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 even Mike Pentz had classified documents
Speaker 1: in his home. We have an excellent show. Today, Congressman
Speaker 1: Reuben Diego tells us about his newly annowed Senate run
Speaker 1: against the worst person in the world, newly independent Kirsten Cinema.
Speaker 1: Then we'll talk to Balls and Strikes editor Jay Willis
Speaker 1: about the dystopian lawsuit against Beado O'Rourke. They could give
Speaker 1: millionaires even more power over politics. But first we have
Speaker 1: the host of posting through it, the Institute for Strategic Dialogues,
Speaker 1: Jared Holt Jared Holt's Fast Politics. Happy to have you here, Yeah,
Speaker 1: good to talk again. How have you been the usual?
Speaker 1: I'm very conflicted about this Diamond thing. She died. Trump
Speaker 1: spoke at her funeral. By the way, did you see
Speaker 1: that he truthed it was too long. I didn't realize
Speaker 1: that he had posted that. I he said something to
Speaker 1: that effect of like, oh, they said fifteen minutes in
Speaker 1: and out here, I am stuck here right three and
Speaker 1: a half hours. I mean, that's kind of the relatable
Speaker 1: content we crave from our elected because I have been
Speaker 1: at events where I was told it was fifteen minutes
Speaker 1: and it just went on and on. Though it is
Speaker 1: not a great way to honor the dad, the whole
Speaker 1: event was really weird, Like I can't possibly imagine uh,
Speaker 1: you know, dying. And then my best friend who I
Speaker 1: make Facebook videos with, gets up there and it's just
Speaker 1: like the one world government is going to kill you
Speaker 1: with vaccines? What a way to go out. I just
Speaker 1: gotta say, Oh man, the thing that I'm struck by
Speaker 1: is so there were a lot of conspiracies surrounding the
Speaker 1: death of Diamond. The one that struck me as the
Speaker 1: most ridiculous was basically the idea that someone had shed
Speaker 1: the vaccine on her, a famous thing that happens all
Speaker 1: the time. But I mean Will Sommer had tweeted out
Speaker 1: like a a sort of thread of like, but they
Speaker 1: were never they were never vaccinated, those two right allegedly.
Speaker 1: I mean, it could could have been a Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: situation right where it's you know, Tucker Carlson won't say
Speaker 1: if he got the vaccine, but I think we all
Speaker 1: know that dude is like quadruple vaxed. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know, I don't I don't know if she was
Speaker 1: vaccinated or not. But if we believe them and what
Speaker 1: they said they were not, I don't know that you
Speaker 1: can be unvaccinated and then still somehow try to commence
Speaker 1: your followers who died at the vaccine when your whole
Speaker 1: stick has been anti vax Yeah. I mean they were
Speaker 1: really promoting the phrase like died suddenly. They would pick
Speaker 1: up these instances of seemingly healthy people, athletes, younger people,
Speaker 1: I mean, just random people that were otherwise healthy who
Speaker 1: had sudden deaths and you know, speculated on their vaccination status.
Speaker 1: They were really big on that. And I think it is,
Speaker 1: you know, very par for the course that the grift
Speaker 1: couldn't even stop at a funeral, right, that Silk still
Speaker 1: had to go up there and in this eulogy do
Speaker 1: the same thing like the funeral was content. The content
Speaker 1: train never stops, and you can't just like set aside
Speaker 1: the narratives and your content for a little bit. That's
Speaker 1: not how you know the Diamond and Silk Facebook page works.
Speaker 1: It's not how you get the attention of a president.
Speaker 1: There is no world in which this ever stops. I
Speaker 1: just want to get into this for a second. Died
Speaker 1: suddenly is now an anti vax or phrase. Not in
Speaker 1: all parts of the anti vax are world, but it
Speaker 1: is a very common at the very least, we can
Speaker 1: say it's like a common sentiment, right, it's a common
Speaker 1: talking point. You know, for the last year straight, if
Speaker 1: not more, I've seen anti vax influencers and commentators repeatedly
Speaker 1: point at these, you know, instances where you know, unfortunately
Speaker 1: a person happened to die suddenly, and you know, kind
Speaker 1: of baselessly speculating, especially if it had to do with
Speaker 1: any kind of heart issues or anything like that, of
Speaker 1: the vaccine being to blame, when really, you know, the
Speaker 1: people making these kind of claims have no way of
Speaker 1: knowing that they're just exploiting a person's death to you know,
Speaker 1: try to make a point and try to make a
Speaker 1: buck in most cases. Are you a little surprised that
Speaker 1: this has still gone on? Like, you know, I was
Speaker 1: thinking about this because like Republicans are um. You know,
Speaker 1: Ron de Santa's especially fighting against vaccine mandates, but there
Speaker 1: aren't mandates right most places. You know, he's fighting against
Speaker 1: mask mandates that don't really exist. I mean, I guess
Speaker 1: it's kind of surprising. It's I don't know, it's COVID
Speaker 1: was such uh like unique and I think sort of
Speaker 1: red pilling moment in Republican politics. It was this sort
Speaker 1: of universal war drum to bang against government, and you know,
Speaker 1: the conservative movement had been you know, looking for something
Speaker 1: to fill that void, especially you know, before election, but
Speaker 1: then especially afterward, and you know, COVID stuff, whether it's
Speaker 1: vaccinations or before that it was mask mandates have been
Speaker 1: really reliable in getting conservative activists to turn up places
Speaker 1: and to you know, I assume contribute to campaigns and
Speaker 1: to get involved in different respects. Um So at this point,
Speaker 1: I think it's just kind of cannon. Now, it's like
Speaker 1: something that politicians perceive as a thing that they have
Speaker 1: to acknowledge. And uh, sort of like pander too is
Speaker 1: the you know, desires or the battle cries of people
Speaker 1: who are still obsessed with vaccines. And I guess it
Speaker 1: makes kind of sense too. I mean, some of the
Speaker 1: rhetoric we saw around vaccines, you know, was just apocalypse
Speaker 1: dick too. And if I actually believe that the vaccine
Speaker 1: is like part of a New World Order conspiracy to
Speaker 1: destroy the human race. That's pretty fucking intense. I don't
Speaker 1: know what to tell you that. That's pretty you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think you know, even though these influencers, you
Speaker 1: probably don't believe the ship and just move on. Like
Speaker 1: if you actually believe that, you probably don't move on
Speaker 1: from that. And I'm sure politicians and stuff recognize that
Speaker 1: reality at least somewhat. No, they've definitely opened Pandora's box.
Speaker 1: And how they close it? None of them? No, right,
Speaker 1: because I mean this is like the problem with trumps
Speaker 1: Um too, write none of them. You know, they've gotten
Speaker 1: in bed with these evangelicals, but they can't, they can't
Speaker 1: get out of it, so they have you know, they've
Speaker 1: gotten them painted themselves into a corner. Yeah, and it
Speaker 1: might not even be a corner that some of them
Speaker 1: are really interested in getting out of. You know, all
Speaker 1: throughout history, inspiring fear in the masses is like a
Speaker 1: really great way to get power without having to argue.
Speaker 1: Anything you're gonna do is going to benefit anybody. If
Speaker 1: you can scare the crap out of people and say,
Speaker 1: look at this terrible thing. I'm not that thing. In fact,
Speaker 1: I hate that thing too. It sounds very silly and simplistic,
Speaker 1: but historically it works. I don't know, it's it's kind
Speaker 1: of depressing to think about. I guess a bunch of
Speaker 1: Oathkeepers have now all been found guilty. I mean, it
Speaker 1: continues to be a scenario where the people who were
Speaker 1: actually sort of we're, you know, doing the things that
Speaker 1: they thought the Republican electeds wanted them to do, are
Speaker 1: getting punished, but the Republican electeds are not. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: My colleague Eric Leavey and I just published a piece
Speaker 1: at Institute for Strategic Dialogue today that's all about accountability,
Speaker 1: and in it we kind of make this point where,
Speaker 1: you know, these trials for seditious conspiracy against you know,
Speaker 1: members of the Oathkeepers or members of the Proud Boys
Speaker 1: are arguably a step above the general bulk of the
Speaker 1: prosecutions the d o J has brought against people for
Speaker 1: participating the Capital riot. UM. So it's like kind of
Speaker 1: getting at the next level. But I think it's really
Speaker 1: just almost impossible to ignore that the d o J
Speaker 1: hasn't seemed to express any sort of interest in applying
Speaker 1: that same source scrutiny towards the people at the top. UM.
Speaker 1: I think That's a really common criticism of the American
Speaker 1: justice system, which is, you know, when you get high
Speaker 1: enough in American society, whether that is political power or wealth,
Speaker 1: the rules don't work the same for you anymore. And
Speaker 1: until that's leveled out, it's hard to say that we
Speaker 1: have had full accountability for something like the Capital riot,
Speaker 1: because accountability has to be applied consistently Otherwise it requires
Speaker 1: the question of, well, who are these rules for if
Speaker 1: they're not for everyone. The thing I'm so struck by, though,
Speaker 1: is this idea that these people are going to jail
Speaker 1: some of them for very long time. And whether or
Speaker 1: not they got direct orders a lot of times, we
Speaker 1: won't ever know, but they certainly consider themselves to be
Speaker 1: acting on the behest of these electives who told them
Speaker 1: things like go out there and kick ass. Are you
Speaker 1: seeing anything where those people are like, we got screwed
Speaker 1: or now? It kind of various case to case. I've
Speaker 1: certainly seen a couple of instances reported out in the
Speaker 1: press where people have sort of doubled down on their views,
Speaker 1: you know, believing the government was out to get them
Speaker 1: and destroy the world and punish Trump supporters in the
Speaker 1: YadA YadA YadA, it's just confirmation of their suspicions. And
Speaker 1: then other people like I forget the fellow's name who
Speaker 1: testified during the January six committee, hearing's kind of coming
Speaker 1: forward and expressing regret that he got caught up in
Speaker 1: the moment and that you know, he fell for this
Speaker 1: lie that Trump was selling. You know, I think skeptics
Speaker 1: would ask how much of this is sort of a
Speaker 1: convenient defense that entertains prosecutors that would try to get
Speaker 1: more serious charges again them, you know a little bit
Speaker 1: of like, oh, woe is me, I'm looking at me,
Speaker 1: I'm so foolish. Whoops. Maybe there's a theory there that
Speaker 1: a defense would argue that to try to soften the
Speaker 1: strike that the prosecutor would try to lay down on them.
Speaker 1: But to some degree, I think it is kind of
Speaker 1: apparently true on its face, you know, if you're gonna
Speaker 1: take an honest assessment of it. So, you know, like
Speaker 1: all things, I think it exists in probably some sort
Speaker 1: of gray area between absolutes. We have. The big kind
Speaker 1: of fight in Maga world is between Ben Shapiro and
Speaker 1: Stephen Crowder, and it involves fifty million dollars and a
Speaker 1: contract discuss working class hero Stephen Crowder turning his nose
Speaker 1: up at more money than I'll ever make in my
Speaker 1: life of us well ever, I mean, I'm fifty million dollars.
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, man, you know it's this four
Speaker 1: year contract. So the Daily Wire. I think the most
Speaker 1: public figure out of the Daily Wire is Been Shapiro. Um,
Speaker 1: it's run by this guy named Jeremy Boring, which is
Speaker 1: also a pretty great name for someone who runs something
Speaker 1: like The Daily Wire, Right, But does this mean the
Speaker 1: rest of them are making fifty million dollars? That's what
Speaker 1: I wondered too, Like how much money is the Daily
Speaker 1: Wire really bringing in? And then, of course where is
Speaker 1: it coming from? Because there's no way even you know,
Speaker 1: if you get the most devoted like Jordan Peterson and
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro fans to buy a coffee cup that says
Speaker 1: liberal tears on it, like, you could not sell enough
Speaker 1: of those to fund one fifty million dollar contract, let
Speaker 1: alone what the rest of these guys are getting paid.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why I have a little bit of
Speaker 1: skepticism about this whole thing, and I wonder if maybe
Speaker 1: it was just the whole thing is bullshit. This group
Speaker 1: has not tended to be able to pull off something
Speaker 1: like that, because they're not geniuses. But you could see
Speaker 1: a world where this was just sort of like I mean,
Speaker 1: because remember the Daily Wire is always doing things that
Speaker 1: sort of juice their numbers and make them seem more
Speaker 1: successful than they are. Oh yeah, the amount of money
Speaker 1: they dump into Facebook ads alone is just outrageous. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's a world in which this is
Speaker 1: just like a complete fake thing. Maybe that would be
Speaker 1: some pretty hardcore devotion to the bit and I would
Speaker 1: have no choice but to respect it. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: nominate these guys for oscars, you know, next year's Big
Speaker 1: Picture or whatever that awards called. Yeah, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: just completely insane. So the other big controversy and maga
Speaker 1: world involves gas stoves. By the way, I have a
Speaker 1: gas stove, and it's obviously better to cook on than
Speaker 1: electric scoop stove, but I don't want my kids to
Speaker 1: get brain damage. So in a very cathartic sense, I
Speaker 1: enjoy cooking on gas more. I mean everybody does. But
Speaker 1: but in the same sense, it has become ted Cruise's
Speaker 1: come and get it right, a tone that these guys
Speaker 1: usually reserve for like uh, machian guns. After schools full
Speaker 1: of children are killed, They're like coming at my stove.
Speaker 1: And like, I had Amanda More on my podcast this
Speaker 1: week and we talked a little bit about it, and
Speaker 1: you know, she brought up the fact that I guess
Speaker 1: the question, like when was the last time any of
Speaker 1: these guys cooked their own food? I would like to
Speaker 1: know the answer to this those questions. Right, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think that's a good call. I mean, I just have
Speaker 1: trouble imagining Ted Cruise cooking Heidi a nice dinner. But
Speaker 1: maybe who knows. I mean, who am I to say
Speaker 1: that Ted is not a domestic god in his own home? Yeah.
Speaker 1: What I was disappointed that I didn't see was like
Speaker 1: a mashup of cooking video nightmare clips where it's like
Speaker 1: the suburban mom being like, oh, I'm making a stuffed
Speaker 1: Derito's chicken breast parfait or something. You know, Yeah, that
Speaker 1: sounds amazing. You know. I wanted so bad to see
Speaker 1: one of these like coming take my gas stove guys
Speaker 1: to be like you'll never stop this and cook one
Speaker 1: of those nightmare meals. Yeah. I figured statistically it just
Speaker 1: had to happen, But I haven't seen it, yet it
Speaker 1: seems like it's coming. The one last question I have
Speaker 1: for you is, we're seeing a lot of like fracturing
Speaker 1: in Magot world. For example, like this r n C fight,
Speaker 1: one of the candidates for r n C chair has
Speaker 1: both Never Trumpers and Charlie Kirk. I mean, we're seeing
Speaker 1: like a lot of strange bad fellows. We're seeing that
Speaker 1: in like candidates and in Congress where you have people
Speaker 1: like Matt Gates fighting against people like Marjorie Taylor Green.
Speaker 1: I mean, how is mag and world dealing with this
Speaker 1: or are they just taking instride. For all the talks
Speaker 1: of in fighting and how dramatic it may look on
Speaker 1: its face, it's pretty normal for political movements to do
Speaker 1: this during a period of transition. You know, I have
Speaker 1: observed the political right for most of my career and
Speaker 1: they have done this every time. So like when Trump
Speaker 1: came into off us, there was a big power jockey
Speaker 1: to say, you know who was going to be the
Speaker 1: MAGA contingency in Congress, or you know what think tank
Speaker 1: was going to represent the Trump train of thought. Um So,
Speaker 1: in the same sense that that happened when he came
Speaker 1: into office and people started you know, jockeying for power
Speaker 1: for themselves. It also, I think kind of makes sense that,
Speaker 1: you know, as Trump leaves office and is in the
Speaker 1: public spotlight less, that the people that had obtained power
Speaker 1: in that way, or people that were seeking power in
Speaker 1: that way would sort of do a heal turn, or
Speaker 1: not a heal turn, but like a pivot and try
Speaker 1: to solidify some of that power or try to exert
Speaker 1: that power in a way that cements the status that
Speaker 1: they may have been able to accomplish for themselves in
Speaker 1: that era. So I don't think it's terribly unusual. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to like rip the place to
Speaker 1: the ground. I am curious this year to see though,
Speaker 1: if Trump is able, you know, if he does come
Speaker 1: back online and you know, as manages to grab the
Speaker 1: news headlines every day, will he, after everything, be able
Speaker 1: to re emerge as the leader of the GOP and
Speaker 1: I think he still is kind of the de facto leader,
Speaker 1: but he's not in public life as much anymore. Or
Speaker 1: will someone's sense of vacuum there and try to step
Speaker 1: into that vacuum. The power struggle at the very top
Speaker 1: I think is going to be the most interesting because
Speaker 1: over the last five or six years, the GOP has
Speaker 1: kind of rearranged itself into the Trump Party, and if
Speaker 1: there's something after Trump, you know, in the near future
Speaker 1: at least, I'll be really curious to see what that
Speaker 1: looks like. Yeah, me too, I mean curious and also depressed, horrified. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Jared Holt, I hope you will come back. Thanks for
Speaker 1: having Congressman Ruben Diego represents Arizona's third district and is
Speaker 1: running from the United States Senate in Arizona. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Fast Pole at Techs. Ruben Diego, Hi, how you doing.
Speaker 1: Do you have something to tell us? Do you have
Speaker 1: something to announce? I'm having a baby girl, ly eight.
Speaker 1: Oh my god. Congratulations, thank you, thank you, And I'm
Speaker 1: running for Senate for Arizona. Wait, I'm back to the
Speaker 1: baby girl. This will be your second kid. You're running
Speaker 1: for Senate in Arizona. Talk to us about why you
Speaker 1: decided to run against the worst person in the world.
Speaker 1: I'm going to go that far. Was it the performance
Speaker 1: at Dabos? No. Look, I'm a very lucky man, Molly.
Speaker 1: I've told you about my my background, and I'm very
Speaker 1: appreciative everything this country has given me. I'm not even
Speaker 1: supposed to be here in many sense of the word.
Speaker 1: But because of you know, hard work, my support from
Speaker 1: my family, support from teachers, support from the crazy, weird
Speaker 1: government that people are all afraid of, I was actually
Speaker 1: able to live the American dream. And I'm still in
Speaker 1: the living American dream. And I feel that there's people
Speaker 1: that are still you know, want to believe in that,
Speaker 1: but you need to actually have, you know, people that
Speaker 1: backed them, people actually fight for them, and people that
Speaker 1: actually will go to the seat for five to fight
Speaker 1: for them. And let me tell you what, Cinema is
Speaker 1: not doing that, and she has not done that for
Speaker 1: a while. And there's no way that you know, she's
Speaker 1: inspiring people to even believe in any way that she
Speaker 1: is there to fight for the little people and not
Speaker 1: for you know, the big money interests. I was thinking
Speaker 1: about that video of her at Davos swearing for vest
Speaker 1: or maybe a bath matt that where she was bragging
Speaker 1: about keeping the filibuster and her work doing that. Could
Speaker 1: do the people of Arizona ever benefit from keeping the filibuster? No,
Speaker 1: because the filipbuster really has become a tool of obstruction.
Speaker 1: And let's just go back to Davos. Right, is there
Speaker 1: a problem with her being Davos? Maybe not necessarily right.
Speaker 1: I've never been a Davos. Don'tquit understand what it is.
Speaker 1: But that's fine. You were high fiving Mansion for using
Speaker 1: the filipbuster to kill the William Rights Act on m
Speaker 1: Okay Weekend. She wasn't in Arizona. She wasn't in all
Speaker 1: the l ok events that we have and Martin Luther
Speaker 1: King Weekends extremely important Arizona because we actually have unfortunately
Speaker 1: not a great history with Martin Luther King Weekend in Arizona.
Speaker 1: We got boycotted for many years because we wouldn't pass it.
Speaker 1: It was just a lot of bad things. And you know,
Speaker 1: cinema decides to number one skip I'm okay we can again,
Speaker 1: which I think she has for many years, but then
Speaker 1: to high five killing the boy and Rights Act named
Speaker 1: after her so called like who she calls her friend
Speaker 1: John Lewis using a you know, Civil War era rule.
Speaker 1: This is just ridiculous. All that being said that, you know,
Speaker 1: I think she actually gives more and more reasons all
Speaker 1: the time for this type of campaign. Yeah, I want
Speaker 1: to ask you about this because some of the criticism
Speaker 1: I saw was like, well, someone who's on the left
Speaker 1: can't beat Cinema, but Cinema actually ran as a very
Speaker 1: lefty can today. I mean, the problem is that Cinema
Speaker 1: can't win. She can run, and if I step out
Speaker 1: and for some weird reason don't run, she's still gonna
Speaker 1: lose because she's alienated everybody, because nobody trusts her in Arizona.
Speaker 1: She's terrible. She's taking some horrible positions, and she has
Speaker 1: really decided to back some of the some of the
Speaker 1: kind of but not the best entities in the country.
Speaker 1: When it was the time for us to negotiate lower
Speaker 1: drug prices, instead of saying I'm gonna go help negotiate
Speaker 1: lower drug prices, she went to negotiate on behalf the
Speaker 1: pharmaceutical lobby, which, by the way, they have a lot
Speaker 1: of lobbyists on Capitol Hill, but they don't need one
Speaker 1: more that's paid by tax dollars. You know. When it
Speaker 1: was time to like try to pass you know, the
Speaker 1: Inflation Reduction Act, and it looked like the you know,
Speaker 1: ultra rich and private equity and hedge ones were about
Speaker 1: to get taxed a little more, she held up the
Speaker 1: bill until they was there was a car v out
Speaker 1: for this really small population of people that mostly don't
Speaker 1: live in Arizona. So she has broken the trust with
Speaker 1: the voters of Arizona and it's not coming back. And
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what she changes to she could change
Speaker 1: the Republican tomorrow, she's still not going to be successful.
Speaker 1: I mean, she basically is a Republican, though at this point,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think at least Republicans have some
Speaker 1: some you know, moral values that they'll stick to, right,
Speaker 1: I don't. I wouldn't go that far, but I do
Speaker 1: think it is interesting. The polling shows that you definitely
Speaker 1: have a path and that actually Cinema really takes from
Speaker 1: Republican voters as much as she takes liberal voters at
Speaker 1: this point. I mean, our our polling shows that she
Speaker 1: will take more from Republicans than Democrats. And also, once
Speaker 1: we run a full campaign where people all across Arizona
Speaker 1: get to know my story, my history, and my dedication
Speaker 1: to service to this country, I think we're going to
Speaker 1: actually be able to hold a lot more Democrats than
Speaker 1: she's going to be able to take in terms of
Speaker 1: and she'd be she end up taking more Republicans in
Speaker 1: the end, you're in this very interesting place. You're young, congressperson,
Speaker 1: You're ambitious. I mean, explain to us sort of what
Speaker 1: you think you could be doing for Arizona when you
Speaker 1: get to the Senate. I think the most important thing
Speaker 1: you can do, and you know I'm not anything special,
Speaker 1: is to just be a servant and just listen to
Speaker 1: your constituents and actually open your ears, uh and go
Speaker 1: to places that sometimes you maybe are not even wanted,
Speaker 1: and go to meetings where you need to hear why
Speaker 1: people maybe are disagreeing with you, or at least go
Speaker 1: to any meeting and have a public meeting like Cinema
Speaker 1: hasn't had in the last three or four years, and
Speaker 1: explain why you are taking your position. So at a minimum,
Speaker 1: what I'm doing is I'm gonna be a representative of
Speaker 1: Arizon that's going to be available. Number one. Number two,
Speaker 1: I do have an experience in background that I cannot
Speaker 1: let go. It is part of who I am. I
Speaker 1: grew up poor, I worked hard. I've lived the American dream.
Speaker 1: You know, I've served my country. You know I saw
Speaker 1: some hard times in combat. I am, you know, a
Speaker 1: survivor of and and someone who thrive a survivor and
Speaker 1: Thriver of Pte. Those experiences make me who I am,
Speaker 1: and I cannot go to the Senate and deny that.
Speaker 1: And I think that's sometimes we need people like that.
Speaker 1: We don't need necessarily all these perfect people that don't
Speaker 1: remember you know how it feels to struggle, how it
Speaker 1: feels to figure out, you know, whether you're gonna be
Speaker 1: able to pay your grocery bill this month or utility
Speaker 1: bill or can you pay your car bill uh and
Speaker 1: your mortgage the same month. I understand that, and as
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, millions of Americans understand that. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: a lot of politicians don't understand that, and when they're
Speaker 1: operating in the Senate, they think more of the top
Speaker 1: one percent first than they do of the you know,
Speaker 1: the bottom of this country. It is incredibly weird because
Speaker 1: Kirsten Cinema was like very I mean just that what
Speaker 1: happened to her. She also came from a very poor family,
Speaker 1: but she had this kind of strange lobbyist meltdown. But anyway,
Speaker 1: one of the things you did serve just and I
Speaker 1: saw that you're actually close friends with my favorite Jason Candor,
Speaker 1: and I was happy to see that, and you're both
Speaker 1: young veterans. How do you think that will help you?
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of the Senate is about making
Speaker 1: decisions like that. How do you think your experience in
Speaker 1: the Rock War and will affect that? Look, I think
Speaker 1: when I was not an officer in the Rack War,
Speaker 1: I was enlisted. And not only was I enlisted, I
Speaker 1: wasn't even high enlisted. I was basically as low as
Speaker 1: you can get in terms of rank. You know, my
Speaker 1: job was to be a rifleman, and not only that,
Speaker 1: I had to carry extra AMMO and barrels for the
Speaker 1: machine gunner. That's what I did, and you know, I
Speaker 1: didn't complain. I did my job. I thought I did
Speaker 1: my job well and everything that came with it. One
Speaker 1: of the things I do now in Congress is that
Speaker 1: I bring the perspective of that man or woman at
Speaker 1: that rank, because when all these generals and all these
Speaker 1: like big policy thinkers are thinking about war, they think
Speaker 1: about it from the level of general or you know,
Speaker 1: or a colonel or something that when in fact, most
Speaker 1: of the time everything that happened starts with a very
Speaker 1: scared eighteen or nineteen year old man or woman, you know,
Speaker 1: having to do the first move and I've been in
Speaker 1: those situations, and I want to make sure that people
Speaker 1: remember that when we start making some very heavy decisions
Speaker 1: when it comes to our military personnel. And I certainly
Speaker 1: have done that in Congress and the House representatives, and
Speaker 1: I'm going to do that in the Senate. Also. You also,
Speaker 1: I mean, when you're in those lower ranks you have,
Speaker 1: you're more likely to get killed, right Yeah, unfortunately. I
Speaker 1: mean that's the one third of everybody in my company
Speaker 1: was either killed or wounded. That's unfortunately sometimes happens. The
Speaker 1: thing I was struck by with your story was you
Speaker 1: raised your siblings. You had a single mother. I was also,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, I just wonder you know how
Speaker 1: that informs your Senate candidacy in later career. Raising children
Speaker 1: when you're a teenager is not an easy thing because
Speaker 1: you yourself are a child. I had to grow up
Speaker 1: very quickly. I had an after school job. I also
Speaker 1: had to be a role model to my sisters, and
Speaker 1: I also at some point had to be a teenager.
Speaker 1: And actually, you know, you know, whatever that experience is
Speaker 1: and something I had to give, and so I gave
Speaker 1: up I think my teenage life in order to be
Speaker 1: something for my family. It showed me one thing more
Speaker 1: than anything else, that in order for you to be
Speaker 1: a leader, you have to sacrifice. And I did it
Speaker 1: and I probably did it for my family, and my
Speaker 1: family I feel is better off because of that. It
Speaker 1: also taught me a lot about, you know, being accountable.
Speaker 1: You you know, when you're doing these types of when
Speaker 1: when you're a leader in your family, were a leader
Speaker 1: in your community, when you're leader in anything. Uh, you
Speaker 1: also have to realize that it's not a title that's given,
Speaker 1: it's something that's earned. You know. I had to learn
Speaker 1: early on that my sisters weren't going to respect me,
Speaker 1: weren't going to listen to me if I wasn't going
Speaker 1: to be a good role model to them. And the
Speaker 1: same thing holds with anything in politics, Like people aren't
Speaker 1: going to respect people are gonna follow you, people aren't
Speaker 1: going to try to work with you if they don't
Speaker 1: at a core trust who you are and you haven't
Speaker 1: earned that. But enough about Kevin McCarthy. I want to
Speaker 1: ask you, you are in Congress right now, how is
Speaker 1: George Santos? What is he like? What's he up to?
Speaker 1: Good old Jorgey? I mean, what is happening. Do people
Speaker 1: hang out with him? You know, Jorge lives, uh not,
Speaker 1: but probably lives because he sleeps in his office. I'm
Speaker 1: sure like the other Republicans, his office is next door
Speaker 1: to mine. Oh my god, Oh my god, I'm definitely
Speaker 1: coming to visit you. Wait, So have you hung out
Speaker 1: with him at all? Seen him on the Oh? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so we are office. We share an internal door, like
Speaker 1: you know, like, oh my god, I opened the door
Speaker 1: and I kind of go out and hang out with
Speaker 1: him a little bit and I have a little coffee
Speaker 1: to see how he's doing. We talked about all those
Speaker 1: multiple personalities job. Do you really have a door? I
Speaker 1: asked him. I asked him for like some stock tips
Speaker 1: as you used to work at JP Morgan. Oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's great, it's great. Do you really have a door?
Speaker 1: We really actually have a door between our office and
Speaker 1: their office, but we don't obviously we don't open it
Speaker 1: because you know, our office as different offices. But I
Speaker 1: guess we could at some point for you know, ships
Speaker 1: and giggles. As I used to say, that is terrifying.
Speaker 1: What do you want our listeners to know about you?
Speaker 1: You know? That is sort of like I mean, I
Speaker 1: feel like I know you and I don't really know you,
Speaker 1: but I mean I know you know I barely I
Speaker 1: met you like a few times, but I always feel
Speaker 1: like I know you because you just like very personable.
Speaker 1: But I mean, what do you want our listeners to
Speaker 1: know about you? Look? I am who I am, and
Speaker 1: you know I have my rough edges, but you always
Speaker 1: get the straight, straight answer for me. Uh, And I'm
Speaker 1: always gonna be fighting for the little guy. Sometimes that
Speaker 1: gets you in trouble. Sometimes people don't want someone that's
Speaker 1: just there for the little guy. But I know where
Speaker 1: I'm going and I know what I want to do,
Speaker 1: but I help So you know, people that want to
Speaker 1: help me out, please go to diego for Arizona dot
Speaker 1: com and and give us up because we're not going
Speaker 1: to be getting donations from the hedge fund managers. We're
Speaker 1: not gonna give donations from private equity. We're gonna really
Speaker 1: rely on like a lot of our donors. Yeah that's right, Oh, Ruben,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. I hope you'll
Speaker 1: come back. Keep in finding me back. I will come back.
Speaker 1: I know you. Our dear listeners are very busy and
Speaker 1: you don't have time to sort through the hundreds of
Speaker 1: pieces of pundentry each week. This is why every week
Speaker 1: I put together a newsletter of my five favorite articles
Speaker 1: on politics. If you enjoy the podcast, you will love
Speaker 1: having this in your inbox every Friday. So sign up
Speaker 1: at Fast Politics pod dot com and click the tab
Speaker 1: to join our mailing list. That's fast Politics pod dot com.
Speaker 1: Jay Willis is the editor of Balls and Strikes. Welcome too,
Speaker 1: Fast Politics, Welcome back. I don't know Jay Wells from
Speaker 1: Balls and Strikes talk to us, leave all of us in.
Speaker 1: This is great. Yeah, he leaves in some of this
Speaker 1: stuff that really I sound like an idiot, but it's okay, my,
Speaker 1: that's my brand. So we look forward to this being
Speaker 1: plated at the r n C. I am here to
Speaker 1: talk to you about betto O'Rourke and a very interesting
Speaker 1: case that involves dark money and Greg Abbott discuss. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's like a we're three fits of the way to
Speaker 1: our Fox and News bingo, right there. Yeah, let's hear
Speaker 1: a baby. Yeah. So this is a story of betto
Speaker 1: O'Rourke and as I understand, his close personal friend Kelsey Warren.
Speaker 1: Kelsey is one of these like mega rich cartoonish Texas
Speaker 1: oil and gas guys who donated a cool million dollars
Speaker 1: to Greg Abbott's gubernatorial and payne in which Abbott the
Speaker 1: incumbent beat should we say, former Texas congressman and noted
Speaker 1: election losing enthusiast. Yeah, betto Rourke. By the way, pipeline
Speaker 1: billionaire is having fun with oil bust. And then there's
Speaker 1: a picture of him with a shovel. Yes continued, Yes,
Speaker 1: the million dollars to Greg Abbott is is Kelsey Warren's
Speaker 1: largest donation in a state, in a Texas political race,
Speaker 1: biggest check he's ever written. And you've got to remember,
Speaker 1: just before we get to Betto, that this election is
Speaker 1: happening in the long tail of power crisis in Texas.
Speaker 1: If if Ted Cruz flying to Cancun during a pandemic
Speaker 1: while his constituents are freezing to death, rings any bells,
Speaker 1: that's the story we're talking about here. Oh wait, so
Speaker 1: he wants to sue Betto for Bettos making Ted Cruise
Speaker 1: fly out of Cancun. I wouldn't put logic like that
Speaker 1: patch Greg Abbott, Right, how dare Betto do that? But no,
Speaker 1: not quite. But that's like an important part of the
Speaker 1: background here, so that that power crisis. Greg Abbott and
Speaker 1: other Republicans they blamed that on if memory serves wind turbines,
Speaker 1: and the actual culprits for that were the results of
Speaker 1: sort of all of the the policies Republicans know and love,
Speaker 1: dependence on oil and gas, deregulation of those industries in Texas,
Speaker 1: and the failure to invest in climate change prep because
Speaker 1: you don't believe in it. So here's what Betto comes in.
Speaker 1: And I want to shout out the reporting of Jordan
Speaker 1: Yule who wrote about this on his sub stack. A
Speaker 1: sub stack is called I Hate It Here and Never
Speaker 1: Want to Leave, which is a great title. And also
Speaker 1: I'm getting that tattooed on my face once we're done recording. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but if you'll never regret a face tattoo, never, that's
Speaker 1: what I hear. So Warren's big donation to Gray Abbott
Speaker 1: comes two weeks after Greg Abbott signs a law with
Speaker 1: a provision that let's fossil fuels companies like Warren's out
Speaker 1: of certain winterization requirements. They don't need it. What recent
Speaker 1: events would prompt us to think that those might be important? Yeah,
Speaker 1: absolutely none, and certainly not that frozen power gad where
Speaker 1: all those people frozen to tess in Texas. Right, So,
Speaker 1: Beto on the campaign trail, he of course cuts an
Speaker 1: ad where he talks about the Abbot tax, which is
Speaker 1: what he refers to as increases in utility bills that
Speaker 1: he associated with Greg Abbott's policy. And the key line,
Speaker 1: and I'm quoting here from the from the ad, the
Speaker 1: profiteers who made billions off of grid failure are being
Speaker 1: allowed to hike your bills by a governor who they
Speaker 1: gave millions. He's implying that Kelsey's million dollar donation was
Speaker 1: in exchange for, or in recognition of the winterization exemption. Now, like,
Speaker 1: maybe you already spotted the egregious and frankly offensive error
Speaker 1: in betos ad. A governor who they gave millions. Obviously
Speaker 1: that should be whom, because governor is the object of
Speaker 1: the sentence, right right, exactly, not the subject. Thank you
Speaker 1: for clearing that up. No wonder that explains why didn't win.
Speaker 1: I agree, because Texans are a stickler for grammar, famously
Speaker 1: high up on that stuff. Yeah yeah, but Kelsey Warren,
Speaker 1: he was upset about something else. He said that Beto,
Speaker 1: by cutting this ad had accused him of bribery, corruption
Speaker 1: and extortion based on his and again I will quote
Speaker 1: here perfectly legal campaign contribution to the candidate of his
Speaker 1: choosing end quote. He says that this caused him mental anguish,
Speaker 1: and he is suing Beto O'Rourke for the contents of
Speaker 1: this campaign. Ad. Now, I want to be a little
Speaker 1: careful here because I don't want Kelsey Warren giving this
Speaker 1: podcast like the full Peter Teel treatment. Yeah, yeah, me too.
Speaker 1: I don't want you to get sued. But if you
Speaker 1: do get sued, I plan to take the other guys. No,
Speaker 1: I'm just getting going. So First Amendment lawyers will refer
Speaker 1: to lawsuits like this as slaps, a strategic lawsuit against
Speaker 1: public participation, and the goal is not really to like win,
Speaker 1: but to discourage people like Beto from public criticism by
Speaker 1: making them afraid of getting dragged into court for god
Speaker 1: knows how many years and God knows at what price. Now,
Speaker 1: because there is this thing called the First Amendment, many
Speaker 1: states have enacted laws that actually just limit your ability
Speaker 1: to uh, not to file slaps, I guess, but to
Speaker 1: make them as punitive as they're intended to be. There's
Speaker 1: like there's procedural outs. You can you know, file emotion
Speaker 1: to dismiss or emotion to strike and say, look, your honor,
Speaker 1: this is a this is a matter of public concern,
Speaker 1: like this is speech. Um, this shouldn't go any further,
Speaker 1: but like this is like if you're listening to this
Speaker 1: and you think, I'm sorry Beto is getting sued over
Speaker 1: a campaign ad, and you think this is objectively like
Speaker 1: batch it insane, Like that's correct, Like candidates say all
Speaker 1: kinds of ship on the campaign trail, many like usually
Speaker 1: frankly with far less factual support than Beto had. Here, Like,
Speaker 1: we're at a point right now where Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: getting ready to run for president again. If we're going
Speaker 1: to allow candidates to sue other candidates for falsehoods in
Speaker 1: campaign ads, like Trump is going to be broke by
Speaker 1: Labor Day, Like this is not tenable. I also want
Speaker 1: to put this talk about the broader political and cultural context,
Speaker 1: because this case really unites to sort of through lines
Speaker 1: of conservative thought. First, the idea that money is speech. Right,
Speaker 1: That's how we get Citizens United UM, which dealt with
Speaker 1: federal campaign finance reform that equated money with speech under
Speaker 1: the First Amendment, that's how we get take cases like
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz the FEC, a more recent Supreme Court case
Speaker 1: that makes it easier to effectively bribe politics atians. That's
Speaker 1: how we get cases like McDonald the United States. I
Speaker 1: think that case is seven years old now, um which
Speaker 1: narrowed the scope of what bribery of a public official means.
Speaker 1: In the first place, it's a line of thinking that
Speaker 1: gives very rich people the chance to basically infuse as
Speaker 1: much of their money as they want into the political process.
Speaker 1: But the second thing conservatives love is the idea that
Speaker 1: there should be no consequences for speech. Money is speech
Speaker 1: and no consequences for speech. Citizens United fueled the rise
Speaker 1: of dark money, the political spending where the spender doesn't
Speaker 1: have to identify themselves. I also think it's just sort
Speaker 1: of underlies the entire right wing reaction to cancel culture
Speaker 1: right the idea that speech is only quote unquote free
Speaker 1: if the speaker suffers no consequences for it. So this
Speaker 1: case combines these two dynamics. Money a speech. Kelsey Warren
Speaker 1: is exercising his First Amendment rights and the government can't
Speaker 1: stop him. If you're wondering, how did this guy don't
Speaker 1: a million dollars to a single political candidate. Doesn't that
Speaker 1: violate some kind of campaign finance limit? Jokes on you,
Speaker 1: Texas doesn't have any I would hope not. Yeah. Um.
Speaker 1: But also the message of this case is that your
Speaker 1: speech speaking about people who speak with their their very
Speaker 1: thick wallets might end up landing you in court. And
Speaker 1: Jordan Yule has a great quote that he pulls from
Speaker 1: Kelsey Warren's lawyer quote he wrote that check in private,
Speaker 1: if he even wrote it himself in the quote, and
Speaker 1: the idea that the fact that Kelsey Warren wrote the
Speaker 1: check in private is somehow like important or dispositive here,
Speaker 1: I think just speaks to the detachment of rich people
Speaker 1: from politics and the sense of entitlement that they carry.
Speaker 1: It's like money allows us. The Supreme Court has said
Speaker 1: that money allows us an outsize influence on the political
Speaker 1: process and also that we deserve that we deserve to
Speaker 1: be able to do that with how having people say
Speaker 1: mean things about us will betto end up getting sued.
Speaker 1: Where do you think this goes? So my understanding is
Speaker 1: Justin Miller at the Texas Observer incidentally has done like
Speaker 1: great reporting on this. My understanding is that it's still
Speaker 1: winding its way through Texas courts. And like, better's got money, right,
Speaker 1: because he raised a ton of money and lost again
Speaker 1: for the third time. But he raised a ton of money.
Speaker 1: He can defend himself. He can fight this. Yeah, But
Speaker 1: like not everyone who's going to get hit with a
Speaker 1: slap has this kind of money, right, And that is
Speaker 1: how slaps succeed. If everyone has in the back of
Speaker 1: their minds the nagging possibility of getting dragged to court
Speaker 1: over some bullshit, You're just going to find something different
Speaker 1: to talk about that You're not going to take the risk.
Speaker 1: And then the wealthiest people with the means and the
Speaker 1: motive to influence politics can do so just a little
Speaker 1: more confident that no one's going to say anything about it.
Speaker 1: This feels like a really a pretty good example of
Speaker 1: the Donald Trump school of law. I share those concerns
Speaker 1: about just like the use of the court system by
Speaker 1: the right is a shield against what they would perceive
Speaker 1: as the excesses of cancel culture, and like heavy use
Speaker 1: of scare quotes there, right, because the key characteristic of
Speaker 1: cancel culture is that the people who complain about it
Speaker 1: almost never actually suffer any material harms other than like
Speaker 1: a couple of headlines that make them feel bad about themselves.
Speaker 1: But we're at a point right now where the reaction
Speaker 1: to cancel culture is maybe like the single most important
Speaker 1: issue for Republican voters. And if politicians like sees on
Speaker 1: the strategy to try and silence there their political opponents, like,
Speaker 1: things are gonna get nasty pretty quick. So the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court found themselves not guilty of the leak, really, I mean, ultimately,
Speaker 1: wasn't it. I mean, I guess they did exonerate some
Speaker 1: of the clerks who had been targeted by right wing media.
Speaker 1: Right yeah, I think even even saying that the Court
Speaker 1: found themselves not guilty is kind of more generous than
Speaker 1: the Court deserves because they didn't even like investigate themselves
Speaker 1: and the potential right. None of the justices or their
Speaker 1: spouses had to sign Appa David's right. Right. So background
Speaker 1: here is last year, before the Dobbs opinion that overturned
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade. Before Dobbs was published, there was a
Speaker 1: leak that was published in Politico of the draft opinion
Speaker 1: from Justice Alito, and it turned out to be nearly
Speaker 1: identical to the one that the Court published. A couple
Speaker 1: of months later. And this is like more or less unprecedented,
Speaker 1: the combination of high profile case leak from the court,
Speaker 1: and leak not just of like you know sources say X,
Speaker 1: but of a seventy page PDF that basically has not happened.
Speaker 1: I mean, uh, that that has not happened. I can,
Speaker 1: I certainly cannot think of anything on this scale. So
Speaker 1: the court immediately announced like an investigation into it, and
Speaker 1: the person tasked with performing this information was the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court Martial GAYL. Curly, who, as I understand, is like
Speaker 1: a well respected military lawyer. All due respect to Gail Curly,
Speaker 1: like her primary job is shouting or crying as it's
Speaker 1: called oyer, oyer oyer when the Supreme Court comes into session.
Speaker 1: I'm wonder, is that a high paying job? No? Anyway,
Speaker 1: go on, yes, I bet, I bet it's a pretty
Speaker 1: good gig. Yeah. The point is that, like, if you're
Speaker 1: actually trying to do an investigation like this is not
Speaker 1: FBI C I A level type ship. So the results
Speaker 1: of this report were published last week and they were inconclusive.
Speaker 1: They said, we cannot figure out who the leaker was.
Speaker 1: But there are two main takeaways from it. I think
Speaker 1: the first one is that Yeah, as you mentioned, the
Speaker 1: report talks about the sort of the gauntlet that court
Speaker 1: employees clerks were subjected to. They sat for interviews, they
Speaker 1: had to sit, they had to swear that they, you know,
Speaker 1: didn't do the leak, didn't know anyone who did the leak.
Speaker 1: Some of them had their phones examined, all of that
Speaker 1: good stuff. The justices, by contrast, did not have to
Speaker 1: do that stuff. The Marshal said in a follow up
Speaker 1: statement that they had talked to the justices, you know,
Speaker 1: interviewed the justices, but the investigation had focused all along
Speaker 1: on the assumption that a Supreme Court employee or clerk
Speaker 1: something to that effect, someone who's not a justice, had
Speaker 1: done the leak, which in the wake of us like
Speaker 1: a credibly sourced on their record story talking about Justice
Speaker 1: Samuel Alito's alleged history of leaking opinions like I don't
Speaker 1: know who did it, but but not investigating the justices
Speaker 1: at all just speaks to how sort of how differently
Speaker 1: they are treated like royalty compared to everyone else, not
Speaker 1: just in the country, right, but in their own place
Speaker 1: of work. They're considered above suspicion. And if it's if
Speaker 1: a justice didn't do it like, how are we ever
Speaker 1: going to know about it? Because nobody's looking that way?
Speaker 1: Just about the lameness we would expect. Jay, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Is this so interesting? And I really appreciate
Speaker 1: having you and my pleasure. Good to talk, Molly John Fast,
Speaker 1: Jesse Cannon. Mike Pompeo, that forgettable guy with no charisma
Speaker 1: has lost a lot of weight for his book tour
Speaker 1: and now he needs attention. So Mike Pompeo lost a
Speaker 1: lot of weight, probably running for president, and during this
Speaker 1: book tour has done this sort of most craven attention
Speaker 1: seeking thing he can, which is he's going. First of all,
Speaker 1: he blurbed his own book. So for that alone, blurbing
Speaker 1: his own book is a non starter. I guess he
Speaker 1: assumed there was no one more fabulous than him to
Speaker 1: blow his own book. But he gave this little nugget
Speaker 1: which he wrote in the book, never given inch, Fighting
Speaker 1: for the America. I love. He didn't deserve to die,
Speaker 1: But we need to be clear about who he was
Speaker 1: that he were talking about, as Jamal Kashogi, an opinion
Speaker 1: journalist for the Washington Post. Pretty famous guy. I want
Speaker 1: to read this again. He didn't deserve to die, but
Speaker 1: we need to be clear about who he was, and
Speaker 1: too many in the media were not. By the way,
Speaker 1: what like MBS, a murderous psychopath killed an opinion columnist
Speaker 1: for the Washington Post, and somehow this is the guy
Speaker 1: who got murdered. Fault Pompeio, who served as CIA director
Speaker 1: in the Trump administration, God knows what he did when
Speaker 1: he was there, described Kashogi as an activist, claiming that
Speaker 1: he was a journalist only to the extent that I
Speaker 1: and many other public figures our journalists. So the guy
Speaker 1: that I don't think he knows what opinion journalism is.
Speaker 1: But either way, because Shogie shouldn't have had an opinion
Speaker 1: and he shouldn't have worn that short skirt. And I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna say, Mike Pompeo is trying to pedal outrage
Speaker 1: in the hopes that it will sell books. But I
Speaker 1: have news for Mike Pompeo. No one is interested in
Speaker 1: his book and he's still polling at like that's it
Speaker 1: for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday,
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday to hear the best minds and politics
Speaker 1: makes sense of all this chaos. If you enjoyed what
Speaker 1: you've heard, please send it to a friend and keep
Speaker 1: the conversation going. And again thanks for listening.