Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 3: Welcome to our recurring segment Get to Know a Senator.
Speaker 3: The previous guests have been JdE Vance, Ted Cruz, Alyssa Slotkin,
Speaker 3: Jeff Markley, who else.
Speaker 2: We let's see see Bernie. We've had Bernie.
Speaker 4: Oh, we had Bernie.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Anyway, So if your boss hasn't been on there yet,
Speaker 3: reach on out to us. But today we're talking to
Speaker 3: Senator Chris van holland Senator Van Allen.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much for joining us here.
Speaker 3: I really appreciate it's great to be with both of you.
Speaker 3: One thing and this was kind of the bait to
Speaker 3: get you into the studio that I wanted to talk
Speaker 3: to you about was and I don't know if you
Speaker 3: remember this, many many years ago I mentioned to you
Speaker 3: that before the Iraq War, I had been among twenty
Speaker 3: thirty people at a talk you gave at the University
Speaker 3: of Maryland where you laid out in incredibly prescient detail
Speaker 3: like why we should not invade Iraq and what would
Speaker 3: happen if we did. Unfortunately, as Penties know, as we
Speaker 3: did and those things happened. With the helpier staff, we
Speaker 3: actually found evidence that this happened. If we can put up
Speaker 3: this element on the screen. This is from the Diamondback,
Speaker 3: which is the student newspaper for the University of Maryland.
Speaker 3: So Monday, March third, twenty two thousand and three, this
Speaker 3: is an advertisement for a talk that Congress and Chris
Speaker 3: van Holland would be giving from twelve to one thirty pm.
Speaker 3: You had just been elected November of two thousand and two,
Speaker 3: so you're sworn in in January of two thousand and three,
Speaker 3: and the war starts within within two months. So just
Speaker 3: briefly lay out for us, like how did you see
Speaker 3: what others didn't and what did you think was going
Speaker 3: to happen?
Speaker 4: And well, thanks for bringing that up.
Speaker 6: And I actually remember that speech on the House floor
Speaker 6: because it's one of the earlier ones.
Speaker 4: I'd just been elected.
Speaker 3: Well and you gave a speech on the House floor
Speaker 3: like a week later. Yeah exactly, yeah exactly. And look,
Speaker 3: this sort of brings us to the moment where in
Speaker 3: now with respect to many challenges.
Speaker 6: But when it came to Iraq, I mean, we all
Speaker 6: recognized that Saddam Hussein was a bad dictator. I would
Speaker 6: have liked to see him go. But the question was
Speaker 6: how do you most successfully do that? And the Bush
Speaker 6: administration's answer was you invade Iraq. And the problem is
Speaker 6: when you go in and break stuff, you really need
Speaker 6: to know what's going to happen next. It's easy to
Speaker 6: go in and break stuff. It's building stuff back that's
Speaker 6: really hard. And nation building is something that is I
Speaker 6: think we've learned the hard way that we should not
Speaker 6: be engaged in.
Speaker 4: So yeah, look, so that was opening.
Speaker 6: I called it Pandora's box, right, because what we did
Speaker 6: was when we went into Iraq, we unleashed all these forces, right,
Speaker 6: the different sectarian forces within Iraq and then we tried
Speaker 6: to put a cap on them, and that didn't work,
Speaker 6: and the result was American forces on the ground for
Speaker 6: a long time, thousands of Americans killed, thousands and thousands
Speaker 6: of Iraqis killed, and the end result was actually to
Speaker 6: strengthen Iran right by getting rid of remember saying we
Speaker 6: strengthened Iran because they had been mortal enemies. I mean,
Speaker 6: they'd fought a war against one another. So the biggest
Speaker 6: beneficiary from the US going into Iraq was Iraq.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I when I expressed a lot of
Speaker 2: admiration for you and the courage that you've had on Gaza,
Speaker 2: you know, I know that was very difficult, especially under
Speaker 2: the Biden administration, going down to a Olsavador with kilmar
Speaker 2: bergo Garcia at a time when there were other democrats ors.
Speaker 4: Oh, we shouldn't talk about this. This isn't a good
Speaker 4: issue for US.
Speaker 2: I'm curious how you sort of arrived at your worldview.
Speaker 2: I know you're born in Pakistan and your parents I
Speaker 2: think when was a state department one with Cia. You know,
Speaker 2: what has that journey been like so that you came
Speaker 2: to that place where you were able to see what
Speaker 2: many weren't on Irock and have continued to be able
Speaker 2: to see some things that people are either not willing
Speaker 2: to see or unable to see.
Speaker 4: So you're right.
Speaker 6: I grew up in a foreign service family career. My
Speaker 6: father was a career diplomat. He went into the Navy
Speaker 6: and then into the Foreign service. He married my mom,
Speaker 6: who was at the forerunner to the CIA. Okay, at
Speaker 6: the time, she was a Russian language expert. She was
Speaker 6: the daughter of an English teacher, but she became a
Speaker 6: Russian language expert. So look growing up overseas and it's
Speaker 6: kind of like a military family.
Speaker 4: You go overseas, you come back. But it does get
Speaker 4: you thinking about what does America stand for?
Speaker 6: And I was proud to represent or be part of
Speaker 6: a family that represented the United States overseas. It also
Speaker 6: causes you to hold up a mirror and say, are
Speaker 6: we as good at home as we say we are?
Speaker 6: And in terms of my worldview, I believe in the
Speaker 6: power of America's example in addition to the power of
Speaker 6: our military. And I think it's really important that we recognize,
Speaker 6: especially at a moment like we're in right now, that
Speaker 6: that has really benefited us over time and we're throwing
Speaker 6: away the power of our example standing up for principles overseas.
Speaker 6: But it also you know, I remember very clearly in
Speaker 6: Sri Lanka because my father was posted in Sri Lanka
Speaker 6: going to a village and in the hut that belonged
Speaker 6: to the head of the village, there was a photograph
Speaker 6: on the wall and it's kind of hard to see
Speaker 6: was dim light.
Speaker 4: It was a photograph of John F. Kennedy.
Speaker 6: Why was that there because the Peace Corps had been
Speaker 6: to that village and help with their water and sanitation.
Speaker 6: So I've always believed that the United States can play
Speaker 6: a very important role around the world through the power
Speaker 6: of its example and not the overly reliant on the
Speaker 6: power of our military.
Speaker 3: Now you would come to your knowledge of the sectarian
Speaker 3: situation in Iraq in a curious wave in the you
Speaker 3: get this story a little bit for our audience. So
Speaker 3: in the early nineties, you and Peter Gallbraith, who was
Speaker 3: actually a brother of a friend of mine, James Gallbrath,
Speaker 3: then happened to be the son of John Kenneth Gallbright,
Speaker 3: the famous twentieth century economists. You guys are hill staffers
Speaker 3: and do a very unhill staffer thing, which is sneak
Speaker 3: into northern Iraq, the Kurdish region. Yeah, grab a whole
Speaker 3: bunch of documents and interviews with people there, and prove
Speaker 3: that Sodam Hussein had used chemical weapons that presumably we
Speaker 3: had sold him on the Kurdish people, Like how did
Speaker 3: you get in? How does the boss sign off on that?
Speaker 3: And what what did you like? How did that shape
Speaker 3: your your politics? Knowing that our ally had done this
Speaker 3: with our I don't know, not with our backing, because
Speaker 3: but we kind of encouraged the Kurds to rise up
Speaker 3: and then we let him gas them with our chemical weapons.
Speaker 6: Like yeah, so you've yeah, I'm glad you brought this up.
Speaker 4: You're right. I was a staff member on the Senate
Speaker 4: Foreign Relations.
Speaker 6: Committee in the nineteen nineties. Actually, I'm sorry, in the
Speaker 6: nineteen eighties. This is late nineteen nineteen eighty eightish, and
Speaker 6: Saddam Hussein had unleashed his chemical weapons on the Kurds
Speaker 6: in the northern part of Iraq, and so, yes, Peter
Speaker 6: Gabraith and I traveled to the Turkish Iraq border.
Speaker 4: We crossed into Iraq.
Speaker 6: Most of the interviews we did were with the Kurdish
Speaker 6: refugees who had fled into Turkey, and there were just
Speaker 6: these massive camps, and we actually camped out on the border.
Speaker 6: How we got permission to do it, I don't know,
Speaker 6: But we then interviewed a lot of the members folks
Speaker 6: in these camps who gave us sort of first hand
Speaker 6: accounts of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons because a
Speaker 6: lot of people were denying it. And I remember to
Speaker 6: this day to your point on who provided the precursor chemicals.
Speaker 6: It wasn't necessarily sold the chemical weapons with the material
Speaker 6: that was used.
Speaker 4: I remember American chemical companies.
Speaker 6: Lobbying against the legislation we proposed when we got back,
Speaker 6: because we proposed full sanctions on Saddam Hussein economic sanctions
Speaker 6: at the time, and we were able to ultimately get
Speaker 6: that out of the Senate that died in the House.
Speaker 6: But there's no doubt that the United States had sided
Speaker 6: with Saddam Hussein during that Iran Iraq war.
Speaker 4: And so yes, the hypocrisy.
Speaker 6: Of on the one hand, providing support to Saddam Hussein
Speaker 6: and then turning around and trying to condemn his use,
Speaker 6: which was right to condemn, is something that always stood
Speaker 6: out to me.
Speaker 2: I love to get your sort of before we zoom
Speaker 2: in more specifically to the immediate moment. I love to
Speaker 2: get your sense of how we ended up here, I
Speaker 2: was saying earlier in the show, like at least then
Speaker 2: Bush neocons felt the need to make some public case
Speaker 2: and like gin up some fake story about weapons of
Speaker 2: mass destruction. Now we're so downgraded in the war propaganda
Speaker 2: that we get machine guns and you know, them just
Speaker 2: out and out saying no, it's for the oil. Like
Speaker 2: we're just we want the oil. We're going to run
Speaker 2: the place. It's ours complete colonial project. But you know,
Speaker 2: people are also right in pointing out that, you know,
Speaker 2: we did do something similar in Panama, it had more
Speaker 2: sort of like moralism and justification wrapped around it. So
Speaker 2: do you see those past interventions over years sort of
Speaker 2: leading us to this place now where we just out
Speaker 2: and out are like global thugs that if you have
Speaker 2: something we want, we're just going to come in and
Speaker 2: take it.
Speaker 6: So I think that when you're talking about going into Iraq,
Speaker 6: that was heavily pushed by the neocons, who stated public
Speaker 6: purpose anyway was to bring democracy to places in the
Speaker 6: Middle East, including Iraq.
Speaker 4: At the barrel of a gun.
Speaker 6: And if we've learned any lesson it should be that
Speaker 6: you cannot by force just transform in a whole society.
Speaker 6: In the case of Venezuela, it is all about the oil.
Speaker 6: I mean I came out very early and said, you know,
Speaker 6: this is all about the oil. And then Donald Trump
Speaker 6: gets up the next day and says, it's all.
Speaker 4: About the oil.
Speaker 6: And of course with this administration, the Trump administration, more
Speaker 6: than in any other earlier conflict, it's all about making
Speaker 6: money for Trump's billionaire.
Speaker 4: Friends, like you know, and for himself and himself and
Speaker 4: his family.
Speaker 6: I mean, if you look at what's happening across the
Speaker 6: Middle East and the Gulf States, I mean the corruption
Speaker 6: is just so gross. I mean, everything everything they touch,
Speaker 6: they're trying to transform into dollars for Trump and his.
Speaker 4: Family and his billionaire buddies.
Speaker 6: I mean, if you look at Venezuela, it's not necessarily
Speaker 6: so much the oil companies, although in the long run
Speaker 6: they they may benefit. But they're people like Paul Singer,
Speaker 6: who is this huge Trump donor who bought Citgo out
Speaker 6: of bankruptcy in November, and others like that who are
Speaker 6: huge beneficiaries of this and had sort of been you know,
Speaker 6: told about it.
Speaker 4: I mean, they people, you know, they knew that this
Speaker 4: might happen.
Speaker 6: So I will say that this administration, the corruption piece.
Speaker 4: Is just prevalent throughout.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I'm curious, Yeah, how you view American power
Speaker 3: abroad given that these mask off moments that we've had,
Speaker 3: whether it's the Iraq War, whether it's going into Venezuela.
Speaker 3: And I'll put the question to you in terms of
Speaker 3: the country you do understand quite well, haven't been born
Speaker 3: there Pakistan. And in twenty twenty two, when the Russia
Speaker 3: Ukraine War breaks out, the Prime Minister at the time,
Speaker 3: in Ron Khan says that he's going to remain neutral
Speaker 3: in this war. US wanted Pakistan producing shells for Ukraine.
Speaker 3: US wanted Russia to be isolated. The State Department told
Speaker 3: him that they found that to be offensive and they
Speaker 3: called it a posture of aggressive neutrality, which is kind
Speaker 3: of a bizarre term to begin with, and told the
Speaker 3: ambassador that if a vote of no confidence was held
Speaker 3: and Immoran Khan was removed from power, relations between the
Speaker 3: United States would be better and quote all all would
Speaker 3: be forgiven was the phrase that this this one diplomatic
Speaker 3: I think you think, you know, Don Low would used
Speaker 3: Since then the military has basically taken over a dictatorial
Speaker 3: control in Pakistan, and the and the US through Biden
Speaker 3: and then through Trump completely behind them, like no pretense
Speaker 3: of you know, support for Pakistani democracy, So that that's
Speaker 3: more of a mask on American power moment. So is
Speaker 3: is that like, is that who we are globally? Like,
Speaker 3: at what point do we say that the United States
Speaker 3: is this is this is just what we do. Sometimes
Speaker 3: we do it politely behind the scenes. Sometimes we do
Speaker 3: it with with guns. Sometimes we do it with a
Speaker 3: delta force, sometimes we do it with an occupation force.
Speaker 3: How and how have you kind of confronted that as
Speaker 3: somebody who has kind of grown up in that in
Speaker 3: that in that where there's this belief among the Foreign
Speaker 3: Service that we are with the Peace Corps, were living
Speaker 3: up to these values around the world, Like are.
Speaker 6: We so well, we're certainly not at this particular moment,
Speaker 6: and we've never been perfect by any means, But I
Speaker 6: do believe that if you talk to Foreign Service officers
Speaker 6: and others, you know, representing the United States around the world,
Speaker 6: supporting the principles of human rights, rule of law, freedom
Speaker 6: and democracy is an important part of what we stand for,
Speaker 6: and I would argue it's a very important part of
Speaker 6: why the United States does have influence.
Speaker 4: Now. I know you did a lot of reporting on Pakistan.
Speaker 4: You're absolutely right.
Speaker 6: If you look at Pakistan today, it's hard to call
Speaker 6: it a democracy. You know, they have the elements of
Speaker 6: the democracy, but in terms of how it's functioning, so
Speaker 6: much of the control right now, as you know, as
Speaker 6: in the Army chief of Staff and you know, I've
Speaker 6: written to the Pakistani ambassador here. He didn't love my
Speaker 6: letter pointing out that, you know, we need free and
Speaker 6: fair elections in Pakistan. So there's another example where we
Speaker 6: are saying one thing and doing another. Although I will
Speaker 6: say with the Trump administration, they've thrown entirely overboard. Yeah,
Speaker 6: the idea that we represent these values, I mean, they
Speaker 6: think they're archaic. In my view, it's not that we
Speaker 6: it's that we should do better actually in implementing those
Speaker 6: values as part of our foreign policy.
Speaker 4: I mean we see double standards across the board.
Speaker 6: I mean, supporting the net Yahoo government you know, throughout
Speaker 6: the war and Gaza even as they violated not just
Speaker 6: international law but American law, and the Biden administration and
Speaker 6: the Trump administration as well, nothing about it. So that's
Speaker 6: a double standard, and that undermines our strength around the world,
Speaker 6: especially in the Global South. But now you have an
Speaker 6: administration that just very explicitly has thrown the whole idea
Speaker 6: that America stands for these principles overboard in favor of
Speaker 6: you know, as Steve Miller said the other.
Speaker 4: Day, we got the power, We'll do what we want.
Speaker 2: Can you take us a little bit inside the conversations
Speaker 2: that you were having with the Biden administration during what
Speaker 2: we can get into, you know, I say it's a genocide.
Speaker 2: Agree with the international consensus. We can get to whether
Speaker 2: you agree.
Speaker 4: With that or not.
Speaker 2: But during the genocide and Gaza which is ongoing, what
Speaker 2: were your conversations like with the Biden administration, you know,
Speaker 2: when you were bringing to them information about the way
Speaker 2: that aid was being blocked, for example, after having been
Speaker 2: on the ground, how did they square that circle? How
Speaker 2: did they continue to hold this aspirational view that America
Speaker 2: is a force for good in the world at the
Speaker 2: same time that we're shipping the bombs that are you know,
Speaker 2: part of these horrific atrocities.
Speaker 4: Well, you're right, that's.
Speaker 6: An example of a clear double standard and contradiction. And
Speaker 6: you know, I reached out to them pretty early on
Speaker 6: in the Gaza where they abide administration to point out that,
Speaker 6: you know, the government of Israel was restricting humanitarian assistance,
Speaker 6: that we were witnessing and discriminate bombing, and that there
Speaker 6: were violations ongoing violations not just of international law but
Speaker 6: US law. Right, we have a law in the books
Speaker 6: with respect to provision of humanitarian aid that if a
Speaker 6: country is you know, restricting humanitarian aid in a place
Speaker 6: where they're also using our weapons, that we cut off
Speaker 6: support of our weapon transfers. And they just tried, they
Speaker 6: bobbed and weaved, and in the end of the day,
Speaker 6: I really think they did great damage to our credibility
Speaker 6: around the world.
Speaker 4: Let alone, you know, the.
Speaker 6: Number of people have been killed in Gaza. We're witnessing
Speaker 6: this right now, not only in Gaza, in the West Bank.
Speaker 6: You know, I call what's happening in the West Bank
Speaker 6: slow motion ethnic cleansing. I mean, every day you're hearing
Speaker 6: more and more about violence, settlers taking more land belonging
Speaker 6: to Palestin Indians and essentially with impunity, and they're they're.
Speaker 4: Backed up by.
Speaker 6: The IDF, because they're backed up by people like Ben
Speaker 6: Giver and Smotrich, these very right wing extremists, and by
Speaker 6: Netan Yahoo. So this is a moment where, you know,
Speaker 6: the United States, the idea that we're standing up for
Speaker 6: principles has been thrown overboard. I mean, unfortunately it was
Speaker 6: done over a period of time, but now the Trump
Speaker 6: administration has made it explicit. I believe, if asking, I
Speaker 6: believe the United States actually does need to be consistent.
Speaker 6: We're never perfect, but these are really important parts of
Speaker 6: who we are as a country. It's part of the
Speaker 6: American identity. I don't think it's entirely a myth. I
Speaker 6: think we we do stand for those things. Ronald Reagan
Speaker 6: talked about the shiny City on the Hill, and Republicans
Speaker 6: have now thrown that whole idea overboard.
Speaker 2: So let me ask you. You have the International Association
Speaker 2: of Genocide Scholars who say it's a genocide. They join
Speaker 2: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch. There are various Israeli human
Speaker 2: rights organizations like Budslom who agree with that. Do you
Speaker 2: accept the international consensus that this is a genocide?
Speaker 6: So I think the overwhelming evidence points to the fact
Speaker 6: that this is a genocide. You've seen scholars, including many
Speaker 6: scholars of the Holocaust, your scholars at Hebrew University, Brown University,
Speaker 6: and others.
Speaker 4: I've not made an independent legal conclusion.
Speaker 6: I've made it very explicit that this is ethnic cleansing.
Speaker 6: But regardless of what you call it, it is.
Speaker 2: You don't have to worry about a huge I have
Speaker 2: one one SoundBite we're going to play for you, as though.
Speaker 6: Okay, it's a huge Watching what's happening is just it
Speaker 6: seems to me anybody with the conscience cannot stand by
Speaker 6: and watch what's happening without wanting to do something.
Speaker 2: And how much do you think that the barbarism that
Speaker 2: we've all watched play out in Gaza has allowed this
Speaker 2: moment to emerge where we really do just you know,
Speaker 2: the Trump administration feels fine just saying hey, we're going
Speaker 2: to take over Gaza, right and continue in that direction.
Speaker 2: We're going to take over Venezuela because we want their oil.
Speaker 2: We're going to take over Greenland because we want you know,
Speaker 2: whatever they have to offer, and we're going to do
Speaker 2: this wherever we feel like doing it. So they truly
Speaker 2: have actualized this like might makes right barbarism, not to
Speaker 2: mention the barbarism that we're all seeing in the streets
Speaker 2: with these you know, ice thugs and CBP and other
Speaker 2: mass goons that are in American streets. How much do
Speaker 2: you think that Gaza contributed to the unleashing of that
Speaker 2: level of sort of accepted law of the jungle barbarism.
Speaker 4: Well, I think it contributed to it. I think you.
Speaker 6: I think that Trump anddministration may well have jumped to
Speaker 6: where they are right now no matter what. But clearly
Speaker 6: Gaz is an example of where the United States did
Speaker 6: not stand up for our values, for our own laws,
Speaker 6: did not implement our own laws, and I do think
Speaker 6: that contributes to a complete erosion of international standards. You're
Speaker 6: also seeing that combined with an attack on multilateral organizations
Speaker 6: and on the UN, and the Biden administration vetoed. I
Speaker 6: can't I lost count how many resolutions they vetoed when
Speaker 6: it came to the situation in Gaza. So I do
Speaker 6: think you have a pattern there. I think it's going
Speaker 6: to be the challenge for the next president will be
Speaker 6: to try to restore some credibility as to what we
Speaker 6: stand for. But you're right, I mean to bring this
Speaker 6: home and watch what we're seeing on our own streets.
Speaker 6: You know, the reason I went down to El Salvador
Speaker 6: to try to, you know, find out whether Kilmar or
Speaker 6: Brago Garcia was alive was because of the lawlessness of
Speaker 6: the Trump administration here at home. So here at home
Speaker 6: and overseas they're taking the same view, which is they've
Speaker 6: got the power, they will do what they want.
Speaker 4: That is a lawless administration.
Speaker 3: And so just despite the criticism, the Biden administration did
Speaker 3: not change course, which we all acknowledge is absolute catastrophe,
Speaker 3: both for the US and for people in Gaza and
Speaker 3: maybe in the long run for Israel too. We'll find
Speaker 3: out what leverage do you think you had that you
Speaker 3: didn't use? What could you have done that you didn't do,
Speaker 3: Like if you had to do it over again, like
Speaker 3: because the people trying to change Biden administration policy failed,
Speaker 3: Like was there was there a path to changing that
Speaker 3: policy or.
Speaker 4: Was this just baked in? And did you talk to
Speaker 4: Briden directly this? I did raise this with Biden directly.
Speaker 6: I mean not so much near the end of his administration,
Speaker 6: but even a couple on a couple occasions then I
Speaker 6: mentioned it to him. For example, when we had the
Speaker 6: collapse of the Key Bridge in Baltimore, he came to Baltimore,
Speaker 6: we spoke about the bridge. We also mentioned we got
Speaker 6: to do something to stop the killing in Gaza.
Speaker 4: So you know, I tried to do everything I could.
Speaker 6: The main thing we did was get the Biden administration
Speaker 6: to adopt what became known as NSM twenty.
Speaker 4: So I don't want to go into all the weeds there.
Speaker 6: I proposed an amendment to the build and included funding
Speaker 6: for Ukraine and Israel and other things that essentially would
Speaker 6: have blocked funding to any country that was violating American law.
Speaker 6: We didn't have the votes to pass it, but we
Speaker 6: were successful at getting the Biden administration to adopt what
Speaker 6: became known as NSM twenty.
Speaker 4: It's a pretty long document.
Speaker 6: It was fiercely negotiated, and it ultimately required them to
Speaker 6: provide some reporting on a lot of these issues, right
Speaker 6: in terms of the killing, in terms of the distribution
Speaker 6: of humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, when the report came out, I
Speaker 6: felt that it sort of whitewashed the situation. I said
Speaker 6: so publicly, if you interestingly, if you look at the
Speaker 6: amount of humanitarian aid going into Gaza. It did go
Speaker 6: up just before the report was issued. And you know,
Speaker 6: the administration did tell me that they used that as
Speaker 6: leverage to improve the delivery of humanitarian assistance. The problem is,
Speaker 6: as soon as the report came out, right, they didn't
Speaker 6: stick with it. I mean, the Biden administration didn't stick
Speaker 6: with it. They did not use the levers of power
Speaker 6: that they have.
Speaker 2: For a lot of rank and file Democrats, like ordinary odors,
Speaker 2: a PAC funding and position on the Gassa genocide has
Speaker 2: become a litmus test for any candidac they support, and
Speaker 2: in particular candidate support in twenty twenty. First of all,
Speaker 2: would you ever accept a PAC funding? And second of all,
Speaker 2: I'm curious, you know, do you have a litmus test
Speaker 2: for future candidates to represent the Democratic Party nationally?
Speaker 6: So no, I don't accept a PAC money. I don't
Speaker 6: think anybody should accept a pack of money. You know,
Speaker 6: I remember when I proposed my amendment, it was written
Speaker 6: in a completely neutral way, in the sense that applied
Speaker 6: to any country. We just said that when the United
Speaker 6: States is providing military assistance to a country, they have
Speaker 6: to comply with these basic standards. APAC came out against that.
Speaker 6: You know, the issue with APAC, as we know, is
Speaker 6: they essentially adopt the position of the government of Israel,
Speaker 6: and there are going to be times when the interests
Speaker 6: of the government of Israel in the United States obviously diverge.
Speaker 6: I don't think what Israel's been doing is in Israel's
Speaker 6: own interests, but that, of course is for the people
Speaker 6: of Israel to decide. But the short answer your question is,
Speaker 6: I do not think that anybody should be taking a
Speaker 6: peck money.
Speaker 4: And I think that there does need to.
Speaker 6: Be accountability in the Democratic Party for whether people stood
Speaker 6: up and challenged all the terrible things that were happening
Speaker 6: in Gaza during that period of time.
Speaker 3: And now does that mean, Senator Schumer, do you think
Speaker 3: that do you think there should be new leadership in
Speaker 3: future congresses in the Senate well.
Speaker 6: As to future congresses. That's going to be obviously something
Speaker 6: for the Democratic Caucus. But let me just say this
Speaker 6: with respect to the presidential race in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 6: You know, my view is it's going to be important
Speaker 6: see whether the candidates are running for the highest office
Speaker 6: in the land.
Speaker 4: Where they stood on this question of conscience.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that question of conscience obviously, you know,
Speaker 2: for me, one of the clearest dividing lines is around Gaza.
Speaker 2: But I think, you know, also the way that people
Speaker 2: have stood up or failed to stand up in this
Speaker 2: moment with the second Trump administration. You know, I mentioned
Speaker 2: before and you mentioned going to see whether kil Mahar
Speaker 2: Brego Garcia was alive or dad. You know, I think
Speaker 2: the decisions that were made on the previous shutdown fight,
Speaker 2: you know, everybody was sort of behind you guys, and
Speaker 2: then you had tumor and a few breakaway Democrats decided,
Speaker 2: I know, we're gonna We're going to cave without getting
Speaker 2: anything in return. I know you're part of what's called
Speaker 2: the quote unquote fight club, you and some other Democratic
Speaker 2: members of the Senate. So how do you see, like,
Speaker 2: how have Democrats done in this moment and what should
Speaker 2: they have done? How should they have conducted themselves differently?
Speaker 6: So I think a lot of Democrats were late to
Speaker 6: recognize the danger posed by the Trump administration. I mean,
Speaker 6: you know, people would sort of say, oh, maybe they're
Speaker 6: not serious, this is just rhetoric. Even as the Trump
Speaker 6: administration engaged in lawless activity at home and overseas, and immigration.
Speaker 4: Was one of the earlier ones. Yeah. Yeah, because we
Speaker 4: had this case of.
Speaker 6: Kilmarraborgo Garcia, right, he was snatched off the streets of Maryland.
Speaker 6: He was sent to Seacott, this notorious gulag in El Salvador.
Speaker 6: And when I went down there, there were a lot
Speaker 6: of voices in the Democratic Party that said, no, don't
Speaker 6: do that, you know, don't don't focus it all.
Speaker 4: I mean, they're Democrats above in this book record. Yeah,
Speaker 4: but not just there, but also around the country.
Speaker 6: And it was like, you know, we shouldn't be talking
Speaker 6: about this because when it comes to immigration issues, the
Speaker 6: Trump position is popular. We should always change the subject
Speaker 6: to something else. I mean, here you have people being snatched.
Speaker 6: Now that's changed. Now we have people who are responding
Speaker 6: much more than they were before. But at that time,
Speaker 6: it was really very much a finger in the wind
Speaker 6: a kind of thing. And you know, despite the fact
Speaker 6: that you had this gross violation of the constitution and
Speaker 6: things began to change back then. I mean, you know,
Speaker 6: when we had the Kilmar Brego Garcia case, folks like
Speaker 6: you know, Joe Rogan on his podcast, we're saying, you know,
Speaker 6: I'm not into this just denying people their due process
Speaker 6: rights in Constitution, and that's what this administration has been doing,
Speaker 6: just taking away.
Speaker 4: People's due process rights. So I do think it's changed.
Speaker 6: But to answer your question, I think there were a
Speaker 6: lot of folks who are very slow to recognize the
Speaker 6: real danger to our democracy, to our constitution, and to
Speaker 6: our country.
Speaker 2: I guess my question is has that actually changed. There's
Speaker 2: a possibility of another shutdown fight, and you have some
Speaker 2: including in this part, I will need your ear piece
Speaker 2: and it to be in for Senator Chris Murphy indicating
Speaker 2: that we should use this opportunity. Democrats should use this
Speaker 2: opportunity to force changes at ICE in the wake of
Speaker 2: what I would call a murder of Renee Good, you know,
Speaker 2: being shot three times by this ICE agent as she's
Speaker 2: there in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Let's go ahead and take a
Speaker 2: listen to Senator Chris Murphy make the case.
Speaker 7: You're proposing sweeping reforms to DHS, from requiring warrants for rests,
Speaker 7: to banning masks during enforcement to limiting ICE's use of
Speaker 7: firearms and civil operations. Do any Republicans support your plan?
Speaker 7: Is it realistic that this could actually pass?
Speaker 5: Senator Well Republicans need Democratic votes in order to pass
Speaker 5: a budget for the Department of Homeland Security. And what
Speaker 5: we're talking about I wouldn't necessarily categorize as sweeping, right,
Speaker 5: we're simply talking about, you know, essentially going back to
Speaker 5: the way that ICE was operating when they cared about legality,
Speaker 5: right identification of officers. That's something that has been standard
Speaker 5: practice in every law enforcement agency all across the country.
Speaker 4: Is CBP who are supposed to be at the.
Speaker 5: Border, protecting us at the border, operating in the interior
Speaker 5: with no training on how to deal with complex urban environments.
Speaker 4: That's brand new.
Speaker 5: So we just need to get back to a Department
Speaker 5: of Homeland Security that is prioritizing the law and prioritizing
Speaker 5: keeping people safe. And yes, I think that it's reasonable
Speaker 5: for Democrats speaking on behalf of the majority of the
Speaker 5: American public who don't approve of what ICE is doing,
Speaker 5: to say, if you want to fund the Department of
Speaker 5: Homeland Security, I want to fund a Department of Homeland
Speaker 5: Security that is operating in a safe and legal manner.
Speaker 2: So is it appropriate do you support using this sort
Speaker 2: of rare moment of leverage that Democrats have in terms
Speaker 2: of government funding to force some changes at DHS and
Speaker 2: with ICE.
Speaker 6: Yes, I've been very clear, I will not vote for
Speaker 6: one more penny getting rid of the pennies, one more
Speaker 6: dollar for the Trump Ice operation, and I hope we
Speaker 6: will use this moment for that purpose.
Speaker 4: And this is why the Department of.
Speaker 6: Homeland Securities appropriation bill in the Senate has been so
Speaker 6: hung up. I mean, we've passed other bills appropriation bills
Speaker 6: out of our committee, but some we've not. And this
Speaker 6: one is one that I will not support advancing without
Speaker 6: the kind of reforms that Chris Murphy's talking about.
Speaker 3: And what's the end game then, because it seemed like
Speaker 3: that that's where Democrats kind of fell down last time.
Speaker 3: That all they kind of snatched defeat from the jaws
Speaker 3: of victory in that shutdown because it felt like they
Speaker 3: just kind of lost their nerve after the shutdown and
Speaker 3: going on so long.
Speaker 4: So how do you avoid that this time? So we
Speaker 4: do have a different situation there.
Speaker 6: We have already moved, for example, three appropriation bills like
Speaker 6: for the Department of Agriculture and a couple others.
Speaker 4: There may be other bills.
Speaker 6: Where we were successful at putting up safeguards around the funding.
Speaker 4: The Commerce Justice Science Bill is one of those.
Speaker 6: Where we completely rejected the Trump cuts to science and
Speaker 6: the National Science Foundation and NASA Goddard and things like that.
Speaker 6: So we may have a situation where we pass appropriation
Speaker 6: bills for certain agencies. Well, what I'm saying, I think
Speaker 6: Senator Murphy is saying, is that when it comes to DHS,
Speaker 6: we will not support any funding for DHS in lesson
Speaker 6: until we see these reforms.
Speaker 2: And do you know where Senator Schumer is on that.
Speaker 6: I think he supports reforms at DHS. I can't speak
Speaker 6: for him with respect to the actual strategy of not
Speaker 6: supporting that bill at this particular moment.
Speaker 3: There was a memo that circulated in the kind of
Speaker 3: DC progressive world a month or two ago. I'm curious
Speaker 3: if you saw it that made the case for Chris
Speaker 3: van Holland for Senate Majority leader.
Speaker 4: Did you see that memo?
Speaker 6: I heard about the memo. Actually, no, you know I
Speaker 6: did see that memo. I know what you're talking about,
Speaker 6: all right, So what do you think of that memo?
Speaker 3: And would you run if Democrats took the majority or
Speaker 3: if they or even if they don't, would you run
Speaker 3: for minority leaders, that's something you're open to.
Speaker 4: So it's not something that has been top of mind
Speaker 4: for me.
Speaker 6: And ultimately, you know, this is a question of the
Speaker 6: Democratic caucus. And if you go back, for example, to
Speaker 6: your point on the shutdown strategy unraveling, yeah, you can
Speaker 6: see it's it's not just about one person. So look,
Speaker 6: my goal right now is to fight like hell every
Speaker 6: moment we've got against the Trump administration, to work to
Speaker 6: win the midterm elections.
Speaker 4: In the House and in the Senate.
Speaker 6: And then I do believe I'm a strong believer in
Speaker 6: the fact that we cannot just be the party of
Speaker 6: know that we need to put forward a clear agenda
Speaker 6: for the future that makes a tells the American people
Speaker 6: we are not in the party of the status quo. Yeah,
Speaker 6: and that is going to be my main focus.
Speaker 2: So you say it's a question for the Democratic caucus,
Speaker 2: is it also a question for the Democratic base though,
Speaker 2: you know, especially at this period in time when you're
Speaker 2: between president, there's no clear leader of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2: So I think it's sort of an old fashioned way
Speaker 2: of looking at you know, Hookeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer's Oh,
Speaker 2: they just tend to the business of the House, or
Speaker 2: they just tend to business of the Senate. The Democratic
Speaker 2: base and the numbers bear this out, are very frustrated
Speaker 2: with Jeffries and specifically with Chuck Schumer. They feel he
Speaker 2: is failing at the job of standing up to Trump.
Speaker 2: And I think I agree, and I think you probably
Speaker 2: agree that they have a pretty strong case that they
Speaker 2: could make there. So does their frustration matter at all
Speaker 2: in that calculus as well at a time when they
Speaker 2: feel like they're losing their country.
Speaker 6: I yes, I mean their frustration definitely counts. It counts
Speaker 6: in leadership races. It will certainly count going into two
Speaker 6: thousand and twenty eight when it'll be a referendum within
Speaker 6: the Democratic Party on the direction that we want to
Speaker 6: take going forward. I would say that at this point
Speaker 6: in time, you know, and again, Senator Schumer, I think
Speaker 6: is now better reflecting the views of more of the
Speaker 6: Democrats across the country. That said, and you know, it
Speaker 6: became public, so I can talk about it. As you know,
Speaker 6: the first rule of fight club is.
Speaker 4: You don't talk about fight club, but somebody talks about it.
Speaker 6: So there is a group of us who've expressed frustration
Speaker 6: not only about you know, the direction.
Speaker 4: The clock has taken.
Speaker 6: But also with respect to how the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Speaker 6: Committee has gotten involved in some of the Democratic primaries.
Speaker 6: That's really what what sort of triggered a lot of
Speaker 6: the frustration among this group. You know, I was, you know,
Speaker 6: I was quite clear how frustrated I was that you
Speaker 6: didn't have the leadership supporting mam Nani in New York
Speaker 6: for mayor.
Speaker 4: What did he What did he say about that?
Speaker 3: How do you how do you justify not how did
Speaker 3: he justify not supporting the Democratic nominee for mayor?
Speaker 6: I can't remember what he has said publicly, but you know,
Speaker 6: all I know is the result. And you know, here
Speaker 6: you have a mayor who ran on the platform of
Speaker 6: affordability that everybody says we should be focused on and
Speaker 6: we should be focused on lowering the cost of living
Speaker 6: for Americans so people, you know, living paycheck to paycheck
Speaker 6: can actually get by, and we want to increase the
Speaker 6: size of their paychecks too. And so that was, you know,
Speaker 6: that was an example where you know, if you want
Speaker 6: to have a big tent memorocratic party, and I do,
Speaker 6: then you can't say you're not going to endorse you know,
Speaker 6: the guy who is the Democratic nominee for mayor.
Speaker 3: One of the grievances that this, according to the reporting
Speaker 3: that the Fight Club brought to Senator Schumer, was recruiting
Speaker 3: Janet Mills when Graham Plattner was already in the race
Speaker 3: and then clearly backing Haley Stevens even though they're they're
Speaker 3: claimed they or not, whether there's a competitive primary there,
Speaker 3: has the Fight Club thought about or talked about endorsing,
Speaker 3: like as a group against the Democratic establishment's candidate, Like
Speaker 3: where are you, Well, let's start with Maine, Like have
Speaker 3: you spoken with Graham Plattner? Are you supporting him? And
Speaker 3: should the Fight Club like if they're going to fight,
Speaker 3: like they're gonna fight, So.
Speaker 6: Okay, let's let's start with Maine. I've talked to both
Speaker 6: Janet Mills and Graham Plattner a.
Speaker 4: Couple of times.
Speaker 6: My view is that the Democratic primary voters should be
Speaker 6: the ones who you know, decide on that election. And
Speaker 6: you know, we got upset because that is an example
Speaker 6: where the d SCC did weigh in very strongly on
Speaker 6: behalf of one of the candidates in the primary, and
Speaker 6: it was our view and it remains my view that
Speaker 6: you know, that's a question for Democratic primary voters.
Speaker 4: And the same was true about Michigan.
Speaker 6: Right with respect to Haley Stevens, that they were weighing
Speaker 6: in on behalf of her to the exclusion of the
Speaker 6: other candidates. So our basic message was, we need to you,
Speaker 6: the d SCC, need to stay out of these races. Now,
Speaker 6: we did make an exception in the case of Minnesota.
Speaker 6: We together have endorsed Peggy Flanagan, who's the lieutenant gugnatorial
Speaker 6: candidate there, and that's because we also sense that the
Speaker 6: d s CC was weighing in on behalf of in
Speaker 6: this case.
Speaker 3: Right, So then okay, so if you're weighing in Minnesota,
Speaker 3: what will it take to get you into Maine?
Speaker 4: I don't know where where.
Speaker 6: I think our main reaction in Maine was that the
Speaker 6: DSCC went in. So we're look I continuing to look
Speaker 6: at these races, and I don't know.
Speaker 4: I do think that we're stronger.
Speaker 6: When we can take sort of collective action, and we
Speaker 6: were able to get a consensus on that when it
Speaker 6: came to the Minnesota Center race.
Speaker 2: Center, I'm curious why you change your mind on medicare
Speaker 2: for us? And I was very happy to see. But
Speaker 2: I'm just wondering if your views have evolved on where
Speaker 2: we should be economically and what it's going to require
Speaker 2: to you don't give working people a shot in this country.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: So the short answer is my view has not changed
Speaker 6: on that fundamental question. I mean, I've been very much
Speaker 6: supportive of getting eventually to medicare for all, but I
Speaker 6: had taken the view earlier that you know, I was
Speaker 6: one of the people is for the public option when
Speaker 6: it came to the Afordable Care Act, and then we
Speaker 6: didn't get the public option even though the House had
Speaker 6: been supportive of it back in the day. And you know,
Speaker 6: at some point, with Republicans continuing to try to just attack, attack,
Speaker 6: attack the Affordable Care Act from every angle, and just
Speaker 6: looking at the healthcare system overall, the amount of money
Speaker 6: that we spend on overhead and administration and bureaucracy and
Speaker 6: insurance companies, I just reached the conclusion that we didn't
Speaker 6: we should move now right's And so I supported the bill.
Speaker 4: I had supported the idea of getting the Medicare for all, yeah, always,
Speaker 4: But what I said was this bill is the way
Speaker 4: to do it over a four year period.
Speaker 6: This is Bernie Sanders' bill, and I've also long supported
Speaker 6: adding to Medicare coverage, you know, dental vision and hearing,
Speaker 6: and I think we should move forward on that now.
Speaker 6: But you know, I would say that looking at our
Speaker 6: healthcare system, we spend, as you know, about eighteen percent
Speaker 6: of our gross national product on healthcare, and we are
Speaker 6: definitely not getting our money's worth in terms.
Speaker 4: Of the public health.
Speaker 6: And so my view is that we should move now,
Speaker 6: and I think that bill lays out the right roadmap
Speaker 6: and not try to go through a public option for
Speaker 6: the Affordable Care Act and an even more incremental approach.
Speaker 4: I think we should just pass the build and do it.
Speaker 3: We talked about Senate leader, but you've also been talked
Speaker 3: about as potential presidential candidate. I mean, first, would you
Speaker 3: see any pushback from being born in Pakistan?
Speaker 4: Is there any argument that, hey, they you can't do that?
Speaker 3: Or do you get the John McCain exception there? You
Speaker 3: know in the Senate they say everybody, all senators wake
Speaker 3: up in the morning, look in the mirror and see
Speaker 3: see a future president?
Speaker 4: Do see that? Or when the where are you on
Speaker 4: that question?
Speaker 6: So my big focus right now, beyond the midterms is
Speaker 6: really coming up with what I think the Democrats should
Speaker 6: stand for. It kind of goes to your point when
Speaker 6: you asked about medicare, you also said, you know, how
Speaker 6: about you know.
Speaker 4: Working people around the country.
Speaker 6: And I've long believed that's the fundamental crisis that we're
Speaker 6: facing in America, which is the inequality of wealth and
Speaker 6: power in the country. So this is why I'm going
Speaker 6: to continue to I've been proposing major tax proposals and
Speaker 6: we'll be reintroducing another one soon, which essentially, you know,
Speaker 6: addresses the problem we've got, which is we have a
Speaker 6: tax system that's rigged to favor people who make money
Speaker 6: off of money as opposed to people who make money
Speaker 6: off of hard work. I also support incentivizing employee ownership
Speaker 6: of companies, and then I think we should make sure
Speaker 6: that on the cost side, for example, that these huge,
Speaker 6: these AI companies, the richest on the planet, you know,
Speaker 6: aren't essentially free riding off of rate payers when it
Speaker 6: comes to the additional electricity that needs to be generated
Speaker 6: in the costs.
Speaker 4: Of all of that.
Speaker 6: So what I'm saying is that is my focus right now.
Speaker 6: I don't know what the Democratic field will will look like.
Speaker 4: Iowa, I am Carolina. I did get invited to go out.
Speaker 6: I was the Iowa Steak Fry, Poe County Steak Fry.
Speaker 6: You know, we had a back and forth with another
Speaker 6: candidate about you know, yeah, anyway, I was. They asked
Speaker 6: me to come out, especially after the Kilmar Brego Garcia situation,
Speaker 6: and and I did give a speech out there laying
Speaker 6: out what I think the Democratic Party needs to focus on.
Speaker 6: Beyond taking on Trump, which we need to do every
Speaker 6: single day to protect our democracy, we do need to
Speaker 6: you know, I think that we've been much too tied
Speaker 6: to special interests, yes, and corporate special interests. And so
Speaker 6: my my view is the best way to regain some
Speaker 6: of the confidence of the American people is to show
Speaker 6: that we we will.
Speaker 4: We want to break with the status quo.
Speaker 6: I mean, it just was my mind that Donald Trump
Speaker 6: was the guy who said he was going to change,
Speaker 6: you know, Washington, and people thought that that might be
Speaker 6: changing in a good way.
Speaker 4: They just wanted they want to change. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Now I think you know, people are seeing i mean,
Speaker 6: including on the immigration front, but the fact that Trump
Speaker 6: is not focused on bringing out costs or anything like that.
Speaker 6: They don't like what they see. But I'm going to
Speaker 6: I intend to be front center in this debate.
Speaker 2: How do you reign in these tech oligarchs? And you
Speaker 2: mentioned the concern about electricity rates, that's one thing. They're
Speaker 2: also deep concerns about AI and taking jobs. There are
Speaker 2: existential concerns about AI and destroying human civilization, like how
Speaker 2: are you thinking about that constellation of issues and specifically
Speaker 2: on the question of how you reign in You know,
Speaker 2: these would be trillionaires who want to basically operate in
Speaker 2: a completely unregulated environment and be able to do whatever
Speaker 2: they want, whenever they want.
Speaker 4: So I agree with your analysis.
Speaker 6: I think we're in a really difficult place because you
Speaker 6: have the richest people on the planet and they're getting richer,
Speaker 6: and with that comes a lot of power, and they're
Speaker 6: using their power. I mean, we see this with Elon
Speaker 6: Musk obviously, you know Trump made him the head of DOGE.
Speaker 6: We also see this with the concentration of media power
Speaker 6: and traditional media, which is why I do encourage everybody
Speaker 6: to watch independent media channel.
Speaker 4: Grey, appreciate, but like and subscribe. But I don't have
Speaker 4: I will. I will tell you I don't have an
Speaker 4: easy answer to your your question.
Speaker 6: I've been longtime supporter of you know, significant campaign finance reform.
Speaker 6: You know, we obviously want to roll back Citizen United,
Speaker 6: but you know how hard that is because the Supreme
Speaker 6: Court decision. I am the original author of the Disclosure
Speaker 6: Act that we've got past the House of Representatives. When
Speaker 6: I was back in the House, it failed by one
Speaker 6: vote in the Senate on filibuster. So I believe in
Speaker 6: campaign finance reform and we need to fight like that.
Speaker 4: And whoever's you.
Speaker 6: Know, a Democratic candidate for president or even you know,
Speaker 6: Congress should be fighting for those things. But I'm open
Speaker 6: to people's ideas on how you reign in the AI companies.
Speaker 6: And we never were successful at getting a sort of
Speaker 6: a oversight when it came to the social media universe.
Speaker 6: And they're obviously all sorts of important questions around First Amendment,
Speaker 6: all those sort of things. But in terms of the
Speaker 6: concentration of power in AI, you know, again, I have
Speaker 6: a tax approach to that, but in terms of reigning
Speaker 6: them in, that is something that I believe we need
Speaker 6: to do.
Speaker 4: I agree with your analysis.
Speaker 6: I'm open to any ideas people have as the best
Speaker 6: approach to that.
Speaker 3: You're colleague, Elizabeth Warren a fight club, another fight club member,
Speaker 3: I believe, giving a speech today at the National Press
Speaker 3: Club in which she's really taking aim at the abundance
Speaker 3: argument and making the case generally and read the entire
Speaker 3: speech that abundance in some ways as a stalking horse
Speaker 3: for old school deregulatory hands off, just let the oligarchs
Speaker 3: and rule the roost and.
Speaker 4: Things will happen.
Speaker 3: And she's coming directly at that and saying no, like,
Speaker 3: we actually need to get these people under control so
Speaker 3: that we can really unleash all of the American people,
Speaker 3: not just the oligarchs. Where are you on this abundance
Speaker 3: conversation within the Democratic Party?
Speaker 6: So I really don't think it's either or on abundance
Speaker 6: versus you know, going after.
Speaker 3: But Donnie stole the word, mom, Donnie stole the word.
Speaker 3: He called himself he's an abundance.
Speaker 4: Some of us first executive.
Speaker 6: Look, I mean, I think we can acknowledge that, you know,
Speaker 6: we need to build more housing stock, we need more
Speaker 6: affordable housing, and that there are many cases where especially
Speaker 6: local regulations or an impediment to that. What can the
Speaker 6: federal government do to incentivize changes? I mean, there are
Speaker 6: limited levers at the federal level. It is also true,
Speaker 6: obviously that some of these transportation projects take way too long,
Speaker 6: So I.
Speaker 4: Think there is there's merit to that argument.
Speaker 6: That doesn't mean that we should not also be focused on,
Speaker 6: you know, making sure that we break up monopolies, because
Speaker 6: you know, monopolies obviously undermine the whole idea of you know,
Speaker 6: for those people who believe in free markets, you should
Speaker 6: be anti monopoly obviously, So I think it's not I
Speaker 6: really don't think it's either or when it comes to
Speaker 6: abundance versus the sort of anti monopoly, anti trust approach.
Speaker 2: So you talk some about accountability electoral accountability for Democrats
Speaker 2: who close their eyes to human rights abuses in Gaza
Speaker 2: and failed to stand up to President Trump. Do you
Speaker 2: think there should be criminal accountability for members of this
Speaker 2: administration under a future you know, if you or someone
Speaker 2: else were to run for president, Should charges be brought
Speaker 2: against people who committed crimes in the content context of
Speaker 2: this regime.
Speaker 6: I think people need to be held accountable under the law,
Speaker 6: and so to the extent that there are people engaged
Speaker 6: in criminal violations of the law, then they need to
Speaker 6: be held accountable.
Speaker 2: Does part of that accountability we talked earlier about renee
Speaker 2: Good and about Kilmara Brego Garcia, and ICE is sort
Speaker 2: of the tip of the sphere of this lawless administration.
Speaker 2: Do you support abolishing ice? There's some sixty nine percent
Speaker 2: of the Democratic base that has come to that position
Speaker 2: at this point.
Speaker 6: Well, let's put it this way. I support abolishing Trump's ICE.
Speaker 6: In other words, this kind of operation that's going on
Speaker 6: right now needs to come to an end, and it
Speaker 6: needs to come to an end now.
Speaker 4: So I support raining in ICE.
Speaker 6: I think ICE has an appropriate function when it is,
Speaker 6: when it is conducted and operated in you know, in
Speaker 6: the way that it was I think originally in visioned.
Speaker 6: But I think Trump is sort of put ice on steroids.
Speaker 6: And this is why, as we discussed earlier, I'm in
Speaker 6: favor of you making sure we don't provide any funding
Speaker 6: for Trump's ongoing ICE operations.
Speaker 3: Let me let me push a little bit on that,
Speaker 3: because this is not like an ancient it's not a
Speaker 3: Jeffersonian agency like you were literally in Congress when this
Speaker 3: was created, right, I think it was two thousand and three,
Speaker 3: Like when they reorganized Homeland Security in twenty nineteen, we
Speaker 3: covered and I think pro public.
Speaker 4: It did too.
Speaker 3: When AOC and I think it was Rashida to leaving
Speaker 3: Alanomar went down to the border, there was a report,
Speaker 3: multiple reports about this ICE Facebook group that had hundreds,
Speaker 3: if not thousands of ICE agents and commanders like this
Speaker 3: is top to bottom, where they were threatening violence against
Speaker 3: AOC and these other members of Congress who were coming
Speaker 3: to the border. Their job was they were supposed to
Speaker 3: protect these members of Congress. There were also all of
Speaker 3: this over the top, like sexual harassment and sexualization of
Speaker 3: these members going on.
Speaker 4: You read through these and this is basically public.
Speaker 3: It was a private group, but it's you know, when
Speaker 3: you're in the thousands, it's basically public on Facebook. You
Speaker 3: read through those and you get a window into a
Speaker 3: rogue agency, which is how I saw it at the time.
Speaker 3: So this is Trump's ICE, but it's twenty nineteen, like
Speaker 3: we're now many years deeper into Trump's ICE. It already
Speaker 3: to me felt rogue, like outside of democratic control, that
Speaker 3: it was its own thing, And I think predictably we're
Speaker 3: now getting the kind of expressions of that. If an
Speaker 3: agency is that far gone, why not reorganize it and
Speaker 3: take the parts that we need. You know that if
Speaker 3: the government needs to carry out and give them to
Speaker 3: agencies that are under the control of the federal government.
Speaker 4: So clearly we.
Speaker 6: Have a problem with the culture of ICE right now
Speaker 6: for the Trump administration, and we had that in the
Speaker 6: first Trump administration as well.
Speaker 4: There may have been abuses under Obama, under Biden. I
Speaker 4: have to go back and look at that.
Speaker 6: So, look, I don't The question is the function, right,
Speaker 6: not the name, And so I do believe that that.
Speaker 4: Function requires dramatic reform.
Speaker 6: I mean, if you look at you know, some of
Speaker 6: the recruitment that's going on right now now, if you
Speaker 6: look at the black standards in terms of training, we
Speaker 6: are seeing huge abuses. So look, I don't I don't
Speaker 6: really care what you call it, but that the function
Speaker 6: is something that I think needs to be maintained in
Speaker 6: the sense that there has to be some agency that
Speaker 6: is responsible. For example, when somebody is here who is undocumented,
Speaker 6: someone who's here illegally, that they and they commit a
Speaker 6: violent crime, there has to be somebody in the peral
Speaker 6: government that addresses that.
Speaker 4: And that's currently ICE, so it was before.
Speaker 6: So but again, the function, I think when people say
Speaker 6: they want to get rid of ICE, it's sometimes people
Speaker 6: may interpret it as getting rid of that function. You know, again,
Speaker 6: my view is we shouldn't be funding Trump's ice operations.
Speaker 2: How scar do you think we are when you look
Speaker 2: at the lawless and zoo, when you look at the
Speaker 2: mask off foreign policy, when you look at I mean
Speaker 2: ice agents, pepper spray a baby, assault random people, illegally
Speaker 2: arrest American citizens, and now shoot remaining good three times
Speaker 2: in the face, Like, how do we put any of
Speaker 2: this back together? Given how far we've gone?
Speaker 4: Is it too late?
Speaker 2: Or do you think that we can sort of come
Speaker 2: back from this moment of rising fascism and lawlessness in
Speaker 2: this country and abroad.
Speaker 6: So I do believe we can come back. I think
Speaker 6: there's been a huge amount of damage. I think it's
Speaker 6: going to require a lot of repair, both in terms
Speaker 6: of you know, here at home as well as you know,
Speaker 6: our foreign policy. But I do believe ultimately that the
Speaker 6: American people don't like what they're seeing with respect to
Speaker 6: what Trump's doing, including his ice operations, and I think
Speaker 6: that you will see changes in the midterm elections. Now,
Speaker 6: you know, given the fact that you ever rogue president
Speaker 6: who doesn't care about the constitution will remain a big,
Speaker 6: big challenge until twenty twenty eight. But look, lots of
Speaker 6: damage done. Do I think it's irreversible? No, But I
Speaker 6: think that depends on all of us. I mean, I
Speaker 6: really do think the answer to your question depends on
Speaker 6: what the American people are doing and what's been So,
Speaker 6: you know, heartwarming about this even terrible moment is to
Speaker 6: listen to the whistle brigades right out in Minneapolis, the
Speaker 6: neighbors coming out to defend their neighbors.
Speaker 4: Seven million Americans.
Speaker 6: Going out on No King's Day, I mean in Maryland,
Speaker 6: you know, I I went all over the state.
Speaker 4: It was heartwarming to see thousands.
Speaker 6: Of Marylanders coming out to resist the tyranny of the
Speaker 6: Trump administration. So I do think that we have good,
Speaker 6: strong antibodies to protect our democracy.
Speaker 4: They are being threatened as never before.
Speaker 6: But I do have faith at the end that if
Speaker 6: we all step up and step out, we will be successful.
Speaker 6: After all, what Trump wants most of all is for
Speaker 6: everybody to shut up at go away.
Speaker 4: I mean, that is what they want. That's why they
Speaker 4: threaten people.
Speaker 6: That's why they locked up you know, students for expressing
Speaker 6: their First Amendment views early in the administration.
Speaker 4: That was Secretary Rubio and others.
Speaker 6: We need to push back really hard every day.
Speaker 3: Last one for me, So should we end weapon sales
Speaker 3: to Israel?
Speaker 6: I think in this moment, I would I oppose transferring
Speaker 6: offensive weapons to Israel.
Speaker 4: I've not imposed sending some.
Speaker 6: Defensive iron Doome defense systems that are used only to
Speaker 6: intercept incoming missiles, but I think at this moment in time,
Speaker 6: we need to at the very least pause transfers of
Speaker 6: offensive weapons, which is why I've continued to vote on
Speaker 6: each of the votes we've had in the Senate to
Speaker 6: not allow the transfers of more offensive weapons so long
Speaker 6: as Israel is violating in national law and American law.
Speaker 2: Do you think that that distinction really makes it. I mean,
Speaker 2: if you're shipping weapons, you're shipping weapons, and you know,
Speaker 2: I think there's a pretty clear argument that supplying iron Dome,
Speaker 2: for example, is part of what allows Israel to operate
Speaker 2: with such impunity in the region.
Speaker 6: I've supported iron Dome because there are other you know,
Speaker 6: this is not only Gaza. They Israel obviously isn't a
Speaker 6: you know.
Speaker 4: A tough neighborhood, and of course they are. Actually they
Speaker 4: frequently bomb their neighbors.
Speaker 6: They also it's going to make it a tough neighborhood
Speaker 6: that there's no doubt.
Speaker 4: I mean, I think that the net Yahoo government.
Speaker 6: Has been really you know, bad for Israel and the
Speaker 6: United States.
Speaker 4: As you know, we.
Speaker 6: Should be doing much more than we are, obviously to
Speaker 6: rain in what the net Yahoo government is doing. But
Speaker 6: I do think there's an important distinction between providing defensive
Speaker 6: weapons and offensive weapons.
Speaker 2: All Right, Senator Chrispin Holland, thank you so much for
Speaker 2: spending so much time with us.
Speaker 4: We really appreciate it. Thank you. Good to be with
Speaker 4: both of you.
Speaker 2: All Right, guys, that does it for us. I will
Speaker 2: be in with soccer tomorrow, so we will see you then.