May 14, 2025 • 49 mins
Talking Feds’ Harry Litman weighs how Trump’s corruption in broad daylight can be litigated in the courts.
Run For Something’s Amanda Litman details her new book When We're in Charge: The Next Generation’s Guide to Leadership.
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 how's GOP unveils a plan to
raise the debt limit by four trillion dollars. You'll remember
that's the party that pretends to care about financial responsibility.
(00:20):
We have such a great show for you today, talking
Fed's own Harry Lippman stops by to talk about how
Trump's corruption in broad daylight can be litigated in the courts.
Then we'll talk to Run for Something's own Amanda Lippman
about her new book, When We're in Charge, the Next
Generation's Guide to Leadership. But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
So Molly, Jake Tapper, and Alex Thompson have this book.
Everybody's touting is going to be all the rage of
gossip through the whole early summer about how President Biden
had no idea where he was and that he's out
to watch. So the first excerpt from it has come
out and it's not feeling that exciting. Right.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Look, the right really wants there to be a conspiracy here,
that there was some kind of setup, and the reality is,
and we've talked about this on podcasts before, and we're
going to talk about it again, and we may end
up talking about it again and again and again. Getting
old is not a conspiracy being an old guy. Again.
When you read John Allen and Amy's book about Biden's election,
(01:25):
you see that he had gone to Europe twice and
then he had come and done this debate and had
been a disaster. This is the old guy. Being old
is not a conspiracy. And I'm going to point to
a man called Donald Trump, who is now the oldest
president ever, who twice today wandered off after giving a talk. Right,
(01:47):
Trump gave a little talk and then forgot to sign
the executive order he was going to sign, so they
had to bring him back. And there was another time
when he did something similar to too old to hold elected office.
Now is it a conspiracy? No? Is it a conspiracy
in the fact that American politics is Democrats are too
(02:08):
polite and they let people stay too long, and they
don't I mean, everything I've read so far, and i
haven't read the book, but I've just read excerpts of
it shows people who are too polite to tell Biden
the truth. Is that a conspiracy? It's a conspiracy in
the fact that it is just infuriating to me, Right,
I find that infuriating. But what the right desperately wants
(02:30):
is some kind of cabal that kept Biden in charge
as opposed to a more likely scenario. And again I
wasn't there, so I don't really know, but my guess
is a more likely scenario of polite people trying not
to upset someone, which in itself is infuriating. Right. I
almost would rather have a secret cabal of people trying
(02:51):
to keep them in power, because at least it would
show a kind of intentionality which I do not think
is there. I just want you to realize this story
is being used by the Right as a way of
maligning Democrats, and I just think that should be something
you think about when you think about this story, is
(03:11):
what is the purpose of this, Why is this out there?
And what is the play? And that I think is
something that you should think about very strongly when you
read this book. And look, I just don't think I
wish the Democratic Party were capable of doing such high
level operating, because then none of us would be in
(03:32):
this situation. But they're not, and that's why we're here.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Solid point speaking of not the best strategizing and things
not really going well. Representative shre Thnadar today introduced impeachment
of Trump into the.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
House, right.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
This is why it is a group that can't shoot straight.
And that's what we're talking about here. So there's no
numbers to impeach Trump. They don't Democrats don't have the votes.
It is absolutebolutely insane. It's just crazy. Right, This is
what it is. There are are members of the House,
they want to do something, and they're right to want
(04:10):
to do something, and we want them to do something.
But since there aren't the votes for impeachment, what will
happen if you start the clock on this is it's
just going to fail and it's going to help Trump.
And again, talking to Harry Litman, you're going to hear
this on the podcast. We're talking about this. And I
actually wonder. I have a theory I've concocted which I
think may actually be right, which is that focus on
(04:32):
the illegality around Trump because that is often more blatant.
And there's a reason that Rudy Giuliani is in the
place he is right now and everyone else around Trump. Right,
Michael Cohen went to jail. All of this happened because
the people around Trump are doing similarly illegal things. Anyway,
(04:52):
the point of this is that this is not the
moment for impeachment proceedings. Moment for impeachment proceedings is, hopefully
when if Democrats win the House, and when and if
Donald Trump does something that is actively impeachable, which I'm
sure you will, because let's be honest, it's not safe.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Bet if I've ever taken with Yeah. So, in addition
to all this debt raising in the GOP budget, we
also have Medicaid work requirements, which is a cursed phrase
I hope to never say. But what are you see
in here?
Speaker 1 (05:23):
So here's the deal. Republicans need to cut eight hundred
and eighty billion dollars in Medicaid. And they don't need to.
They want to. They want to do it why so
that they can keep these tax cuts for very rich people,
perhaps pass more tax cuts and make it look like
it makes financial sense. It is very hard to cut
(05:43):
eight hundred and eighty billion dollars for Medicaid. Again, do
I think the tax cuts. I think they should let
the tax cuts expire. I think the tax cuts. I
think it's really disgusting. I think that they should raise
taxes on very wealthy people. It's just my take. By
the way, my favorite thing. Last week, Donald Trump pretended
that he wanted to raise taxes on people who make
(06:04):
over two and a half million dollars a year, a
group that can heartily and absolutely afford to pay more taxes,
and then he was like, no, it would be bad.
Then Democrats can say, read my lips new to taxes.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
No.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
The truth is he can't do it because the people
who put him in office are like, you're not going
to fucking raise my taxes. We put you in here
to not raise our taxes. So look, I think that
when Democrats get back into power, prayer hands, that that happens.
They must create a bracket for people who make over
two point five million dollars a year. That is like
not even a question. That should absolutely happen one hundred percent.
(06:38):
And the fact that that was even floated at all
in a Republican administration means that Democrats must do it asap.
Hard to find eight hundred and eighty billion in medicaid,
they're going to try low hanging fruit, which is like
work requirements and this and that. Look, they're not going
to get there from here. Okay's those are big cuts.
(07:00):
By the way, they can get that money from the
Department of Defense, which will now be spending one trillion dollar.
The Department of Defense budget is going up. Okay, so
more money for Pete hegsath and it just the whole
thing is completely FORGOCTA. Again. The only good part of
(07:22):
this story is that it will be bad for red states,
which will be bad for elected Republicans. I don't want
anyone to suffer. I don't want red state voters to suffer.
I don't want blue state voters to suffer. But I
do think there is a particular irony and the fact
that a lot of these people who will be kicked
(07:43):
off healthcare, and if they do this, we will see
the number of people with health insurance down by more
than eight million by twenty three four.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
So, Mali, the latest state of play if the Trump
administration versus the courts is now is a lot of
veiled threats, And by veiled, I mean there's probably a
lot of rips in the veil. Are Stephen Miller basically
threatening the court what he talked about getting rid of
habeas Corpus last week, and now we have Trump basically
trying to bully them as well.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
So the Trump administration keeps losing in court, and they
keep losing in court because they want to do illegal stuff. Okay,
they keep losing in court because the illegal frameworks they're
trying to use are wartime frameworks. We are not at war,
we are not even in some kind of cold war.
(08:33):
There's nothing. There's only Trende Aarragua, which is a Venezuelan
gang that literally no one had heard of before twenty
twenty four when Donald Trump read about conspiracies that they
had taken over a apartment building in Aurora, Colorado. You
remember that from season two? I sure do. Yeah, So
(08:55):
this is a gang that is Venezuelan. It's not that
many people all Donald Trump has decided it's the major
danger to American life. It is not. This is a
fucking bullship premise yet again to try and get people
to get the judiciary to sign off on some of
(09:17):
Trump's dumb stuff. And I think that it's important to
remember that Trump has really as much as the Supreme
Court is installed by him, filled with conservatives who align
with him, he has squandered a lot of their good
will through attacking them and through just these very stupid cases.
The reason that they're looking at the birthright citizenship case,
(09:39):
and again you can say they're playing three dimensional chess,
and maybe it's true. Maybe they're doing it to shoot
it down to show they're not complete craven sycophans to Trump.
But either way, the birthright citizenship case, they're not going
to take away birthright citizenship. I mean, that's just I
don't think that's how this is going to go. So
(10:00):
he has really kind of squandered what lot of positive
feeling there was towards him. We're going to see just
more Trump attacks on the courts. And the reason only
Trump is attacking the courts, and I think this is
really important to remember, is because this is the only
checks and balance that's checking him. Right. The Congress has
rolled over and played dead. They're not interested. The Republicans
(10:21):
are too scared, the Democrats are not in the majority,
and a little bit too disorganized. So there are a
few who are really doing a good job. This is
what we're going to do here. They're going to try
look some of these lines. I want you to just
I'm going to reach you a line about Republicans wanting
work requirements. And you tell me if you don't see
where this is going.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Okay, okay, okay, show me, miss clear, show me the future.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Right exactly, Washington can't afford to undermine the program Medicaid
further by subsidizing capable adults who choose now to work.
You can tell that's the best they could think of
for this. So look, and Josh Hall everyone's favorite.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Oh, definitely mine.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
But here's the thing, Josh Holly, Okay, this guy is
a super big Republican, very sort of read in on
the world of Republican politics. His wife argues him friend
the Supreme Court. He says, slashes to the safety net
would be morally wrong and politically suicide. Harry Litman is
(11:31):
a former US attorney and the host of the podcast
Talking Feds. Oh Yes, Oh yes, oh yes.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
It is the latest Molly mashup Talking Feds and Molly
Jong Fast for Fast Politics, where I pose her political
questions and she retorts with legal ones. But today I
want to start not exactly either, because Mollie John Fast
is everyone in America I to know, has a new
book coming out in next month. You want to take
(12:00):
a moment to explain a little bit about that. First
of all, congratulations a new book. Wow. Second, let's hear
about it.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
So I wrote a book called How to Lose Your Mother.
It's a book about the worst year of my life
and how I got through it. And I wrote it
because I wanted people to be able to live through
something that feels unlivable and get through it. And that
is why I wrote the book. And hopefully people will
like it. The early reviews are very good, but who knows.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
Yeah, I mean a lot of it is about family dynamics.
But I'll just say to people who don't know, which
may be nobody, both your mom and your grandfather, you're
really from a writer's family. And that's a big part
of the backdrop here. What do you got?
Speaker 1 (12:46):
So much of this seems as non as a non
lawyer to be illegal. Trump has this The Supreme Court
has basically given him a broad, sweeping immunity to do
crimes or whatever, things like the cryptocoin the taking the
four hundred million dollar plane from the Qataris what is
(13:07):
illegal here and what is not illegal? And what is
the recourse?
Speaker 4 (13:12):
Yeah, that's the big question, the last one, and it
is crimes or whatever. So he is a walking Emolument's
clause violation. He wasn't his first term, but that was
chump change all the stuff with his hotels, four hundred
million dollar palace in the sky as they call it.
That's some serious, groundbreaking historic emolument clause violation right there
(13:33):
in the Constitution. So much of what he's doing, Mollie,
if you had to give a broader theme to it,
is just completely eviscerating any role of Congress to decide things.
And we're in the Constitution. It says in black and white.
Is that in parchment paper that it's got to go
through Congress, for example, the Emolument's clause, Then it's as
illegal as can be. You put your finger on it.
(13:56):
Though when you talk about remedy, because at least there
if we want to stick with plane, it's patent that.
What the Framers had in mind is Congress should decide
we don't want some big national political debate, will use
Congress to make the judgment is this fair game or not?
You know, Lincoln wanted this fancy elephant. They said, no
Obama to turn down the million bucks for the Nobel Preprize.
(14:19):
What Trump has to do and is not doing it
is patently illegal. Is serve this up to Congress and
says right there in the Constitution and in general, there's
many things he's violating. And I think you're right. The
court has given him a free pass on crimes, but
that doesn't mean a free pass on illegalities. For instance,
(14:40):
in immigration the interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, but
this one totally illegal. But what's designed as a congressional
remedy you do have. In fact, let me turn this
back on you, though it wasn't my thought, I do
think here you have cruised this morning saying I don't
know man Katar Saudierra, Yeah, you have certain what you need.
(15:03):
The Martin nomination just went down. He starts with a
pretty close margin, and it does seem like maybe there's
this much daylight beginning to form between him and the Senate,
him and the Congress. What do you think about that
at the political level, which my final answer to you
is so much of it rests with Congress, and they've
(15:24):
made it clear to date they're not going to do anything.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
So I actually interviewed Tammy Baldwin and she said there
are Republican senators who believe in the power of the Senate.
So what has to happen here, I think is that
Democrats have to win back the House. Number one. We
have to protect our elections, and Democrats have to win
back to the House. I think Trump is now a monarch.
(15:48):
I don't think he can be charged with anything. I
don't think. I think that's a fool's errand, but I
do think people like Stephen Miller and people like you
think about the people around Trump who are doing things
that are illegal. Maybe Stephen Miller know, but certainly there
are people who are violating. I'm thinking about Pam Bondy.
(16:13):
She got one hundred and fifteen thousand dollars a month
from the Katari government as a lobbyist. So are there
emails between her and the Qatari is is it on
her private email or her public email? Does it look
like extoration, you.
Speaker 4 (16:30):
Know, or at least a quid pro quo, which I
think both politically and legal, that would be a real inchpin, right. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
I have to wonder if some of the mistake of
Trump one point zero was that maybe instead of going
after Trump, they should have gone after every single person
around him. Because going after Trump was seen. I don't
think it was true because the guy did all these
things that were illegal, but it was seen as political,
(16:57):
whereas going there's clearly she has encouraged a certain lawlessness
that well, he can't be torched with it. The people
around him can. And I think that supply gotcha.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
It's a really interesting point because like the big indictment
by Smith, he made a point of Trump only I
think for speed. But you're certainly right, everyone you know
meadows on that has gotten a walk.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
And you also see when you look at like the
Rudy case or the Rogerstone, the people around Trump tend
to do stuff that's really not okay.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
All right, you're turned.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I wonder sort of when you think about the DOJ,
the Republicans. There's a lot of stuff they're doing at
the DJ right now, which is they're stopping prosecuting some
white collar crime because they want to be focused on
the border. There's not a huge amount of stuff going
on at the border right it's the numbers are down
to the lowest they've been a long time. Is there
(17:55):
any way to get the DJ to do its job
and not to nor crimes.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
I think the short answer to that is no, and
I'm overall seguin about our endgame here, which we can
talk about if you want to. But I think the
DJ is beyond repair, beyond reclamation. This is from talking
to people in there. It's like a post apocalyptic zone
with a few zombies kind of wandering around dazed and confused.
(18:23):
They have really brought the hammer down. People who haven't
done the kinds of cases they want or are being fired.
That's sort of unheard of. Everyone is being it's coming home,
right ed Martin just turned down. But meet the new boss,
same as the old boss. You're going to have someone
who is just as much takes this view that's just
(18:45):
like against It's not a little off, it's against DOJ
you know, Bone Marrow, DNA, that they are the president's
lawyers and not the constitution and rule of law. Lawyers
hold hartments are being eliminated, civil rights, voting sections, public integrity.
(19:06):
Just today we learned about a really important prosecutorial entity
that you had them in every office for organized crime
and drug stuff. So I think everyone's keeping their head down.
Everyone's scared to talk. People are trying to figure out
is this a good time to go on in the market,
which is actually saturated with other DOJ types, Bondie and
(19:31):
Bovart disasters, who you know lie daily about the supposed
politicization of prosecutions under the old regime and they're doing nothing.
But here, I think inside the place, it's a real
disaster zone included, but also outside because judges maybe juries.
(19:52):
We don't know yet, But it used to mean so
much to you. It's so much of a tailwind when
you stood up Molly John Fast for the United States,
and that's really be eroded. In general. I think the
calculations I make with the DOJ is will it ever
be the same? How long intel norms norms, for example
involving the White House, you know, politicizing things and telling
(20:13):
them what to do. How long will it ever be
right again? But I think of it as basically a
wasteland as long as you know Trumps president in BONDI
is ag. I'm not monolithically pessimistic across the board, but
DOJ is just fucked, I'm sorry to say.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
But can the other states do stuff to hold them
in check? Because California, Yeah, talk to me about like
con democratic ags sue the DOJ. I mean, is there
a world where that happened.
Speaker 4 (20:45):
You know, it's funny. So the different one, we were
just talking about a monument's clause and there was a
big lawsuit by state ags before saying when you take
the when you do these violations, it has I think
you put your finger on it. And your listeners probably
know about this stuff. Everyone's taking a crash course and
a low as they're standing. The short answer is some
courts will say yes, some courts will say no, and
(21:08):
there is ability by and large I think of the
sanctuary movements and stuff for the states to assert themselves,
for the states to actually regulate. DOJ say hey, wait
a second, that's against the law, you can't do that,
or even I want this case not UFBI. The play
is really narrow. I think federal law enforcement is not
(21:29):
doing bad stuff, but not doing good stuff basically for
as long as as Trump is around. So look, that's
part of the solution. State if everything goes awry, if
the court lets them go, if Congress stays supine, is
state in federal power. But really it's you know, popular
discontent and unrest. And you know you've pointed out, actually
(21:51):
let me let me turn things now, because your recent
Vandy fair article is about Americans turning against Trump somewhat,
and that's the true. Let me just say, not even
as a partisan, but as an objective commentator, they don't
seem to be turning toward, you know, Democrats, or they're
they're turning away from doesn't seem to augur a real
(22:14):
you mentioned can the can the Dems take the House?
That seems pretty pretty uphill battle. What's your thought about A,
why the losses for Trump are not don't seem to
be true? Well, A, if it's true, and B, if so,
why the losses for Trump, he's now at the lowest
of anyone after this amount of time of president since
(22:36):
they've been doing polling, are not translating into commensurate or
anything like commensurate gains for Dems.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
I think Democrats can win back the House. I think
what happened in in Wisconsin with that judicial election is
pretty clear case that the Republican brand is not good.
By the way, you know whose brand is the only
person who was really a much worse brand than Trump
is our friend Elon mush who really I mean, if
(23:06):
you look at that, if you go in and look
at those exit poles, like only five percent of voters
were more likely to vote for the Republican because of
the Elon endorsement. I mean, completely crazy, and that was
a very expensive race. So I think Democrats can win
back the House. I think the reason the brand is
(23:26):
in the Crapper is because I'll give you the sort
of the reasons. People are mad, right, they are not happy.
They do not feel good about the twenty twenty four cycle. Yeah,
I think on the Democratic side they feel I mean
I ask them all the time, and from what I
understand this is they feel angry that Democrats are not
(23:49):
doing more. Though really, what can they do? Right? They
have a mic, they have a sort of they can
draw attention to things, but they can't necessarily, you know,
they can't hold rooms, they can't really move things. They
can't legislate, they can't do this, they can't do that.
But what they can do is they can you know,
(24:09):
do things like the Philibuster. Like people loved that Booker Philibuster.
Millions of people loved it. So the question is do
they love Corey Booker's very centrist policies. Maybe not. I mean,
like all of these Democrats, I mean, if you think
about the if you ask people who are in the party,
(24:31):
what they who they like. They'll say AOC Bernie Chris Murphy,
Corey Booker, Jasmine Crockett. Here are five people who have
almost no you know, their Centrists, their leftists, they're socialists.
There's no unifying governing principle except another one Pritzker is
(24:52):
they are team fight. So team fight people like, and
team cave people don't like. So I would say, if
you're going to fight, I think there's a place for
you in the Democratic Party. If you're going to cave
and that and interesting like there are a bunch of
senators who are retiring on the Democratic side, like Gary Peters,
(25:14):
people who maybe in a normal democracy you could have
the temperament for the Senate. But if Trump leaves office
when his term is up, which is a real if
if he does, there will be a reconstruction of American democracy,
which will be loud and painful and really a lot
(25:36):
of people screaming at each other at best and best
and the people who are on the Democratic side and
on the Republican side, but on the Democratic side are
going to need to really have a spine.
Speaker 4 (25:49):
Yeah, that's a great point and sort of what I
was thinking about DOJ, I'm overall sanguine, but man, oh man,
the cleaning of the stables after it's going to be
rough hurriculean.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
My question is what are people doing in the Trump
DJ right now that is illegal?
Speaker 4 (26:05):
Okay, So it's a really good question because first you
got to think about abnormal. When I hear about certain things,
my head goes three sixty degrees. But it's not technically
speaking illegal for the White House to do certain things.
I think they are violating the nineteen seventy eight Civil
(26:26):
Service reformat right and left. They're firing people. Tell you
can't do that. You've got they get certain due process.
They're doing things specifically in violation. You could either say
the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment because people take certain positions,
righteous positions, you know, the Adams prosecution, whatever, and they're
(26:48):
getting fired for that. The big thing they're doing mind
very effectively, but you know, will there be remedies? Is
hollowing out the department all that sort of knowledge of
the place. The way it works is there are anywhere
sort of handful of people, You come to them, you
work through them together. They're all gone, they've been demoted
(27:12):
to you know, asset forfeiture in Kentucky or whatever, and
the culture of the place that's been so comprehensively denuded
and is so making it ineffective. Then I think there
are some flat out violations of lawn in general. You know,
(27:32):
I'm a fraud lawyer, and when you lie about stuff
and make a scheme, this is what Trump was charged
with before he had immunity. That can be a crime,
and a vigorous Department of Justice will never see it
will never happen even later, would construct certain things that
Bove is doing and Bondie is doing, because all they're
trying to do is serve his political interests, which do
(27:54):
not coincide with the law. But the bigger stuff, I mean, look,
there's an overall less and a bitter lesson of the
last few months or even you could say last eight years,
which is that at the end of the day, the
government runs on norms, good faith, integrity, ways of doing
things that people have different views accept and it's really
(28:16):
that that they've totally raised and so the impact is terrible.
And then in addition, I could maybe make some US
versus Bondie arguments, US versus bov argument but the real
terrible damage is sort of at the cultural functional level.
All right, I want to throw you a it's not
it won't be a curveball for you, but a curveball
in our conversation because I just had a long talk
(28:38):
with Jonathan height t you may know from NYU, and
his big spiel is how terrible social media has been
for younger voters and what a disaster it is for
younger generation. And you on the on your on the
Zdeo podcast, you really the hardest working woman in podcastree,
(28:58):
I must say try and said the fundamental problem with
Democrats among the older generation is they can't get online,
which is kind of the very opposite of his diagnosis,
at least for younger Dems. So I thought that was
pretty interesting and I wanted to ask you to splash
that out a little.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
The problem is communication, right, Nobody will argue, maybe they won't,
but they're wrong. Joe Biden passed a lot of legislation,
really good legislation right on shoring manufacturing, chips and sciences,
the thing that Donald Trump just did a whole fuck
up about right on shoring manufacturing. Biden actually passed something
(29:38):
that would have and has to some extent, got semiconductor
chips going in the United States making semiconductor chips. This
is seismic stuff. The reason why Biden was unpopular was
inflation and an inability to transmit what he was doing.
Nobody knew. In fact, you know, there's these Google searches
(30:02):
of election Day where people went on their computer to
see who was running for president because they thought Biden
was still running for president. So this is a big
fucking problem. And it comes from the supposition that politics
runs downstream of culture. This is a Andrew Breitbart ism.
Andrew Breitbart, right wing lunatic died. That guy said politics
(30:27):
runs downstream of culture. And what Donald Trump did was
he got into the bloodstream of the culture, and so
he won the presidency. What Democrats have done studiously is
completely stay outside of the culture. And they've done it,
I think because they're being advised by people who are
terrified of their own shadows. So this is why sometimes
(30:51):
you will have a elected who you'll get on your
podcast and you'll ask them a question and they'll say
ameer Ca because it's Emera and it's c and you'll
think this doesn't make any sense, and what the fuck
are they doing You've had those elected, and that is
the consultant class getting in their brains, making them think
(31:14):
that saying nothing is better than saying something. And the
reality is the more democrats say nothing, the more they
open the door to a Donald Trump to another Donald
Trump to And that is how we got here, and
that is the only way to get out of it
is to have people who run for office, who say
(31:34):
English words and are real people and say things like
this is what I'm gonna do and this is what
I'm not going to do, and really let you in
or at least pretend to enough. Anyway.
Speaker 4 (31:46):
Thank you, Always good and always fun talking to you, Molly.
Good luck with the book and see you next month.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Thank you. Amanda Littman is the co founder of Run
for Something and the author of the new book When
We're in che The Next Generation's Guide to Leadership. Welcome
to Fast Politics, Amanda Litman, Thanks Molly.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
Always delighted to chat.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
Let's talk about this book, tell us everything.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
So the book is called When We're in Charge. It's
out this week. It is the Next Generation's Guide to Leadership.
And I would say the like one sentence summary is
it's how to be an effective leader in this moment
without being an asshole to the people you lead.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
Ooh, so what does that look like?
Speaker 3 (32:26):
It looks like what does it really mean to be
authentic in a way that is not about ego but
about serving your team and how you can show up
for them. It's about transparency, It's about work life balance.
It's about being like a better parent as part of
your work, and how you can think about your caregiving responsibilities.
It's about your career and ambition. I really I heard
(32:47):
someone describe it as like unlike any other business book
you've ever read, in a good way. And I like
that summary.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
Right now as actually reading an article you were quoted
in today in The Atlantic about these retirements and that
they're actually kind of a good sign. So talk us
through why you think that. So.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
I think it is a good thing that we have
older democratic leaders retiring. I think they open up space
and competitive primaries where the party can really decide what
we believe. I think we get to celebrate these leaders'
legacies in a way that I think is good for them.
When they retire. They get to go out the front door,
as I like to describe it, get to like to
find their legacy really be celebrated. If they stayed in,
(33:30):
almost certainly all of them would be getting challenged, and
then they would have to get into a really nasty
campaign that would often center about their personal failings. I
don't think that would be fun for anyone. So I'm
glad to see folks like you know, Gary Peters, Tina Smith,
Dick Durbin, and others step aside because it means we
get to really like, look at them as patriots. Is
(33:51):
putting public service above their egos.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Yeah, I think that's right. Trump Is polling is bad,
but so we're Democrats, right, their polling is also bad.
It seems as if it's largely cave versus fight, not
an ideological hostility. The voters are having more of a
they don't feel like their people are doing enough for them.
What do you think? I mean? I've asked a lot
(34:15):
of elected what they could be doing more of. You
are pretty versed in all of this, So what do
you think they should be doing more of?
Speaker 3 (34:22):
I think there are things like not confirming any of
Trump's nominees through the Senate.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
So talk us through how that would work.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Well, I am not an insider when it comes to
Senate procedure, but it was for what I have read,
there are mechanics procedural moves in which they need Democrats
to vote to approve many of these nominees for things
like the Justice Department, some of the judges they want
to move through other Senate confirmed positions. Democrats just don't
have to give them the votes that we can put
(34:49):
sand in the gears in a way that at the
very least slows it down because floor time is one
of the only resources they cannot get back at some
point they have to close out the session. So if
we can grind the gears down to a halt, even
if we can't ultimately stop some of the harm they're doing,
you know, that makes a difference.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Do you think it would have been a good idea
to shut down the government?
Speaker 3 (35:11):
I think it's hard to say. I think it would
have been a good idea if we knew we were
going to vote to keep the government open to have
gotten something for that, But that's what I and you have,
like extracted any kind of pound of flush in exchange
for it. The problem was that Schumer put up a
strong posture up until the day of and then was like, oh,
just kidding. Here you go, you get my vote, you
got a couple others, godspeed, at least get something for it.
(35:32):
My dude.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
It feels like Democrats are still not quite hard enough
on Republicans. So we have Chris Murphy has been out
there just a ton, which I think has been really good.
And then we had Corey Booker do this filibuster which
was pretty epic. But a lot of Democratic senators we
just haven't seen out there. Am I missing anyone? I mean,
(35:56):
obviously in the House we've had AOC, We've had Bernie Rocket,
Maxwell Frost, But what would you like to see Demko
sort of what's your dream to see? You know, if
you could say to Reuben Diego, who's a guy with
a lot of ambition, like what I'd like to be
seeing you doing?
Speaker 3 (36:12):
Or you know, I think actually Chris van Holland modeled
something good here where he has like used his physical
presence to push the needle, like going down to El
Salvador demanding a meeting with a Brago, like putting out
photos and explaining how the photos that they put out
were propaganda.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Like that's good.
Speaker 3 (36:30):
More of that, I would say we had in Worcestern Massachusetts.
One of the city council members there, whose name I'm
going to butcher because I've only ever read it and
never said it. So comes a woman adal A Jaj
I think who has a run for something, alum who
literally put her body in front of ice trying to
detain a young woman and her child, Like, put your
(36:52):
body on the line, make it, make a spectacle. Spectacle
is good. Spectacle gets attention, Attention gets reached, reach gets
votes ultimately eventually.
Speaker 1 (37:00):
Yeah, that's a really good point. What I think is interesting.
So for example, Trump is wants to get this plane
from the Qatari royal family. It's a four hundred MILANDAR plane.
There are a number of reasons why Trump shouldn't have
his plane, right from the emolument's cause to the national
security problems.
Speaker 3 (37:19):
Going to be chock full a spyware. What do we
do when there.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
At every point this is an insane idea. It's so
insane that Cynthia Lumis when asked about it, burst out laughing. Okay,
Cynthia lumis pretty trumpy, burst out laughing. So question is here,
what can Democrats do? Like is there a legislative push,
Like what can Democrats do here can they get hearings going?
(37:46):
I mean, what can what's the play?
Speaker 3 (37:48):
I think, drawing as much media attention to it as possible.
I know I was talking without this so so and
is sort of like divorced from politics yesterday last night,
and they were trying to explain to me, like it
feels so obviously corrupt that it can't be true. It's
almost ludicrous, like, of course, you can't take a four
hundred million dollars million dollar plane on a foreign government
that you can then keep after it. That's that's like
so quid pro quo corruption that it feels ludicrous. But
(38:10):
I think for most people that are like, well, it
can't happen, but we got to keep just calling attention
to it, Like I want to see members of Congress
standing in front of clodiums, going in front of town halls,
storming podcasts, talking about how you know, you don't feel
getting feel safe getting on a flight right now because
he fired all those air traffic controllers, he's taken a
four hundred million dollar jet from Qatar. That I mean,
(38:31):
pretty compelling storyline even right now, forget about the corruption,
Like we don't feel safe getting on a plane he's
getting on one funded by the Qatari government.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
So we are coming down the sort of the beginning
of the runway for the midterms is going to be
probably the most consequentrol mid terms of our young lives.
I love that I'm making it sound like we're this image.
What since we're both in our early thirties, what are
you hearing? What are you seeing in Run for Something world?
(39:01):
And what is giving you hope?
Speaker 3 (39:03):
So Run for Something has had more than forty five
thousand people raise their hands to say they want to
run just since the election. That's six months. That's more
than we had in the first three years of Trump's
first term. So huge ways of young people saying I
want to run for office. I eyve even a handful
of them, more than a handful really do get on
the ballot in twenty twenty six, which I expect you
will see. They are going to change what the Democratic
(39:24):
Party looks like, both quite literally, They're going to be
a different kind of Democrat. They're going to communicate differently,
They're going to show up in different communication channels, they're
going to use the Internet differently, and so many of
them are running on things that are really practical to
folks like affordable housing, stopping book bands, spanning health care access,
and also being able to tell the story of how
they've been fired or gotten screwed over by Trump and Elon.
(39:47):
I think it's really personal stories in a way that
drives a good store of the narrative or a good campaign.
I do think housing is going to be the thing
on the local level more so than anything else, because
it is the thing that is directly affecting people's cost
of living, and Trump's going to crash the housing market,
which is already really bad.
Speaker 1 (40:03):
Do you feel like the people you're getting are people
who are angry about the status quo, about what democrats
have done? What does it look like the people who
are coming to you.
Speaker 3 (40:13):
It's definitely a lot of folks who are like, why
are my leaders not fighting for me? Where are the
folks who are like, really going to pay attention to
how this is affecting my life. I am really inspired
by the people who are looking around at the kind
of harassment attention that some elected officials are getting and
saying I'm going to do this anyway, Like I'm going
to be brave enough to change my life and change
(40:35):
my career, think, Oh, we're hearing from a lot of
folks that they are running on representation in kind of
a different way than you might think, Like it's not
just you know, there's no women, there's no people. Call
it all that, like, there's no one who understands what
it's like to be a normal person right now, no
one in this body of government will understands what it's
like to be a renter, who understands what it's like
to have kids in childcare, who understands what it's like
(40:57):
to you know, have your fellow ship gate defunded by
the federal government. It is really sort of like a
lived experience failure on behalf of our elected leaders. And
the finolopiece i'd say is we're getting a lot of
people who are like, I am so angry. Why is
my leadership not as angry as I am. They're making
me feel gas lit, They're making me feel crazy for
(41:20):
being this nad and they shouldn't, like I'm right be pissed.
So I think that's a good thing.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
Ted is a good thing. I want you to say
more about the housing stuff.
Speaker 3 (41:28):
One of the things that runs for something civics, which
is our c three ARM is going to be doing
over the next couple of years. Hopefully is be trying
to get more renters to run for office. Ninety three
percent of elected officials are homeowners. Thirty five percent of
Americans are renters, and that number is going up as
the housing market gets harder and harder to enter. In
some states, the number of rent of homeowners. I think
(41:50):
it's only one state within where homeowners breaks fifty percent.
Among young people, we go under thirty five. It is
so hard right now if you are a twenty or
thirty something to buy a home. Invent is getting more
and more expensive everywhere, urban environments, rural environments, suburban everything
in between. And you know, I am a big believer
in that every story is a housing story, kind of
like you know, New York, every story is a real
(42:10):
estate story. Every story is a housing story. The loneliness
crisis is about housing. Build. The return to office situation
is about housing. Childcare is about housing because if you
can't afford to live where you want to live, you
can't afford to live how you want to live. It's
about autonomy, it's about the American dream. Housing is all
of it. So one of the reasons that we want
to make sure we're getting more renters to run for
(42:31):
office is because we need folks who personally understand how
it feels to be a twenty or thirty something entering
the housing and rent market right now, and two who
come in with a different lived perspective on why we
need to build more housing as homeowners no offense. I
don't know if you own your apartment or when where
you live by like homeowners psychologically don't necessarily want more
(42:51):
housing to get built because it may lower the value
of their home and that's usually where most of their
wealth is. That's a problem because we need to build more.
So I'm really excited about this effort and excited to
keep talking about it. And I think is important to
raise the identity of renter or tenant as part of
your political identity because it changes the way you think
about how you show up at the polls. Who's fighting
(43:12):
for you as a renter.
Speaker 1 (43:14):
That's interesting. There's been a lot of talk about it
is a democratic tea party. It strikes me that Democrats
had a chance to stop a Democratic tea party and
they didn't, and that what they're going to see in
the midterms is going to be the kind of rage
is going to be because they were insufficiently hysterical about
(43:38):
trump Ism, and that had they been a little more
twenty sixteen ish, they wouldn't be losing their jobs the
way they're going to in the midterms. Do you think
that's right, and say more totally. I think that's right.
Speaker 3 (43:50):
I think being an incumbent is such an advantage, Like
it's really hard to unsee an incumbent in a primary
and in a general, but especially in a primary. You
have every possible political connection, you can raise a fuck
ton of money. It's just it's so beneficial that if
you are feeling afraid for your job, if you feel
like a primary challenge is actually threatening you, it's because
(44:11):
you're not doing a good job, Like you have every
possible advantage. If you lose a primary, it's because you
have failed to meet the moment in some meaningful way.
They could have fixed this early on. Now there's candidates
all across the country who have already launched campaigns and
aren't preparing to launch campaigns against incumbents. I think those
will be good because the incumbents that win, great, They're
going to move on to the general, and the ones
(44:31):
that lose weren't doing it doing it right to be
in the first place.
Speaker 1 (44:34):
So when you look at the map right now, in
the twenty twenty six map, I think a lot about
a candidate in Nebraska called Dan Osborne. He rejected the
Democratic moniker. He said he was an independent. He may
run again. Talk us through if you think there's a
future in red states for candidates like that.
Speaker 3 (44:56):
I definitely think that there is an opportunity for candidates
to set themselves apart from the party. There's certainly a
challenge in terms of ballot access and how it works
in any given state of a kind of infrastructure you're
able to access as an independent, but it's so place
and race specific. But I think certainly positioning yourself as
an outsider or a challenger against the party is a
good thing in many places.
Speaker 1 (45:16):
But is there room for a kind of populist wing
of the party. One of the things that Trump was
able to do was he was able to secure white,
non college educated and also some minority voters. I think
it may not be the numbers which were advertised, but
so he got a share of the working class that
(45:37):
Democrats maybe gave away, maybe because they felt they couldn't
promise them things that they wanted. Do you think there's
an opportunity for Democrats to connect with that working class voter?
And if so, what do you think the things they
should be doing are.
Speaker 3 (45:53):
I think it's really messenger specific. I think that there
are candidates who can outperform the top of a ticket
and who data worn to tap of the ticket in
a meaningful way. I also, I'm really curious to see
in twenty twenty six how many of those folks fall
away from the Republican Party when Trump is not on
the ballot. That's not to say I don't think Democrats
shouldn't fight for them, shouldn't make a case for them,
(46:14):
should be present. But you know, Trump is kind of
an anomaly, not in his necessarily his policies, but in
the brand that he has built. You know, the entire
party holds his beliefs at this point, but they don't
always win when they espouse them. And we've seen this
in like the Republican primary process in twenty twenty four.
You know, Ron DeSantis tried to be Trump Junior or
(46:35):
Trump light rather, and it doesn't work because if you
don't have his Chrismon. You don't have his brand, you
can't stick. So I'll be really curious to see, with
Trump never being on the ballot again, which he will
not be, what happens with the Republican Party. Actually, I
don't think we talk enough about that of Trump's a
lame duck while watching his cabinet members sort of position
themselves already. JD. Vance is not going to walk into
(46:55):
that primary without a fight. It could be fun to
watch them eat their own Can.
Speaker 1 (47:00):
You imagine, like JD. Van to v Marco v. DeSantis,
I mean against Christine Nome. Don't forget her little police
barbide Christine Nome. Jesus Christ. It's hard to imagine there's
a clear front runner in that crew.
Speaker 3 (47:16):
No, and I don't think it'll be easy for any
of them because while they're all shameless and bi get
it in their own right, none of them can do
it in the same way that Trump can do.
Speaker 1 (47:26):
Not envy their futures, yeah, h I do not either
a man, and also I don't envy any of our futures. Well,
Amanda Litman, I hope you'll come back.
Speaker 3 (47:38):
I will always come back. Thank you for giving me
a chance to talk politics and also remind me able
to pick up my book, which is now out in
stores when we're in charge wherever you get your books.
Speaker 1 (47:49):
No moment, Jesse Cannon.
Speaker 2 (47:54):
My so, over the weekend Trump enacted price controls for
drugs and I was told during the twenty twenty four
presidential campaign that that was downright communist and comrade Kamala
Harris doing that or Burnie, Oh my god, what are
we thinking? And then now Trump has done it. RFK Junior,
though funny enough, has a theory. What's behind this?
Speaker 1 (48:16):
Yes, tell me more.
Speaker 5 (48:18):
President Trump was taking money from the pharmaceutical industry to
the way they think, you know, one hundred million dollars.
He can't be bought, unlike most of the politicians in
this country, and he is standing here for the American people.
I don't know what you know. There's there's writers like
my Lord Elizabeth Warrener Robert Reichler just saying that President
(48:40):
Trump is on this side of the oligar.
Speaker 1 (48:43):
What of eloquid speaking to see where his head is at?
You know, this is a man who swims in Rock
Creek Park. Damn. I was going to get to that.
Ladies and gentlemen, everyone's favorite. Look, I don't know, maybe
some of that Rock Creek water is true telling serum.
Oh that's a great philosophy.
Speaker 2 (49:03):
Sodium pedothal in the sewage water?
Speaker 1 (49:05):
Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, the best Heliody Impede all in
the sewage order.
Speaker 2 (49:10):
Right, sounds like one of his conspiracy theories. Truth be told.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
Listen, man, it's not surprising, but it is insane, like
everything in this administration. 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, please send
(49:37):
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 how's GOP unveils a plan to
raise the debt limit by four trillion dollars. You'll remember
that's the party that pretends to care about financial responsibility.
(00:20):
We have such a great show for you today, talking
Fed's own Harry Lippman stops by to talk about how
Trump's corruption in broad daylight can be litigated in the courts.
Then we'll talk to Run for Something's own Amanda Lippman
about her new book, When We're in Charge, the Next
Generation's Guide to Leadership. But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
So Molly, Jake Tapper, and Alex Thompson have this book.
Everybody's touting is going to be all the rage of
gossip through the whole early summer about how President Biden
had no idea where he was and that he's out
to watch. So the first excerpt from it has come
out and it's not feeling that exciting. Right.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
Look, the right really wants there to be a conspiracy here,
that there was some kind of setup, and the reality is,
and we've talked about this on podcasts before, and we're
going to talk about it again, and we may end
up talking about it again and again and again. Getting
old is not a conspiracy being an old guy. Again.
When you read John Allen and Amy's book about Biden's election,
(01:25):
you see that he had gone to Europe twice and
then he had come and done this debate and had
been a disaster. This is the old guy. Being old
is not a conspiracy. And I'm going to point to
a man called Donald Trump, who is now the oldest
president ever, who twice today wandered off after giving a talk. Right,
(01:47):
Trump gave a little talk and then forgot to sign
the executive order he was going to sign, so they
had to bring him back. And there was another time
when he did something similar to too old to hold elected office.
Now is it a conspiracy? No? Is it a conspiracy
in the fact that American politics is Democrats are too
(02:08):
polite and they let people stay too long, and they
don't I mean, everything I've read so far, and i
haven't read the book, but I've just read excerpts of
it shows people who are too polite to tell Biden
the truth. Is that a conspiracy? It's a conspiracy in
the fact that it is just infuriating to me, Right,
I find that infuriating. But what the right desperately wants
(02:30):
is some kind of cabal that kept Biden in charge
as opposed to a more likely scenario. And again I
wasn't there, so I don't really know, but my guess
is a more likely scenario of polite people trying not
to upset someone, which in itself is infuriating. Right. I
almost would rather have a secret cabal of people trying
(02:51):
to keep them in power, because at least it would
show a kind of intentionality which I do not think
is there. I just want you to realize this story
is being used by the Right as a way of
maligning Democrats, and I just think that should be something
you think about when you think about this story, is
(03:11):
what is the purpose of this, Why is this out there?
And what is the play? And that I think is
something that you should think about very strongly when you
read this book. And look, I just don't think I
wish the Democratic Party were capable of doing such high
level operating, because then none of us would be in
(03:32):
this situation. But they're not, and that's why we're here.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Solid point speaking of not the best strategizing and things
not really going well. Representative shre Thnadar today introduced impeachment
of Trump into the.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
House, right.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
This is why it is a group that can't shoot straight.
And that's what we're talking about here. So there's no
numbers to impeach Trump. They don't Democrats don't have the votes.
It is absolutebolutely insane. It's just crazy. Right, This is
what it is. There are are members of the House,
they want to do something, and they're right to want
(04:10):
to do something, and we want them to do something.
But since there aren't the votes for impeachment, what will
happen if you start the clock on this is it's
just going to fail and it's going to help Trump.
And again, talking to Harry Litman, you're going to hear
this on the podcast. We're talking about this. And I
actually wonder. I have a theory I've concocted which I
think may actually be right, which is that focus on
(04:32):
the illegality around Trump because that is often more blatant.
And there's a reason that Rudy Giuliani is in the
place he is right now and everyone else around Trump. Right,
Michael Cohen went to jail. All of this happened because
the people around Trump are doing similarly illegal things. Anyway,
(04:52):
the point of this is that this is not the
moment for impeachment proceedings. Moment for impeachment proceedings is, hopefully
when if Democrats win the House, and when and if
Donald Trump does something that is actively impeachable, which I'm
sure you will, because let's be honest, it's not safe.
Speaker 2 (05:09):
Bet if I've ever taken with Yeah. So, in addition
to all this debt raising in the GOP budget, we
also have Medicaid work requirements, which is a cursed phrase
I hope to never say. But what are you see
in here?
Speaker 1 (05:23):
So here's the deal. Republicans need to cut eight hundred
and eighty billion dollars in Medicaid. And they don't need to.
They want to. They want to do it why so
that they can keep these tax cuts for very rich people,
perhaps pass more tax cuts and make it look like
it makes financial sense. It is very hard to cut
(05:43):
eight hundred and eighty billion dollars for Medicaid. Again, do
I think the tax cuts. I think they should let
the tax cuts expire. I think the tax cuts. I
think it's really disgusting. I think that they should raise
taxes on very wealthy people. It's just my take. By
the way, my favorite thing. Last week, Donald Trump pretended
that he wanted to raise taxes on people who make
(06:04):
over two and a half million dollars a year, a
group that can heartily and absolutely afford to pay more taxes,
and then he was like, no, it would be bad.
Then Democrats can say, read my lips new to taxes.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
No.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
The truth is he can't do it because the people
who put him in office are like, you're not going
to fucking raise my taxes. We put you in here
to not raise our taxes. So look, I think that
when Democrats get back into power, prayer hands, that that happens.
They must create a bracket for people who make over
two point five million dollars a year. That is like
not even a question. That should absolutely happen one hundred percent.
(06:38):
And the fact that that was even floated at all
in a Republican administration means that Democrats must do it asap.
Hard to find eight hundred and eighty billion in medicaid,
they're going to try low hanging fruit, which is like
work requirements and this and that. Look, they're not going
to get there from here. Okay's those are big cuts.
(07:00):
By the way, they can get that money from the
Department of Defense, which will now be spending one trillion dollar.
The Department of Defense budget is going up. Okay, so
more money for Pete hegsath and it just the whole
thing is completely FORGOCTA. Again. The only good part of
(07:22):
this story is that it will be bad for red states,
which will be bad for elected Republicans. I don't want
anyone to suffer. I don't want red state voters to suffer.
I don't want blue state voters to suffer. But I
do think there is a particular irony and the fact
that a lot of these people who will be kicked
(07:43):
off healthcare, and if they do this, we will see
the number of people with health insurance down by more
than eight million by twenty three four.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
So, Mali, the latest state of play if the Trump
administration versus the courts is now is a lot of
veiled threats, And by veiled, I mean there's probably a
lot of rips in the veil. Are Stephen Miller basically
threatening the court what he talked about getting rid of
habeas Corpus last week, and now we have Trump basically
trying to bully them as well.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
So the Trump administration keeps losing in court, and they
keep losing in court because they want to do illegal stuff. Okay,
they keep losing in court because the illegal frameworks they're
trying to use are wartime frameworks. We are not at war,
we are not even in some kind of cold war.
(08:33):
There's nothing. There's only Trende Aarragua, which is a Venezuelan
gang that literally no one had heard of before twenty
twenty four when Donald Trump read about conspiracies that they
had taken over a apartment building in Aurora, Colorado. You
remember that from season two? I sure do. Yeah, So
(08:55):
this is a gang that is Venezuelan. It's not that
many people all Donald Trump has decided it's the major
danger to American life. It is not. This is a
fucking bullship premise yet again to try and get people
to get the judiciary to sign off on some of
(09:17):
Trump's dumb stuff. And I think that it's important to
remember that Trump has really as much as the Supreme
Court is installed by him, filled with conservatives who align
with him, he has squandered a lot of their good
will through attacking them and through just these very stupid cases.
The reason that they're looking at the birthright citizenship case,
(09:39):
and again you can say they're playing three dimensional chess,
and maybe it's true. Maybe they're doing it to shoot
it down to show they're not complete craven sycophans to Trump.
But either way, the birthright citizenship case, they're not going
to take away birthright citizenship. I mean, that's just I
don't think that's how this is going to go. So
(10:00):
he has really kind of squandered what lot of positive
feeling there was towards him. We're going to see just
more Trump attacks on the courts. And the reason only
Trump is attacking the courts, and I think this is
really important to remember, is because this is the only
checks and balance that's checking him. Right. The Congress has
rolled over and played dead. They're not interested. The Republicans
(10:21):
are too scared, the Democrats are not in the majority,
and a little bit too disorganized. So there are a
few who are really doing a good job. This is
what we're going to do here. They're going to try
look some of these lines. I want you to just
I'm going to reach you a line about Republicans wanting
work requirements. And you tell me if you don't see
where this is going.
Speaker 2 (10:41):
Okay, okay, okay, show me, miss clear, show me the future.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Right exactly, Washington can't afford to undermine the program Medicaid
further by subsidizing capable adults who choose now to work.
You can tell that's the best they could think of
for this. So look, and Josh Hall everyone's favorite.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Oh, definitely mine.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
But here's the thing, Josh Holly, Okay, this guy is
a super big Republican, very sort of read in on
the world of Republican politics. His wife argues him friend
the Supreme Court. He says, slashes to the safety net
would be morally wrong and politically suicide. Harry Litman is
(11:31):
a former US attorney and the host of the podcast
Talking Feds. Oh Yes, Oh yes, oh yes.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
It is the latest Molly mashup Talking Feds and Molly
Jong Fast for Fast Politics, where I pose her political
questions and she retorts with legal ones. But today I
want to start not exactly either, because Mollie John Fast
is everyone in America I to know, has a new
book coming out in next month. You want to take
(12:00):
a moment to explain a little bit about that. First
of all, congratulations a new book. Wow. Second, let's hear
about it.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
So I wrote a book called How to Lose Your Mother.
It's a book about the worst year of my life
and how I got through it. And I wrote it
because I wanted people to be able to live through
something that feels unlivable and get through it. And that
is why I wrote the book. And hopefully people will
like it. The early reviews are very good, but who knows.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
Yeah, I mean a lot of it is about family dynamics.
But I'll just say to people who don't know, which
may be nobody, both your mom and your grandfather, you're
really from a writer's family. And that's a big part
of the backdrop here. What do you got?
Speaker 1 (12:46):
So much of this seems as non as a non
lawyer to be illegal. Trump has this The Supreme Court
has basically given him a broad, sweeping immunity to do
crimes or whatever, things like the cryptocoin the taking the
four hundred million dollar plane from the Qataris what is
(13:07):
illegal here and what is not illegal? And what is
the recourse?
Speaker 4 (13:12):
Yeah, that's the big question, the last one, and it
is crimes or whatever. So he is a walking Emolument's
clause violation. He wasn't his first term, but that was
chump change all the stuff with his hotels, four hundred
million dollar palace in the sky as they call it.
That's some serious, groundbreaking historic emolument clause violation right there
(13:33):
in the Constitution. So much of what he's doing, Mollie,
if you had to give a broader theme to it,
is just completely eviscerating any role of Congress to decide things.
And we're in the Constitution. It says in black and white.
Is that in parchment paper that it's got to go
through Congress, for example, the Emolument's clause, Then it's as
illegal as can be. You put your finger on it.
(13:56):
Though when you talk about remedy, because at least there
if we want to stick with plane, it's patent that.
What the Framers had in mind is Congress should decide
we don't want some big national political debate, will use
Congress to make the judgment is this fair game or not?
You know, Lincoln wanted this fancy elephant. They said, no
Obama to turn down the million bucks for the Nobel Preprize.
(14:19):
What Trump has to do and is not doing it
is patently illegal. Is serve this up to Congress and
says right there in the Constitution and in general, there's
many things he's violating. And I think you're right. The
court has given him a free pass on crimes, but
that doesn't mean a free pass on illegalities. For instance,
(14:40):
in immigration the interpretation of the Alien Enemies Act, but
this one totally illegal. But what's designed as a congressional
remedy you do have. In fact, let me turn this
back on you, though it wasn't my thought, I do
think here you have cruised this morning saying I don't
know man Katar Saudierra, Yeah, you have certain what you need.
(15:03):
The Martin nomination just went down. He starts with a
pretty close margin, and it does seem like maybe there's
this much daylight beginning to form between him and the Senate,
him and the Congress. What do you think about that
at the political level, which my final answer to you
is so much of it rests with Congress, and they've
(15:24):
made it clear to date they're not going to do anything.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
So I actually interviewed Tammy Baldwin and she said there
are Republican senators who believe in the power of the Senate.
So what has to happen here, I think is that
Democrats have to win back the House. Number one. We
have to protect our elections, and Democrats have to win
back to the House. I think Trump is now a monarch.
(15:48):
I don't think he can be charged with anything. I
don't think. I think that's a fool's errand, but I
do think people like Stephen Miller and people like you
think about the people around Trump who are doing things
that are illegal. Maybe Stephen Miller know, but certainly there
are people who are violating. I'm thinking about Pam Bondy.
(16:13):
She got one hundred and fifteen thousand dollars a month
from the Katari government as a lobbyist. So are there
emails between her and the Qatari is is it on
her private email or her public email? Does it look
like extoration, you.
Speaker 4 (16:30):
Know, or at least a quid pro quo, which I
think both politically and legal, that would be a real inchpin, right. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:35):
I have to wonder if some of the mistake of
Trump one point zero was that maybe instead of going
after Trump, they should have gone after every single person
around him. Because going after Trump was seen. I don't
think it was true because the guy did all these
things that were illegal, but it was seen as political,
(16:57):
whereas going there's clearly she has encouraged a certain lawlessness
that well, he can't be torched with it. The people
around him can. And I think that supply gotcha.
Speaker 4 (17:08):
It's a really interesting point because like the big indictment
by Smith, he made a point of Trump only I
think for speed. But you're certainly right, everyone you know
meadows on that has gotten a walk.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
And you also see when you look at like the
Rudy case or the Rogerstone, the people around Trump tend
to do stuff that's really not okay.
Speaker 4 (17:31):
All right, you're turned.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
I wonder sort of when you think about the DOJ,
the Republicans. There's a lot of stuff they're doing at
the DJ right now, which is they're stopping prosecuting some
white collar crime because they want to be focused on
the border. There's not a huge amount of stuff going
on at the border right it's the numbers are down
to the lowest they've been a long time. Is there
(17:55):
any way to get the DJ to do its job
and not to nor crimes.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
I think the short answer to that is no, and
I'm overall seguin about our endgame here, which we can
talk about if you want to. But I think the
DJ is beyond repair, beyond reclamation. This is from talking
to people in there. It's like a post apocalyptic zone
with a few zombies kind of wandering around dazed and confused.
(18:23):
They have really brought the hammer down. People who haven't
done the kinds of cases they want or are being fired.
That's sort of unheard of. Everyone is being it's coming home,
right ed Martin just turned down. But meet the new boss,
same as the old boss. You're going to have someone
who is just as much takes this view that's just
(18:45):
like against It's not a little off, it's against DOJ
you know, Bone Marrow, DNA, that they are the president's
lawyers and not the constitution and rule of law. Lawyers
hold hartments are being eliminated, civil rights, voting sections, public integrity.
(19:06):
Just today we learned about a really important prosecutorial entity
that you had them in every office for organized crime
and drug stuff. So I think everyone's keeping their head down.
Everyone's scared to talk. People are trying to figure out
is this a good time to go on in the market,
which is actually saturated with other DOJ types, Bondie and
(19:31):
Bovart disasters, who you know lie daily about the supposed
politicization of prosecutions under the old regime and they're doing nothing.
But here, I think inside the place, it's a real
disaster zone included, but also outside because judges maybe juries.
(19:52):
We don't know yet, But it used to mean so
much to you. It's so much of a tailwind when
you stood up Molly John Fast for the United States,
and that's really be eroded. In general. I think the
calculations I make with the DOJ is will it ever
be the same? How long intel norms norms, for example
involving the White House, you know, politicizing things and telling
(20:13):
them what to do. How long will it ever be
right again? But I think of it as basically a
wasteland as long as you know Trumps president in BONDI
is ag. I'm not monolithically pessimistic across the board, but
DOJ is just fucked, I'm sorry to say.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
But can the other states do stuff to hold them
in check? Because California, Yeah, talk to me about like
con democratic ags sue the DOJ. I mean, is there
a world where that happened.
Speaker 4 (20:45):
You know, it's funny. So the different one, we were
just talking about a monument's clause and there was a
big lawsuit by state ags before saying when you take
the when you do these violations, it has I think
you put your finger on it. And your listeners probably
know about this stuff. Everyone's taking a crash course and
a low as they're standing. The short answer is some
courts will say yes, some courts will say no, and
(21:08):
there is ability by and large I think of the
sanctuary movements and stuff for the states to assert themselves,
for the states to actually regulate. DOJ say hey, wait
a second, that's against the law, you can't do that,
or even I want this case not UFBI. The play
is really narrow. I think federal law enforcement is not
(21:29):
doing bad stuff, but not doing good stuff basically for
as long as as Trump is around. So look, that's
part of the solution. State if everything goes awry, if
the court lets them go, if Congress stays supine, is
state in federal power. But really it's you know, popular
discontent and unrest. And you know you've pointed out, actually
(21:51):
let me let me turn things now, because your recent
Vandy fair article is about Americans turning against Trump somewhat,
and that's the true. Let me just say, not even
as a partisan, but as an objective commentator, they don't
seem to be turning toward, you know, Democrats, or they're
they're turning away from doesn't seem to augur a real
(22:14):
you mentioned can the can the Dems take the House?
That seems pretty pretty uphill battle. What's your thought about A,
why the losses for Trump are not don't seem to
be true? Well, A, if it's true, and B, if so,
why the losses for Trump, he's now at the lowest
of anyone after this amount of time of president since
(22:36):
they've been doing polling, are not translating into commensurate or
anything like commensurate gains for Dems.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
I think Democrats can win back the House. I think
what happened in in Wisconsin with that judicial election is
pretty clear case that the Republican brand is not good.
By the way, you know whose brand is the only
person who was really a much worse brand than Trump
is our friend Elon mush who really I mean, if
(23:06):
you look at that, if you go in and look
at those exit poles, like only five percent of voters
were more likely to vote for the Republican because of
the Elon endorsement. I mean, completely crazy, and that was
a very expensive race. So I think Democrats can win
back the House. I think the reason the brand is
(23:26):
in the Crapper is because I'll give you the sort
of the reasons. People are mad, right, they are not happy.
They do not feel good about the twenty twenty four cycle. Yeah,
I think on the Democratic side they feel I mean
I ask them all the time, and from what I
understand this is they feel angry that Democrats are not
(23:49):
doing more. Though really, what can they do? Right? They
have a mic, they have a sort of they can
draw attention to things, but they can't necessarily, you know,
they can't hold rooms, they can't really move things. They
can't legislate, they can't do this, they can't do that.
But what they can do is they can you know,
(24:09):
do things like the Philibuster. Like people loved that Booker Philibuster.
Millions of people loved it. So the question is do
they love Corey Booker's very centrist policies. Maybe not. I mean,
like all of these Democrats, I mean, if you think
about the if you ask people who are in the party,
(24:31):
what they who they like. They'll say AOC Bernie Chris Murphy,
Corey Booker, Jasmine Crockett. Here are five people who have
almost no you know, their Centrists, their leftists, they're socialists.
There's no unifying governing principle except another one Pritzker is
(24:52):
they are team fight. So team fight people like, and
team cave people don't like. So I would say, if
you're going to fight, I think there's a place for
you in the Democratic Party. If you're going to cave
and that and interesting like there are a bunch of
senators who are retiring on the Democratic side, like Gary Peters,
(25:14):
people who maybe in a normal democracy you could have
the temperament for the Senate. But if Trump leaves office
when his term is up, which is a real if
if he does, there will be a reconstruction of American democracy,
which will be loud and painful and really a lot
(25:36):
of people screaming at each other at best and best
and the people who are on the Democratic side and
on the Republican side, but on the Democratic side are
going to need to really have a spine.
Speaker 4 (25:49):
Yeah, that's a great point and sort of what I
was thinking about DOJ, I'm overall sanguine, but man, oh man,
the cleaning of the stables after it's going to be
rough hurriculean.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
My question is what are people doing in the Trump
DJ right now that is illegal?
Speaker 4 (26:05):
Okay, So it's a really good question because first you
got to think about abnormal. When I hear about certain things,
my head goes three sixty degrees. But it's not technically
speaking illegal for the White House to do certain things.
I think they are violating the nineteen seventy eight Civil
(26:26):
Service reformat right and left. They're firing people. Tell you
can't do that. You've got they get certain due process.
They're doing things specifically in violation. You could either say
the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment because people take certain positions,
righteous positions, you know, the Adams prosecution, whatever, and they're
(26:48):
getting fired for that. The big thing they're doing mind
very effectively, but you know, will there be remedies? Is
hollowing out the department all that sort of knowledge of
the place. The way it works is there are anywhere
sort of handful of people, You come to them, you
work through them together. They're all gone, they've been demoted
(27:12):
to you know, asset forfeiture in Kentucky or whatever, and
the culture of the place that's been so comprehensively denuded
and is so making it ineffective. Then I think there
are some flat out violations of lawn in general. You know,
(27:32):
I'm a fraud lawyer, and when you lie about stuff
and make a scheme, this is what Trump was charged
with before he had immunity. That can be a crime,
and a vigorous Department of Justice will never see it
will never happen even later, would construct certain things that
Bove is doing and Bondie is doing, because all they're
trying to do is serve his political interests, which do
(27:54):
not coincide with the law. But the bigger stuff, I mean, look,
there's an overall less and a bitter lesson of the
last few months or even you could say last eight years,
which is that at the end of the day, the
government runs on norms, good faith, integrity, ways of doing
things that people have different views accept and it's really
(28:16):
that that they've totally raised and so the impact is terrible.
And then in addition, I could maybe make some US
versus Bondie arguments, US versus bov argument but the real
terrible damage is sort of at the cultural functional level.
All right, I want to throw you a it's not
it won't be a curveball for you, but a curveball
in our conversation because I just had a long talk
(28:38):
with Jonathan height t you may know from NYU, and
his big spiel is how terrible social media has been
for younger voters and what a disaster it is for
younger generation. And you on the on your on the
Zdeo podcast, you really the hardest working woman in podcastree,
(28:58):
I must say try and said the fundamental problem with
Democrats among the older generation is they can't get online,
which is kind of the very opposite of his diagnosis,
at least for younger Dems. So I thought that was
pretty interesting and I wanted to ask you to splash
that out a little.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
The problem is communication, right, Nobody will argue, maybe they won't,
but they're wrong. Joe Biden passed a lot of legislation,
really good legislation right on shoring manufacturing, chips and sciences,
the thing that Donald Trump just did a whole fuck
up about right on shoring manufacturing. Biden actually passed something
(29:38):
that would have and has to some extent, got semiconductor
chips going in the United States making semiconductor chips. This
is seismic stuff. The reason why Biden was unpopular was
inflation and an inability to transmit what he was doing.
Nobody knew. In fact, you know, there's these Google searches
(30:02):
of election Day where people went on their computer to
see who was running for president because they thought Biden
was still running for president. So this is a big
fucking problem. And it comes from the supposition that politics
runs downstream of culture. This is a Andrew Breitbart ism.
Andrew Breitbart, right wing lunatic died. That guy said politics
(30:27):
runs downstream of culture. And what Donald Trump did was
he got into the bloodstream of the culture, and so
he won the presidency. What Democrats have done studiously is
completely stay outside of the culture. And they've done it,
I think because they're being advised by people who are
terrified of their own shadows. So this is why sometimes
(30:51):
you will have a elected who you'll get on your
podcast and you'll ask them a question and they'll say
ameer Ca because it's Emera and it's c and you'll
think this doesn't make any sense, and what the fuck
are they doing You've had those elected, and that is
the consultant class getting in their brains, making them think
(31:14):
that saying nothing is better than saying something. And the
reality is the more democrats say nothing, the more they
open the door to a Donald Trump to another Donald
Trump to And that is how we got here, and
that is the only way to get out of it
is to have people who run for office, who say
(31:34):
English words and are real people and say things like
this is what I'm gonna do and this is what
I'm not going to do, and really let you in
or at least pretend to enough. Anyway.
Speaker 4 (31:46):
Thank you, Always good and always fun talking to you, Molly.
Good luck with the book and see you next month.
Speaker 1 (31:52):
Thank you. Amanda Littman is the co founder of Run
for Something and the author of the new book When
We're in che The Next Generation's Guide to Leadership. Welcome
to Fast Politics, Amanda Litman, Thanks Molly.
Speaker 3 (32:08):
Always delighted to chat.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
Let's talk about this book, tell us everything.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
So the book is called When We're in Charge. It's
out this week. It is the Next Generation's Guide to Leadership.
And I would say the like one sentence summary is
it's how to be an effective leader in this moment
without being an asshole to the people you lead.
Speaker 1 (32:24):
Ooh, so what does that look like?
Speaker 3 (32:26):
It looks like what does it really mean to be
authentic in a way that is not about ego but
about serving your team and how you can show up
for them. It's about transparency, It's about work life balance.
It's about being like a better parent as part of
your work, and how you can think about your caregiving responsibilities.
It's about your career and ambition. I really I heard
(32:47):
someone describe it as like unlike any other business book
you've ever read, in a good way. And I like
that summary.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
Right now as actually reading an article you were quoted
in today in The Atlantic about these retirements and that
they're actually kind of a good sign. So talk us
through why you think that. So.
Speaker 3 (33:07):
I think it is a good thing that we have
older democratic leaders retiring. I think they open up space
and competitive primaries where the party can really decide what
we believe. I think we get to celebrate these leaders'
legacies in a way that I think is good for them.
When they retire. They get to go out the front door,
as I like to describe it, get to like to
find their legacy really be celebrated. If they stayed in,
(33:30):
almost certainly all of them would be getting challenged, and
then they would have to get into a really nasty
campaign that would often center about their personal failings. I
don't think that would be fun for anyone. So I'm
glad to see folks like you know, Gary Peters, Tina Smith,
Dick Durbin, and others step aside because it means we
get to really like, look at them as patriots. Is
(33:51):
putting public service above their egos.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Yeah, I think that's right. Trump Is polling is bad,
but so we're Democrats, right, their polling is also bad.
It seems as if it's largely cave versus fight, not
an ideological hostility. The voters are having more of a
they don't feel like their people are doing enough for them.
What do you think? I mean? I've asked a lot
(34:15):
of elected what they could be doing more of. You
are pretty versed in all of this, So what do
you think they should be doing more of?
Speaker 3 (34:22):
I think there are things like not confirming any of
Trump's nominees through the Senate.
Speaker 1 (34:27):
So talk us through how that would work.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
Well, I am not an insider when it comes to
Senate procedure, but it was for what I have read,
there are mechanics procedural moves in which they need Democrats
to vote to approve many of these nominees for things
like the Justice Department, some of the judges they want
to move through other Senate confirmed positions. Democrats just don't
have to give them the votes that we can put
(34:49):
sand in the gears in a way that at the
very least slows it down because floor time is one
of the only resources they cannot get back at some
point they have to close out the session. So if
we can grind the gears down to a halt, even
if we can't ultimately stop some of the harm they're doing,
you know, that makes a difference.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
Do you think it would have been a good idea
to shut down the government?
Speaker 3 (35:11):
I think it's hard to say. I think it would
have been a good idea if we knew we were
going to vote to keep the government open to have
gotten something for that, But that's what I and you have,
like extracted any kind of pound of flush in exchange
for it. The problem was that Schumer put up a
strong posture up until the day of and then was like, oh,
just kidding. Here you go, you get my vote, you
got a couple others, godspeed, at least get something for it.
(35:32):
My dude.
Speaker 1 (35:33):
It feels like Democrats are still not quite hard enough
on Republicans. So we have Chris Murphy has been out
there just a ton, which I think has been really good.
And then we had Corey Booker do this filibuster which
was pretty epic. But a lot of Democratic senators we
just haven't seen out there. Am I missing anyone? I mean,
(35:56):
obviously in the House we've had AOC, We've had Bernie Rocket,
Maxwell Frost, But what would you like to see Demko
sort of what's your dream to see? You know, if
you could say to Reuben Diego, who's a guy with
a lot of ambition, like what I'd like to be
seeing you doing?
Speaker 3 (36:12):
Or you know, I think actually Chris van Holland modeled
something good here where he has like used his physical
presence to push the needle, like going down to El
Salvador demanding a meeting with a Brago, like putting out
photos and explaining how the photos that they put out
were propaganda.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Like that's good.
Speaker 3 (36:30):
More of that, I would say we had in Worcestern Massachusetts.
One of the city council members there, whose name I'm
going to butcher because I've only ever read it and
never said it. So comes a woman adal A Jaj
I think who has a run for something, alum who
literally put her body in front of ice trying to
detain a young woman and her child, Like, put your
(36:52):
body on the line, make it, make a spectacle. Spectacle
is good. Spectacle gets attention, Attention gets reached, reach gets
votes ultimately eventually.
Speaker 1 (37:00):
Yeah, that's a really good point. What I think is interesting.
So for example, Trump is wants to get this plane
from the Qatari royal family. It's a four hundred MILANDAR plane.
There are a number of reasons why Trump shouldn't have
his plane, right from the emolument's cause to the national
security problems.
Speaker 3 (37:19):
Going to be chock full a spyware. What do we
do when there.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
At every point this is an insane idea. It's so
insane that Cynthia Lumis when asked about it, burst out laughing. Okay,
Cynthia lumis pretty trumpy, burst out laughing. So question is here,
what can Democrats do? Like is there a legislative push,
Like what can Democrats do here can they get hearings going?
(37:46):
I mean, what can what's the play?
Speaker 3 (37:48):
I think, drawing as much media attention to it as possible.
I know I was talking without this so so and
is sort of like divorced from politics yesterday last night,
and they were trying to explain to me, like it
feels so obviously corrupt that it can't be true. It's
almost ludicrous, like, of course, you can't take a four
hundred million dollars million dollar plane on a foreign government
that you can then keep after it. That's that's like
so quid pro quo corruption that it feels ludicrous. But
(38:10):
I think for most people that are like, well, it
can't happen, but we got to keep just calling attention
to it, Like I want to see members of Congress
standing in front of clodiums, going in front of town halls,
storming podcasts, talking about how you know, you don't feel
getting feel safe getting on a flight right now because
he fired all those air traffic controllers, he's taken a
four hundred million dollar jet from Qatar. That I mean,
(38:31):
pretty compelling storyline even right now, forget about the corruption,
Like we don't feel safe getting on a plane he's
getting on one funded by the Qatari government.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
So we are coming down the sort of the beginning
of the runway for the midterms is going to be
probably the most consequentrol mid terms of our young lives.
I love that I'm making it sound like we're this image.
What since we're both in our early thirties, what are
you hearing? What are you seeing in Run for Something world?
(39:01):
And what is giving you hope?
Speaker 3 (39:03):
So Run for Something has had more than forty five
thousand people raise their hands to say they want to
run just since the election. That's six months. That's more
than we had in the first three years of Trump's
first term. So huge ways of young people saying I
want to run for office. I eyve even a handful
of them, more than a handful really do get on
the ballot in twenty twenty six, which I expect you
will see. They are going to change what the Democratic
(39:24):
Party looks like, both quite literally, They're going to be
a different kind of Democrat. They're going to communicate differently,
They're going to show up in different communication channels, they're
going to use the Internet differently, and so many of
them are running on things that are really practical to
folks like affordable housing, stopping book bands, spanning health care access,
and also being able to tell the story of how
they've been fired or gotten screwed over by Trump and Elon.
(39:47):
I think it's really personal stories in a way that
drives a good store of the narrative or a good campaign.
I do think housing is going to be the thing
on the local level more so than anything else, because
it is the thing that is directly affecting people's cost
of living, and Trump's going to crash the housing market,
which is already really bad.
Speaker 1 (40:03):
Do you feel like the people you're getting are people
who are angry about the status quo, about what democrats
have done? What does it look like the people who
are coming to you.
Speaker 3 (40:13):
It's definitely a lot of folks who are like, why
are my leaders not fighting for me? Where are the
folks who are like, really going to pay attention to
how this is affecting my life. I am really inspired
by the people who are looking around at the kind
of harassment attention that some elected officials are getting and
saying I'm going to do this anyway, Like I'm going
to be brave enough to change my life and change
(40:35):
my career, think, Oh, we're hearing from a lot of
folks that they are running on representation in kind of
a different way than you might think, Like it's not
just you know, there's no women, there's no people. Call
it all that, like, there's no one who understands what
it's like to be a normal person right now, no
one in this body of government will understands what it's
like to be a renter, who understands what it's like
to have kids in childcare, who understands what it's like
(40:57):
to you know, have your fellow ship gate defunded by
the federal government. It is really sort of like a
lived experience failure on behalf of our elected leaders. And
the finolopiece i'd say is we're getting a lot of
people who are like, I am so angry. Why is
my leadership not as angry as I am. They're making
me feel gas lit, They're making me feel crazy for
(41:20):
being this nad and they shouldn't, like I'm right be pissed.
So I think that's a good thing.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
Ted is a good thing. I want you to say
more about the housing stuff.
Speaker 3 (41:28):
One of the things that runs for something civics, which
is our c three ARM is going to be doing
over the next couple of years. Hopefully is be trying
to get more renters to run for office. Ninety three
percent of elected officials are homeowners. Thirty five percent of
Americans are renters, and that number is going up as
the housing market gets harder and harder to enter. In
some states, the number of rent of homeowners. I think
(41:50):
it's only one state within where homeowners breaks fifty percent.
Among young people, we go under thirty five. It is
so hard right now if you are a twenty or
thirty something to buy a home. Invent is getting more
and more expensive everywhere, urban environments, rural environments, suburban everything
in between. And you know, I am a big believer
in that every story is a housing story, kind of
like you know, New York, every story is a real
(42:10):
estate story. Every story is a housing story. The loneliness
crisis is about housing. Build. The return to office situation
is about housing. Childcare is about housing because if you
can't afford to live where you want to live, you
can't afford to live how you want to live. It's
about autonomy, it's about the American dream. Housing is all
of it. So one of the reasons that we want
to make sure we're getting more renters to run for
(42:31):
office is because we need folks who personally understand how
it feels to be a twenty or thirty something entering
the housing and rent market right now, and two who
come in with a different lived perspective on why we
need to build more housing as homeowners no offense. I
don't know if you own your apartment or when where
you live by like homeowners psychologically don't necessarily want more
(42:51):
housing to get built because it may lower the value
of their home and that's usually where most of their
wealth is. That's a problem because we need to build more.
So I'm really excited about this effort and excited to
keep talking about it. And I think is important to
raise the identity of renter or tenant as part of
your political identity because it changes the way you think
about how you show up at the polls. Who's fighting
(43:12):
for you as a renter.
Speaker 1 (43:14):
That's interesting. There's been a lot of talk about it
is a democratic tea party. It strikes me that Democrats
had a chance to stop a Democratic tea party and
they didn't, and that what they're going to see in
the midterms is going to be the kind of rage
is going to be because they were insufficiently hysterical about
(43:38):
trump Ism, and that had they been a little more
twenty sixteen ish, they wouldn't be losing their jobs the
way they're going to in the midterms. Do you think
that's right, and say more totally. I think that's right.
Speaker 3 (43:50):
I think being an incumbent is such an advantage, Like
it's really hard to unsee an incumbent in a primary
and in a general, but especially in a primary. You
have every possible political connection, you can raise a fuck
ton of money. It's just it's so beneficial that if
you are feeling afraid for your job, if you feel
like a primary challenge is actually threatening you, it's because
(44:11):
you're not doing a good job, Like you have every
possible advantage. If you lose a primary, it's because you
have failed to meet the moment in some meaningful way.
They could have fixed this early on. Now there's candidates
all across the country who have already launched campaigns and
aren't preparing to launch campaigns against incumbents. I think those
will be good because the incumbents that win, great, They're
going to move on to the general, and the ones
(44:31):
that lose weren't doing it doing it right to be
in the first place.
Speaker 1 (44:34):
So when you look at the map right now, in
the twenty twenty six map, I think a lot about
a candidate in Nebraska called Dan Osborne. He rejected the
Democratic moniker. He said he was an independent. He may
run again. Talk us through if you think there's a
future in red states for candidates like that.
Speaker 3 (44:56):
I definitely think that there is an opportunity for candidates
to set themselves apart from the party. There's certainly a
challenge in terms of ballot access and how it works
in any given state of a kind of infrastructure you're
able to access as an independent, but it's so place
and race specific. But I think certainly positioning yourself as
an outsider or a challenger against the party is a
good thing in many places.
Speaker 1 (45:16):
But is there room for a kind of populist wing
of the party. One of the things that Trump was
able to do was he was able to secure white,
non college educated and also some minority voters. I think
it may not be the numbers which were advertised, but
so he got a share of the working class that
(45:37):
Democrats maybe gave away, maybe because they felt they couldn't
promise them things that they wanted. Do you think there's
an opportunity for Democrats to connect with that working class voter?
And if so, what do you think the things they
should be doing are.
Speaker 3 (45:53):
I think it's really messenger specific. I think that there
are candidates who can outperform the top of a ticket
and who data worn to tap of the ticket in
a meaningful way. I also, I'm really curious to see
in twenty twenty six how many of those folks fall
away from the Republican Party when Trump is not on
the ballot. That's not to say I don't think Democrats
shouldn't fight for them, shouldn't make a case for them,
(46:14):
should be present. But you know, Trump is kind of
an anomaly, not in his necessarily his policies, but in
the brand that he has built. You know, the entire
party holds his beliefs at this point, but they don't
always win when they espouse them. And we've seen this
in like the Republican primary process in twenty twenty four.
You know, Ron DeSantis tried to be Trump Junior or
(46:35):
Trump light rather, and it doesn't work because if you
don't have his Chrismon. You don't have his brand, you
can't stick. So I'll be really curious to see, with
Trump never being on the ballot again, which he will
not be, what happens with the Republican Party. Actually, I
don't think we talk enough about that of Trump's a
lame duck while watching his cabinet members sort of position
themselves already. JD. Vance is not going to walk into
(46:55):
that primary without a fight. It could be fun to
watch them eat their own Can.
Speaker 1 (47:00):
You imagine, like JD. Van to v Marco v. DeSantis,
I mean against Christine Nome. Don't forget her little police
barbide Christine Nome. Jesus Christ. It's hard to imagine there's
a clear front runner in that crew.
Speaker 3 (47:16):
No, and I don't think it'll be easy for any
of them because while they're all shameless and bi get
it in their own right, none of them can do
it in the same way that Trump can do.
Speaker 1 (47:26):
Not envy their futures, yeah, h I do not either
a man, and also I don't envy any of our futures. Well,
Amanda Litman, I hope you'll come back.
Speaker 3 (47:38):
I will always come back. Thank you for giving me
a chance to talk politics and also remind me able
to pick up my book, which is now out in
stores when we're in charge wherever you get your books.
Speaker 1 (47:49):
No moment, Jesse Cannon.
Speaker 2 (47:54):
My so, over the weekend Trump enacted price controls for
drugs and I was told during the twenty twenty four
presidential campaign that that was downright communist and comrade Kamala
Harris doing that or Burnie, Oh my god, what are
we thinking? And then now Trump has done it. RFK Junior,
though funny enough, has a theory. What's behind this?
Speaker 1 (48:16):
Yes, tell me more.
Speaker 5 (48:18):
President Trump was taking money from the pharmaceutical industry to
the way they think, you know, one hundred million dollars.
He can't be bought, unlike most of the politicians in
this country, and he is standing here for the American people.
I don't know what you know. There's there's writers like
my Lord Elizabeth Warrener Robert Reichler just saying that President
(48:40):
Trump is on this side of the oligar.
Speaker 1 (48:43):
What of eloquid speaking to see where his head is at?
You know, this is a man who swims in Rock
Creek Park. Damn. I was going to get to that.
Ladies and gentlemen, everyone's favorite. Look, I don't know, maybe
some of that Rock Creek water is true telling serum.
Oh that's a great philosophy.
Speaker 2 (49:03):
Sodium pedothal in the sewage water?
Speaker 1 (49:05):
Yeah yeah, yeah yeah, the best Heliody Impede all in
the sewage order.
Speaker 2 (49:10):
Right, sounds like one of his conspiracy theories. Truth be told.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
Listen, man, it's not surprising, but it is insane, like
everything in this administration. 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, please send
(49:37):
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.