Trump's new attack on health care | Pod Save America recording stream

Trump's new attack on health care | Pod Save America recording stream

Erica I'm Jon Favreau I'm Dan Piper later in the pod i chat with congresswoman Rasheeda Talib about all kinds of stuff in the news before that we got a lot of news to get through from the lawsuit that might undo the Affordable Care Act to the latest Trump scandals to some brand new polling we're releasing today about the 2020 primary a few programming notes we'll be releasing a bonus episode of positive America on Friday featuring our interview with World Cup champion Megan Rapinoe who will be dropping by crooked HQ later today the entire staff is very excited in I'm very that is very cool and I'm very jealous yeah also on the latest episode of POD save the world Tommy and Ben talk about Trump's Twitter fight with the British ambassador to the US as well as big updates out of Iran North Korea and make sure to check out our new crooked minis series called reclaiming patriotism hosted by former Navy pilot and congressional candidate Ken Harbaugh featuring interviews with people like Pete Buddha judge Tammy Duckworth and Barbara Lee it's an excellent series go check it out finally we will be in Denver on July 17th and in Salt Lake City on July 18th that's next week the shows will be co-hosted by hysterias Aaron Ryan so make sure to come see us live get tickets at crooked comm slash events there are still some available all right let's get to the news Donald Trump and Republicans moved one step closer towards their longtime goal of destroying the Affordable Care Act this week when two out of three judges on a fifth circuit court of appeals panel seemed amenable to the argument made by Republican plaintiffs that the entire law is unconstitutional now that the individual mandate has been eliminated by Congress Dan obviously the Affordable Care Act has had some close calls before how did this particular legal challenge come about how did how do we get to this place so late last year a very conservative judge in Texas struck down the law and the argument behind it was that the mandate was unconstitutional now in 2012 the Supreme Court held that the individual mandate was constitutional but they did so by saying that the government could require people have health insurance because they had the power to tax in the Republican tax bill of 2017 they struck down the individual mandate Thank You Susan Collins and so this judge said since the Congress is no longer taxing that they didn't have the power to do this and then the judge said because the individual mandate was unconstitutional the entire law was and so now we could have come just so that was stayed so the law stayed in place if this argument had like went to the Fifth Circuit I believe they had this argument and where they're gonna test two questions one the whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional if the government is not taxing into this idea of severability where you could you remove the individual mandate keep the rest of the law and that so those are the two parameter questions are is the energy mandate constitutional and if it is not is it quote unquote severable from the law and you've got all of that because I took three constitutional law classes in Georgetown I was gonna say you know I'm no I'm no legal expert legal scholar I'm not a lawyer but there's two pretty common-sense answers to the questions at the heart of this case that you just raised one is the individual mandate still constitutional well it was it was like you said it was held as constitutional because it's a tax and Congress has the power to tax all Congress did in the 2017 bill was take the tax from whatever it was down to zero so now there's just zero dollars of fine if you if you go without health insurance so I don't know how that changes the constitutionality of it and the second question can the law survive without the individual mandate in place well we've had two years since they brought the fine down to zero and the law has survived and so I don't understand this legal argument and we should point out by the way that it's not just a bunch of like liberals and Democrats who are arguing that this challenge does particularly GLE challenges absurd there are some very conservative legal scholars most notably this guy named Jonathan Adler who is a law professor at Case Western who had previously filed briefs against the Affordable Care Act when it was being challenged legally and it appeared before the Supreme Court and now he's saying this legal challenge from conservatives is quote absurd so I'll legal scholars from across the political spectrum think this challenge is absurd and yet they found this judge in Texas who decided to uphold you know decided to side with the plaintiffs and now two out of three judges on this circuit court panel one was appointed by George HW I'm sorry one was appointed by George W Bush one was appointed by Trump and they both at least you know during the argument they seemed like they might be amenable to the plaintiffs case so how scared should we be here we should always be scared absolutely I mean there's I mean there are reasons to not panic and we can talk about those but I found this very worrisome because the argument flew in the face of reality the environment the arguments from the people who want to give her the ACA yes that was absurd as it was meant to be the but the question judges appellate judge el rato because I believe the Bush appointee on the yeah and all basically said Congress didn't make it clear that they wanted to preserve the law when they got written dual mandate except there are two problems with that Douglass had voted against repealing the law about less than a year before or about a year before they voted to get rid of uniformity and the swing votes on that on the individual mandate provision have said that they support the law so there is both there is actions that happen beforehand and comments afterwards we should both make pretty fucking obvious what Congress was trying to do here yeah and so that that part to me is very worse than it like this it's seen from the questioning right and there are a lot of caveats here but it seemed from the questions the judges were looking for a pretext to overturn the law and send it to the Supreme Court yeah I mean what you're just you were just talking about is that the judges are basically trying to divine congressional intent here so did Congress intend to get rid of the whole law when they repealed the individual mandate and one of the judges who was the judge that you just said judge all right oh yeah and so one of the judges judge Elrod actually said don't you think that maybe when Congress repealed the individual mandate that they said AHA this is the Silver Bullet that will destroy destroy Obamacare but like you said the big problem is they had an opportunity to destroy the whole law they voted it down they didn't have the votes to destroy the whole law they don't want to so I just it's it's absurd it is completely absurd so what are the reasons for optimism here if let's say what we think will happen happens and the Fifth Circuit basically sides with the judge in Texas on holding the whole law unconstitutional what happens next well the reasons for I don't even want to say optimism because optimism is just feels like the wrong thing to offer people but into and I did it because there this is not I have optimism when the public can do something to affect the outcome right when you have a bunch of federal society born-and-bred judges in this circuit and the Supreme Court making decisions that are in line with the Republican policy Republican Party policy and the wishes of the Republican German class then I am cynical when the public has a chance to weigh in that I'll optimistic and in this case this is the reasons for here but the reasons just to provide some context for this in 2012 when the Supreme Court when the Affordable the Affordable Care Act had its Supreme Court hearing the hearing went so poorly that everyone presumed the law was dead the was just seen to be a disaster for the Obama administration and the wall was preserved the other reason is is that despite all the changes that happen supreme court the jamming through of people like Brett Kavanaugh the stealing of the AmeriCorps won't see the five justices that rule to preserve the affordable care act in 2012 in 2015 are still on the court right so we will see what happens here I mean the Fifth Circuit has to rule and then if they if they rule they happen a rule against the the judge in Texas against the plaintiffs then the Supreme Court will probably never hear it and the whole thing will be done but if they do agree then yeah then we'll have another probably the third legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act to to reach the supreme court and this will also likely be in the middle of the twenty twenty election so obviously there's tremendous political implications as well as the horrifying consequences that defeat in the law would sorry so obviously there are tremendous political implications as well as the sort of horrifying consequences for Americans if if this law is repealed in terms of the political implications let's start with the primary most of the debate thus far has been about whether or not to move to a single-payer system how if at all does the debate change now that the Affordable Care Act is in jeopardy well I think there's that again I mean I think this is gonna go two ways for a candidate like Biden who in his big speech in South Carolina last weekend try is basically trying to rerun the play that Hillary Clinton ran in 2016 which is to take on the advocates for Medicare for all or single-payer system by pitting by trying to say making himself the defender of before people Care Act right that it is Affordable Care Act burst Medicare for all or and if you if the Affordable Care Act is not around that makes that a harder challenge but I think the big question for Democrat we'll be just the argument shift in fate just shift towards preserving me for worker the former Care Act it's almost been an afterthought in the health care conversations in this primary it's all been about what comes next and not so much about what is here now and how we protect it and I wonder whether it's going to for some portion of the primary for fairly large primary field it will move we will start having more of a conversation about what is good is about the Affordable Care Act about as opposed to what is list what is missing and what needs to be added on to it or changed or scrapped to have a better more affordable more accessible universal health care system in the country yeah I mean it it is probably useful to think about this like you know art sorry let me try this again it's probably useful to think about this in terms of we all want guaranteed universal coverage we all want affordable and quality coverage and where does the Affordable Care Act fall short on those goals and then how can we reach those goals and that could mean you know covering the people who still aren't covered making sure that deductibles and co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses aren't as high as they still are for a lot of people and I think the question is can you achieve those goals by adding a public option or improving the Affordable Care Act in other ways or is the only way to achieve those goals to finally move to a single-payer system which would look very different than what we have right now with the even with the affordable care act and I do think like Biden's people have at least hinted in recent weeks that this is where they want to take the health care debate one Biden aide told POLITICO were headed for a health care conversation in this party I think he'll be talking about it more in the coming days and then biting himself in Charleston on Sunday said quote on health care we strongly disagree I don't want to do away with Obama care start all over and trash it what do you think about that argument I am I don't love it for a whole host of reasons yeah I think there is a legitimate policy debate about whether you build on top of the Affordable Care Act with Medicare for all Medicare buy-in public option whatever I'm sorry I'm check I think there's a legitimate policy discussion about whether you take the portable Care Act and you build onto it with a Medicare buy-in or public option something else as opposed to over a transition period scrapping the entire system and building a new one that the single-payer base like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and others have advocated well I think that is looking at policy debate when I find uncomfortable about the Biden approach which I think was also endemic to the Clinton approach in 2016 is it turns this into a proxy conversation about your love for Barack Obama right are you going to stand with Barack Obama and be for the ACA are you going to be against Barack Obama and suffer the political consequences of being the other side of someone who was the 96 of percent approval rating the Democratic primary the problem is crock Obama himself is very clear-eyed open and honest that the Affordable Care Act is the beginning of a process to get us universal health care and has talked about Medicare for all as an eventual goal and supported a Medicare buy-in in 2010 when we were trying to pass the bill and support of the public option all those things and so I I think we should have a legitimate conversation about what the best policy is and and a frank conversation about the political ramifications for choosing one of those sides like what are the political consequences both in terms of the you know general election and also for a president who was who was newly elected who's trying to enact that policy like that like this is not this should not be some sort of ivory tower conversation there there's politics involved here and that should be part of the conversation that happens but I think it is it is an oversimplification of the process to say you're either with the ACA and Obama or you're with medicare-for-all against Obama because I don't think that's all Barack Obama would come down on that issue ya know I think there's a mean I'm hoping there's a sort of robust policy debate about health care in this primary that doesn't sort of resort to you know are you on the side of Obamacare or are you not because look I even think that the and you know Ezra Klein wrote a good piece about this and Vox like I think this debate about abolishing private insurance or not is a bit of a red herring in terms of what the real differences are between all the plans and the real heart of this debate is which is about sort of financing this new system right like in in Bernie's bill that Warren and Harris and others are on and support literally everything is free your your doctor's visits are free there's no co-payments there's no out-of-pocket everything's covered every procedure is covered but also you know the government sort of sets prices and has to figure out you know what is covered and to finance a system like that like you know Bernie's folks will say well you're not gonna pay premiums anymore so when you pay more in taxes that's just you paying the premiums you would have paid otherwise but it's not quite as clean as that and there is this transition period too and so you know no one has really laid out in detail exactly how you financed completely free medical care you know Medicare that is more generous than the Medicare program we have now and more generous than most countries with a single-payer system and the question is how do you how do you finance that and who pays what and what do the tax increases look like and what do the reimbursements to the hospitals and doctors look like and these are all really important questions that go far beyond are you going to quote-unquote abolish private insurance or not right even though that isn't it that is an important question both because then there is there it may be the right thing to do it may be the wrong thing to do but it has implications and it does make it sort of damages some of the comparisons to other countries who who have government-run health care or single-payer health care that ought also still have some measure of private insurance exactly that is a an element of the plan that is interesting and notable to a lot of people yeah so if the Supreme Court kills the Affordable Care Act it's pretty is how it becomes a major issue in the election if it doesn't though or if we're still in limbo how do Democrats make the Republican threat to repeal the law a more central issue than it's been so far since we've been talking so much about Medicare for all well let's start with the the worst scenario and work our way backwards so let's say the Supreme Court strikes it down what I would then recommend that the Democratic House does is immediately pass a version of the ACA that is almost word-for-word what we currently have without the individual mandate and it sends it to the Senate and forces the Trump administration oppose it and all of those vulnerable Republican senators to oppose it and filibuster it like that's what we should do we should put like if the ACA is gone in the hole like if the the parameters of the democratic health care discussion there's been the Affordable Care Act is before and we're debating what the ceiling can be in the near term about the US healthcare system then we got to put the floor back in place and so if we were able to do that I don't know put tremendous pressure but the ACA back on the table would reignite the conversations that were happening in 2018 that were so beneficial to Democrats about the future of the Affordable Care Act and being on the line it is before where Care Act is popular which is a weird thing for those of us who were around in the early days to say but it's quite popular a large swath of voters and we can like that would be the recognition I worry that we would wrap ourselves around the axle about that with like should we do that should we make it ACA plus should we do the ACA plus something else look like just do this the simplest thing that puts the ACA back on the table and puts pressure on Republicans to show that they are against all of the parts of the plan that are incredibly popular reaction people pre-existing conditions preventive care lifetime limits caps on out-of-pocket cost all the things that are incredibly important and popular and make ourself the advocate for that again and make it very clear who the opponents are yeah well especially I mean we need to highlight the very human stakes of what happens if this law is killed which Republicans have advocated for for a very long time it's 20 mm million people who will lose their health insurance this isn't like you know you had private insurance and then your transition to a government program like we're talking about with Medicare for all this is losing your health insurance you have no health insurance this is all the prescription drug discounts in the bill go away the protections for pre-existing conditions go away so an insurance company can prevent you from getting insurance if you have a pre-existing condition or drop you from their insurance from your insurance if you have a pre-existing condition it means young people can't stay on their parents health insurance until they're 26 anymore every so it's not just even the uninsured or people who buy you no insurance on the exchanges that get screwed here it's millions and millions and millions of Americans who are paying less for their health care because of the Affordable Care Act and were protected from the worst practices of the insurance companies because of the Affordable Care Act all of that goes away and I think Democrats can very fairly lay that at the feet not just of the at the courts but of every Republican politician who's advocated for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and voted for it numerous times over the last 10 years and Donald Trump himself who supports this lawsuit who's filed brief after brief in support of this lawsuit it is their fault that the affordable care act is in jeopardy right now and if the bla dies it is the Republicans fault and I think it's also good for Democrats to say even if the Supreme Court upholds the law well it's nice that the Supreme Court upheld the law but if you vote for Republicans if Donald Trump is re-elected and a Republican house is elected this is exactly what will happen they will finish the job they have promised to finish the job and they will kill Obamacare and these devastating consequences will be felt all throughout this country so I feel like that's that's gonna be the argument right and the question is how you deliver that argument I mean how do you get it in front of people right because we like here is the affordable care act here's something it affects millions of people from a domestic policy perspective it should be the single most important store in the land and Donald Trump's social media summit slashing grievance gathering is going to get nearly as much coverage because that's just how the press works this day yeah and I just and I think look everyone talks about what a lesson mm they think what works so well that helped us and do so well in 2010 how can we replicate that for 2020 and the argument was comes down to is that the issue that was before the voters was about preserving the Affordable Care Act right and they an argument against Republicans is about did they would give her the Affordable Care Act and trial again server the argument 2018 there was so powerful loop voters was that Democrats would protect a full character always get rid of it right in order to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and Wall Street executives and but it is not true that all the news stories in the run-up to the election were about health care in fact none of them were the reason it was on the ballot was because Democratic candidates and campaigns put it on the ballot by advertising about it digitally and yes on television and also are talking about let's pump every single day they did it with zero help from the press Yeah right and so the like we see this and you see it and all the talking points and Trust releases that we see from Denmark from Democratic politicians thank you advance it's like oh something's happening that will also talk about the ACA for five minutes and that's great we should do that they can manage the opportunity to try to get a little coverage but the way you penetrate there is no way to make health care a top long-term news story in this country because that is not true the press is that is not what the economic model of media and the digital ad age that's not how it works and so campaigns have to decide to do this the presidential campaign has to decide to do this the candidates presidential candidates decide to do this all the senate-house that decide to do it they have to invest money in doing it and the Democratic super PAC and party apparatus has to invest money in doing this and they have to start now yeah every every candidate for office every Democratic presidential candidate every candidate everywhere else should be saying they want to take your health care away at least five times a day I mean you know it's like it's got to be a central part of the message and you're right that you have to be creative enough and persistent enough that you get this message out in a way that doesn't rely on the you know media that has a DD from you know you can't rely on them to do it you can't rely on you can't wait for opportunities like this you just got to keep saying it every single day I come a broken record on this I'm gonna scream about it – my head explodes or we win the selection whichever comes first which is if you think the mainstream media everyone from the New York Times the CNN is the primary vehicle for getting your message in front of voters you were going to lose yeah that was barely true ten years ago and in this age particularly in the era of Trump it is impossible it cannot work it is a strategy doomed to failure it was a lesson 2016 plus in the 2018 is that there was another way to do it and we have to adopt a new fundamental understanding of communication of the modern age gender brand agree another place where the Supreme Court may soon step in again is the census scandal after Trump announced this morning that he'd be adding sorry after Trump I should say he's gonna dance it today another place where the Supreme Court may soon step in again is the census scandal after Trump announced today that he'd be adding a citizenship question through an executive order dan can he do this what's what's the issue with Trump's latest move here I mean he can try and there is something that ties the the Affordable Care Act arguments as absurd as they are with what Trump is doing on the census which prior to Trump the general view among Republicans conservatives was you you can get the courts to do or the Congress to do what you want as long as you could come up with a reason that walked right up to the line but did not cross it of making people laugh out loud when they heard it right you had to have a basically close to but not absurd rationale for whatever your conservative policy goal was yeah in the Trump administration we are understand that Republicans have no shame have no dignity so you just need any reason and so the like the rationale book for beginning really ACA and the rationale that they are coming up with for putting the census question or the citizenship question on the census are absurd but they very well may work because conservatives just want to do what conservatives want to do and they will accept almost any reason level and we know with the certain you guys talk about this a lot on Monday was because the they already said what their reason was and now they're coming back after a year-and-a-half of standing with that reason this with a new reason yeah and so it is audits it is so absurd that it should be last out of the Supreme Court but I'm not confident it will be because I know who's on the Supreme Court and look I mean the again I don't wanna say reason for optimism for all the reasons you said above but the the issue here is while five justices said that Wilbur Ross and the Commerce Department have pretty wide latitude to add whatever question they want to add on the census Roberts did hold that if you're gonna ask whatever question you want you that still doesn't absolve you from having a very clear-cut rationale for adding that question and a paper trail for exactly how you arrived at that conclusion right so he thinks that's part of the law as well that you know Congress passed the census Act and gave a lot of this power to the Department of Commerce to run the census but Congress also said if you're gonna add a question or if you're gonna make changes to the census you need to detail exactly how you came to that conclusion over time it's nearly impossible for the Trump administration to now come up with a new rationale and say oh actually the entire time this is exactly what we've been building towards this this brand-new rationale it's almost impossible to do that it defies all logic but like you said that's that hasn't stopped the legal system from acting screwy before but just because Trump is issuing executive order does not absolve or the Commerce Department from still coming up with that rationale that John Roberts asked them to provide so it's it's on it's not clear that the executive order gets him out of this this conundrum that he's in but you know I guess this ends up at the Supreme Court again right I mean it seems heads of that direction great great everything is and the country's future is just in the hands of John Roberts that makes that make everyone feel pretty good all right let's talk about what Democrats in the House are doing or not doing about the ever-growing pile of crimes and scandals around Donald Trump on Wednesday the president's Labor Secretary Alex Acosta defended his handling of a 2008 plea agreement he offered as a US Attorney – Jeffrey Epstein a rich politically connected investor who's now facing fresh charges of running a child sex trafficking operation under the deal Epstein entered a guilty plea in state court and served only 13 months in jail and was allowed to leave to work in an office during his trying 13 month stay in a jail Acosta said he made the deal with Epstein because he didn't want to risk Epstein not going to jail at all which he thought would have happened if he didn't make the deal congressional Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are calling on Acosta to step down but Pelosi also basically ruled out impeaching Acosta and said that accountability for Acosta is the president's problem and that it's quote his cabinet this comes after Pelosi chose not to fight Republicans over the recent border bill continues to resist impeachment and said a few weeks ago that Congress had too many other things going on to investigate the recent rape allegation against Trump dan let's start with the Acosta Epstein drama who is Jeffrey Epstein and why does this story have a political connection in the first place aside from the link to Acosta that we just spoke about Jeffrey Epstein is a shadowy rich guy it's not clear how he got to be as rich as he claimed to be or is even that rich but he is what was very closely connected he was close friends with Trump in his papers that were believed he had 14 different numbers in his contacts were members of the Trump family from Trump to his assistance to Milania to trumps ex-wives to Ivanka I'm very connected also very close with Bill Clinton claims to have been intimately involved in the idea for the Clinton Global Initiative has traveled with Clinton on a couple of times met on his planes many years ago so he's been in and around for a long time and so the political connection is his connection to both Clinton and Trump who do seem to have an amazing ability to be friends with some of the worst people in the worlds which would be the one thing I think those two men have in common yes and so the and then the fact that his plea agreement was negotiated and signed off on by Alex Acosta who's now from flavor Secretary has put that what would be in otherwise a political case right in the middle of American politics yeah so why I mean why does it cost to still have a job right now and what can what could the Democrats do about it I mean this guy the more you look into this deal he gave this scumbag of a human being the more enraged you get right like the fact that this guy only served 13 months when there were I think a cost to set aside I think the number is 54 different charges in a federal indictment on that had to do with sex trafficking sex trafficking of minors I mean it is truly disgusting stuff and the fact that he only gets 13 months in jail during which time he gets to leave to go to work when you compare that to what you know people who are convicted of very minor drug offenses the prison time that they know right exactly yeah no shit so when you compare when you compare how Epstein was treated to how most people in this country are treated especially people of color especially people who are involved in minor drug offenses it's it's pretty sickening and you know and also by the way we should know that a federal judge ruled the deal unlawful because Acosta did not notify the victims Epstein's victims and you know it costs to give all kinds of excuses for this yesterday but a judge ruled that it was illegal so how does this guy still have a job well I want to go back a second to Nancy Pelosi saying that accountability for the cabinet is the president's responsibility right that is not true I am sympathetic to Nancy Pelosi on a lot of things I think she was put in a possible addition on the border bill could have been should we have a better bill yes could have been handled better yes but all of the blame for that does not fall on her a lot falls on senator schumer and a shitload of senate democrats who wanted to go home for the holidays but on this one she is wrong it Alex Acosta is the Secretary of Labor the Secretary of Labor is responsible for human trafficking I'm sorry much I get Alex Acosta technically he is responsible for human trafficking policy within the administration the idea that the person in charge of human trafficking policy gave a sweetheart deal to a politically connected billionaire who was accused of sex trafficking is something that the Congress should look at congressional oversight is it is not an option it is it is a responsibility not a privilege it is something that they are supposed to do that is their job in the idea that it is somehow that we're going to count on trunk to to enact accountability on people who have done things that who have protected sexual predators is an absurd idea and it is absolutely something that Congress should look at whether they can actually couldn't each other and now could that we're not counting on the Senate to convict but they should absolutely look into this deal and exposed to the public what can be exposed that is their job that is a job we couldn't do and they should do it yeah and it is it is just it is I think it is a a true it is a bizarre abdication of responsibility from congressional Democrats to not look into this it really is and I think it's really unfortunate I don't even understand what political issue they're trying to scratch by avoiding this yeah I mean it does look like they you know slightly reverse themselves yesterday when I guess Elijah Cummings who is the chair of the Oversight Committee sent a letter to Acosta asking that he come testify and answer some questions now I don't I don't know if a subpoena will be issued or what I sort of wonder I wonder what you think about this if there's sort of a logic problem for Pelosi like if she says that the house will look into and possibly began impeachment proceedings against Alex Acosta who covered up for a sexual predator then isn't the question well then why won't you begin impeachment proceedings against a real sexual predator in the White House who also committed a whole bunch of other crimes like to me I feel like she is trapped she has trapped herself she has backed herself into a corner by everyday seeming to close the door on impeaching Donald Trump so that every other investigative question every other potential scandal everything else she's asked to look into she starts worrying that if she goes down the road that road leads to impeachment which she doesn't want to do like to me it seems like this is this is the problem with not just saying I don't know about impeachment yet but it's an option and we'll see where the facts go but instead what she's been saying which is you know heat Donald Trump is self impeaching and I don't think we want to do this and and and basically just throwing cold water on impeachment every day it seems like she's trapped herself yeah you're right she just put herself and I maximum security prison of political caution which is everything flows everything flows from that choice yeah and the problem is it it is a it's pretzel logic because the action like if you were doing the politics of it let's just say you are Nancy Pelosi you've decided either you yourself believe or the majority of your caucus with an impeachment is a political error and should we should not go down that path so who a one option being to to try to shy away from investigations at oversight the other way which is what their kinds are sort of doing like a fits and starts pot that's the other thing to do is to aggressively investigate everything and that if you if you are willing if you find something then you can maybe reverse your position on Pietschmann but you are you're sending the end goal it's you're basically you're working backwards from the end goal supposed to just going through the process and I do think one of the things that is affecting our house leadership is whether it's Clyburn or steny hoyer or flow sea or a lot of the other people there they've been around for a very very long time they they are the products of their experience and one of their experiences is in the 90s when the Republicans took the house in 1990 1994 election they investigated Bill Clinton like lunatics like obsessive conspiracy Laden things like to the point where it seems ridiculous to tell this anecdote but that person who had a logic Cummings job back then Dan Burton was convinced that Vince Foster who was a deputy counsel in the White House committed suicide in he Dan Burton was convinced that then that Vince Foster next to it so I was actually murdered in order to prove his point he once shot a gun into a watermelon as part of the hearing and so be like they were insane in the view in that time was the Republican zeal to investigate Clinton led them led to Clinton's reelection and the problem is Clinton is not trumped Pelosi is Matt Gingrich then is not now there is a different like because something happened in the night does it mean it's gonna also happen in the 2010 and so I think they are in some ways just it is a there it is this caution born of a very unrelated experience that is keeping them from being as as aggressive as they should be and it causes them to miss the stakes of what is happening here yeah and again if you are spending every day shitting on the idea of impeachment which Pelosi does every time she gets asked about it as opposed to just you know a sort of go slow strategy where she says who knows what might happen and where the facts may lead the question remains what are you doing all these investigations for why are we hearing from Muller next week if there's no possibility of impeachment why are do I do any investigations or foresight at all if it's not possible that what you uncover would lead you to impeach the president and I think that's her you know having it both ways trying to appease the pro-impeachment crowd with some investigations with sending a subpoena here throwing a letter there but then appeasing the anti impeachment crowd by saying oh we're not going to go there we don't think it's politically wise is a terrible strategy it's just it's a terrible strategy like pick one you know either go out there and say we're we're not going to impeach this guy because the Senate's not going to convict him and so therefore we're gonna focus entirely on other other shit I don't know what it is I guess passing fucking message bills that will die in the Senate I guess that's the big strategy we're gonna focus on you know focus on other shit or at least leave open the fact that at the end of these investigations you may impeach the President of the United States because he has committed these crimes and his stand is surrounded by a bunch of other criminals and and people who protect sexual predators and all the rest I don't know man I really losing patience I I have to like I have tried to be very sympathetic to the position that pull ups even Democratic leadership aside cuz I do believe that Nancy Pelosi in her heart plays to Donald Trump she'd be impeached and she is both making a political you know decision which one I disagree with got a political decision and but it is like it's irrational it's not an irrational political conclusion to make about impeachment but it but also serving as a shield for her many members who are hesitant on impeachment or worried about the politics of it and are trying and are now able to say well Nancy Pelosi said burn occupation so they don't have to suffer the wrath of the eighty-five percent of Democratic voters who want to pitch her well let me ask oh I was just ask you about that cuz Brian and boiler and I were sort of talking about this yesterday Brian thinks if if it was put to a vote right now the house would vote there would be enough votes to impeach or at least to move forward with impeachment proceedings and that Nancy Pelosi is basically actively whip against this or at least not providing the leadership that would bring over some of these moderate Democrats on to the side of impeachment because Brian's argument is look if they were given a choice maybe they're sort of skeptical of impeachment now but if you're given the choice to stand with Jerry Nadler and launching an impeachment inquiry or standing with Trump and protecting him then Moe you know a majority of Democrats in the House would vote for the inquiry do you agree with that or do you think that Nancy Pelosi is doing this because there are not enough votes and there are plenty of members who are just saying absolutely not I do not want to vote for even beginning impeachment proceedings I think the reality is a little more nuanced in a couple of ways one I do not think she is whipping against impeachment they have not heard anything to suggest that it would be it would be uncharacteristic if Nancy Pelosi style she would be whipping against peace with second she's certainly not making it easier for people to come for impeachment all right so yeah like that is also true so if she's not actively whipping but in certainly creating an environment where it's more challenging to come out for any patient particularly for committee chairs and members of her leadership team I think Nancy Pelosi is right like if there was a secret ballot right where no one had to put their name on their vote I think impeachment would fail yeah because I think a lot of people along and I talked to some of these newly elected crush their members and this is very worrisome to them they look at their district I pulled it and they think it's it is as it currently stands very unpopular they depend on a large number of independent votes to get over the top and so they're very worried about it I think it's a battle they can in they can win and right now we're living in a world breather getting the worst of all worlds but right they believe that I think if we admit a policy were to decide she was for impeachment and we're to say we're gonna have a vote the it would pass people would vote reluctantly they wouldn't want to do it but being on the 15 percent side of an 85 15 percent issue in your party is pretty close to impossible if a vote were to be called right and so it's sort of I don't think there's almost people who secretly are for each I think they're bunchy who who would be dragged to it by the base if they were forced to stand in the well of the house and and pick one side or the other yeah Nancy Pelosi is protecting them from that outcome for reason but having said all of that I think the pate like the we have been sent as I have been sympathetic to the position there were any but if I disagreed with their outcomes but I think we've liked between the continued fight with the quote unquote squad the sort of the half-measure approach on this stuff the way the border talk with others a lot to be very frustrated about how things are going it's it's not me the answer here is not to disengage in politics and dislocation of house their chance to answer is to engage we engage with them and continue to put the pressure on them to do the right thing time and again yeah I agree that okay let's talk about 2020 and the results of our brand-new post-debate poll with our friends at change research we pulled 1261 voters in Iowa New Hampshire and South Carolina and found that a week after the first set of debates Kamala Harris has gained quite a bit of support and Joe Biden has lost some as a result we see a very close race in the early states with Bernie Sanders at 19 percent Elizabeth Warren at 19 percent Joe Biden 18 percent Kamala Harris at 17 percent P booted it at 15 percent and no other candidate above 3 percent Harris and Biden are the only candidates whose numbers moved by more than one percentage point in either direction following the debates between our pre-debate poll and our post debate poll overall the survey found that the debates changed the minds of about a quarter of the votes sorry about a quarter of the voters contacted that is a tight race stand by five-way race that's all within the margin of error basically between 15 percent for Pete and 19 percent for Bernie and Warren would you think of the results and did anything stand out at you well I think we now have established two very clear tiers there had been several tiers within the race of maybe Biden at the very top and then Bernie in a second here all by himself and a bunch of people competing or the third it is that there is top tier and there's everyone else and well there's still a lot of time left that said there's the time is starting to run out for some of those candidates who aren't in that top group to get in that top group to have a real chance to make an impact in this race so that's one – Komal Harris's debate performance was even more impactful than we thought it would be for her and for Biden and that sets a stage for what's going to come in these next set of debates for the need for her you know her did need for her to maintain her new status for biting to a comfortable or he got and for a whole bunch of candidates who probably now see the path to the top of the polls is to take a pretty big swing at someone that's I think that's gonna impact what happens on the stage so I mean this is a incredibly tight race it is interesting and last thing I'd say it's very interesting how different the polling in the early States is in the national polls even though you see some of the trends in the national polling it's what happened in the date is even more impactful in the early states where people are more engaged and they have a context to understanding these candidates because they are there all the time yeah and I think that the two big differences between national polls and I think some of these early state polls especially our early state poll is Bernie Sanders seems to be holding on to his support I know that the poll shows him in first here but his number did not change between our pre-debate poll in our post debate poll which is very interesting he was a 19 percent in the pre-debate poll and wasn't in first place and now he's tied for first with Warren I mean everything's within the margin of error here so he does seem to have this it's a Bernese Bernie's not growing support and and none of these other polls are showing him sort of gaining any support but he's not really he probably lost a little bit since he got in the race but he's not it seems that he has a floor right now at least in some of these early states and I'm that's so that's sort of an interesting thing to watch it is that enough I don't know it seems like you need to grow your support at this point and yeah at this point exactly should that it's an interesting thing right like the other candidates could start splitting the votes so much that as long as Bernie holds on to the you know anywhere between 15 and 19 percent that he has and a lot of these polls then who that's enough maybe it is the other thing is I think Pete Buddha judge who in some of these national polls has either leveled off or sort of lost some support in the early States especially in Iowa is still doing really well and that so two things about us the burger thing is very important because if he were to like there is movement among other candidates and Bernie is rock-solid and they're like if she said there was a question of whether his floor is enough to win by the path the the sequence of the early states is very favorable to Bernie Sanders if he is able to hold on to that far we've seen other polls where he has dropped below his steady level in recent months is Elizabeth Warren has gained or others have gained but let's take our poll because it's ours so if he stays there Iowa he almost won last time he's incredibly strong in New Hampshire and you not goes to Chris to out your very great hip so there has been it I think a little bit like Bernie went from I think being overestimated having a strength overestimated to now being underestimated and opal syrup shows right where it was a very very legitimate contender for the nomination yeah particularly in a field where you have several strong contenders and you know there are other contenders but you know other people in this poll who are doing not well now but have show room for growth and some of that clips become like they spent to some of these other candidates right yep we're running out we're running out of free vote three percentage points for people again as candidates become more known yeah I'd and go ahead no no God no I was going to say to you the first point that you made about the poll about how there's sort of two tiers now the other thought point I thought was interesting from our poll is how difficult it is to sort of break out of that bottom tier even if you've had a good debate performance so let's take who Leon Castro he was a pleasant surprise in the debates 223 percent of respondents which was behind only Kamala Harris who it was at 26% but while Harris's horse number horse race numbers skyrocketed as a result of the debate Castro is still at 1% support and he's the second choice of only 2% more so obviously his name ID is still very low it was helped and his favorability ratings were helped by the debate but it didn't really even though he had that moment and had this great debate it didn't really change the horse race numbers for him all that much and and he's the one who had in the lower tier who had a really good debate I'd say Cory Booker did too and his numbers didn't really change so sort of shows the challenge of breaking out of that bottom tier and it'll be interesting if we ever get to a point where the the debate stage is narrowed right and I was I was thinking that was going to happen in September when there's when the third debate happens and the DNC requirements go up but we've seen a number of candidates who were in danger of not making that stage come either get there or come very close to get there Castro announced I believe the other day that he got 130,000 online or grassroots donors Andrew yang was incredibly close to that number a few weeks ago so I imagine he crossed it if it like the problem is your good performance is diluted by being one of twenty yeah right and particularly if you are less known you've been less in the in the mindset you know as people like there's a handful of very well known candidates and it is in coming into this race right like Biden and Herman set name might be Bernie Sanders number set name ID it was with Warren very well-known bit on the national scene for a long time Carla Harris new verse in the national scene but came into this race with a big boost of momentum with someone who was talked about if you read about her as she announced you're like oh this is something to definitely be President bayar Pete put himself onto that list by dint of an incredibly successful communication strategy and an appealing message the other candidates have been unable to do that even some who aren't like Booker and Kovich are who have some knowledge they it's just it's very it's I think it's very hard when there are 20 people for people to fight I think when the average people who are interested in this process are thinking about it you can't think about all 20 people right so you're kind of narrowing it to a list and getting into that into that list of conversation is very challenging even with a big horse it may be easier there are only ten of you on stage yeah right and and it's like if it isn't one debate in Castro it had his huge moment on that one debate and it hadn't been over the next day by Kamala Harris and Biden's exchange maybe it would have meant more meaning on the first debate was probably disadvantage to a lot of people who were trying to break out yeah the the one other thing I thought was interesting from the poll Democratic voters favor the more progressive position on other top debate issues voters would abolish private insurance fifty eight percent to twenty three percent voters want a government health plan to cover undocumented immigrants 54% to twenty four percent and voters favor decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings seventy five to thirteen percent now I was not surprised that obviously Democrats are probably gonna favor the more progressive position but I was surprised at the margins were you because those are some pretty big margins for favoring those positions that you know we have all talked about are pretty lefty yeah no I was you like you I was not surprised that the more progressive position went out but I was surprised by particularly on the decriminalizing the border just because that is a newer issue yeah you know we've been talking about private insurance for a long time the conversation around health care for undocumented people has been around for a long time it also is like it's easy to understand right like in on its face what it means the different lines in the border one is much more it's newer it like really had not been discussed in the national conversation totally and Castro put it in the national conversation so I was surprised by how strong it does and it does I think speak to the reaction within the Democratic electorate electorate to the absolutely inhumane treatment migrants and and document people under this administration and then desired moved as far away from that as humanly possible yeah I think that's right one last point in our poll before we move on we asked we asked what issues you wanted to hear more about and then we asked a question do you think that the DNC should hold a climate only climate change only debate and sixty five percent of voters said they want a climate debate and climate was the number one issue mentioned that people wanted to hear more about in the next debates so I thought that was pretty interesting yeah and I would I would say one thing about this which is if the campaigns wanted a climate debate they could have won because yeah the campaign managers all speak to each other they they move and block and so if Biden campaign manager called couple Harrison's campaign manager called Bernie Sanders campaign manager called Cosworth's campaign manager and they said we want a climate debate there would be a climate debate in 2008 David Plouffe our campaign manager talked to panik's restoral Clinton's campaign manager talked to folks Edwards campaign whenever there was a question about a new debate or new forum to sort of move in mass together because we determined what happened and so the campaign's could make the climate debate happen tomorrow if they wanted to and so I think it's activists are looking for places to pressure it's not just the DNC it's the campaign's themselves all right last 2020 thing this week we said goodbye to Congressman Eric's wall well he dropped out of the race and then we said hello to billionaire philanthropist Tom Steyer who was entering the race you have any thoughts on the departure or the entrance of more candidates well let's just say you know we obviously had some fun at Eric's wawas expense after his debate performance and he you know he certainly had a lot of very cheesy lines which is like this is like all of our pet peeves and so we you know we got a Nord by it but in it I'd say I think we should at least say two things one he put gun violence prevention of the center of his campaign and that should be applauded in more candidates should do that and he was very aggressive about it and to having the sense about when to drop out having that level of self-awareness is important and yeah he he hadn't he had a reason to get out that other only a handful mothers do which is he is another office to run for right he had the either he wants to run for reelection to the house so there was a point at which he was going to make that not a viable option for him and other candidates would get in so he to do that that is not that really I think only applies to Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard who if to run for re-election to their health suits the rest of the candidates do not stand for election in 2020 so this is I don't know that this pre-staged is a massive exodus of candidates in the race don't forget Tim Ryan oh yeah Tim Ryan sorry I like Tim Ryan yes awesome right my apologies look Tim Ryan it's hard to keep track of everyone man no I feel the same way about swallow land look he you talked about him bringing sort of gun violence making it central to the campaign to his campaign and you know when he was on the debate stage he was able to sort of like force a discussion on the government buying back assault weapons and a couple of candidates committed to that on the debate stage so good for him you know that's good that he did that what do you think about steyr I like disclosure being that I know Tom Steyer I like Tom Styer and I did some consulting work for Tom Steyer a few years ago I just find it hard to imagine your or a human being who looks at this field whether it's all polling other polls or sees Calloway Harris or Elizabeth Warren mayor P or the former vice Prez United States or Bernie Sanders that you know and says what this candidate with this campaign needs is another candidate yes right this is a strong field there are times in which people come in late to a field that people think is weak they're supposed to be of some sort of white knight savior candidate and this deal doesn't no need of that right we have too many good options we'd hoped we don't need another one look he comes Tyra's the biggest donor democratic causes for all of the shit people give him about his ads on impeachment he invests a tremendous amount of money and organizing in youth voter registration and fighting for climate change and that should all be applauded I certainly hope that the hundred million dollars that he spends his question spend on this campaign does not come at the expense of those other records because they're incredibly critical to a lagging progressive infrastructure that needs all the help it can get yeah I mean I I sort of feel the same way like I think that the most important question any candidate can answer is sort of like why you why now and why not the other people and you know he made an attempt answering that in his opening video and in some of his interviews that he's done but you know he said all these Democrats you know have great ideas but none of them are gonna come to pass unless we stop the corporate takeover of our democracy but like you know that's what Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are saying and in a lot of other candidates talking about sort of the you know corporate influence in our democracy and have some great plans around democratic reform and how to do that and so I'm still not quite sure besides his hundred million dollars what steyr brings to the race that other candidates don't have or have not offered yet and I think he is going to have to answer that question and he's probably that's a more urgent question for him to answer than even any of the other candidates because he's decided to get into the race so late and you know you've already seen sort of Warren and Sanders sort of take shots at him by saying like I you know that those two candidates are out there and they've raised a lot of money so far from a lot of just grassroots donors without getting doing a lot of high-dollar fundraisers and they're out there saying like why do we need some self-made some billionaire in the race when we were able to raise the money we need from grassroots from the grassroots and I think that's a pretty fair criticism you know yeah it like Trump's message into the trunk when he ran stuff in 16 told everyone that he would not be influenced or basically purchased by special interests because he was cutting his own campaign now he didn't fund his own campaign and was also blocked purchased by special interests at home and abroad and at home and abroad but that message was appealing the difference between the Republican primary Democratic primary is Republican candidates were all being funded by billionaire and pseudo billionaire super PACs and you have candidates in this race like Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren who are raising all of their money in a grassroots fashion and so that's a harder you know sort of the the political advantages of self-funding are as will not be as prevalent and this primary as they potentially have been in the past or in the Republican primary yeah I agree okay when we come back my interview with congresswoman Rasheeda to leave I'll do now trail thanks to congresswoman Talib for joining us today and we'll talk to you guys next week we'll be on the road in Denver Wednesday night but we'll have a pot on Monday before that so we'll talk to you that


  1. Democrat and liberal entities had better get busy. Every other ad on youtube is Trump or some buncha jackasses telling lies about Gov't healthcare or Immigration I'm going to send an email at the end of the election season to Youtube and many advertisers, pointing out each advertiser and company whose products I won't buy because Youtube played them in the same video with Neo-Trumpzies ads and 503-1c paid for ads. Sorry B&H. I'm sure you're awesome at selling camera gear, but i wouldn't know b/c a Trump ad ran right after yours and now you are blacklisted.

  2. What happened to the fake Russian hoax story? 2 years later and still have not found a single vote changed from Hillary to Trump. The sheep still believing fake news CNN, CBS and MSNBC.

  3. Any merit in letting the Republicans selectively do everything they want, and then when everything predictably goes to shit the Dems can offer true contrast.

  4. Another reason the 'no-chance' Dems like Swalwell enter a presidential race is to raise money for their Congressional campaigns. Swalwell probably has a sizable war chest from which he may draw funds for his re-election. Ditto Gabbard, Ryan, even Gillibrand, who's another no-chancer.

  5. Is it true that the Republicans aren't happy w Acosta bc he wasn't rolling back regulations fast enough? Or is that selling a political argument to keep him?

  6. Giving undocumented immigrants free healthcare is bad look if you want to win over anyone except well-off white liberals. We need universal healthcare for all Americans…

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *