: I'm just going to be real, under this administration, taking
Speaker 2: away the decision making of the president is not something
Speaker 2: that is looked favorly by colleagues in the Republican Party
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 1: So when I think about the history of tough things
Speaker 1: that need bipartisan support to get through, it's amazing how
Speaker 1: often they happen in the month of December. Right, Don't Ask,
Speaker 1: Don't Tell was repealed the month after the twenty ten
Speaker 1: mid terms. And I remember, if somebody told you Democrats
Speaker 1: just got shellacked in the twenty ten mid terms, you
Speaker 1: know what they're successfully going to do next. They're going
Speaker 1: to repeal Don't as, Don't Tell. And nobody would have
Speaker 1: seen a company. Now, was it paired up with solidifying
Speaker 1: the Bush tax cut? Yes, right, there was, certainly, you know,
Speaker 1: this is this is what what we expect Congress to
Speaker 1: do right, a little bit here, a little bit there,
Speaker 1: and that's how that's how compromise happens, and that's how
Speaker 1: progress happens. This screams December vote to me, meaning you
Speaker 1: know if you could attach it to a must pass
Speaker 1: bill that you would see you know, do you have
Speaker 1: a strategy yet in your head of how you want
Speaker 1: to get this passed? Or right now? Is it? If
Speaker 1: you build it, they will come mindset.
Speaker 2: Speaking at this point, it's building the coalition and helping
Speaker 2: to tell the story about why this is important, why
Speaker 2: it's needed, why it's not a partisan a proposal. But
Speaker 2: I will say I actually I love the idea of
Speaker 2: this being a December gift to the American people. So
Speaker 2: I think that that's something that as we're you know,
Speaker 2: as we're having the conversations, people are well, at least
Speaker 2: say that's.
Speaker 1: A great idea. We have to we have to do
Speaker 1: something about. Yeah, let me ask this. Have you had
Speaker 1: anybody say well, that's a terrible idea. And here's why.
Speaker 2: No, if anything, it's I can't sign on that because right,
Speaker 2: and so I think, to your point, right.
Speaker 1: No, what do you say it's a bad idea? They're
Speaker 1: just deciding whether they want to put their name.
Speaker 2: On it, because what we've seen is indefensible.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: You can't defend Juan Orlando Hernandez pardon in Honduras. You
Speaker 2: can't defend the cz crypto con artists who gave millions
Speaker 2: of dollars to the Trunk cryptocurrency. You can't defend the
Speaker 2: pardon shopping industry where people are now paying upwards of
Speaker 2: half a million a million dollars to seek a pardon
Speaker 2: from people closer.
Speaker 1: It's just it's indefensible.
Speaker 2: And so it's more a question of like, I don't
Speaker 2: I'm not worried about it passing if it's giving a vote,
Speaker 2: it's just the function of right. How do we find
Speaker 2: a legislative vehicle or pathway to make sure this actually.
Speaker 1: Gets I mean, look, the reason I look at December
Speaker 1: is sort of you're probably an opportune time is if
Speaker 1: the House is going to change hands and there is
Speaker 1: going to be some cleanup, they're going to want to
Speaker 1: get some votes out the door before they lose their majority,
Speaker 1: and they want to be able to say that that
Speaker 1: you know, you know, maybe that's when you get the
Speaker 1: stock band, right. That's where you could picture how those
Speaker 1: that have survived want to be able to say, hey,
Speaker 1: we we hear you, we heard the message, and this
Speaker 1: is a way to respond. I mean it's like, look,
Speaker 1: I'm just I will confess. I just want to see
Speaker 1: I want to see this work. We need to prove
Speaker 1: that we can use constitutional amendment. I do think there's
Speaker 1: a lot of people who feel powerless at the moment
Speaker 1: that they look at the democracy and they think it's
Speaker 1: rigged and I have no say in this. Yep, the
Speaker 1: thought that a constitutional that Congress could propose a constitutional amendment,
Speaker 1: it passes the House and the Senate, and it then
Speaker 1: heads to the state legislatures. I mean it's you know,
Speaker 1: civics one oh one, right, Like how an amendment becomes
Speaker 1: comes to be would be a healthy exercise because it's
Speaker 1: one of those things once we once we teach the
Speaker 1: country had a fish, I think they'll keep trying to fish.
Speaker 1: Just you know, that'd be nice to actually person in me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it'd be nice to actually see what I told
Speaker 2: my kids in ninth grade government class when I was
Speaker 2: a teacher before I got into politics, that yes, this
Speaker 2: stuff actually works and this is how things happened. Because
Speaker 2: that has not been my experience in the past.
Speaker 1: We really haven't passed a meaningful constitutional amendment, arguably since
Speaker 1: the Kennedy assassination with the twenty fifth Amendment, Right that
Speaker 1: that was a meaningful Oh we have a what if
Speaker 1: the president had lived? Right? That was that to me
Speaker 1: was at least responding to something. Hey, we hadn't dealt
Speaker 1: with this, and perhaps we ought to deal with this scenario.
Speaker 1: We really haven't had a meaningful one since then and
Speaker 1: it worked. Well, that's close to sixty years now. I
Speaker 1: know we've had a few things on pay raise and
Speaker 1: lowering the age from twenty one eighteen, but to me,
Speaker 1: this wasn't a dealing with something that was structurally broken
Speaker 1: inside the republic.
Speaker 2: Well, and your point, I think people want to have
Speaker 2: something to believe in again and to say this is
Speaker 2: something that transcends our parties and politics and that we
Speaker 2: can look at our structures and how we function.
Speaker 1: As a nation.
Speaker 2: And I would love to give that hope to I
Speaker 2: think a very weary, a weary.
Speaker 1: Nation right now. This episode of the Check podcast is
Speaker 1: brought to you by Soul. So if you love that
Speaker 1: end of the day unwind but hate the hangover, Soul's
Speaker 1: out of office is for you. These sparkling THHC drinks
Speaker 1: and gummies give you the same relaxed social feeling without
Speaker 1: the alcohol, without the calories, and without the crash. Soul
Speaker 1: is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be
Speaker 1: fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THCHC
Speaker 1: and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help
Speaker 1: you unwind. They're best selling out of office gummies. We're
Speaker 1: designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood
Speaker 1: and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you
Speaker 1: can tailor the dose to fit your vibe. So also
Speaker 1: has a variety of products specifically designed to help you
Speaker 1: get a better night's rest, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies,
Speaker 1: a fan favorite for deep restorers. Sleep Look. I have
Speaker 1: made no secret. I am a believer in this stuff,
Speaker 1: in cannabis and hemp derived. I do not partake in alcohol.
Speaker 1: For the most part, I think this stuff is a
Speaker 1: lot safer than alcohol, a lot less addictive than alcohol.
Speaker 1: And yes, I have to say I love these drinks.
Speaker 1: It is the glass of wine and you know after work,
Speaker 1: that's what this is. So no hangover and no excess
Speaker 1: calories like this. I'm a big fan, So bring on
Speaker 1: the good vibes and treat yourself to sold today. Right now,
Speaker 1: Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
Speaker 1: Go to getsoul dot com and use the word podcast.
Speaker 1: That's getsol dot com promo code podcast for thirty percent off.
Speaker 1: And yes, I too, am a customer. You said something
Speaker 1: else a few moments ago that I'm more skeptical frankly
Speaker 1: that that is going to be easy to prove, and
Speaker 1: that is that you can prove to the country that
Speaker 1: Congress can you know, be a independent branch of government again.
Speaker 1: And you know, if Democrats get the House back, you know,
Speaker 1: some people are going to think they've got a mandate
Speaker 1: to go impeach Trump, and some are going to say
Speaker 1: they have a mandate to just simply oppose all things Trump.
Speaker 1: And some will say, no, we have a mandate to
Speaker 1: make Congress a functional branch again. The problem is, and
Speaker 1: you know, I'm just speaking reality, your own caucus probably
Speaker 1: is divided in three like this now, which is you know,
Speaker 1: what what should be the focus, you know, what it
Speaker 1: takes to create more belief in the independence of the
Speaker 1: legislative branch, which might not be in the best interests
Speaker 1: of the hardcore base of the Democratic Party. So how
Speaker 1: do you navigate that?
Speaker 2: The same way I think about all this is it's
Speaker 2: sort of the I approach politics as a Maslow's hierarchy
Speaker 2: and as a party and as a institution. We should
Speaker 2: be focusing on addressing people's base needs first, and as
Speaker 2: we were saying earlier, I feel like we've failed at
Speaker 2: that miserably. Cost of living was supposed to be the number.
Speaker 2: You know, day one, President Trump that he would address it.
Speaker 2: Any number of my colleagues and I ran on lowering
Speaker 2: the cost of living. And I always say, if people
Speaker 2: can't put food on the table and provide for a
Speaker 2: roof over their head, they don't really care about any
Speaker 2: of the other issues. And so I think that we
Speaker 2: can hold the president accountable, and if there are impeachable offenses,
Speaker 2: we can look at pursuing that. But we have to
Speaker 2: also provide for Americans, whether it's a fair wage, whether
Speaker 2: it's addressing the healthcare crisis that is. You know, I
Speaker 2: think the average maryland is paying four thousand dollars more
Speaker 2: a year if they're still in the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 2: But we have to also, I guess what I'm trying
Speaker 2: to is like prove that we can govern with integrity.
Speaker 2: And so whether it's the millions of files that still
Speaker 2: haven't been released on Epstein, whether it's the insider stock trading,
Speaker 2: the constitutional it's all these things that make people feel
Speaker 2: like from a policy perspective, they see people getting rich
Speaker 2: off of these debts on war in Iran. They see
Speaker 2: members of Congress trading stock and becoming millionaires while we're serving.
Speaker 2: And then we're cutting food benefits, we're making healthcare more expensive,
Speaker 2: we're not addressing the housing costs that people are experiencing.
Speaker 2: And so I think just delivering, delivering on those basic needs,
Speaker 2: doing so in a way that has some level of
Speaker 2: ethics and integrity, I think provides the space that if
Speaker 2: you were operating in good faith, you can then and
Speaker 2: also do this impeachment or whatever else needs to happen.
Speaker 1: As Democrats, Look, what you say seems pretty rational and normal,
Speaker 1: and yet that isn't what ends up being what people
Speaker 1: hear and they see coming out of Congress, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: it gets partisan quickly, and it's going to be even
Speaker 1: harder if you guys take control immediately there's going to
Speaker 1: be a presidential campaign starting, and that is always even
Speaker 1: harder on, you know, especially if you were the majority
Speaker 1: in the House and you've got a bunch of people
Speaker 1: running around Iowa, South Carolina with Democrats next there in
Speaker 1: the name going Washington's terrible and dysfunctional. Congress doesn't know
Speaker 1: what it's doing. You know, it will like create this
Speaker 1: weird negative feedback loop that I think is going to
Speaker 1: be quite hard to navigate, you know. And oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, you're still dealing with potentially a runaway executive branch.
Speaker 2: I mean, right now, it is Shrewe are dysfunctional. This
Speaker 2: is one of the least productive congresses I think in
Speaker 2: the history of Congress. What I tell people is that
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, Congress is an institution
Speaker 2: that is made up of people. And maybe this is
Speaker 2: me being a little pollyannish as a new member and
Speaker 2: someone who hasn't been jaded by decades of service, But
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, I don't think any
Speaker 2: one person is beyond redemption. And so if you have
Speaker 2: an institution full of people, you have to believe that
Speaker 2: the institution isn't beyond redemption, it can also change, and
Speaker 2: so I come at it as someone who, like my predecessor,
Speaker 2: Doug Ruebersberger, was a local executive before coming here, and
Speaker 2: I had a split counsel. We had four Democrats, we
Speaker 2: had three Republicans. We passed gun safety legislation, we passed
Speaker 2: police reform, we passed balanced budgets. We both cut cut
Speaker 2: spending and found new ways to raise revenue. I mean,
Speaker 2: it was just there's a way to do it.
Speaker 1: Well. It's funny, though, you're actually in the minority in
Speaker 1: the House, aren't you of executives serving in the legislative branch? Right,
Speaker 1: there's a few more executives in the Senate, right, a
Speaker 1: few more former governors.
Speaker 2: And I think we'd be stronger if there were more
Speaker 2: of us, can't.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean, I'm trying to think. You know, you've
Speaker 1: got uh uh, you've got Carlos Simnez, who's the former
Speaker 1: mayor of Miami Dade County. You've you've got your county
Speaker 1: exact Mecardo greg Stanton, that's right, Stanton, Mary mayor of Phoenix.
Speaker 1: It is. You know, it's funny. Anybody who spent time
Speaker 1: as a mayor right knows you can't be an ideologue,
Speaker 1: you know. And to me, I know, county exact county
Speaker 1: judge in some states, you know, but it's essentially we
Speaker 1: call it our county mayor is a mayor in Florida.
Speaker 1: Here it's a county executive. I know Texas it's a judge, right,
Speaker 1: which gets really confusing, but I mean it is. You know,
Speaker 1: it's easy to be a partisan when all you have
Speaker 1: to do is legislate, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, governing is hard and if you want to find
Speaker 2: I think the other challenge is is too is these
Speaker 2: chambers constantly are shifting back and forth, and we can
Speaker 2: we can like we can play this game where it's
Speaker 2: constantly we win and then we just sort of like
Speaker 2: bash away everything the last group did and then we
Speaker 2: build something and they take it.
Speaker 1: Well, look at HR I think about this, and I
Speaker 1: don't think you were there for HR one, but you
Speaker 1: had Democrats who had there like Christmas Tree wish lists
Speaker 1: when it came to what they how they would like
Speaker 1: to see our voting rules. Well, guess what. The Republicans
Speaker 1: came in and they have their wish list of and
Speaker 1: neither one is reality based, right, They're both some things
Speaker 1: seem reasonable, and some things seem a bit aspirational right
Speaker 1: on eich side. And whenever I hear somebody say well,
Speaker 1: it's all of it or nothing that, I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: you're not interested in passing any legislation then, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: if Republicans were serious about voter ID, then they'd only
Speaker 1: make it about voter ID, and I promise you they'd
Speaker 1: probably get it past. Yes, I think there's forty percent
Speaker 1: of the Democratic caucus. I would probably vote for vote ID,
Speaker 1: and once I got that, I it might be all
Speaker 1: of everybody. You know, we built somehow of that stuff works, yep.
Speaker 1: And if Democrats have just simply wanted to guarantee a
Speaker 1: minimum standard for early access to voting, and that's all
Speaker 1: they wanted, they would have gotten bipartisan support for that. Right,
Speaker 1: you know, the inability somehow to you know, go find
Speaker 1: the slice of bread that everybody wants and let's let's
Speaker 1: share it.
Speaker 2: Well, those are those solutions that are sustainable, right because
Speaker 2: you forced that compromise and that consensus, and they don't
Speaker 2: ask forever. Necessarily, sometimes you'll have a big package that
Speaker 2: will undo it. But I think by and large the
Speaker 2: decisions are better and they're more sustainable when you take
Speaker 2: that approach. There's another suit as opposed to President Trump
Speaker 2: voting today by mail in Florida.
Speaker 1: Rules for thee not for me. But here's another challenge
Speaker 1: I think you guys are going to have if you
Speaker 1: get control the House. Is I take it at that
Speaker 1: as a minority, you don't feel like the majority has
Speaker 1: treated you very well? Do you feel that way?
Speaker 2: Very fair assessment, right, with the exception of especially my
Speaker 2: Small Business Committee Roger Williams.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's the baseball.
Speaker 2: Connection because he's the coach of the Republican team and
Speaker 2: I play for the Democrats, but we've passed like three
Speaker 2: bipartisan bills out of that committee.
Speaker 1: Everybody loves small business. It's a reminder, right, there's certain
Speaker 1: there are certain committees that can get stuff done. Agg
Speaker 1: has usually been one that also can get stuff done
Speaker 1: on a bipart.
Speaker 2: But you generally know we have not been treated very
Speaker 2: well by by the majority here.
Speaker 1: Because I say that, because it then becomes really hard
Speaker 1: to then say, oh, no, we're unlike how you treated us.
Speaker 1: We're going to treat you better. Because the golden rule.
Speaker 1: Everybody lives by the golden rule in politics and and
Speaker 1: but they always live at it, live on it more
Speaker 1: defensively than offensively. I mean, well you did this to me,
Speaker 1: so I'm going to do it to you. Right everything is.
Speaker 1: It's more biblical Old Testament, Biblical justice. Right eye for
Speaker 1: an eye. That's not going to solve the longer term
Speaker 1: problem of Congress's dysfunctional dysfunctionality. And yet you and I
Speaker 1: both know leadership will get a lot of grief if
Speaker 1: you know, from the base and maybe from donors if
Speaker 1: if they don't punish the other side. Here's how it
Speaker 1: gets described. Let me get it. You're trying. This is
Speaker 1: not a simple question to answer, and maybe this is
Speaker 1: a better way to deal with this debate. There are
Speaker 1: some that argue that, hey, when Democrats have power, they
Speaker 1: ought to use their power. Look at how those guys
Speaker 1: use They have power because of a three vote majority,
Speaker 1: but they behave like they have a sixty vote majority.
Speaker 1: We should behave the same way. Do you feel that
Speaker 1: I think that's why they're losing so bad.
Speaker 2: It's because of they're both but acting like a sixty
Speaker 2: but they're not incorporating what I think are oftentimes good
Speaker 2: democratic ideas which might win support on some legislation, and
Speaker 2: they're allowing themselves to go so extreme, particularly with this
Speaker 2: president's or of dictating the terms of what they're pursuing,
Speaker 2: and they're not sort of showing any of that independence.
Speaker 2: So I actually I'm going to be controlling here. I
Speaker 2: think if Democrats and we shouldn't compromise our values, I
Speaker 2: think we can compromise about compromising what our core values
Speaker 2: are as Democrats. But if we're willing to at least
Speaker 2: on a good number of items in good faith, say, okay, Republicans,
Speaker 2: if you have an idea that is worth listening to,
Speaker 2: for example, and it can win win your support to
Speaker 2: help you know, move this piece of legislation forward, we'll
Speaker 2: hear you out. I mean, my frustration going to rules
Speaker 2: any number of times has basically been if if Virginia
Speaker 2: Fox the chair, who's actually a very nice person. We
Speaker 2: don't agree on anything, but we've gotten to know each other,
Speaker 2: but she's the only one there there's even a conversation.
Speaker 1: It's sort of any ideas the Speaker's committee for a reason, and.
Speaker 2: It operates that way. But again, like things don't you've
Speaker 2: you've covered this and been around this a lot more.
Speaker 2: I just I just really think that there is there
Speaker 2: is a crop of new members, especially in the Democratic side,
Speaker 2: but also some Republicans I think, who see a different
Speaker 2: way forward. And so I think depending on who comes
Speaker 2: in and replaces the members who are departing, there might
Speaker 2: be I think some space for maybe not a one
Speaker 2: to eighty degree turn right, but but just maybe like
Speaker 2: a thirty degree turn towards.
Speaker 1: Well, all right, let me make I I appreciate your
Speaker 1: optimism on that, but let's be realistic. The Republicans that
Speaker 1: are likely to lose are the ones that are like
Speaker 1: your co sponsor and the pardon bill Don Bacon, right,
Speaker 1: these are the ones you know, it is it is
Speaker 1: the It is those that are not hardcore MEGA that
Speaker 1: are more likely to lose. And that so you may
Speaker 1: have fewer Republicans in the House next year, but by
Speaker 1: percentage in devotion to MEGA, you may have a greater
Speaker 1: majority of MEGA adherents and so and that, Look, this
Speaker 1: is due to this redistricting fiasco, which which you know,
Speaker 1: I don't see why more redistricting in blue states makes
Speaker 1: this better.
Speaker 2: You couple partisan redistricting with partisan elections. That's what you're
Speaker 2: going to get, right, Like, and so that's that's I
Speaker 2: think a much harder reform is. I think that people
Speaker 2: will defend those systems more than say the pardon situation
Speaker 2: that we open with. But yeah, like and I think
Speaker 2: you actually may see more progressive Democrats coming in in
Speaker 2: addition to the crop right who are.
Speaker 1: Not going to be interested. I mean, look, I've talked
Speaker 1: to plenty of progressive who says I want my own
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. That you know, it's sort of if we're
Speaker 1: going to live, if if if the world is ends
Speaker 1: justifies the means, all right, then let's go get our
Speaker 1: version of Donald Trump. Look, I obviously don't think that
Speaker 1: that's the idea. But when you live in a reactionary
Speaker 1: political environment, which is the one I think we're living
Speaker 1: in in the moment, it's almost inevitable we're going to
Speaker 1: see a version of this.
Speaker 2: It's a good chance that we're going to see that. Right,
Speaker 2: I think that there's a But the most important thing
Speaker 2: is someone who can win.
Speaker 1: And so I don't know that.
Speaker 2: Elections are unique to the candidate, the circumstance, timing, and
Speaker 2: so you're going to certainly I think see candidates in
Speaker 2: that vein. Yeah, the obviously I think it might do
Speaker 2: better in the respective primaries. But I think also, at
Speaker 2: least for Democrats, I think we are coming to a
Speaker 2: reckoning where it's like, if we don't win, none of
Speaker 2: it matters.
Speaker 1: Right, So, and I hear you know, look, you and
Speaker 1: I I'm guessing, even if it's Baltimore, you've seen the
Speaker 1: redistricting ads that Obama's the spokesperson for quite a bit.
Speaker 1: I'm sure, right, if you've watched the NCAA tournament, I
Speaker 1: feel like I've seen it. You know, I'm seeing Barack
Speaker 1: Obama as much as I'm seeing Rick Patino on my
Speaker 1: screen at the moment. And it is hard. You know,
Speaker 1: you sit there and you're like, okay, hey, in order
Speaker 1: to create fairness with Texas, we're going to have to
Speaker 1: be unfair in Virginia.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: And look, Maryland has contemplated this, and you've got some
Speaker 1: Democrats in the state legislature, like, you know what, they're
Speaker 1: worried about the long term consequences. I'm empathetic to the
Speaker 1: fight fire with fire mindset, I get it right. And
Speaker 1: if you do believe right, there are some you know,
Speaker 1: Gavenusen says it out loud, and maybe I'll you know,
Speaker 1: he believes if Democrats don't win the House this year,
Speaker 1: there won't be a fair twenty twenty eight election. Now
Speaker 1: I don't happen to believe that, but I respect people
Speaker 1: that believe that, Like you know, I might be wrong
Speaker 1: and they may be right. Where are you on that
Speaker 1: level of concern.
Speaker 2: I'm deeply concerned about the efforts with like the Save Act,
Speaker 2: for example. I do think that the Senate's going to probably,
Speaker 2: if not narrow, stay the same, and so I think
Speaker 2: it's going to be hard, at least as as envisioned
Speaker 2: to pass what they're trying to get through. I am
Speaker 2: actually concerned about, having lived through it and having seen it,
Speaker 2: I'm actually concerned about the certification. So I am concerned
Speaker 2: and obviously working to help elect a Democratic majority in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six, but knowing that the House and Senate
Speaker 2: have to certify the elections in twenty twenty eight, I
Speaker 2: think having at least one of those chambers be a
Speaker 2: Democratic majority is actually the thing that I'm more interested in,
Speaker 2: so that we have hopefully a fair free count and
Speaker 2: we don't have any shenanigans around contesting the election results.
Speaker 1: And are you confident that this House, you know, the
Speaker 1: House Republicans. I've had, you know, some the House Republicans
Speaker 1: will still have the majority in December when elections get certified.
Speaker 1: And people don't really fully realize this, but Congress can decide,
Speaker 1: ultimately decide whether a House race is yeah, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: actually not something that's done by the state. What's your
Speaker 1: level of concern that Speaker is going to get involved
Speaker 1: after the election.
Speaker 2: As we sit here today, I don't think the Speaker
Speaker 2: is spotting to do that. I think that having led
Speaker 2: a local election agency and partnered with election like they
Speaker 2: do incredible work at the state and local levels to
Speaker 2: run these elections, and overturning and challenging an election is
Speaker 2: a pretty big step.
Speaker 1: And look, last time Congress did it, one could argue
Speaker 1: it's what created New Kingridge. You can go back in history.
Speaker 1: It's called the it's an incident. It's referred to as
Speaker 1: the Bloody Eighth. It was an Indiana eighth Congressional district
Speaker 1: in eighty six. Within a year later, Democrats overturned the
Speaker 1: recount the House Administration Committee and at the UH and
Speaker 1: set the candidate that had lost the recount, and it
Speaker 1: was arguably I've had people say you know when did
Speaker 1: this polarization begin. And some will argue that that was
Speaker 1: the moment that gave life to New Gingridge and when
Speaker 1: you give he was the backbencher ready to throw bombs
Speaker 1: at the time, Well, I look, I My level of
Speaker 1: concern on that is only if it's a really tight margin,
Speaker 1: right if we if we're looking at if we're looking
Speaker 1: at three seats again, but this time it's three seats
Speaker 1: on your side instead of the other side, then yeah,
Speaker 1: I think every I think everything's a knife fight. If
Speaker 1: it's a twenty seat gap, I don't see it.
Speaker 2: Well, the seat gap and the margins of the elections themselves.
Speaker 2: I think if it's if it's a three seat gap
Speaker 2: but Democrats are Republicans have blown you know, we're one
Speaker 2: fifteen points in those elections, it's harder, I think to justify.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I'm learning a lot as a as a
Speaker 2: new member here about sort of the ways in which
Speaker 2: we govern ourselves.
Speaker 1: And thens do you miss Do you miss being in
Speaker 1: local government?
Speaker 2: There are parts of this job that I enjoy and
Speaker 2: I choose to focus on them. I definitely miss getting
Speaker 2: things done. I mean that was that was the thing.
Speaker 1: Every day.
Speaker 2: It was like we and this is why I like
Speaker 2: I'm in politics. Every day was a chance to make
Speaker 2: somebody's life better. Yeah, and if we what's frustrating is
Speaker 2: I know the resources this government has and the tools
Speaker 2: at our disposal, and if we actually channeled them in
Speaker 2: a way that was targeted and thoughtful and productive, it
Speaker 2: would be I mean, we could transform We have transformed
Speaker 2: this country before, right, you know, RAO, interstate highways, clean drinking, Like,
Speaker 2: There's so much we could do, but instead we're yelling
Speaker 2: at each other on social media. And it's I think
Speaker 2: that's that's what's really unfortunate about all of it.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
Speaker 1: Frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, artisonal pastries, and
Speaker 1: fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
Speaker 1: five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild
Speaker 1: Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a
Speaker 1: slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on
Speaker 1: your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
Speaker 1: nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The
Speaker 1: Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their
Speaker 1: variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box,
Speaker 1: and a new protein box. I will tell you I
Speaker 1: have done the gluten free box. I have done it
Speaker 1: a second time. I have also used the code the
Speaker 1: todcast code. To use the promo code podcast at checkout,
Speaker 1: you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as
Speaker 1: a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It
Speaker 1: is hard to find good glas and free bread. It
Speaker 1: is fantastic. They give you step by step instructions. I
Speaker 1: really dig this. There is nothing like having an artesian
Speaker 1: bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill.
Speaker 1: Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy
Speaker 1: some comforting homemade meals with Wildgrain. I obviously highly recommend it.
Speaker 1: It is worth giving wild Green to try. Right now,
Speaker 1: Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first
Speaker 1: box plus free croissants for life. Come on when you
Speaker 1: go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to start your
Speaker 1: subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first box and
Speaker 1: free croissants for life. When you visit wildgrain dot com
Speaker 1: slash podcast or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout.
Speaker 1: This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code.
Speaker 1: I think sometimes, you know, in reporting, it's I've always
Speaker 1: thought it was really important to change beats. Now I
Speaker 1: never did, and but having a fresh set of eyes
Speaker 1: joined me on any beat was always helpful. You know what,
Speaker 1: what have I gotten used to that isn't normal? But
Speaker 1: I'm treating as normal. So you're a fresh set of eyes.
Speaker 1: What is Congress treat as normal that You're like, w TF?
Speaker 1: What I mean? This? This is insanity. Give me a
Speaker 1: few things like that. We already talked about the stock trading.
Speaker 2: I think you can look through any number of the
Speaker 2: ethics reports that are at least now public that in
Speaker 2: any other environment, even what's already publicly made available would
Speaker 2: lead to lead to the dismissal of members.
Speaker 1: Just very out.
Speaker 2: Again, it's this disconnect, and this is why people are like,
Speaker 2: you can get away with anything if you're elected, or
Speaker 2: if you're rich, or if you're you know, well connected.
Speaker 2: But meanwhile, I can't pay my damn ortgage, right, I
Speaker 2: can't find a job, and so like that's.
Speaker 1: The what the heck is is all of this like.
Speaker 2: Good good for me, not for not for thee or
Speaker 2: if you're you know, if you know the presence people,
Speaker 2: you can get a part.
Speaker 1: And if and I have to say like.
Speaker 2: Both is as like a kid who grew up in
Speaker 2: like a steel town that shut down, Like I feel that, and.
Speaker 1: It's it's frustrating.
Speaker 2: It's hard to see because there are I think there
Speaker 2: are so many good people who are there for the
Speaker 2: right reasons.
Speaker 1: But all that's let me let me ask you this
Speaker 1: is it is the following statement true that ninety percent
Speaker 1: of the work you do in Congress, there's ninety percent
Speaker 1: agreement on nine of the work that we do. I
Speaker 1: don't think so currently. No, you think it's that you
Speaker 1: think that what we're fighting over is more than ten
Speaker 1: percent of these days. And I look at it not.
Speaker 2: You can look the numbers of suspension bills that we
Speaker 2: pass every week, right, So like if you look at
Speaker 2: it from a pure bill number perspective, yes, but I
Speaker 2: think about all of the in my opinion, the terrible
Speaker 2: things that were put into reconciliation, the debt increase, the
Speaker 2: healthcare changes that are taking away of food supports, the
Speaker 2: transfer of tax cuts to the wealthiest of the country,
Speaker 2: and those are like I weigh though so much more
Speaker 2: heavily in terms of like big things, things that are
Speaker 2: impactful to this country that like renaming a post office.
Speaker 2: I can't sort of give the same I got you wait,
Speaker 2: so like in terms of like number of bills. Sure,
Speaker 2: in terms of like impact or the magnitude of the issues,
Speaker 2: not so much.
Speaker 1: Well, that's it is because there is such a What
Speaker 1: I try to convey to folks outside of Washington is
Speaker 1: that you know, there's the stuff that gets the most
Speaker 1: attention is still only ten percent of the of say
Speaker 1: there's two Washington's. There's like a Washington that's consistently having
Speaker 1: to get things done enough to let everything function. And
Speaker 1: then there's the performance art political theater of Washington. And
Speaker 1: I feel like the House of Representatives, those that have
Speaker 1: whose names are the most famous are the ones that
Speaker 1: do the least.
Speaker 2: I think there's a lot of truth to that. And
Speaker 2: that's a choice, right. I think at the end of
Speaker 2: the day, you get you to choose, like do you
Speaker 2: want to try to get stuff done or or do
Speaker 2: you try to go viral?
Speaker 1: All right, let me get at a couple of things here.
Speaker 1: The redistricting in Maryland is something that you were supportive
Speaker 1: of politically, but glad it didn't happen, or do you
Speaker 1: think it should have happened.
Speaker 2: I think it reinforces why we should be doing national reforms.
Speaker 2: I mean, if Republicans and Democrats and we both yell
Speaker 2: at each other about how terrible as in all the states,
Speaker 2: then like, let's again, let's come together and do something
Speaker 2: bipartisan and roll it back out everywhere.
Speaker 1: You know, you have a simple way to solve this,
Speaker 1: to potentially mitigate this issue. So my reform obsession is
Speaker 1: something that Congress regularly did until nineteen twenty, which was
Speaker 1: expand the size of the House. And you know, because
Speaker 1: of a fight between the two parties about how much
Speaker 1: we should reapportion and how many new seats should be
Speaker 1: added to Congress, in nineteen thirty they shut it down.
Speaker 1: Four thirty five became the number, and we went from
Speaker 1: you went from representing one per three hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand to now one per eight hundred and it's on
Speaker 1: its way to one two a million. And that was
Speaker 1: not the founder's intent. And the bigger these congressional districts
Speaker 1: are ironically the easier it is to use a faction
Speaker 1: to win them, right, and if you actually narrowed them,
Speaker 1: and if you had more of them, you know, essentially
Speaker 1: we went back to one per three fifty. And I
Speaker 1: think you could do this as constitutional amendment if you
Speaker 1: wanted to, and sort of mandate that the House had
Speaker 1: to expand make sure that no congressional district was bigger
Speaker 1: than point oh three percent of the population, which is
Speaker 1: the math that would get you to about one per
Speaker 1: four hundred thousand. That you may not need the gerrymander,
Speaker 1: you know. And look, it would fix the electoral college
Speaker 1: discrepancies because it would raise the numerator right, and you
Speaker 1: would have less likelihood. There'd still be a chance that
Speaker 1: the popular vote and the electoral college would go differently,
Speaker 1: but it's like a one percent chance, not where we
Speaker 1: are now, which is somewhere in that ten to fifteen
Speaker 1: percent range, which is destabilizing to the democracy. It just
Speaker 1: is I think we all can you have a series
Speaker 1: eve enough elections in a row or the majorities, you know,
Speaker 1: then people lose faith. I mean we've seen that in
Speaker 1: Israel's dealing with this. The majority hasn't been that government
Speaker 1: hasn't been a majority government in thirty years, you know,
Speaker 1: and you sort of see what happens. There any appetite
Speaker 1: inside the House to uncap the House as the as
Speaker 1: us dorky kids who would like to who would like
Speaker 1: to see this happen?
Speaker 2: Call it, uh nothing that I've I've heard. I hear
Speaker 2: more rumblings about things like rain choice voting. Frankly, and
Speaker 2: that's mostly from the Democratic side of the House. I
Speaker 2: haven't really heard much appetite other than folks who have
Speaker 2: been impacted on the Republican resist by the raddiction who who.
Speaker 1: Well, that's been the dirty little secret is that the
Speaker 1: people that hate this the most are the actual members
Speaker 1: of the US House, Like they're literally be treated like
Speaker 1: ponds in this game again between Trump and the Democrats.
Speaker 2: Right, yeah, and look, and so I understand like why
Speaker 2: Democrats punched back, why there was a response, but I
Speaker 2: tried to lean back into like I was ready drunk anywhere.
Speaker 1: But it's it's.
Speaker 2: A chance for us all to say, we've all said
Speaker 2: this is wrong. We've said's wrong. In Texas, we said wrong,
Speaker 2: you know, Democrats criticized Texas, Republicans critics a California. So
Speaker 2: then we agree. So let's do something about it. Oh yall,
Speaker 2: eventually least not yet. What's your advice to came Jeffries
Speaker 2: if you become speaker, keep it, keep it simple, focus
Speaker 2: on that kitchen table, you know. Let's let's raise wages.
Speaker 2: Let's provide opportunities for people to find jobs or get
Speaker 2: trained for jobs.
Speaker 1: Let's lower costs through ending tariffs.
Speaker 2: Let's make healthcare more affordable by pushing the ACA Tax
Speaker 2: Credit extension.
Speaker 1: And let's let's lead with our values. Let's lead with integrity.
Speaker 2: Let's let's pass the Pardon Integrity Act, and let's fix
Speaker 2: the pardons. Let's band stock trading by members of Congress.
Speaker 2: Six or seven things that people understand and get. Let's
Speaker 2: try to put it on the president's desk and let him.
Speaker 1: Say, Now, what's interesting there is you didn't say anything
Speaker 1: about impeachment or account. It doesn't sound like you'd like
Speaker 1: to see that be a top priority.
Speaker 2: Okay, Look, I voted to advance the articles of impeachment
Speaker 2: this term against this pressent. I think you certainly have
Speaker 2: done any number of things that are are worthy of impeachment,
Speaker 2: and so I'm prepared to do that.
Speaker 1: I'm prepared to hold.
Speaker 2: This president accountable at the end of the day. I
Speaker 2: also understand math, and so even if we impeach the
Speaker 2: president in the House, I don't see the numbers or.
Speaker 1: The math changing in the Senate. And so maybe it's
Speaker 1: an important Well, that's a question, you know. It's funny.
Speaker 1: I had this conversation with George Conway, who's running for Congress,
Speaker 1: on this issue, which in some ways I appreciate the
Speaker 1: honesty about it, right and the transparency. Right. What mandate
Speaker 1: do you want? Here's the mandate I want you voters
Speaker 1: decide whether you give it to me. There's two schools
Speaker 1: of thought here on a third impeachment right. One school
Speaker 1: says you have to show you're you're going to try
Speaker 1: to hold them accountable, because you've got to send a
Speaker 1: message to the next president and the next person that
Speaker 1: may hold office. Another says, if you shoot the if
Speaker 1: you go for the if you shoot the king again
Speaker 1: and miss again, have you made it where that tool
Speaker 1: in the toolbox is no longer a usable tool? I can?
Speaker 1: I can, I can argue both sides of this. If
Speaker 1: you made me do it, where do you fall I
Speaker 1: fall on?
Speaker 2: I want to actually have accountability where we can, and
Speaker 2: so part of the reason why I think taken the
Speaker 2: House is so important is really the oversight hearings and
Speaker 2: the subpoenas that we can do and actually getting information
Speaker 2: out to the public that makes it harder for this
Speaker 2: president to keep operating in what I think are often
Speaker 2: lawless ways and passing the legislation that, in my opinion,
Speaker 2: for example, is the common sense reforms to ice that
Speaker 2: are both best practice and that are overwhelmingly supported by Americans.
Speaker 2: And so I'm not opposed to impeachment. In fact, was
Speaker 2: affirmatively for it. But I think at the end of
Speaker 2: the day, accountability means that we're changing what's happening in
Speaker 2: people's lives, and we're changing the restraints on this president
Speaker 2: and future presidents, and so I'm for whatever does That
Speaker 2: is sort of my focus in all of this.
Speaker 1: All right, let me get you out of here. On
Speaker 1: Wes Moore for president, he has said he's not running
Speaker 1: for president in twenty twenty eight, and I think it's
Speaker 1: actually true. He is currently not running for president in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty yes, that I'm aware of. If he chooses
Speaker 1: to run in twenty twenty eight, is there any hesitation
Speaker 1: in your part to endorse him.
Speaker 2: I'm looking forward to broad coalition of I think exceptional
Speaker 2: Democrats that we have. I am not pre committing to
Speaker 2: endorse any of them, look forward to seeing what they
Speaker 2: all have to offer for America. The Governor's been a
Speaker 2: great partner here in Maryland. I think he would be
Speaker 2: a viable candidate should he changed from now to striking
Speaker 2: the now part of the answer. But I think that,
Speaker 2: especially in this moment, that Democrats need to put all
Speaker 2: of our voices forward and I think have a robust
Speaker 2: discussion about what the future of our party is going
Speaker 2: to be, who's best equipped to lead us? And I
Speaker 2: think it'd be great to have Governor more be part
Speaker 2: of that conversation, but not at a point where I
Speaker 2: would be endorsing any particular candidate at this point.
Speaker 1: What does what does electability mean to you? How do
Speaker 1: you define it? If that's going to be quite the
Speaker 1: debate in twenty twenty eight? Who's electable? And what's electability?
Speaker 1: I mean? And obviously it's true at senses. Who can win?
Speaker 2: I think I think it's someone who has policies that
Speaker 2: resonate with the American people and someone who can be
Speaker 2: cool and fun.
Speaker 1: And I feel like that's one of the places where Democrats.
Speaker 1: I do think there's got to be a little bit
Speaker 1: of a personality test here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think we've fallen fat flat on our faces
Speaker 2: as Democrats. We've lost the sort of swagger and the
Speaker 2: coolness of our presidential candidates.
Speaker 1: But it just it hasn't and it's Cleton and Obama
Speaker 1: had their own level of cool when they were in office.
Speaker 2: Even Biden the first time, you know, the aviators in
Speaker 2: the ice cream it was, it was a little bit
Speaker 2: of a swagger and a thing. And so figuring out
Speaker 2: as a party, how we get back to having both
Speaker 2: someone with the right policies, who can I think speak
Speaker 2: to those working interesting.
Speaker 1: So you really think the Democrats need to find what
Speaker 1: one what the kids might call it, the main character
Speaker 1: they need to find. They need to find, you know,
Speaker 1: I find my one of my favorite lines during the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty presidential debates was from Michael Bennett and he said,
Speaker 1: you know, if you elect me president, you may go
Speaker 1: three weeks without hearing from me. And I thought, hey,
Speaker 1: there's I like that. But I realized I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not the maturity I think. So the point is is
Speaker 1: you're saying that is not what you think the country
Speaker 1: is going to be looking for. Is is somebody to
Speaker 1: be a character, a sort of Gerald Ford and I
Speaker 1: say that, show me some.
Speaker 2: Show me some rids man like as as as my
Speaker 2: daughter and her friends would say, Yeah, I think you
Speaker 2: have to be able. You can have the best vision
Speaker 2: and ideas in the world. But if you can't and
Speaker 2: then and look, Trump is a hell of a salesman.
Speaker 2: He puts on a hell of a show. I don't
Speaker 2: agree with most of his policies. I think they're garbage
Speaker 2: for this country, but he puts on a great show.
Speaker 2: And he did it at the State of the Union, right,
Speaker 2: didn't didn't talk about a ran at all, but the
Speaker 2: show and the spectacle was impressive. And so we need
Speaker 2: I think we need someone who both can speak to
Speaker 2: our values and touch our hearts, but also can do
Speaker 2: it in a way that people are like, Yeah, let's.
Speaker 1: Go Coivers and Johnny Olcheskey, how'd I do? Not getting it? Okay? Johnny? Oh,
Speaker 1: it's I think man, you got it? Johnny Oh, I
Speaker 1: mean it's going to be you ever run for state
Speaker 1: wide office that you definitely have to be Johnny Oh,
Speaker 1: that's easy on the bumper sticker, right, I.
Speaker 2: Think that's it. That's the sticker. Now we're gonna just
Speaker 2: make the transition.
Speaker 1: Well, I enjoyed this, joyed getting to know you. Likewise,
Speaker 1: let's see if the uh you're gonna is the Are
Speaker 1: the Oriols going to make Camden Yards a hot ticket again? Uh?
Speaker 2: Ti Alonso was a great free agent pick up. The
Speaker 2: fact that we optioned Dean Kramer to the Miners tells
Speaker 2: me that we have a starting rotation that actually looks
Speaker 2: pretty good this year. So I'm a big fan of
Speaker 2: our new ownership team.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, No, I'm jealous. I wish he bought the Nets.
Speaker 1: I was I was hoping that that David. I was like, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: no no, he took Baltimore and we lost David Rubinstein.
Speaker 2: But you're right, you do have a good owner, a
Speaker 2: great owner, great team. Oriol Park is quintessential like the
Speaker 2: new era. So yeah, I'm always big. Also, like, it's
Speaker 2: hard to be Johnny Oh and.
Speaker 1: Not be for the O's. So you got to be
Speaker 1: for the O's, right, you know, you never know who, right?
Speaker 1: So uh yeah, I can to see the black and
Speaker 1: orange Johnny O hats there for you. So Anyway, Congress
Speaker 1: didn't great to get to know you. Thank you, I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. H.