April 19, 2025 • 46 mins
MSNBC’s Ali Vitali examines the state of democracy and Democratic politics.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel details how AGs are fighting back against Trump.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. And the White House has deleted the
COVID resource website and replaced it with a lab Leak
promotion page, which makes Fox News look like the New Yorker.
(00:24):
We have such a great show for you today. MSNBC's
own Ellie Vitelli stops by to talk about democratic politics.
Then we'll talk to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel about
how democratic ags are fighting back against the Trump administration.
But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
So May yesterday, it was quite shocking to see Senator
Chris van Holland from the great state of Maryland go
down to El Salvador and meet with Kilmar Abrigo Garcia.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
So all people want, all they want is for their
electeds to stand up and fight for them. And what's
really cool is that Maryland Senator Chris van Holland did that.
He got on a plane, he flew down to El Salvador,
he met with the Vice president. The vice president told
him no, and then he sort of fought with him,
(01:17):
and then he got to sit down and make sure
that Garcia was okay, And look, here's the thing. You
don't have to like Garcia. You don't have to believe
in him. You don't have to believe that he's a
good guy. You don't have to believe in any of that.
You just have to believe that he is entitled to
do process, just like the Supreme Court, the wildly leftist
(01:40):
Supreme Court, who said nine zero that Garcia is entitled
to do process, that even though you know, he's not
a United States citizen, he's still entitled to due process.
And by the way, that's like what our democracy has
founded on. Good for him. I think Republicans see what
a loser this issue is for Trump. By the way,
(02:01):
the fact that they're like, you know, they said they
were going to deport like one hundred million people. Ten
million people right there, barely can deport as many people
as Biden did, so that which is sort of popular.
Deporting people. I don't know why it's popular, because I
think it's gross. And by the way, we need those
people to work because we have a very tight labor market.
But even that is not popular. It is popular. Trump
(02:24):
world can't figure out how to do it because they're
super incomfident Trump World thinks they're going to win on
Van Holland going down to meet with this guy to
make sure he's okay. And you know what, they're wrong.
People hate this. People don't like you know, they don't
like America sending whoever to El Salvadoran prisons. This is
(02:44):
a loser for them, and they think the optics of
it make them look good. They're wrong. I think they're
really wrong on this, and I'm glad they're wrong on
this because it's horrifying.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
I think one of the funniest things is that, you know,
for years we were told, you know, nine thousand dollars
hammers in the government could easily find all these things
to cut. You could easily find all these immigrants. And
I don't even doubt that that's true, but they say
it can't seem to do it.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
No.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
And also it's why we don't put a ton of
people at GIMO. It's really expensive, Like it's cheaper to
put them in private prisons in America. I mean, like
the reason they're doing this is because they think that
it's like good for the brand or whatever. But like
you're flying people, tell Salvador, you're putting them in Seacott.
You're being built by the El Salvadorian government. I mean
(03:29):
it's just very expensive. It's also just crazy and stupid
and a huge I mean waste of money, waste of time,
waste of everything. Just to sort of like make a
point that they think will be good. On Fox News
sixty Minutes report, they write, the administration hates sixty minutes
because Donald Trump like lives in nineteen ninety seven, so
(03:51):
he's like obsessed with sixty. I also sixty, right, I mean,
like there are nine people watching sixty minutes, of one
of them is Donald Trump. I mean that's not true.
A lot of people watch sixty minutes, but ultimately all
traditional media is in decline. A sixty Minutes report found
most of the two hundred and thirty at Venezuelan and
sent to Seacott on several planes last month and no
(04:13):
apparent criminal record. So you're sending people to jail who
may not have even done crimes, some of whom were
protected by the federal government until Donald Trump became president.
So I don't know how you square this circle. Stration
has defended its use of the law arguing gang violence,
because why wouldn't they.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
So Bally in reaction to Trump defying the Supreme Court
and thinking that just because they ship people to Salvador,
they don't have to listen to our courts. We've started
to see some calls for impeachment and.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Fucking impeach the guy. I mean, come on, he's you know,
he's ignoring the Supreme Court, he's ignoring the courts. We
are like beyond constitutional crisis. Now. Look, you know, the
Republicans in Congress have been unbelievably cowardly and craven. And
in fact, one of the things so we saw this
week was Lisa Murkowski saying what all of us knew
(05:05):
but we hadn't heard any Republicans say, which is the
Republicans are scared. And I think that was really important
because that's how we got here, is these people, Republicans Democrats,
all scared of Trump, scared of the administration, scared of
the mean phone calls, the mean tweets. So they're just
rolling over and I'm glad to see Democrats doing this.
(05:28):
By the way, public polling is with the Democrats. People
don't like this. This is We've been a democracy for
a long time, and people don't Autocracy is actually just
not that popular, and it's happening so quickly, and that
is also a big problem. So we got Boseberg saying again,
I just want to point out one last thing. In
(05:49):
order to impeach Trump, you need to have the House.
Democrats don't have the House yet. There is the three
vote majority of Republicans have. There are some Democrats who
are old and sick. There are two who died. Their
seats are not being allowed to be filled because they're
in red states, and the red state governors are doing
things that are pretty craven on lawless. Now that said
(06:09):
pretty sure, Kathy Hogel did the same thing, you know,
made sure that that other seat wasn't filled either. So
we're really sort of in an impass here. And until
Democrats win the House, I think it's going to be
hard to impeach Trump. But they should try, like they
should put pressure. And by the way, keep calling your representatives,
call your congressman, call your senators, Blue states, red states,
(06:30):
remind them that you don't like any of those.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
So my David Hogg, previous guest of this podcast, was
elected vice chair of the DNC and he has really
pissed off the establishment dons here yeh.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Yes, actually such an interesting story. So David from David
from David Hogg, not to be confused with David from
We Love You. David from David Hogg is a vice
chair of the Democratic National Committe, got this job this year.
They're a couple of vice chairs. It was pretty contentious,
these plans to spend twenty million dollars to primary older
(07:08):
Democratic incumbents. This is something that a lot of us
think is probably the right thing. We have people in leadership,
and not just in leadership, just you know, we have
people in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party too, but
you know, there's nothing we can do there who are
in their eighties or some of them are in their
high seventies, and they rank for another six year term
(07:30):
which will get them somewhere in their eighties. It is
probably the moment, especially right now, when so much is
on the table, and like what I just said about
these two Democrats who died in office, it really is
a sense that is the right time for this. That
said Democrats are passed. So since they were pissed, and
(07:51):
since they're so brave, they all spoke anonymously, because why
wouldn't they a smear campaign against me to destroy my
Repi Tach and forced me to stop doing this. They're
just not happy. Axios did not receive a response. So
leaders we deserve is this group. There's some infighting here
and a lot of good Anonymous angry octagenarians complaining about
(08:17):
David probably a good sign for.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
David my In more disturbing news, Trump has revamped Schedule Left,
making it easier to cut federal workers, which we knew
was going to happen because we've read Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Yeah, we read it. We did a video series on it,
and then Americans just decided to go for them anyway
because they like the sneakers and the NFTs. So Schedule
app will make it easier to cut federal workers. We
knew this was coming. The idea here is stripping civil
protections from about fifty thousand people, two percent of the
(08:53):
federal workforce. This will make it easier to fire people.
A nonpartisan role is traditionally that you know, they're not political,
but Trump wants to replace them with loyalists. Of course,
this is what he wants to do because remember Trump
felt that he was not able to enact his craziest
(09:13):
stuff because he felt the deep state was against him.
So now he'll be able to cut people who are
working on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Some of them will
be working on whatever the coding or the you know,
(09:35):
things that are not partisan one way or the other.
But he'll replace them with people where he can fire
them or do whatever he wants. And it's going to
be totally It's just exactly what we knew was coming,
and it's very annoying and also super upset. Ali is
(10:00):
an NBC News correspondent and the author of Electable, Why
America hasn't put a woman in the White House yet.
Welcome to Fast Politics, Ali.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Vitally real to be back, Molly John Fass.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
You and I are in the salt mines mining the content.
Can we just talk about the Congress and what the
fuck they're doing right now? Because like, we have a
wrongly deported guy. We have Senator Chris van Holland he's
wrongly deported. The Supreme Court said nine to zero, you
(10:34):
have to bring him back. Okay, we don't know anything
except you have to bring him back. Right, It's pretty
big deal.
Speaker 4 (10:41):
Despite the White House wanting to will fully misread that decision,
in part the Supreme Court gave them some loopholes, right right.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
No, No, it's a Supreme court. They suck. I mean,
you don't have to say they suck. I'll say they
suck because I'm on the opinion side. But they were like,
you need to bring him back. Okay, So Chris van
Holland goes to see him, make sure he's not dead
because he's been in elcot So there's a real chance,
you know, I mean, it's not impossible. This is not
(11:09):
a prison known for it's you know, it's not known
for the.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
Spa luffy pillows.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Yeah, so explain to me what Congress is doing. They're out,
they're out for two weeks.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
Ago, they're out for two weeks. But recess is just
another it's it's a different now to lose. There's two
pieces of this that I think are really important. There's
the way that Senator Van Holland is going to check
on his constituent, which I've seen competing ideas on whether
or not this was a good idea about idea like
(11:41):
the basis clamoring for fight nothing, he says, fight, but
getting on a plane going to El Salvador and being
like knock knock, I'm here, let me see my guy.
The other pieces of this is the way that it's
percolating among voters, and I think that there is a
nuance to this that is intant. Right, Like, I spend
a lot of time in Iowa because I'm sick and
(12:03):
I love campaigns, and so every three years I spend
of Iowa exactly in Des Moines. I love this place.
As a New Yorker, those are words I never thought
I would say.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
But you live in DC, so the bar is pretty low.
Go on, yes, that's true.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
The veteran senior Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is hearing from
his elderly more older constituents. You see it in that video.
Why can't you bring this guy back? It's not the
job of commerce. Okay, that's true. There's no like congressional
right to bring back a deported person. And that's fine.
It's not an impoundment, which they do have rights on, right.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Right, right, I mean, god forbid, though didn't want to
use them, but yes, didn't want to make trumpt.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Correct, right.
Speaker 4 (12:40):
But the fact that you're being asked about it there
in Iowa, in a red state, really struck me as notable,
and I think that the White House was struck by
that too, Maybe not the Iowa specifically of it, but
broadly because we've forged to go on offense this week,
showing the work that we've all been asking them to show,
why do you debort this guy in the first place,
(13:01):
and then also trying to shift the narrative not to
the central question here of due process, the constitution, and
how we do legal justice in this country, but instead
shifting it to unrelated though tragic conflicts and tragedies between migrants,
undocumented migrants, and American citizens. In this case, they're pointing
(13:21):
to a Maryland case with Rachel Morin, but they're trying
to shift the narrative, and I think that it's a
sign from them that they're not going to back down.
They want to have this fight, but they needed to
do more, and we watched them change this week.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
I think one of the big problems we saw with
the trade stuff was that it's very hard for an
administration that is makes George W. Bush look like Lincoln.
A good example of trade wars. You can't have a
trade war with China when you're also having a trade
war with everyone else.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
Discuss well, I've been covering Trump for a really long time, right.
I started covering him during the twenty fifteen campaign. I
think I got their two week's post escalator, and every
single time you were eleven, I was eleven years old,
very eager to get started, right exactly. But every time
from that moment all the way through now, when he
finds himself in hot water on anything, he pivots hard
(14:16):
back into immigration. And that is why I think you're
right to tie tariffs and the way that polling shows
he's losing steam on confidence from Americans in his economic
handling to pivot back to something where the polling actually
shows that this is probably where the bulk of his
power lies, not just with MAGA, because I think that's
more integrated with cultural issues and everything else, including immigration,
(14:38):
but with Independence and others who voted for him in
twenty twenty four. Immigration is where they feel like they
can really flex their muscle and maybe distract from the
tariff news, which is hard for even Republicans on Capitol
Hill to stomach, who seem to have a bottomless amount
of goodwill towards the president, or at least fear of
stepping out of line from him, so I think you're
(14:58):
right to tie those.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
We had Lisa Murkowski yesterday. I say people are scared
to speak at against him, something we had known. But
to have Lisa Murkowski say it, and even not to
have Susan Collins say it, who is up for reelection
in twenty six, I think is meaningful. You tell me
why you think it's meaningful.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
The dynamics are different between Alaska and Maine, but we
talk about both of these women a lot because they
are the consistent Republicans that are willing to stand up
and say, actually I disagree, which should not be notable.
But is I think two fold right. The fact that
Murkowski is willing to just say politically in my party
right now, I am afraid in a safety sense. Not
(15:39):
afraid politically, though that's swirling too. I'm afraid in a
safety sense for what it might look like to speak
out against the president who I have policy disagreements with.
I think that is just such a stunning commentary on
where our politics are right now. And I always check
in with the Capitol Police on where the numbers are.
(15:59):
Threat levels towards members of Congress have only been rising
since the start of the first Trump administration, and I
think Murkowski saying that is really an important sign post
to us that it's not just political disagreement anymore. There
are really tangible, scary threats attached to this for lawmakers
(16:21):
and their family. Tom Tillis is another one. His office
has sent to us examples of the kinds of calls
and threats that he and his office are getting. He's
someone who's even just toyed with stepping out of line
with the administration, and he's in and on year. He's
a twenty twenty six guy. It's scary. It's a scary
commentary on our politics.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
So let's talk for a minute about what the landscape
looks like here. I talked to Anne Applebaum yesterday. Anne
Applebaum said, there is nothing more important than this next election.
The democracy literally hinges on this next election in twenty six.
So Democrats need to win back the House. That is
pretty likely. I think, talk me through why you think
(17:03):
it might not be likely.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (17:04):
I mean I covered ceaselessly the prior to years of
a Republican controlled Congress, and it was absolute dysfunctional cast.
And when I say dysfunctional, I mean it was not
functioning for like literally weeks because they ousted their own speaker,
and all the Democrats to do is stand back and watch.
And I remember the conversations I had the sources then saying,
(17:27):
if you don't flip the House in twenty twenty four,
I mean, I don't know what we're doing here, and
obviously you know they didn't. And you can make a
redistricting argument for that, losing three seats in North Carolina.
The three seat margin is what you've got right now. Fine,
I hear that as an argument, but no one really
cares when you're arguing technicalities. They just care about what
the actual circumstances. And you have a Republican majority now, however,
(17:49):
thin it is.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
Right, So okay, So Democrats need to win the House,
and then the senatemap is really hard. So I mean,
the House is hard, but the setamap is really fucking hard.
So let's talk about this Senate map. In twenty six
we have Maine, tell mey, Maine, North Carolina, we have
maybe Nebraska, we have New Hampshire which is already blue.
(18:15):
For Democrats to do this, they have to run the
fucking tables.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
Yes, And I also think I brought up New Hampshire
and I brought up Georgia, which are currently blue, but
they are also in cycle. And I think those are
actually going to be stories of candidate recruitment on the
Republican side, because perhaps the strongest person who could have
flipped the New Hampshire seat would have been the former
governor Chris Nunu, and he said no, thank you, even
after trump pit said I would back him, which was
(18:40):
definitely a brush off of Tim Scott at the NRSC. Also,
if they don't get Brian Kemp to run in Georgia,
that's also going to be a really tough slog for Republicans,
but those were their two seats for expansion. Then you
start getting into places like Maine and Nebraska. Nebraska, the
guy is running as an independent. It's the same guy
who challenged deb Fisher, and so yeah, like.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
I fucking rules, So I mean he is amazing.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
We'll see, right, and then we're starting to see the
field take shape up in Maine at this early point.
But Democrats threw tens of millions of dollars at that
race the last time that Susan Collins was up with
Sarah Gideon, and it didn't ultimately work out. I mean,
the thing that people have to remember is it's really
hard to take on incumbents, and there is such a
muscle memory for voters who might not see it as
(19:26):
partisan ly and that could be in this world here.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
There are other seats that seem less likely, but for example,
if you were to have share a Brown run in Ohio,
that could work.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:37):
I mean, I am also someone I've covered all of
Shared Brown's re elections, and I think that he was
the tough recipient this cycle of how much sway Trump has,
but he regularly outperforms Democrats in the Obama years. This
was true, So there's a potential there, especially that there's
no presidential when he would go back up in cycle.
(19:58):
He is a singular figure I think in democratic Ohio politics.
That's really fascinating. Tim Ryan, I think, is also similarly
situated and would be interesting there, but has seemingly resisted
those calls, at least for now. I think he's got
his eye on something else that he's also run for
in the past.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Potentially president president.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Tim Ryan is going to run for president.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
I don't know that.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
I'm just looking at the landscape and I think that
anyone who saw a fertile ground in twenty twenty and thought, sure,
let me join the pack. That's the Seth Multon's, the
Eric Swalwells, the Tim Ryans. Right, there is way more
of a case to be made for running on the
twenty twenty eight fertile soil of there is literally no
leader of this party right now. I couldn't tell you
who the front runner would be, Like why wouldn't you
(20:42):
make a second go of it, especially now that your
national profile in your donor base is that much bigger.
But I mean, I don't capital ka know that. But
if I'm musing and putting together the loose list of
presidentials that I always put together, like, yeah, he'd be
on it.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Somebody has me this at breakfast today. Who is the
leader of the Democratic part It's like the worst thing
ever When people ask you that at a cocktail party,
You're like, fuck you, I.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
Need to go to a different party. That's the question
of the cocco.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
So who is the leader of the Democratic perkat.
Speaker 4 (21:12):
Oh, there's like the technical answer that I actually give
at cocktail parties, which is like you've got Senator Schumer
and you've got leader Jeffreys, and those are your two
Democratic leaders.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
That gets people really mad, right, I know it does.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
Yeah, And I ask this actually to every Democratic elected
that I interview, and all of them sort of pivot
to that answer too. But I think that the more
honest answer and the less technical one is like there
is not one, and like that's just the reality of
the situation. I think that it leaves governors, though, in
a very interesting position to try to figure out what
(21:44):
it looks like to lead in this environment. Is it
Gavin Newsom trying to understand and make sense of the
MAGA movement while trying to preserve progressive credentials? I don't
know with the podcast. Is it Gretchen Whitmer, who's trying
to get stuff done for her state because she's in
a very purple state. Maybe yeah?
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Is it?
Speaker 4 (21:59):
You know Andy Basheer is trying to do some mix
of those two things in Kentucky. I think governors have
a real opportunity because they're not tied to the mess
of Washington. They are their own executives, and so I
think any name is a good name to throw out
there right now, and that's probably why the field is
going to be absolutely massive.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
I want you to talk about Gretchen Whitmer because I
talked to another smart analyst who is in our business,
who's a friend of ours, and she was like, Whitmer
did the right thing. And I was like, Whitmer was
hiding behind a fucking envelope. Like, if your life gets
you to a place where you're hiding behind an envelope,
something has gone horribly wrong.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
Discuss there are so many moments I've wanted to hide
behind an aye, Like, honestly, I felt.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
That who we even knew that was available.
Speaker 4 (22:47):
I did not know that was available, but I felt
I felt that when I saw those pictures of her.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
Look.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
I mean, on the one hand, you've got to expect
that if you're going to the White House to meet
with Trump as she has done, and I get why
she's trying to do that.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
I think I get it.
Speaker 4 (23:01):
Typically for her job. She is doing the right thing
for Michigan when they needed FEMA funds, they needed emergency relief.
She has a lot of red coalitions in her state,
Like this makes sense from a Michigan perspective, And I
think we can't expect people to do their current jobs
while looking ahead to potentially maybe one day wanting to
run for present. I don't think we can ask people
to do that, But I think you also have to
(23:22):
go in with a plan expecting that the president who
loves to pull one over on Democrats and anyone else. Frankly,
Democrats are Republicans, Like, you got to go in with
a plan for that, and the plan is not a
Manilla folder.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
Well was blue?
Speaker 3 (23:36):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Sure. The thing that is interesting though is I have
seen people and I want to talk about this, Like,
for example, a really great example is the mayor of Washington,
d C, Mariyo Baussar. She has had very good success.
Washington DC was in this terrible situation where they were
about to lose all their money and end up as
(23:58):
like a principal of you know nothing, I'm.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
A DC resident, I was walking closely.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Yeah, and she ended up being able to manipulate Trump
into doing what she wanted. Now, there is a thin
line between manipulating Trump and just going along with him.
Maybe many an institution has cratered on the thought that
they were manipulating Trump when really Trump was just running
(24:25):
all over them. So explain to me what the difference
here is.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
I think Pelosi is a good case study in this
from the first term. Right understood her leverage her power
the ways that she could as someone who have at
least some understanding of a relationship with Trump before right,
you can gain wins and notch wins. I just think
that this version of the administration is so different because
(24:50):
he is unencumbered it used to be in the last administration.
You have competing views there, and that's why Democrats like
Pelosi or even Schumer could make inroads in some of
the those meetings. I remember, you know them sitting around
and seeing them be able to pull leverage points. I
think those days are gone though, because this administration is
so into the red meat. They're like died in the wool.
(25:12):
Everyone in there is marching to the same beat in
the same direction. You're not having dissension in the ranks
this time, and I think it leaves very little room
and input for Democrats except in the rare instances like
what we've talked about. I mean, Whitmer had a targeted goal.
She went in there. She wants to make inroads on
tariffs because autos in Detroit are going to be heavily
(25:32):
hit by that. You've got the same thing from Maria Bowser.
You can't have the entire district of Columbia decimated because
of conservative budget priorities taking precedence. I mean, like that
can't work, But I think the opportunities are limited, and
Democrats are now really stuck between their base, absolutely hating
any idea of going to Trump for anything, even though
(25:56):
the reality sometimes demands that where are you going to
get the FEMA funding from? If it's not from the
federal government and you're a governor whose state just got hit.
I mean politics has to be put aside there, even
though I know Trump never does that like other people
have to.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
So this is a real thing. You can't be seen
with him, but you desperately need him.
Speaker 4 (26:15):
To the extent that anyone needs a president.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Yeah right, I mean they control the whole federal government.
When people say they need to do something, Democrats need
to do something, what's available for them to do?
Speaker 4 (26:26):
This is like the central question, and I fully feel
the visceral angst at all of these town halls. I've
been to several of them for Democrats who are like, please,
Dear God, just do something, And I ask voters, what
do you think they should do?
Speaker 1 (26:40):
What are your ideas.
Speaker 4 (26:41):
I mean, what would you tell your lawmaker if they said,
I'll do whatever you want me to do, just tell
me what it is. And many of them don't know.
They just want to see the fight, and so actually
to bring it back to where we started, like someone
like Chris van Holland physically going like it shows an
out of the box way of trying to show that
something is being done, when the reality of at least
(27:02):
Congress is that if you're in the minority, you're just
not afforded a lot of room to flex muscle. You
can gum up nominations. Brian Schatz is doing that, Reuben
Gaego is doing that, some others are trying to do that. Okay,
that's an option, but there's really not much that you
can do other than voting no and viscerally explaining why
(27:24):
this would be bad for the American public. And they're
trying to do that. There's competing views on like should
it just be on the economy, should it just be
on the constitution. Like there's so much debate inside the
party right now about what the fertile ground is to
fight on that it does waste time and it muddles
the message. But like every Republican strategist that I talk
(27:46):
to says that if Democrats can actually get their act
together with a cohesive economic message and the tariff driven
economy that we're seeing right now remains, which is to say, skittish,
erratic all over the place, then Republicans are worried about
what that would look like in the midterms. But there's
just such a long time to sustain between today April eighteenth,
(28:09):
nineteenth twentieth and twenty twenty six November. It's just an eternity.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Ali Vitally, thank you.
Speaker 4 (28:16):
I don't know that I brought humor, but I tried
to bring joy. I brought diet coke, so I definitely
brought joy for myself.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
You spark to joy. Dana Nssel is the Attorney General
of the Great State of Michigan. Welcome to Fast Context.
Dana Nassel, thank you so much for having me. So
you are the Attorney General of the State of Michigan.
What is going on?
Speaker 3 (28:42):
I mean, how many days do we have for this podcast?
Speaker 1 (28:46):
How are you doing this? And also how hard is it?
And also what is the federal government doing? Well, that's
a lot.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
I will say this, you know, I've taken the position
since not just this term enough, but when I first
frand profits in twenty eighteen that it was really important
to hold the federal government accountable for trespasses of the
people of our respective states. As attorneys general, that is,
in fact our jobs. And you know, we did that.
(29:17):
Then the Democratic Ags formed a coalition and we filed
you know, dozens and dozens of laws suits, and I
look back on it now. We were very successful. We won,
you know, well over eighty percent of our cases. And
sometimes I think maybe we were too successful. Yeah, I
often think that so many of the worst policies of
(29:39):
the Trump first Trump administration never went into effect because
of the work that the Democratic Ages did and a
lot of other partner you know, organizations, nonprofits and law
firms who you know, who took on the administration. But
I think people didn't remember how bad it was in
the first administration because so many of these policies didn't
(30:00):
take effect only because of our lawsuits. But it just
emboldened him to be even more aggressive the second time around.
And I will say this, I was thinking about it
this morning. Everybody you know of a certain generation remembers
where they are when JFK was murdered or my generation,
we all remember we were for nine to eleven, you
(30:22):
know what we were doing. But for me personally, I
remember what I was doing when the Trump immunity decision
came down from the United States Supreme Court, because I said,
this is going to change America forever if we have
a president who not just has inclinations to be completely
lawless and disregard federal law and disregard to Constitution and
(30:43):
disregard people's civil rights, but he now has the legal
authority to do it, as granted to him by the
highest court in the land. And I think so we've
seen that happen repeatedly since day one that he's been
in office this term.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Yeah, so where are you right now? Would led to
what's happening?
Speaker 3 (31:02):
Well, when you say with legislation, I mean you know that's.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
I mean with I'm sorry, with litigation, I mean litigation
and not legislation. God forbid, nobody's legislating, just litigating.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
No, we only have two branches of office government right now. Yeah,
Congress has given up yeah, right, the executive and the
courts the end. So Michigan at this point, and I
have to look at like what day of the week
it is to know this. We have either initiated litigation
or jointed litigation in ten separate cases, and we have
(31:36):
filed a meeky briefs and well over that in supporting
other parties who have brought suit.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
But you know, I will say.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
That generally speaking, our litigation has been pretty successful in
many different fornts, and it especially has been the case
when you have the federal government just flagrantly violating their
contracts with the States to fund all sorts of things,
and whether it's our most major and important programs like
Medicaid and Headstart and meals on reels, I mean snap programs.
(32:11):
The list goes on and on, whether it has to
do with NIH funding medical experiments and treatments, whether it
has to do with you know, public education grants or
grants that were to our public health departments. I mean,
the list goes on and on and on. We have
been pretty successful in getting courts to say you have
(32:33):
to reinitiate the funding for this money that was promised
to the states and promised to the grantees from the States.
And of course we've had other cases like you know,
birthright citizenship, which is now on its way to the
Supreme Court in a variety of other cases.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
But you know, it's been a lot, so you keep winning, right,
and that's what we're seeing in the courts, like none
of this is legal. All of this is not. So
Harvard's a great example, Like Harvard didn't agree to go
into receivership because why would they and also because they
have enough people there to know that it's completely not legal.
(33:15):
So explain to me why anyone does things this administration
wants when we know so much of it is not legal.
Speaker 3 (33:24):
I'm really glad that you asked this question because I've
been talking to so many different stakeholders and I will
tell you this and candidly, I was just on the
phone before, you know, our conversation with somebody from my
alma mater, the University of Michigan, which I used to
have great pride in leaders in best But to me,
they have largely capitulated to the administration and many different things.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
But to what end?
Speaker 3 (33:49):
Because the next day you find out that more of
your grants have been terminated there. And if we've learned
anything from for instance, whether it's what's happened at Columbia,
whether it's what's happened with many of the law firms
that struck agreements with Trump and the administration, it's never enough.
And the very next day, whatever agreement you think you have,
(34:12):
you don't really have an agreement, because Trump is not
a good faith actor. He does not keep his word,
and it doesn't matter what sort of agreement you believe
you have, it will never be enough for him. And
that's why I have been so dead set against those
who have sought to appease the president. And of course,
(34:35):
you know there's that old Churchill quote. An appeuser is
one who feeds the alligator hoping that he will be eaten.
Lath and I might have paraphrased that it might be
a crocodile and not an alligator, right, And they won't
be Eventually, they're going to get eat it's just how
long will it take to get to them? Right? So,
(34:56):
to me, the only way that we can truly have
any level of six is to have as many stakeholders
as possible, all joining together and saying this is not right,
this is not okay. We are not going to just
accept whether it's the flagrant racism and sexism, and xenophobia,
(35:16):
or the openly violation of court orders over and over again,
or kidnapping legal asylum seekers or student visa holders off
the streets, and all the rest of it. But we
all come together and push back and say this is
not okay. We're going to join forces their strength in numbers,
(35:36):
and we're not going to look back in this period
of time and say we could have done more to
save our democracy and to save the reputation and the
sanctity of the United States of America.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
We just chose not too. We took another route. So
let's talk about that. Because there's so many people in
this country who desperately want their electeds to stand up
for democracy, and there are so few Democrats who are
actually doing it. Why is that?
Speaker 3 (36:10):
You know? I can't speak for anybody else, but I
will say to those Democrats that have not stood up
more strongly, I think we're going to have a limited
period of time where we can still do this. And
at some point we're going to see the insurrection actor invoked,
which I think is probably going to happen sooner rather
than later, and we're going to see armed military personnel
(36:33):
and National Guards troops in the streets, and we are
going to see the complete erosion of the federal government,
whether it's you know, the Security Administration, the Department of
Health and Human Services, you know, the list goes on
or on.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
What do you do?
Speaker 3 (36:49):
Then, Well, what I think is is this, and this
is what I've been promoting, is that the only real
way I think that we have a chance at salvaging
the country that we've all grown up to know and
love is to be as bold as possible in fighting back.
To let us let our neighbors, our friends, you know,
(37:10):
our co workers, our families understand exactly how bad these
policies are and to not be shy about it. And
for those of us who have some supporters in their
family to really take the time instead of just avoiding
the Papa ball together, take the time to make them
understand what it means when we lose social security, what
it means when the CDC shuts down, and now it's
(37:31):
impossible to fight the next to bola or bird flu,
these erratic tariffs, and what that's going to mean for
our savings and our ability to afford basic necessities of life.
To have those conversations, but to make people understand why
we are out there peacefully and lawfully protesting the government,
and candidly for people to talk to their family members
(37:55):
and their friends that they know who are in active
military service or who do serve in our state's national guards,
and so that when we are out in the streets,
and studys have shown it only takes three point five
percent of a nation's population to peacefully fight back in
order to stop a country that is sliding very quickly
(38:18):
from a democracy into an autocratic regime. You know, on
April fifth, we got like five and a half million
people out there to do it. It only take maybe
twelve million people in the United States to come out
till I think we'll see maybe Congress will finally start
to take back their authority, understanding that they have the
(38:39):
legal right and opportunity, and I would argue the obligation
to actually start taking back their power, and they would
win in the courts if they challenged it. And there
needs to be the threats by Congress against a president
that you will face impeachment if you don't work with us.
And here's the thing that I find to be so
(39:00):
insane about it is, if you look at all the
most important pieces of legislation that have had long time
impact on our country. And whether it's the you know,
the ACA under Obama, or the Civil Rights Act or
Voting Rights Actor or LBJ or even more recently, you know,
the Inflation Reduction Actor and the Infrastructure Act by Biden.
(39:23):
Could you imagine if any of them tried to do
that by executive fiat, by signing an executive order instead
of negotiating with Congress. So Congress, take back your power
that again Article one, the very first article of the
Constitution that was provided to you, and make sure the
president knows that if he does not abide by that,
(39:44):
then Congress is going to go to the courts for
the certain when on a number of different issues that
you know, the state ags have had to file on
in many other parties. But for civilians, in terms of
what they can do, they can go out to these
rallies and again not be violent, not be aggressive, not
just quite law enforcement, because law enforcement they need to
(40:07):
understand this too. Many of them are going to lose
their job. And for members of the military, they need
to look at how this administration has treated veterans and say,
you know, don't shoot your grandma in the face. For
this guy. I mean, it's not worth it.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Yeah, yeah, don't treat your grandma in the face for
this guy. That's pretty disturbing. So you think we're going
to need to get to this trades.
Speaker 3 (40:31):
I think it's going to be one of the most
important things that we can do, if for no other reason,
to send the message to Congress that we're not okay
with this and that as as Americans, we are going
to fight again, lawfully and peacefully for all the rights
that we cherish in this country and where we are
(40:53):
not okay with becoming an oligarchy or a regime that
is anything other than a democracy.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
It is good news. So and you tell me if
you think this is true that the tariffs have really
had an effect. People understand that the Emperor has no clothes,
true or falls?
Speaker 3 (41:15):
Yes, and no, I would say, I think because Trump
keeps rolling things back so quickly. You know, it's always
on the cusp of doing something, and now there's a
nine a day repriet and now there's an exemption you
know for this product or that product or the others.
So I think it's left for people really confused, and
some of the things that I think would be most
hard hitting. It's not clear that it's making an impact yet,
(41:38):
but I do think that people see the mass chaos
and disorganization is being bad, and certainly the stock market
has suggested that. So a lot of people have lost
their fur. One ks are a substantial portion of it.
But then again that everybody has a qoro one k.
So I think there are still a lot of Trump
supporters out there that haven't been fully impacted by it,
(41:58):
but they will. It's only a matter of time.
Speaker 1 (42:02):
But you don't need all the Trump supporters, you just
need some, right there are some Trumpers who will never
ever ever leave him. You know.
Speaker 3 (42:13):
If I could use this as an example, I've been
going all around the state of Michigan and talking to
different stakeholders. And I went to southwest Michigan last week
and I talked to a group of farmers out there,
and many of them had their grants or their contracts
with the federal government terminated. Some of them were USAID contracts,
(42:35):
some of them were suppliers to the food banks, some
of them were with USDA, and there were many others.
And so I said to them, I go, what are
you going to do? I mean, you planted crops, you
purchase supplies, you hired workers, all in anticipation that the
government would keep their end of the deal. Because at
the end of the day, a lot of this is
(42:56):
just basic contract law. Like if this was a vendor.
If this was you know, a company that you did
business with and they just all of a sudden ghosted
you one day, it'd be pretty mad and you wouldn't
do business with them again, and you would probably sue
them in court.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
But I had this farmer say to me.
Speaker 3 (43:12):
He's like, well, yeah, this has been paused, but what's
to say that's not going to start up again? I said,
how did you How did you find out about it?
I go, did the Trump administration or somebody from us DA?
Did they call you? No?
Speaker 1 (43:25):
Did they email you?
Speaker 3 (43:27):
No? Was there any form of communication at all before
you went to the bank and you saw that you
didn't get paid? Like, did they even tell you about it?
Speaker 1 (43:37):
And he said no.
Speaker 3 (43:39):
I go, well, does that sound like a good fad
actor that's probably eventually going to start paying you again,
or does it seem like somebody who doesn't care at
all about the fact that you were literally on the
cusp of losing your seventh generation family farm and he
got kind of quiet after that. And you know, I
think it's coming to terms with the fact that somebody
that you supported, maybe you went to rallies to support him,
(44:01):
maybe you invested in a you know, make America Great
Again hat that was made in China. Now you get
to deal with the fact that this guy's not who
you thought he was. And I think it's hard for
some people to come to grips with that. But my
hope is that enough of those folks will say, yeah,
you know, this isn't what we signed up for. This
is not him keeping his end of the deal for me,
(44:24):
for my family, from my community, from my state, for
my country.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Dana Nassau, thank you, thank you, thank you for joining us.
Thank you for having.
Speaker 2 (44:33):
Me no moment perfectly Jesse Cannon, Somali. Despite Trump's attempts
to fire many, many, many, many federal workers, along with
thoss A, judges blocked them from laying off ninety percent
of the CFPB.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
This keeps happening, right, Trump keeps losing in court. You
know why, because they're trying to do leave legal stuff.
That is why he keeps losing in court. If you
are Harvard or Columbia or any of those places. You
(45:12):
can see that this doesn't work, So just ignore them.
Just keep going fighting in court. Like I think about Maine, right,
the governor in Maine, Janet Miles. You'll remember she was
the one who was like, I'll see you in court. Well,
that governor, you know, she keeps winning in court too, right,
(45:33):
So don't fucking let this administration bully you. They keep losing.
It just keeps working out that way. None of this
is legal, or much of it is not legal. Just
keep fighting back. Do not let them do this stuff.
It's not legal and they won't get away with it.
So a little bit of what they're doing to the
(45:56):
federal government, these state governments can do back. That's it
for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday,
and Saturday to hear the best minds and politics make
sense of all this chaos. If you enjoy this podcast,
(46:16):
please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Thanks for listening.
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. And the White House has deleted the
COVID resource website and replaced it with a lab Leak
promotion page, which makes Fox News look like the New Yorker.
(00:24):
We have such a great show for you today. MSNBC's
own Ellie Vitelli stops by to talk about democratic politics.
Then we'll talk to Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel about
how democratic ags are fighting back against the Trump administration.
But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
So May yesterday, it was quite shocking to see Senator
Chris van Holland from the great state of Maryland go
down to El Salvador and meet with Kilmar Abrigo Garcia.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
So all people want, all they want is for their
electeds to stand up and fight for them. And what's
really cool is that Maryland Senator Chris van Holland did that.
He got on a plane, he flew down to El Salvador,
he met with the Vice president. The vice president told
him no, and then he sort of fought with him,
(01:17):
and then he got to sit down and make sure
that Garcia was okay, And look, here's the thing. You
don't have to like Garcia. You don't have to believe
in him. You don't have to believe that he's a
good guy. You don't have to believe in any of that.
You just have to believe that he is entitled to
do process, just like the Supreme Court, the wildly leftist
(01:40):
Supreme Court, who said nine zero that Garcia is entitled
to do process, that even though you know, he's not
a United States citizen, he's still entitled to due process.
And by the way, that's like what our democracy has
founded on. Good for him. I think Republicans see what
a loser this issue is for Trump. By the way,
(02:01):
the fact that they're like, you know, they said they
were going to deport like one hundred million people. Ten
million people right there, barely can deport as many people
as Biden did, so that which is sort of popular.
Deporting people. I don't know why it's popular, because I
think it's gross. And by the way, we need those
people to work because we have a very tight labor market.
But even that is not popular. It is popular. Trump
(02:24):
world can't figure out how to do it because they're
super incomfident Trump World thinks they're going to win on
Van Holland going down to meet with this guy to
make sure he's okay. And you know what, they're wrong.
People hate this. People don't like you know, they don't
like America sending whoever to El Salvadoran prisons. This is
(02:44):
a loser for them, and they think the optics of
it make them look good. They're wrong. I think they're
really wrong on this, and I'm glad they're wrong on
this because it's horrifying.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
I think one of the funniest things is that, you know,
for years we were told, you know, nine thousand dollars
hammers in the government could easily find all these things
to cut. You could easily find all these immigrants. And
I don't even doubt that that's true, but they say
it can't seem to do it.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
No.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
And also it's why we don't put a ton of
people at GIMO. It's really expensive, Like it's cheaper to
put them in private prisons in America. I mean, like
the reason they're doing this is because they think that
it's like good for the brand or whatever. But like
you're flying people, tell Salvador, you're putting them in Seacott.
You're being built by the El Salvadorian government. I mean
(03:29):
it's just very expensive. It's also just crazy and stupid
and a huge I mean waste of money, waste of time,
waste of everything. Just to sort of like make a
point that they think will be good. On Fox News
sixty Minutes report, they write, the administration hates sixty minutes
because Donald Trump like lives in nineteen ninety seven, so
(03:51):
he's like obsessed with sixty. I also sixty, right, I mean,
like there are nine people watching sixty minutes, of one
of them is Donald Trump. I mean that's not true.
A lot of people watch sixty minutes, but ultimately all
traditional media is in decline. A sixty Minutes report found
most of the two hundred and thirty at Venezuelan and
sent to Seacott on several planes last month and no
(04:13):
apparent criminal record. So you're sending people to jail who
may not have even done crimes, some of whom were
protected by the federal government until Donald Trump became president.
So I don't know how you square this circle. Stration
has defended its use of the law arguing gang violence,
because why wouldn't they.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
So Bally in reaction to Trump defying the Supreme Court
and thinking that just because they ship people to Salvador,
they don't have to listen to our courts. We've started
to see some calls for impeachment and.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Fucking impeach the guy. I mean, come on, he's you know,
he's ignoring the Supreme Court, he's ignoring the courts. We
are like beyond constitutional crisis. Now. Look, you know, the
Republicans in Congress have been unbelievably cowardly and craven. And
in fact, one of the things so we saw this
week was Lisa Murkowski saying what all of us knew
(05:05):
but we hadn't heard any Republicans say, which is the
Republicans are scared. And I think that was really important
because that's how we got here, is these people, Republicans Democrats,
all scared of Trump, scared of the administration, scared of
the mean phone calls, the mean tweets. So they're just
rolling over and I'm glad to see Democrats doing this.
(05:28):
By the way, public polling is with the Democrats. People
don't like this. This is We've been a democracy for
a long time, and people don't Autocracy is actually just
not that popular, and it's happening so quickly, and that
is also a big problem. So we got Boseberg saying again,
I just want to point out one last thing. In
(05:49):
order to impeach Trump, you need to have the House.
Democrats don't have the House yet. There is the three
vote majority of Republicans have. There are some Democrats who
are old and sick. There are two who died. Their
seats are not being allowed to be filled because they're
in red states, and the red state governors are doing
things that are pretty craven on lawless. Now that said
(06:09):
pretty sure, Kathy Hogel did the same thing, you know,
made sure that that other seat wasn't filled either. So
we're really sort of in an impass here. And until
Democrats win the House, I think it's going to be
hard to impeach Trump. But they should try, like they
should put pressure. And by the way, keep calling your representatives,
call your congressman, call your senators, Blue states, red states,
(06:30):
remind them that you don't like any of those.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
So my David Hogg, previous guest of this podcast, was
elected vice chair of the DNC and he has really
pissed off the establishment dons here yeh.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Yes, actually such an interesting story. So David from David
from David Hogg, not to be confused with David from
We Love You. David from David Hogg is a vice
chair of the Democratic National Committe, got this job this year.
They're a couple of vice chairs. It was pretty contentious,
these plans to spend twenty million dollars to primary older
(07:08):
Democratic incumbents. This is something that a lot of us
think is probably the right thing. We have people in leadership,
and not just in leadership, just you know, we have
people in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party too, but
you know, there's nothing we can do there who are
in their eighties or some of them are in their
high seventies, and they rank for another six year term
(07:30):
which will get them somewhere in their eighties. It is
probably the moment, especially right now, when so much is
on the table, and like what I just said about
these two Democrats who died in office, it really is
a sense that is the right time for this. That
said Democrats are passed. So since they were pissed, and
(07:51):
since they're so brave, they all spoke anonymously, because why
wouldn't they a smear campaign against me to destroy my
Repi Tach and forced me to stop doing this. They're
just not happy. Axios did not receive a response. So
leaders we deserve is this group. There's some infighting here
and a lot of good Anonymous angry octagenarians complaining about
(08:17):
David probably a good sign for.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
David my In more disturbing news, Trump has revamped Schedule Left,
making it easier to cut federal workers, which we knew
was going to happen because we've read Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Yeah, we read it. We did a video series on it,
and then Americans just decided to go for them anyway
because they like the sneakers and the NFTs. So Schedule
app will make it easier to cut federal workers. We
knew this was coming. The idea here is stripping civil
protections from about fifty thousand people, two percent of the
(08:53):
federal workforce. This will make it easier to fire people.
A nonpartisan role is traditionally that you know, they're not political,
but Trump wants to replace them with loyalists. Of course,
this is what he wants to do because remember Trump
felt that he was not able to enact his craziest
(09:13):
stuff because he felt the deep state was against him.
So now he'll be able to cut people who are
working on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Some of them will
be working on whatever the coding or the you know,
(09:35):
things that are not partisan one way or the other.
But he'll replace them with people where he can fire
them or do whatever he wants. And it's going to
be totally It's just exactly what we knew was coming,
and it's very annoying and also super upset. Ali is
(10:00):
an NBC News correspondent and the author of Electable, Why
America hasn't put a woman in the White House yet.
Welcome to Fast Politics, Ali.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Vitally real to be back, Molly John Fass.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
You and I are in the salt mines mining the content.
Can we just talk about the Congress and what the
fuck they're doing right now? Because like, we have a
wrongly deported guy. We have Senator Chris van Holland he's
wrongly deported. The Supreme Court said nine to zero, you
(10:34):
have to bring him back. Okay, we don't know anything
except you have to bring him back. Right, It's pretty
big deal.
Speaker 4 (10:41):
Despite the White House wanting to will fully misread that decision,
in part the Supreme Court gave them some loopholes, right right.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
No, No, it's a Supreme court. They suck. I mean,
you don't have to say they suck. I'll say they
suck because I'm on the opinion side. But they were like,
you need to bring him back. Okay, So Chris van
Holland goes to see him, make sure he's not dead
because he's been in elcot So there's a real chance,
you know, I mean, it's not impossible. This is not
(11:09):
a prison known for it's you know, it's not known
for the.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
Spa luffy pillows.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Yeah, so explain to me what Congress is doing. They're out,
they're out for two weeks.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
Ago, they're out for two weeks. But recess is just
another it's it's a different now to lose. There's two
pieces of this that I think are really important. There's
the way that Senator Van Holland is going to check
on his constituent, which I've seen competing ideas on whether
or not this was a good idea about idea like
(11:41):
the basis clamoring for fight nothing, he says, fight, but
getting on a plane going to El Salvador and being
like knock knock, I'm here, let me see my guy.
The other pieces of this is the way that it's
percolating among voters, and I think that there is a
nuance to this that is intant. Right, Like, I spend
a lot of time in Iowa because I'm sick and
(12:03):
I love campaigns, and so every three years I spend
of Iowa exactly in Des Moines. I love this place.
As a New Yorker, those are words I never thought
I would say.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
But you live in DC, so the bar is pretty low.
Go on, yes, that's true.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
The veteran senior Republican Senator Chuck Grassley is hearing from
his elderly more older constituents. You see it in that video.
Why can't you bring this guy back? It's not the
job of commerce. Okay, that's true. There's no like congressional
right to bring back a deported person. And that's fine.
It's not an impoundment, which they do have rights on, right.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Right, right, I mean, god forbid, though didn't want to
use them, but yes, didn't want to make trumpt.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
Correct, right.
Speaker 4 (12:40):
But the fact that you're being asked about it there
in Iowa, in a red state, really struck me as notable,
and I think that the White House was struck by
that too, Maybe not the Iowa specifically of it, but
broadly because we've forged to go on offense this week,
showing the work that we've all been asking them to show,
why do you debort this guy in the first place,
(13:01):
and then also trying to shift the narrative not to
the central question here of due process, the constitution, and
how we do legal justice in this country, but instead
shifting it to unrelated though tragic conflicts and tragedies between migrants,
undocumented migrants, and American citizens. In this case, they're pointing
(13:21):
to a Maryland case with Rachel Morin, but they're trying
to shift the narrative, and I think that it's a
sign from them that they're not going to back down.
They want to have this fight, but they needed to
do more, and we watched them change this week.
Speaker 1 (13:34):
I think one of the big problems we saw with
the trade stuff was that it's very hard for an
administration that is makes George W. Bush look like Lincoln.
A good example of trade wars. You can't have a
trade war with China when you're also having a trade
war with everyone else.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
Discuss well, I've been covering Trump for a really long time, right.
I started covering him during the twenty fifteen campaign. I
think I got their two week's post escalator, and every
single time you were eleven, I was eleven years old,
very eager to get started, right exactly. But every time
from that moment all the way through now, when he
finds himself in hot water on anything, he pivots hard
(14:16):
back into immigration. And that is why I think you're
right to tie tariffs and the way that polling shows
he's losing steam on confidence from Americans in his economic
handling to pivot back to something where the polling actually
shows that this is probably where the bulk of his
power lies, not just with MAGA, because I think that's
more integrated with cultural issues and everything else, including immigration,
(14:38):
but with Independence and others who voted for him in
twenty twenty four. Immigration is where they feel like they
can really flex their muscle and maybe distract from the
tariff news, which is hard for even Republicans on Capitol
Hill to stomach, who seem to have a bottomless amount
of goodwill towards the president, or at least fear of
stepping out of line from him, so I think you're
(14:58):
right to tie those.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
We had Lisa Murkowski yesterday. I say people are scared
to speak at against him, something we had known. But
to have Lisa Murkowski say it, and even not to
have Susan Collins say it, who is up for reelection
in twenty six, I think is meaningful. You tell me
why you think it's meaningful.
Speaker 4 (15:17):
The dynamics are different between Alaska and Maine, but we
talk about both of these women a lot because they
are the consistent Republicans that are willing to stand up
and say, actually I disagree, which should not be notable.
But is I think two fold right. The fact that
Murkowski is willing to just say politically in my party
right now, I am afraid in a safety sense. Not
(15:39):
afraid politically, though that's swirling too. I'm afraid in a
safety sense for what it might look like to speak
out against the president who I have policy disagreements with.
I think that is just such a stunning commentary on
where our politics are right now. And I always check
in with the Capitol Police on where the numbers are.
(15:59):
Threat levels towards members of Congress have only been rising
since the start of the first Trump administration, and I
think Murkowski saying that is really an important sign post
to us that it's not just political disagreement anymore. There
are really tangible, scary threats attached to this for lawmakers
(16:21):
and their family. Tom Tillis is another one. His office
has sent to us examples of the kinds of calls
and threats that he and his office are getting. He's
someone who's even just toyed with stepping out of line
with the administration, and he's in and on year. He's
a twenty twenty six guy. It's scary. It's a scary
commentary on our politics.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
So let's talk for a minute about what the landscape
looks like here. I talked to Anne Applebaum yesterday. Anne
Applebaum said, there is nothing more important than this next election.
The democracy literally hinges on this next election in twenty six.
So Democrats need to win back the House. That is
pretty likely. I think, talk me through why you think
(17:03):
it might not be likely.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (17:04):
I mean I covered ceaselessly the prior to years of
a Republican controlled Congress, and it was absolute dysfunctional cast.
And when I say dysfunctional, I mean it was not
functioning for like literally weeks because they ousted their own speaker,
and all the Democrats to do is stand back and watch.
And I remember the conversations I had the sources then saying,
(17:27):
if you don't flip the House in twenty twenty four,
I mean, I don't know what we're doing here, and
obviously you know they didn't. And you can make a
redistricting argument for that, losing three seats in North Carolina.
The three seat margin is what you've got right now. Fine,
I hear that as an argument, but no one really
cares when you're arguing technicalities. They just care about what
the actual circumstances. And you have a Republican majority now, however,
(17:49):
thin it is.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
Right, So okay, So Democrats need to win the House,
and then the senatemap is really hard. So I mean,
the House is hard, but the setamap is really fucking hard.
So let's talk about this Senate map. In twenty six
we have Maine, tell mey, Maine, North Carolina, we have
maybe Nebraska, we have New Hampshire which is already blue.
(18:15):
For Democrats to do this, they have to run the
fucking tables.
Speaker 4 (18:20):
Yes, And I also think I brought up New Hampshire
and I brought up Georgia, which are currently blue, but
they are also in cycle. And I think those are
actually going to be stories of candidate recruitment on the
Republican side, because perhaps the strongest person who could have
flipped the New Hampshire seat would have been the former
governor Chris Nunu, and he said no, thank you, even
after trump pit said I would back him, which was
(18:40):
definitely a brush off of Tim Scott at the NRSC. Also,
if they don't get Brian Kemp to run in Georgia,
that's also going to be a really tough slog for Republicans,
but those were their two seats for expansion. Then you
start getting into places like Maine and Nebraska. Nebraska, the
guy is running as an independent. It's the same guy
who challenged deb Fisher, and so yeah, like.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
I fucking rules, So I mean he is amazing.
Speaker 4 (19:03):
We'll see, right, and then we're starting to see the
field take shape up in Maine at this early point.
But Democrats threw tens of millions of dollars at that
race the last time that Susan Collins was up with
Sarah Gideon, and it didn't ultimately work out. I mean,
the thing that people have to remember is it's really
hard to take on incumbents, and there is such a
muscle memory for voters who might not see it as
(19:26):
partisan ly and that could be in this world here.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
There are other seats that seem less likely, but for example,
if you were to have share a Brown run in Ohio,
that could work.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:37):
I mean, I am also someone I've covered all of
Shared Brown's re elections, and I think that he was
the tough recipient this cycle of how much sway Trump has,
but he regularly outperforms Democrats in the Obama years. This
was true, So there's a potential there, especially that there's
no presidential when he would go back up in cycle.
(19:58):
He is a singular figure I think in democratic Ohio politics.
That's really fascinating. Tim Ryan, I think, is also similarly
situated and would be interesting there, but has seemingly resisted
those calls, at least for now. I think he's got
his eye on something else that he's also run for
in the past.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Potentially president president.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
Tim Ryan is going to run for president.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
I don't know that.
Speaker 4 (20:20):
I'm just looking at the landscape and I think that
anyone who saw a fertile ground in twenty twenty and thought, sure,
let me join the pack. That's the Seth Multon's, the
Eric Swalwells, the Tim Ryans. Right, there is way more
of a case to be made for running on the
twenty twenty eight fertile soil of there is literally no
leader of this party right now. I couldn't tell you
who the front runner would be, Like why wouldn't you
(20:42):
make a second go of it, especially now that your
national profile in your donor base is that much bigger.
But I mean, I don't capital ka know that. But
if I'm musing and putting together the loose list of
presidentials that I always put together, like, yeah, he'd be
on it.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Somebody has me this at breakfast today. Who is the
leader of the Democratic part It's like the worst thing
ever When people ask you that at a cocktail party,
You're like, fuck you, I.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
Need to go to a different party. That's the question
of the cocco.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
So who is the leader of the Democratic perkat.
Speaker 4 (21:12):
Oh, there's like the technical answer that I actually give
at cocktail parties, which is like you've got Senator Schumer
and you've got leader Jeffreys, and those are your two
Democratic leaders.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
That gets people really mad, right, I know it does.
Speaker 4 (21:23):
Yeah, And I ask this actually to every Democratic elected
that I interview, and all of them sort of pivot
to that answer too. But I think that the more
honest answer and the less technical one is like there
is not one, and like that's just the reality of
the situation. I think that it leaves governors, though, in
a very interesting position to try to figure out what
(21:44):
it looks like to lead in this environment. Is it
Gavin Newsom trying to understand and make sense of the
MAGA movement while trying to preserve progressive credentials? I don't
know with the podcast. Is it Gretchen Whitmer, who's trying
to get stuff done for her state because she's in
a very purple state. Maybe yeah?
Speaker 1 (21:59):
Is it?
Speaker 4 (21:59):
You know Andy Basheer is trying to do some mix
of those two things in Kentucky. I think governors have
a real opportunity because they're not tied to the mess
of Washington. They are their own executives, and so I
think any name is a good name to throw out
there right now, and that's probably why the field is
going to be absolutely massive.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
I want you to talk about Gretchen Whitmer because I
talked to another smart analyst who is in our business,
who's a friend of ours, and she was like, Whitmer
did the right thing. And I was like, Whitmer was
hiding behind a fucking envelope. Like, if your life gets
you to a place where you're hiding behind an envelope,
something has gone horribly wrong.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
Discuss there are so many moments I've wanted to hide
behind an aye, Like, honestly, I felt.
Speaker 1 (22:45):
That who we even knew that was available.
Speaker 4 (22:47):
I did not know that was available, but I felt
I felt that when I saw those pictures of her.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
Look.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
I mean, on the one hand, you've got to expect
that if you're going to the White House to meet
with Trump as she has done, and I get why
she's trying to do that.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
I think I get it.
Speaker 4 (23:01):
Typically for her job. She is doing the right thing
for Michigan when they needed FEMA funds, they needed emergency relief.
She has a lot of red coalitions in her state,
Like this makes sense from a Michigan perspective, And I
think we can't expect people to do their current jobs
while looking ahead to potentially maybe one day wanting to
run for present. I don't think we can ask people
to do that, But I think you also have to
(23:22):
go in with a plan expecting that the president who
loves to pull one over on Democrats and anyone else. Frankly,
Democrats are Republicans, Like, you got to go in with
a plan for that, and the plan is not a
Manilla folder.
Speaker 1 (23:35):
Well was blue?
Speaker 3 (23:36):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Sure. The thing that is interesting though is I have
seen people and I want to talk about this, Like,
for example, a really great example is the mayor of Washington,
d C, Mariyo Baussar. She has had very good success.
Washington DC was in this terrible situation where they were
about to lose all their money and end up as
(23:58):
like a principal of you know nothing, I'm.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
A DC resident, I was walking closely.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Yeah, and she ended up being able to manipulate Trump
into doing what she wanted. Now, there is a thin
line between manipulating Trump and just going along with him.
Maybe many an institution has cratered on the thought that
they were manipulating Trump when really Trump was just running
(24:25):
all over them. So explain to me what the difference
here is.
Speaker 4 (24:29):
I think Pelosi is a good case study in this
from the first term. Right understood her leverage her power
the ways that she could as someone who have at
least some understanding of a relationship with Trump before right,
you can gain wins and notch wins. I just think
that this version of the administration is so different because
(24:50):
he is unencumbered it used to be in the last administration.
You have competing views there, and that's why Democrats like
Pelosi or even Schumer could make inroads in some of
the those meetings. I remember, you know them sitting around
and seeing them be able to pull leverage points. I
think those days are gone though, because this administration is
so into the red meat. They're like died in the wool.
(25:12):
Everyone in there is marching to the same beat in
the same direction. You're not having dissension in the ranks
this time, and I think it leaves very little room
and input for Democrats except in the rare instances like
what we've talked about. I mean, Whitmer had a targeted goal.
She went in there. She wants to make inroads on
tariffs because autos in Detroit are going to be heavily
(25:32):
hit by that. You've got the same thing from Maria Bowser.
You can't have the entire district of Columbia decimated because
of conservative budget priorities taking precedence. I mean, like that
can't work, But I think the opportunities are limited, and
Democrats are now really stuck between their base, absolutely hating
any idea of going to Trump for anything, even though
(25:56):
the reality sometimes demands that where are you going to
get the FEMA funding from? If it's not from the
federal government and you're a governor whose state just got hit.
I mean politics has to be put aside there, even
though I know Trump never does that like other people
have to.
Speaker 1 (26:10):
So this is a real thing. You can't be seen
with him, but you desperately need him.
Speaker 4 (26:15):
To the extent that anyone needs a president.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Yeah right, I mean they control the whole federal government.
When people say they need to do something, Democrats need
to do something, what's available for them to do?
Speaker 4 (26:26):
This is like the central question, and I fully feel
the visceral angst at all of these town halls. I've
been to several of them for Democrats who are like, please,
Dear God, just do something, And I ask voters, what
do you think they should do?
Speaker 1 (26:40):
What are your ideas.
Speaker 4 (26:41):
I mean, what would you tell your lawmaker if they said,
I'll do whatever you want me to do, just tell
me what it is. And many of them don't know.
They just want to see the fight, and so actually
to bring it back to where we started, like someone
like Chris van Holland physically going like it shows an
out of the box way of trying to show that
something is being done, when the reality of at least
(27:02):
Congress is that if you're in the minority, you're just
not afforded a lot of room to flex muscle. You
can gum up nominations. Brian Schatz is doing that, Reuben
Gaego is doing that, some others are trying to do that. Okay,
that's an option, but there's really not much that you
can do other than voting no and viscerally explaining why
(27:24):
this would be bad for the American public. And they're
trying to do that. There's competing views on like should
it just be on the economy, should it just be
on the constitution. Like there's so much debate inside the
party right now about what the fertile ground is to
fight on that it does waste time and it muddles
the message. But like every Republican strategist that I talk
(27:46):
to says that if Democrats can actually get their act
together with a cohesive economic message and the tariff driven
economy that we're seeing right now remains, which is to say, skittish,
erratic all over the place, then Republicans are worried about
what that would look like in the midterms. But there's
just such a long time to sustain between today April eighteenth,
(28:09):
nineteenth twentieth and twenty twenty six November. It's just an eternity.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Ali Vitally, thank you.
Speaker 4 (28:16):
I don't know that I brought humor, but I tried
to bring joy. I brought diet coke, so I definitely
brought joy for myself.
Speaker 1 (28:22):
You spark to joy. Dana Nssel is the Attorney General
of the Great State of Michigan. Welcome to Fast Context.
Dana Nassel, thank you so much for having me. So
you are the Attorney General of the State of Michigan.
What is going on?
Speaker 3 (28:42):
I mean, how many days do we have for this podcast?
Speaker 1 (28:46):
How are you doing this? And also how hard is it?
And also what is the federal government doing? Well, that's
a lot.
Speaker 3 (28:53):
I will say this, you know, I've taken the position
since not just this term enough, but when I first
frand profits in twenty eighteen that it was really important
to hold the federal government accountable for trespasses of the
people of our respective states. As attorneys general, that is,
in fact our jobs. And you know, we did that.
(29:17):
Then the Democratic Ags formed a coalition and we filed
you know, dozens and dozens of laws suits, and I
look back on it now. We were very successful. We won,
you know, well over eighty percent of our cases. And
sometimes I think maybe we were too successful. Yeah, I
often think that so many of the worst policies of
(29:39):
the Trump first Trump administration never went into effect because
of the work that the Democratic Ages did and a
lot of other partner you know, organizations, nonprofits and law
firms who you know, who took on the administration. But
I think people didn't remember how bad it was in
the first administration because so many of these policies didn't
(30:00):
take effect only because of our lawsuits. But it just
emboldened him to be even more aggressive the second time around.
And I will say this, I was thinking about it
this morning. Everybody you know of a certain generation remembers
where they are when JFK was murdered or my generation,
we all remember we were for nine to eleven, you
(30:22):
know what we were doing. But for me personally, I
remember what I was doing when the Trump immunity decision
came down from the United States Supreme Court, because I said,
this is going to change America forever if we have
a president who not just has inclinations to be completely
lawless and disregard federal law and disregard to Constitution and
(30:43):
disregard people's civil rights, but he now has the legal
authority to do it, as granted to him by the
highest court in the land. And I think so we've
seen that happen repeatedly since day one that he's been
in office this term.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Yeah, so where are you right now? Would led to
what's happening?
Speaker 3 (31:02):
Well, when you say with legislation, I mean you know that's.
Speaker 1 (31:05):
I mean with I'm sorry, with litigation, I mean litigation
and not legislation. God forbid, nobody's legislating, just litigating.
Speaker 3 (31:13):
No, we only have two branches of office government right now. Yeah,
Congress has given up yeah, right, the executive and the
courts the end. So Michigan at this point, and I
have to look at like what day of the week
it is to know this. We have either initiated litigation
or jointed litigation in ten separate cases, and we have
(31:36):
filed a meeky briefs and well over that in supporting
other parties who have brought suit.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
But you know, I will say.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
That generally speaking, our litigation has been pretty successful in
many different fornts, and it especially has been the case
when you have the federal government just flagrantly violating their
contracts with the States to fund all sorts of things,
and whether it's our most major and important programs like
Medicaid and Headstart and meals on reels, I mean snap programs.
(32:11):
The list goes on and on, whether it has to
do with NIH funding medical experiments and treatments, whether it
has to do with you know, public education grants or
grants that were to our public health departments. I mean,
the list goes on and on and on. We have
been pretty successful in getting courts to say you have
(32:33):
to reinitiate the funding for this money that was promised
to the states and promised to the grantees from the States.
And of course we've had other cases like you know,
birthright citizenship, which is now on its way to the
Supreme Court in a variety of other cases.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
But you know, it's been a lot, so you keep winning, right,
and that's what we're seeing in the courts, like none
of this is legal. All of this is not. So
Harvard's a great example, Like Harvard didn't agree to go
into receivership because why would they and also because they
have enough people there to know that it's completely not legal.
(33:15):
So explain to me why anyone does things this administration
wants when we know so much of it is not legal.
Speaker 3 (33:24):
I'm really glad that you asked this question because I've
been talking to so many different stakeholders and I will
tell you this and candidly, I was just on the
phone before, you know, our conversation with somebody from my
alma mater, the University of Michigan, which I used to
have great pride in leaders in best But to me,
they have largely capitulated to the administration and many different things.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
But to what end?
Speaker 3 (33:49):
Because the next day you find out that more of
your grants have been terminated there. And if we've learned
anything from for instance, whether it's what's happened at Columbia,
whether it's what's happened with many of the law firms
that struck agreements with Trump and the administration, it's never enough.
And the very next day, whatever agreement you think you have,
(34:12):
you don't really have an agreement, because Trump is not
a good faith actor. He does not keep his word,
and it doesn't matter what sort of agreement you believe
you have, it will never be enough for him. And
that's why I have been so dead set against those
who have sought to appease the president. And of course,
(34:35):
you know there's that old Churchill quote. An appeuser is
one who feeds the alligator hoping that he will be eaten.
Lath and I might have paraphrased that it might be
a crocodile and not an alligator, right, And they won't
be Eventually, they're going to get eat it's just how
long will it take to get to them? Right? So,
(34:56):
to me, the only way that we can truly have
any level of six is to have as many stakeholders
as possible, all joining together and saying this is not right,
this is not okay. We are not going to just
accept whether it's the flagrant racism and sexism, and xenophobia,
(35:16):
or the openly violation of court orders over and over again,
or kidnapping legal asylum seekers or student visa holders off
the streets, and all the rest of it. But we
all come together and push back and say this is
not okay. We're going to join forces their strength in numbers,
(35:36):
and we're not going to look back in this period
of time and say we could have done more to
save our democracy and to save the reputation and the
sanctity of the United States of America.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
We just chose not too. We took another route. So
let's talk about that. Because there's so many people in
this country who desperately want their electeds to stand up
for democracy, and there are so few Democrats who are
actually doing it. Why is that?
Speaker 3 (36:10):
You know? I can't speak for anybody else, but I
will say to those Democrats that have not stood up
more strongly, I think we're going to have a limited
period of time where we can still do this. And
at some point we're going to see the insurrection actor invoked,
which I think is probably going to happen sooner rather
than later, and we're going to see armed military personnel
(36:33):
and National Guards troops in the streets, and we are
going to see the complete erosion of the federal government,
whether it's you know, the Security Administration, the Department of
Health and Human Services, you know, the list goes on
or on.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
What do you do?
Speaker 3 (36:49):
Then, Well, what I think is is this, and this
is what I've been promoting, is that the only real
way I think that we have a chance at salvaging
the country that we've all grown up to know and
love is to be as bold as possible in fighting back.
To let us let our neighbors, our friends, you know,
(37:10):
our co workers, our families understand exactly how bad these
policies are and to not be shy about it. And
for those of us who have some supporters in their
family to really take the time instead of just avoiding
the Papa ball together, take the time to make them
understand what it means when we lose social security, what
it means when the CDC shuts down, and now it's
(37:31):
impossible to fight the next to bola or bird flu,
these erratic tariffs, and what that's going to mean for
our savings and our ability to afford basic necessities of life.
To have those conversations, but to make people understand why
we are out there peacefully and lawfully protesting the government,
and candidly for people to talk to their family members
(37:55):
and their friends that they know who are in active
military service or who do serve in our state's national guards,
and so that when we are out in the streets,
and studys have shown it only takes three point five
percent of a nation's population to peacefully fight back in
order to stop a country that is sliding very quickly
(38:18):
from a democracy into an autocratic regime. You know, on
April fifth, we got like five and a half million
people out there to do it. It only take maybe
twelve million people in the United States to come out
till I think we'll see maybe Congress will finally start
to take back their authority, understanding that they have the
(38:39):
legal right and opportunity, and I would argue the obligation
to actually start taking back their power, and they would
win in the courts if they challenged it. And there
needs to be the threats by Congress against a president
that you will face impeachment if you don't work with us.
And here's the thing that I find to be so
(39:00):
insane about it is, if you look at all the
most important pieces of legislation that have had long time
impact on our country. And whether it's the you know,
the ACA under Obama, or the Civil Rights Act or
Voting Rights Actor or LBJ or even more recently, you know,
the Inflation Reduction Actor and the Infrastructure Act by Biden.
(39:23):
Could you imagine if any of them tried to do
that by executive fiat, by signing an executive order instead
of negotiating with Congress. So Congress, take back your power
that again Article one, the very first article of the
Constitution that was provided to you, and make sure the
president knows that if he does not abide by that,
(39:44):
then Congress is going to go to the courts for
the certain when on a number of different issues that
you know, the state ags have had to file on
in many other parties. But for civilians, in terms of
what they can do, they can go out to these
rallies and again not be violent, not be aggressive, not
just quite law enforcement, because law enforcement they need to
(40:07):
understand this too. Many of them are going to lose
their job. And for members of the military, they need
to look at how this administration has treated veterans and say,
you know, don't shoot your grandma in the face. For
this guy. I mean, it's not worth it.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Yeah, yeah, don't treat your grandma in the face for
this guy. That's pretty disturbing. So you think we're going
to need to get to this trades.
Speaker 3 (40:31):
I think it's going to be one of the most
important things that we can do, if for no other reason,
to send the message to Congress that we're not okay
with this and that as as Americans, we are going
to fight again, lawfully and peacefully for all the rights
that we cherish in this country and where we are
(40:53):
not okay with becoming an oligarchy or a regime that
is anything other than a democracy.
Speaker 1 (41:01):
It is good news. So and you tell me if
you think this is true that the tariffs have really
had an effect. People understand that the Emperor has no clothes,
true or falls?
Speaker 3 (41:15):
Yes, and no, I would say, I think because Trump
keeps rolling things back so quickly. You know, it's always
on the cusp of doing something, and now there's a
nine a day repriet and now there's an exemption you
know for this product or that product or the others.
So I think it's left for people really confused, and
some of the things that I think would be most
hard hitting. It's not clear that it's making an impact yet,
(41:38):
but I do think that people see the mass chaos
and disorganization is being bad, and certainly the stock market
has suggested that. So a lot of people have lost
their fur. One ks are a substantial portion of it.
But then again that everybody has a qoro one k.
So I think there are still a lot of Trump
supporters out there that haven't been fully impacted by it,
(41:58):
but they will. It's only a matter of time.
Speaker 1 (42:02):
But you don't need all the Trump supporters, you just
need some, right there are some Trumpers who will never
ever ever leave him. You know.
Speaker 3 (42:13):
If I could use this as an example, I've been
going all around the state of Michigan and talking to
different stakeholders. And I went to southwest Michigan last week
and I talked to a group of farmers out there,
and many of them had their grants or their contracts
with the federal government terminated. Some of them were USAID contracts,
(42:35):
some of them were suppliers to the food banks, some
of them were with USDA, and there were many others.
And so I said to them, I go, what are
you going to do? I mean, you planted crops, you
purchase supplies, you hired workers, all in anticipation that the
government would keep their end of the deal. Because at
the end of the day, a lot of this is
(42:56):
just basic contract law. Like if this was a vendor.
If this was you know, a company that you did
business with and they just all of a sudden ghosted
you one day, it'd be pretty mad and you wouldn't
do business with them again, and you would probably sue
them in court.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
But I had this farmer say to me.
Speaker 3 (43:12):
He's like, well, yeah, this has been paused, but what's
to say that's not going to start up again? I said,
how did you How did you find out about it?
I go, did the Trump administration or somebody from us DA?
Did they call you? No?
Speaker 1 (43:25):
Did they email you?
Speaker 3 (43:27):
No? Was there any form of communication at all before
you went to the bank and you saw that you
didn't get paid? Like, did they even tell you about it?
Speaker 1 (43:37):
And he said no.
Speaker 3 (43:39):
I go, well, does that sound like a good fad
actor that's probably eventually going to start paying you again,
or does it seem like somebody who doesn't care at
all about the fact that you were literally on the
cusp of losing your seventh generation family farm and he
got kind of quiet after that. And you know, I
think it's coming to terms with the fact that somebody
that you supported, maybe you went to rallies to support him,
(44:01):
maybe you invested in a you know, make America Great
Again hat that was made in China. Now you get
to deal with the fact that this guy's not who
you thought he was. And I think it's hard for
some people to come to grips with that. But my
hope is that enough of those folks will say, yeah,
you know, this isn't what we signed up for. This
is not him keeping his end of the deal for me,
(44:24):
for my family, from my community, from my state, for
my country.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Dana Nassau, thank you, thank you, thank you for joining us.
Thank you for having.
Speaker 2 (44:33):
Me no moment perfectly Jesse Cannon, Somali. Despite Trump's attempts
to fire many, many, many, many federal workers, along with
thoss A, judges blocked them from laying off ninety percent
of the CFPB.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
This keeps happening, right, Trump keeps losing in court. You
know why, because they're trying to do leave legal stuff.
That is why he keeps losing in court. If you
are Harvard or Columbia or any of those places. You
(45:12):
can see that this doesn't work, So just ignore them.
Just keep going fighting in court. Like I think about Maine, right,
the governor in Maine, Janet Miles. You'll remember she was
the one who was like, I'll see you in court. Well,
that governor, you know, she keeps winning in court too, right,
(45:33):
So don't fucking let this administration bully you. They keep losing.
It just keeps working out that way. None of this
is legal, or much of it is not legal. Just
keep fighting back. Do not let them do this stuff.
It's not legal and they won't get away with it.
So a little bit of what they're doing to the
(45:56):
federal government, these state governments can do back. That's it
for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday,
and Saturday to hear the best minds and politics make
sense of all this chaos. If you enjoy this podcast,
(46:16):
please send it to a friend and keep the conversation going.
Thanks for listening.
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.