December 1, 2023 • 48 mins
The Bulwark's Tim Miller discusses Rep. Kevin McCarthy's impending departure from Congress. Rep. Eric Swalwell tells us about how Democrats are actually running the government since the Republicans are too dysfunctional to do it themselves. Rep. Robert Garcia details the expulsion of Congressman George Santos.
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 Mollie John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discuss the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. And Representative Clay Higgins you'll remember him
as having worked for the worst Senate podcaster from the
great state of Texas, Lion Ted Cruz. Clay Higgins says
(00:23):
Jack Smith's days are numbered. They are, in fact not.
We have such a great show for you today. Congressman
Eric Swalwell tells us about how DEM's are actually running
the government, what since the Republicans are too dysfunctional to
do it for themselves. Then we'll talk to yet another Congressman,
my personal friend Robert Garcia, about the expulsion of congressman
(00:46):
and botox enthusiast. I'm not casting aspersions here, George Santos.
But first we have hosts of the next level, the Boworks,
Tim Miller. Welcome back to Fast Politics. The funniest and
the most attractive.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
I'm sorry, Tim Miller, Oh, this is.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
So much pressure now, you know I gotta be funny
and attractive. Yeah, well, I don't have to be attractive
on audio. People can imagine how attractive I look right now.
I was in Costa Rica last week. I get a
little tan to just picture that. Imagine we have a
few more muscles than I really have.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
We were talking about the sort of Republican party. So
this is an amazing moment in a strange way, because
you have, like the Koch Brothers last cycle, they did
not endorse a candidate in a general. They had five
people who were there preferred picks, all of whom were
not Donald Trump. So basically everyone bout Donald Trump. Try
(01:45):
and imagine with me the internal panic in the Coke
network as they decided they just had to endorse Nikki Haley.
I mean, talk me through what happened here, because it's amazing.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Yeah, I think that there's some face saving happening. You know,
Charles Coke is not like Donald Trump, and so I
guess I want to just clear the decks with this.
It's better to oppose Donald Trump than to be for him.
So yes, kudos to you, Charles Coke. I'm not really
one to give kudos for those sorts of things that said.
This doesn't feel like a real effort to beat Donald Trump.
(02:19):
You know, like you put out this memo from the
big donors and their strategists talking about how you're endorsing
Nicky Haley. And you know, I'm kind of like, well,
that wasn't really that helpful. Actually, Republican voters hate the
big donors, So did you need to make a big
announcement about it. Couldn't you have just started running ads
and then you see the ads and they're not so aggressive.
(02:40):
I did an X post. I know I still am
weak and I go to X sometimes. I'm also on threads.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
I'm not casting dispersions. Look, we are content makers. We
are not better than anything. Thank you, period paragraph no
offense or anything.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Yeah, we're not.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
We're at the bottom of the barrel as far as
dignified work is concerned.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
We would have a union, but it would be too sad.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Yeah. So South Carolina blogger I follow posted a picture
of the first door hanger that they saw from the
COC Networks pro Haley effort, and it's just like vote
Nikki Haley. It's a picture of Earth her arms crossed,
reclaim the American Dream, fiscal responsibility, energy potential, secure the border.
And then that's it. And I'm like, who thinks this
(03:26):
is gonna work? This just seems like some rich guys
saying like instead of giving money to I don't know,
unhoused youth or something useful. I'm just gonna make sure
that my friends know that I kind of did something
to try to stop Donald Trump, and so we're gonna
run this generic pro Haley campaign that is maybe marginally
helpful at best, maybe actively harmful actually, because you know
(03:50):
you can. I was like talking about this in Charlie
God Love. I'm Charlie Sykes, like wrote a thing yesterday.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
For the Bulwark.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
It's like like this matters, it's better than not, and
I agree with that. But then like right after I
see him on my feed, the next post is from
insane maga person I follow with like a million followers,
and they're like Democrats and open borders donors go in
for NICKI Haley. I'm like the crazy person that I follow,
Like more Republican primary voters are reading that person. Then
(04:17):
Charlie like there's some so anyway, long story short, I
guess it's something. It's better than nothing. But I had
a fun fact that I saw this morning. I'm supposed
to be following this stuff, but so whenever I get
surprised by a fact, I feel like I like to
share it because the listeners probably don't know it. I'm
gonna quiz you. Actually, I think this tells you more
about the state of the Republican Party than the Koch decision.
Mollie junk Fast, how many Republican senators, congressmen, and governors
(04:42):
active do you think have endorsed Nicki Haley's presidential campaign
combined governors, House members, senators, not many. It's one. It's
one from her state.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Only one.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
And it's like, these are the people that are actual
in the political game, right, It's like the donors are
wish casting, the cable pundits are wish casting. The strategists
are just saying, please don't make daddy. Yeah, they're cashing checks,
and they're they're like hoping against hope that maybe a
lightning strike will hit mar Lago. Right, But the people
(05:20):
that are actually in politics and need to get support
from Republican voters, none of them are for Nicki. And
now I'm sure in the next month, you know whoever
mint will come out and likes Susan Collins or somebody,
but you know, so she'll get up to four or something.
But the one is from her state. There's zero for
people outside of her state. We're six weeks away from Iowa.
(05:42):
This is the big Nikki momentum week, and so mate, whatever,
even if this comes out this afternoon and we're like
in nicki Owa's Campaign's like we're making a big announcement
where it's our congressional leadership team and it's like six people,
It's like, still, that's like nobody, I mean one person,
Like this party is a cult and it's at the
same day I saw this fact is one day after
e last, Stephanic is in their meeting saying you got
(06:04):
to put the Trump badge on your email, and.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
If you get the Trump badge on your email, you'll
get more donations, right, I mean, it's like Ponzi scheme stuff.
The thing I was struck by was watching Nicki Haley
talking in Iowa about how important it was that they
had to reform Social Security and Medicare, and I was like, really,
I was like, because that worked so well for Paul Ryan.
(06:28):
I mean, I actually don't think it's true. But even
if it is true, which again, why things that are
true matter? Here are who even knows? Right? I just wonder, like,
you don't win elections, you got Trump giving people heroin
and Nicki Haley is like, no, that's really bad for you.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Yeah, give some broccoli.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Look, I used to be Republican. If we want to
reform social Security so some rich people don't get as
much to make it a little more solvent, Okay, I
fine with that, you know, I hope. I don't think
my dad listened to your podcast. I don't think he
needs to get to cash in on his Social Security.
We can put that back in the trust fund. That's fine.
He did well for himself.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
By the way, people hate that.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Rich people.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
I hate that.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Rich people hate that. Regular people hate that. Old people
hate that exactly. They're coming for me next.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
It's so amazing because I know so many rich people
who are like I have to have my Social Security
And I'm like, you know, you have a plane, yeah,
or like you have a boat, right, you could just
not use the boat. I mean, why are you entitled
to that? Anyway?
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Go on.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Sorry, this is where like my communist tendencies and Mike
and my free markets tendencies kind of match together. I'm like,
I like, I don't like rich people, but I also
think we should have a balanced budget. Anyway, where was
I You got me distracted? Talking about privatization of social security. Okay,
here we are. Here's the important thing in your observation,
which is what do Republican voters want? And this time
(07:46):
is directly back to the Coke thing and to Nikki
Haley's policy prescriptions. The Republican voters have spoken with unanimity
that they hate the Koch brothers political aga. They do
not like, you know, being more open to immigrants. They
do not like reforming our entitlements. They do not care
(08:08):
about corporate tax cuts. Okay, this Republican Party cares about
woke stuff the border, being mean to immigrants, being mean
to liberals, you know, making fun of cat ladies in
New York. Like, that is what this Republican Party cares about.
They have full throatdly rejected the agenda put forth by
the Kochs and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and my
(08:30):
old people and Nicki Haley. And so it's like, why
then do we have to pretend like an endorsement from
the people that the voters have already rejected over and
over again. Matters if we could go into an imaginary
world where Nicky Haley won because Donald Trump ate the
cheeseburger of my dreams. That's fine with it, that's great.
I'm probably still going to vote for Joe Bien. Anybody
(08:51):
that worked for Donald Trump does not pass my one
issue to Trump Arrangement syndrome litness test, Like it would
be much better for our society. But it's just like
it's we also have to live in reality, and the
reality is Republican voters don't like this stuff.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Yeah, no, I mean I think that's a really good point.
You're trying to appeal to something that doesn't exist. So basically,
what you think how this plays out? And again, we're
not supposed to predict the future, because, as Margaret Sullivan
said rightly and I quoted her in my column about
how bad polls are and how they get us focused
on the wrong things, we are bad at predicting the future.
(09:26):
But that said, this is like in AA when you
say you're not going to cross talk and then you
just cross talk. But it does seem like this is
a last ditch effort to try to pour money into
a possible, non trumpy future that won't work.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
It is a last ditch effort, and she is a
more appealing candidate than DeSantis, just just candidate skills wise,
putting aside policy elements. But yeah, it's just the math
is very like Trump is over fifty, right, And you
know I was doing this. I did this for the teens.
If you have any teens in your life. I have
a Snapchat show for teens. It's called not My Party.
(10:02):
You just tell them it down, let's snapchat. It's like
it's got a lot of memes.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
It goes like.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Three minutes in Snapchat.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Yeah, it's like I'll say one sentence and then it'll
be Timothy Shamalay will pop in, you know, to keep
him interested.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
I know what social media network is popular. When my
teens tell me please never go on it.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
There you go, So don't go on if you're a parent.
But if you have a team in your life, dog's politics,
tell them to check out Not my Party. I did
the math for the teens this week, and it's like,
let's do the bowl case for Nicky.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Right.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
It's just like Christy gets out and endorses her, and
she gets all his support, and Doug Bergham gets out
and whoever else is left I don't even know, like,
and she gets there two percent and then a handful
of good nature Democrats and Independence crossed the aisle to
go vote for her, which bumps up even more. And
then she gets a little momentum bump of a few points.
It's still like really hard to get to fifty, you know,
(10:49):
because Trump's over fifty and that is in New Hampshire,
a good state, you know, because it has Independence that vote,
and there's a lot of you know, kind of flinty
Northeasterners that don't really aren't really into the true thing,
that are more moderate. You go down to the south,
I mean here in Louisiana, the last pole I saw
had it was Trump seventy five, DeSantis eight, Niki four.
How does she get from four to sixty? So yeah,
(11:10):
it's a last ditch effort. But the math is just
very the math is very challenging.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Yeah, and it is also so interesting to me because
like DeSantis, I mean, I think the chances of him
now being the nominee are like zero, right, I mean,
do you think that's fair?
Speaker 3 (11:25):
I mean, I guess they're less than zero because a
little slightly no kind of that would have been funnier.
I guess there's slightly more than zero because i'd Bret
Easton Ellis in my mind, because you know, Trump could die.
I mean, he's not gonna but we can all whatever.
Trump could die, and then I don't know, and I
head to head with him and Nikki. If Trump dies,
maybe Vivek would take it. Actually, it's hard to know
what would happen with the Trump cultists in that scenario.
(11:48):
So I would call it, let's give him, let's we'll
do this. So you're saying there's a chance for Desanta's,
well give him. We'll give him a point eight percent
chance based on death and other unforeseen instances.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
But what is important about to Santus, I think is
that he shows that this is not about policy, that
these Trump supporters you can't win them on policy.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
No, I mean you can lose them on policy. I
guess there's like a negative polarization, right if your policies
feel like the policies of the George Bush era or
of the Libs are too nice or Rasheeta to late, right, Like,
you can do things and say things about policy that
turn them off, but you can't go give them a
checklist of maga agenda items, you know, like I will
(12:30):
build the moat with the alligators in it, and I
will whatever you know take away MSNBC's carriage rights, saying
I think about Kim Jong un. You can't like you
can't do a positive list that doesn't work. It's about
there's more to it.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
We've now entered the young Guns section of the podcast,
where we make fun of the young guns. I'm sorry,
I know that you know some of the young guns.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Intimately, I have to tell you.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Can we This probably won't make the actual podcast, but
can I tell you I just be full surprise. I
just spent a full day with Eric cant in New
Hampshire with Jeb, and he was one of the most
dour individuals I've ever encountered in my life. And he
was so negative and so sad and so panantic and
and we're about halfway through the day. It's like the
(13:17):
car way of a driver and it's Jeb and it's
me and it's Eric cantor we're just driving for a
Ventad event and like in between the second the least
famous of the young guns, in between the second and
the third event, I get on the phone with the
campaign manager and I was like, I don't ever want
to see Eric Canter in the car for another fucking day.
The rest of this campaign. Okay, he is just making
(13:39):
Jeb sad and like he and none of the voters
like him. Just send him to a Doner meeting or something.
I never want to see him in the car again.
So anyway, that's my Young Guns store.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Is making Jed sad. So Young Guns was the book
that Eric Canter, the least famous of the group, but
probably the most attractive, possibly though it was depressed.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
I kind of like Kevin McCarthy's muppet face. I don't
know if I had to pick.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan wrote a book the three
of them together, and now it seems as if Kevin
McCarthy is on it. So he's on a sort of
trying to get a cable news contributorship tour at this point,
I think, because you saw somebody leaked that he told
Trump fuck you on the phone, maybe discuss Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
He has been humiliated. To me, it's kind of been
shocking that he stuck around to keep taking the pain.
And like he does interviews, like he does these gangles
in Congress, and he looks so sad. I mean, I
don't feel sad for him. He's made his bed, but
he died, looks really sad. It's like, if I was him,
I would just stay in my office and only come
out when absolutely necessary and start and start like calling
(14:51):
Jamie Diamond or whoever's going to hire me to be
a lobbyist. I don't know, but I did see that.
I guess he told Trump whatever f off after Trump
didn't want to help him. In the speakers. I hope
that happened, because it's just really funny, you know, it's
really it's like, it's really funny.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
I mean, you just you.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Begged, you groveled, you gave him the right color star burst,
you went down to see him when he was sad,
and then like the one time you need him, Trump's
like fuck you. That is such an allegor. And you know,
Marcarty's like, no, fuck you. It's like, sorry too late,
but you finally found your backbone after you've lost everything.
Like that is a great allegory for the Trump era.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Yeah, no, it's amazing. It's so clear to me how
you cannot do business with Trump, you cannot trust him.
But again, Santos, it sounds like we're not going to
future cast. But I'm not sure you can count on
Santos's vote, So that gets them down to four or three.
Then if McCarthy resigns early, which he's threatening to, that
(15:47):
gets him down to two or three. That's not a
huge majority. I'm sorry, I'm not a mathematician here, but
that seems like less than four or five.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
Yeah, it does seem like, Liz, there's some oldies in
that the congquers. I know, it's kind of a MacB
podcast here, but you know, who knows that could keep dropping. Yeah,
it's not good. He's not gonna be able to pass anything,
and these guys are already out out to get them.
Who knows, maybe they'll decide an election. You're it's worth
waiting it out. I always said when McCarthy got the job,
and when Johnson got the job, I was like, look,
the jackals will give them a leash of one or
(16:19):
two times where they have to get Democrats to get
a vote passed before you know, the sort of Bannon
conservative media world starts to come for them. Right, So
Johnson might have one other one other he's already done
to do it once. He might have one other budget
vote where they let him do it. But like they
can't pass anything. We all live through this. They're dysfunctional,
(16:40):
They're incapable of passing anything on their own. To pass
any legislation, they need Democrats and eventually the right wingers.
Then we'll use that against them. I'll call them right
wingers kind of so whatever, the maga nihilist freaks will
use the fact that they had to ask Democrats for
help to come for them. So you know, we're kind
of in a never ending cycle on this.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
Yeah, unbelievable stuff. Just give me the TLDR. On we
have a sort of like run up to this caucus
Super Tuesday. I mean you just expect more drama. I
mean more sound and noise signifying nothing, if that makes
sense from the few republics. You know, like they're going
(17:20):
to have sort of a primary ish right, I mean,
even though nobody can win against Trump, they'll still go
through the motions until Super Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
I guess yeah. I mean, yes, there's some going to
go through the motions. I think Nicki's gonna run through
the tape. I think that all these people who have
fantasies about what the party is that we've been discussing,
there is some argument right for NICKI to try to
get a clear second, so that then in twenty twenty eight,
maybe people turn their eyes to her again. I don't
think that's going to happen because that misunderstands the party,
(17:50):
but other rationales for keeping going. And I talked to
a Desanta super Pac guy. Boy this is three or
four months ago now, was quite candid with me that
he was like, we really don't know what's going to
happen with the Jack Smith trial. And he's like, there's
kind of an argument if you're DeSantis. Now this is
(18:10):
when things are looking a little better for him, so
maybe the has changed, But at that time he was saying,
there's an argument for sticking around and getting seconds and
thirds and getting some delegates because who knows, right, Like,
there is this big known unknown out there of how
what happens if Trump gets convicted before the convention. I
don't really think that would change anything necessarily, but I
(18:31):
do think that all of that Trump weirdness, you know,
and the fact that we're in uncharted waters, it's going
to mean at least Nikki, maybe DeSantis, maybe Christy. I
don't know. I hope not the past time for him
to get out, but maybe some of these people will
stick around, just just as a back to the dumb
and dumber for the So you're saying this chance purposes.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Tim Miller, I appreciate you so much.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
I appreciate you.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Molly.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
Let's do it.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Against Congressman Eric Swahwow represents California's fourteenth district. Welcome back
to Fast Politics, Congressman Eric.
Speaker 4 (19:11):
Swah Wow, Molly, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Well, it's very exciting to have you. I've had you
on this podcast so many times when you were in
the majority, and now that you are in the shit
show that is the minority. The minority is not the
should show. The majority of this one hundred and eighteenth
Congress is the shit show.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
But wow, I.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Mean, what is it like to work there?
Speaker 5 (19:36):
Honestly, we're the firewall. In fact, we are the majority.
What are you talking about? The debt ceiling, the well
City ours that we've passed. The majority of the votes
came from Democrats. So I think jeffries on the shit
that matters is the speaker. Yes, exactly, Molly. I would
say this is why these elections are so critical. That
(19:58):
the red wave was supposed to wipe us out and instead,
you know, it ended up being a very narrow majority
for the Republicans in the House, by the way, the
same number that Pelosi had, and it looked like, you know,
she did it with ease as far as like the
landmark legislation she passed, and a couple seat majority in
the Senate. But because we stem that red wave, we
(20:18):
have been able, you know, to be the firewall in
the Congress. And so for anyone who you know, was
down about Democrats losing the House, you know, we didn't
lose it by that much. And we are united, and
that unity has given us a lot of leverage to
protect so many of the rights that your viewers care about.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
I think that's a really good point. But I want
to talk about the insanity of this Republican party for
another minute, because today George Santos had a press conference
where usually the speaker has a press conference, right that
the steps are usually reserved for the speaker of the House.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
He's not the speaker, really not yet.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
Okay, I guess I should delete the Emaility.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Said you just ignore it.
Speaker 5 (21:03):
There's a sort of a narrative arc here to take
you a little bit back, and this is all the
old timers who I served with tell me started with
New Gingrich. He had very masterfully, if you will, in quotations,
used c span to his benefit to kind of create
theater around politics. And then had you know, Donald Trump,
(21:25):
who had been a decades long entertainer come into politics
and was had no interested in governing, you know, just
had mostly interested in ruling and showmanship. And so it's
not a surprise that someone like George Santos would say, well,
I could do that job. I could you know, completely
invent a character who would fit into, you know, the
(21:47):
circus that Donald Trump has brought to Washington. So this
just seems like the natural logical arc that started a
while back and then continue through Trump.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah, I think that's right. One of those things I
had the academic on the podcast earlier and we were
talking about the idea that the Republican Party has turned
against democracy, small the democracy. Do you think that's right?
And more importantly, I mean, you serve with these people.
They are kind of doing a show, right.
Speaker 5 (22:17):
It's completely a show, and it's for the benefit of
you know, one very corrupt, very dangerous, very incompetent person
and Donald Trump, you know, he is the only you know,
conversion therapy that's ever worked for people that you know
buying the conversion therapy. They've been converted because so many
of them spoke out against Trump, including Speaker Johnson. And
(22:39):
to your question of like do they believe in democracy
or not, go back to the press conference that Speaker
Johnson had the night that he was elected by the
Republican Conference, and he's got the whole conference standing behind him,
and you know, he stands before a microphone apparently to
answer questions, and the first question is about Johnson being
the architect of effort to overturn the election, and he
(23:02):
just says no, and the whole conference just starts booing
and shaming the reporter in such a barbaric way as
if they don't have to answer, you know, to anyone anymore.
And so yes they are. They're anti democratic and then
they're anti freedom. We just released an AD and I'll
send it to you, but it's defining Johnson and it
(23:24):
uses that press conference. And in the ad we propose, like,
how would he have answered other questions that are important
to you, like on abortion, like on no fault divorces,
which he's opposed to.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
No fault divorces were actually signed into law for the
first time by a little known Republican. It's called Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Yeah exactly.
Speaker 5 (23:49):
So, yeah, we have run this ad where we have
kind of a fictitious reporter asking questions about freedom, and
we keep going back to each answer with that mob,
you know behind Johnson, just booing them and shaming the
reporters because they are a party that's interesting interested in
ruling and taking away your freedoms, and then they have
(24:11):
no interest in governing.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Yeah. Yeah, I mean just absolutely sort of spectacularly fucked up.
Let's talk about the House right now. The vote I
think will be tomorrow, right for the Santos vote.
Speaker 5 (24:27):
Yes, so that should be tomorrow. Look, I think he's
a Gonner. It's shocking to me that it's taken so long.
I don't take a vote like this lightly, Molly, and
I get the take that, you know, we've only done
this for people who fought for the Confederacy and people
convicted of a felomy. Except with George Santo's he has
admitted to most of what he's been accused of. Now
(24:50):
there's criminal liability that he's facing, but as far as
defrauding the voters, he's copped to that, and then you
have this ethics report as well.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Well.
Speaker 5 (25:00):
I do believe that some Republicans are worried that if
they throw out Santos. There's a really really good question
as to why won't you throw out Trump? Because I mean,
Trump has more felony charges against him than Santos does.
He has admitted, you know, uh to was it Billy Bush.
(25:22):
You know that how he treats women and how he
views he can do that. So you've got multiple Santos
like or worse ad missions from Trump and so but
it just seems that, you know, the voters like Trump,
at least enough of them in the Republican Party that
he's gonna be the nominee, and Santos to them is
just kind of an embarrassment and he's a political liability.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
It's also Santos is Republicans want to keep the House,
which seems unlikely. But for those five Republicans in swing
districts in New York, Santos is a tangible way to
show that they're not partisan, even though they obviously are.
Speaker 5 (26:01):
That's exactly right, and they're worried primarily about their own
job and being associated with Santos because they all campaigned
together to flip those New York seats and so that
this is really, you know, just survival. There's no I
wouldn't give them any medals of honor for what they're
doing here. And as I said, any good reporter should
(26:23):
follow up and say, okay, applying and projecting your logic
onto Trump, why have you endorsed Trump?
Speaker 4 (26:29):
And it just doesn't add up.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
As you're looking at all of this kind of drama
in the House, and then there's drama and the Senate.
Just back to this idea of Hakeem Jefferies as the
actual Speaker of the House, which I think is really relevant.
It does seem like Mike Johnson is not able to
pass a lot of this stuff. Like so he passed
(26:53):
his Continuing Resolution, which will kick all the spending problems
right the spending bills until January, but he can't pass
some of the underlying though, right talk to us about
where you guys are with that.
Speaker 5 (27:05):
He did exactly what McCarthy did, and it cost McCarthy's job.
I think that's very telling though, that the Republicans never
trusted McCarthy and they always feared that he was always
just about himself, and he, you know, would do anything
to say in power and cut any of these deals
with Johnson.
Speaker 4 (27:22):
They know that he is really one of them.
Speaker 5 (27:26):
He is, you know, an extreme Maga Republican proudly calls himself,
you know, Mega Mike. And so he did the same
thing and suffered no penalty. And here we are, you know,
with fifty days away until another potential government shut down,
and he has said, Speaker Johnson that he's not going
to do another continuing resolution because again I think he
(27:49):
sees that he probably got a mull again for the
first one. But they are empowered, you know, the far
far right to just put another speaker in if he
does it again. And so we'll see. I've been in
convers for eleven years, have been through multiple.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Shutdowns longer than he has.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
But Molly, we've.
Speaker 5 (28:06):
Never had a shutdown in the last eleven years, with
multiple shutdowns in an election year, and that I think
is going to be really interesting to see if they
want to play with fire, because again Democrats will be united.
We just want to govern, We want to get shit done,
and we recognize we're in the minority, and so we're
a firewall to protect against cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act,
to the Jobs Act, to the Chips Act what they want,
(28:28):
and now the Affordable Care Act, which they want to
go after, but it would be playing with fire if
he's going to shut down the government rather than pass
a funding bill. And by the way, they cannot even
among themselves pass these different appropriations bills. They're just the failures.
They're not fit for governing. That's not what they came
here to do. They came here to entertain, and they're
(28:51):
finding that the governing part of the job is actually difficult.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
There have been a lot of retirements this month.
Speaker 4 (28:59):
Enough trying Eric, lots of me to retire.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
There have been a lot of retirements in Congress. I
don't know if you read. J mart had a really
good column on this, and he talked about how like
a lot of people were retiring. Are not the superstars
like you. They're the backbenchers who are quietly doing, you know,
a lot of legislating, largely Republicans but some Democrats. Those
people do not get replaced by people who are the
(29:25):
same as them, right, talk to us about that phenomenon.
Speaker 5 (29:29):
Most Republicans who retire will be replaced by someone much
farther to the right, who will likely run, as I said,
as a maga Republican slash you know, entertainer. And when
I came to Congress, I formed this bipartisan group called
United Solutions Caucus. It was the freshman Republican and Democratic
members in my class, about thirty members in it. We
(29:50):
knew we couldn't do big things, but we wanted to
focus on building trust and working on small pieces of legislation,
figuring one day we would all be, you know, in
leadership and we could do big things. Well, when Trump
came in, that group evaporated, in large part because many
of them on the Republican side lost their primaries and
so they were replaced by far right Republicans, and the
(30:14):
ones who were still around found that it was very
unpopular to say publicly that you were working with a Democrat.
And so again this has been kind of a long
time coming since Trump brought that Circus Act to town.
But for your viewer's sake, who I know, you know,
Democrats can be very anxious and pessimistic and of the
bed wedding lot, We're going to get through this, and
(30:36):
we should be the confident ones. And I would rather
be us than them, because Donald Trump, his best day
for himself and MAGA was on the election night in
November twenty sixteen, and he's lost almost everything since. So
we know how to do and so that the pathway
to is no different than what we've did in eighteen
or we did in twenty and twenty two, and we
recently did in Ohio and Virginia. And by the way,
(30:59):
want a flag e Moally, I know you're tracking this,
sing you post about it. In Florida, they are so
close Republicans, Democrats, independents to putting abortion rights on the ballot.
They're just inches away from having the voter signatures that
they need. That in November twenty twenty four on the
ballot in Florida could be the same abortion legislation that
(31:22):
was on the ballot in Ohio and Michigan and Kansas,
and that will protect an important right but also be
just a really galvanizing force put House seats into play
and send the Senate seat into play. And frankly, Donald
Trump's gonna have to defend Florida because women are not
going to want that right taken away in that state.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
Yeah, that's a Carl Rove playbook. That's a play from
the Karl Rove book of putting gay marriage on the
ticket two thousand and four in order to support Bush.
And I do think that's a really important thing when
you see the sort of like machinations of adding stuff
done in Congress. I mean, is there any way that
(32:03):
the numbers are so small for Johnson? I mean, I
know he's much nicer to deal with, or what I've
heard from other members of Congress is much nicer to
deal with. Kevin people liked but was dishonest, but nobody
liked Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson is much more likable.
But do you think there's any world in which our
West wing fantasy occurs and he makes a deal with
(32:26):
Democrats or is it just the party is just too
far to the right.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Nice is never the problem, right right, Well except with
Jim Jordan.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
I feel like people were just like, he's so mean,
We're not going to do this, yeah, right.
Speaker 4 (32:37):
Right, I say, like, nice is not the problem with Johnson.
It's just what he believes. But he does not have
that much to do, if we're being honest.
Speaker 5 (32:44):
He's got to keep the guvernment open and on the
needs for Ukraine and the Middle East and even the
border where I think Democrats are interested in helping there.
Speaker 4 (32:53):
We have to have a funding package.
Speaker 5 (32:55):
And I do predict though, if it's a bundle package
of Ukraine, Middle East and border, there will be more
Democrats voting for than Republicans. Again, and it's a matter
of will they tolerate that and let him stay on
a speaker. But after we do that, Molly, there's nothing
to do that. There's no peace of legislation Republicans that
(33:16):
the Senate would pass and the President would sign into laws,
so he doesn't really have to do that much. That's
why it's just so bewildering that, you know, we're in
this position where we could be in another shutdown because
he's actually got just a few things to do, and
then we're in the twenty twenty four election.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Unbelievable. Eric Swahlwell, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
Thanks Molly.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
Congressman Robert Garcia represents California's forty second district. Welcome back,
too fast politics. Congressman Robert Garcia.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Thank you, happy to be back.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
You're in your office. Tell us what you're about to do.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Well, I'm about to go to the floor of the
House and make the case as to why we should
expel George Santos.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
Walk us through what a privileged resolution is and how
this works.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Let me go a few months back and explain the process.
It's about nine months ago. George Santos hit my radar
early on, we're both freshman members, saw him at orientation,
you know, immediately just got bad vibes, and then of
course all all the news about his just deceit and
lies started coming out. So, you know, I called for
his expulsion early on when we both got installed in Congress,
(34:26):
and was the first person to call for his expulsion
nine months ago. I made the decision then to put
forward an expulsion resolution against him. I reached out to
a couple of my colleagues, particularly another freshman, Dan Goldman
from New York, who within my class and I built
a relationship with, and you know, we put forward the
expulsion resolution, and by doing that, we essentially triggered a
(34:47):
vote of the House. The House put the expulsion resolution forward,
and at the time, while Democrats were felt really strongly
about moving forward, Republicans chose to punt and instead called
for this holpse Ethics a report that Kevin McCarthy was
trying to put together and so I know we that
went forward, and here we are nine months later and
the Ethics Canity report is out. It's incredibly damning, and
(35:10):
all those folks that were on board then should be
on board now and it's time to expel them and
he's got to go forward.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Republicans could have put up this resolution, right, they chose
not to.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
Right, And so what actually happened, like procedurally, is when
the House opened this week, Republicans could have decided to
make the resolution privileged essentially means that it forces the
vote to happen in the next couple of days after
I had filed my expulsion resolution. They chose not to
do so, and so we did is we basically forced
them to file a privileged one themselves or they would
(35:44):
have had to vote it essentially my resolution. They want
to be the ones who actually claimed the vote, and
so for us, it was always strategies filu privileged resolution
because they hadn't. They keep wallowing and wailing about when
this is going to happen, So we force the vote,
then they have to file their own privilege resolution later
that evening, and now we're forced to have this vote,
which will happen tomorrow and will be debated. But we're
(36:05):
opening the debate on the vote today.
Speaker 1 (36:06):
I mean, wouldn't it have looked better for them if
they had done.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
It one hundred percent? We don't know why. I mean,
the ethic is going to be cheerman. He actually filed
the resolution about a week ago, but did not make
it privileged. And so when you file a resolution and
you don't make it privileged, it's really up to the
speaker at that point to schedule that resolution at some point.
But we had no idea when this woul happened. They
could just stn't wall this. I mean, they've saved George
Santos now multiple times, why would they do it again?
(36:31):
So by us filing it as privileged, we are essentially
forcing the vote this week, and so it's a little
bit of insurance policy to make sure that they actually
did it this week. The report is out and this
guy is a con man of the Donald Trump order
and he must be renew immediately.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
Do you think that part of why they don't want
to remove Santos is because they need the votes, or
do you think part of the reason they don't want
to remove Santos is because these Republicans really know that
if they start going out after people for doing crimes, right,
the leader of their party is facing ninety one criminal
(37:07):
and diamonds.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
I think it's both things. I think that the Republican
Party is broken. The standard for integrity and service has
been completely changed because of Donald Trump, and so I
think that's certainly a piece. And when you have members
still defending him saying, oh, well, you know he deserves
a day court even though the ethnic Timoty has already
provided all the evidence. You know, these are folks that
(37:29):
love Donald Trump that'll you know, do whatever they can
to support someone that will likely be running president from jail.
And at the same time, I think, you know, they
have a slim majority, and you know Sanchos for McCarthy
especially was a vote, and so they use, you know,
the integrity of the House for power and that's wrong
and it needs to.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
You're going to go on the floor tell us a
little bit about how this is going to work now.
Speaker 2 (37:50):
So because the Republican we're going to be voting on
the Republican Privileged Resolution that we triggered. There'll be four debate,
you'll be hearing essentially mostly from the needs or Republicans,
and they'll be making their case, and you'll also hear
from me, and then I will be weave negotiated with
the Republicans to have four times so that we would
allow them essentially have their resolution come up first, and
(38:12):
then I'll speak. He'll have the same amount of time,
so we have an hour debate. He's dodn't have to
defend what we all say. And at the end of that,
the bay will close. And then Friday, first thing in
the morning, we will take a vote and then we'll
see and who actually can actually has the integrity at
the House to do the right thing. I don't know
how there could be any member of the US House
representatives that can read that report and not think this
(38:35):
is deserving of expelling. For the House.
Speaker 1 (38:37):
Yeah, you will need two thirds right to expel.
Speaker 4 (38:42):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
We will need essentially a united Democratic caucus, which we'll
have I think close to all the Democrats who had
voted not to expel them the last time for a
variety of reasons, most of which was they were waiting
for the ex committee report. They've all signif a vote
to expel, and then there were about maybe you're twenty
four to twenty five republic insident, but are ready to expel.
(39:04):
The last time that number you've had another probably you know,
twenty five to thirty say on top of them that
they're ready to expel in now. And so we're close
to the threshold. I mean, we need really about eighty
Republicans depending on the vote count to it's sure that
he is expelled. And I think signs point to you
to an expulsion for me and you never know. I mean,
but surely these folks aren't exactly on profiles encourage.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
And there's not exactly a genius whip counter out there
whipping the votes right.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
No, these people have literally no idea what they're doing.
It's still uncertain. Look either way, neither we expel. You know,
this complete fabrication of a person from Congress or B Republican,
You're are going to have to stand up and say
that they once again saved this criminal who has lied,
who has stolen, who has cheated, who's already admitted to fraud,
who is likely going to jail, and we are going
(39:55):
to remind about that every single day. So that's their choice.
Speaker 1 (39:59):
Yeah, and it's really an incredible choice. Right, you're in Congress. Now,
why do you think Mike Johnson didn't want this to
come up just because he was right about the votes?
Or do you think that he just didn't know how
to do it, or I mean, do you have a
take on that.
Speaker 2 (40:15):
I just think that he probably is looking at that
vote count. I mean, look, he hasn't come out against
the expulsion, which is a decent sign. But he also,
of course has has endorsed a full throttle vote to
expel him. And so I think he's you know, again,
he's weak. He has a very thin majority, He doesn't
really have a huge constituency, even with his own caucus,
and so I don't know that he honestly has a
(40:37):
big following. So I think I think people are going
to vote the way they want to vote. And quite frankly,
the New York Republicans, I mean those five New York
Republicans are begging their colleagues to please get rid of them.
This is going to I mean, they really want to
try to keep the majority, which were you know, we are,
of course on our side, are intent for that not
to happen. They need to expel this guy, and he's
when they're back home. That's all they hear about, and
(40:59):
so are going around doing the best they can to
whip their to whip their members. We are answering questions
on our side, and I think you're going to see
it by partisan unit unity tomorrow and we're expel thement.
You know, the second that he gets expelled, he will
be walked out of the house by the Sergeant of Arms,
And I'm sure he will make an incredible spectacle of it,
as he always does. Right, but at least we'll be
(41:21):
doing the right thing and be able to move forward
without you know, this kind of circus that he's created.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
Yeah, I'll say really incredible. He gave a press conference
today where he wore fare Gamo shoes and also was
pretty indignant. Did you watch the press conference? And also
he opened the door to trying to go after Representative Bowman.
Talk to me about that.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
I mean, look, he's delusional. First, I think like everyone else,
I also want to know where did he spend six
thousand dollars for about but what did he buy?
Speaker 4 (41:55):
Pobby?
Speaker 2 (41:55):
The shoes he was to hold it.
Speaker 1 (41:56):
Up right exactly and iermaz.
Speaker 2 (41:59):
Maybe was that pink suit? I mean, I have crohoos.
I mean the forid trip, the trips around the country,
around the world, all the money that he's essentially embezzling
is really shameful. And so I think that he is delusional.
I think that he's doing whatever he can in this
the last few hours of his time in Congress to
try to attack others, try to expel Jamal Bildman, which
(42:21):
is going to go absolutely nowhere. Of course, members of
his own party have said so. I told this to
his face when we had an online conversation of Twitter
x spaces, that he should do the country and constituents
a favor and just resign.
Speaker 1 (42:34):
And I'm going to tell him again, was he mad
at you when you said that?
Speaker 2 (42:37):
Oddly enough?
Speaker 6 (42:38):
He was not.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
He's such an odd guy.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
Yeah, strange. We went into a back and forth, and
you know, I think our conversation lasted twenty minutes or
twenty five minutes, you know. And I will say this,
and I want to kind of just say this as well.
I like wish him no personal harm, you know, I feel,
honestly sometimes I'm saddened by like what he's allowed to
happen to himself and to people he represents. But he
(43:01):
has to be held accountable, and we have a justice
system and a process in the House to deal with this,
and he has to live up to the fact that
he won't give a full floated apology. Also tells me
that he has no remorse. That's very concerning, and he
should take the time and go work on his court truck.
I mean he and Donald Trump are gonna end up
in the same place.
Speaker 1 (43:20):
Yeah, I mean he is really facing a lot of
legal jeopardy as well.
Speaker 2 (43:25):
Absolutely, this is going to take up some.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Time now, but then you're going to have time before
you start trying to get through this cr So January
is going to be like pretty much, if you'll excuse
my French, a shit show for you guys, portals show,
because you're going to have these tiered crs that you're
gonna happen to negotiate. Do you think Johnson has the
(43:48):
will of his caucus or do you think this ends
in a shutdown?
Speaker 2 (43:53):
It's hard to know that he's such an unknown still
and has so few relationships with folks, including our own leadership,
that it's really hard to know. What I think is
becoming a parent in the last couple of days. Is
he's trying to, you know, show up his conservative base
by moving forward with an impeachment of the president. I
think that's pretty clear. I mean, obviously there's no evidence
and there's nothing there.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
Do you think that impeachment vote is going to take
place this week?
Speaker 2 (44:17):
The impeachment vote for the president will happen after some
kind of formal inquiry that they will do.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Are they going to do the vote on starting the inquiry?
Because he said he was going to do a vote
the way that McCarthy didn't. But do you think that
happens And if so, do you think that happens soon?
Speaker 4 (44:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (44:34):
I mean I think if he chooses to move forward
and makes the final decision that they're going to go
for the impeachment. I think the impeachment inquiry vote I
think is likely to happen. I think he has said soough,
but we just don't know yet. And so the reality
is that anything this Republicans say, especially in the leadership,
basically they just flip flopped. They lie, they say one thing.
Another thing is you know, you can't trust what if
(44:56):
they say. And I think that's the.
Speaker 1 (44:57):
Problem, and that ultimately was the end of mcarth Are
they right? He just couldn't. People wouldn't trust.
Speaker 2 (45:02):
Him, they wouldn't trust him, they didn't like him, And
I think that's a big part of it. I think
he just made a lot of enemies really bad.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
But we really could be facing down another shutdown.
Speaker 2 (45:11):
I mean we could be, and I hope to god
we're not. You know, there's millions of people that depend
on jobs and these federal jobs and benefits, and it's
really sad and it hurts real people. And the way
that some of these House Republicans just kind of laugh
it off like it's some big joke, I think he's
really disgraceful. So, yeah, it's a really serious issue, and
I think it'll become kind of crystal clear by Christmas
what the direction of the Republicans are going to be.
Speaker 1 (45:33):
Are you worried about Republicans trying to enact revenge for
Santos despite the fact that Santos is not trying to
impeach Biden is a way of Trump enacting revenge. Do
you worry that Republicans will try that was a sort
of revenge for Santo's kind of scenario.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
Perhaps, But at the end of the day, the vote's
going to be bipartisan, and I think Republicans want have
gone too. I think he is the real aberration. He
is is someone that is these kind of people usually
don't exist in Congress. He's a walking lie. You know,
I don't put past Republicans to do just about anything.
I mean, they're absolutely horrible legislators. So they're going to
continue to do things like try to impeach, you know,
(46:13):
President Biden, or impeach the ticcature may orcus or whatever
other crazy planer, insane like plan they have. And so
I think it's our job is just to focus on
good governing, on integrity and winning the House back. And
I think winning the House we got to. We got
to get the House back and take the gavels from
these lunatics.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
Thank you so much, Congressman.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
Absolutely anytime, there no moment.
Speaker 1 (46:37):
Ofecly Jesse Cannon, Maley, Jung Fast.
Speaker 6 (46:42):
You know, James Comber initially told Hunter Biden he could
choose to testify in private or public, but who James
Comer's word never means a thing.
Speaker 1 (46:54):
Yeah, So Republicans are completely obsessed with Hunter Biden. They're
hoping that it will muddy the waters, that this will
be the corruption that will make a false equivalency between
Biden and Trump. They are going to do it in
any way they can. I think the reason why they
want Hunter to testify in a private forum is because
(47:15):
the last two hearings they held that were like this,
the one about impeaching Biden right and the last Weaponization
of Government Committee hearing. Both of those made Republicans look
really stupid. And even the most recent hearing on gun
violence yesterday, they kind of look like morons. So I
(47:36):
do think Republicans and Congress are getting more and more
concerned about how they look during these hearings. But let
me just say James Comer, who thinks he's too smart
by half for doing this hearing in private, he doesn't
get the publicity. He can't drive the news cycle if
no one sees the hearing. So there we have James Comer.
Checkmate liberal, You've checkmate it yourself, and you are our
(48:00):
moment of Fuckeray. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics.
Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to hear the
best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos.
If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to
a friend. And keep the conversation going. And again thanks
for listening.
Hi, I'm Mollie John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discuss the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. And Representative Clay Higgins you'll remember him
as having worked for the worst Senate podcaster from the
great state of Texas, Lion Ted Cruz. Clay Higgins says
(00:23):
Jack Smith's days are numbered. They are, in fact not.
We have such a great show for you today. Congressman
Eric Swalwell tells us about how DEM's are actually running
the government, what since the Republicans are too dysfunctional to
do it for themselves. Then we'll talk to yet another Congressman,
my personal friend Robert Garcia, about the expulsion of congressman
(00:46):
and botox enthusiast. I'm not casting aspersions here, George Santos.
But first we have hosts of the next level, the Boworks,
Tim Miller. Welcome back to Fast Politics. The funniest and
the most attractive.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
I'm sorry, Tim Miller, Oh, this is.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
So much pressure now, you know I gotta be funny
and attractive. Yeah, well, I don't have to be attractive
on audio. People can imagine how attractive I look right now.
I was in Costa Rica last week. I get a
little tan to just picture that. Imagine we have a
few more muscles than I really have.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
We were talking about the sort of Republican party. So
this is an amazing moment in a strange way, because
you have, like the Koch Brothers last cycle, they did
not endorse a candidate in a general. They had five
people who were there preferred picks, all of whom were
not Donald Trump. So basically everyone bout Donald Trump. Try
(01:45):
and imagine with me the internal panic in the Coke
network as they decided they just had to endorse Nikki Haley.
I mean, talk me through what happened here, because it's amazing.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Yeah, I think that there's some face saving happening. You know,
Charles Coke is not like Donald Trump, and so I
guess I want to just clear the decks with this.
It's better to oppose Donald Trump than to be for him.
So yes, kudos to you, Charles Coke. I'm not really
one to give kudos for those sorts of things that said.
This doesn't feel like a real effort to beat Donald Trump.
(02:19):
You know, like you put out this memo from the
big donors and their strategists talking about how you're endorsing
Nicky Haley. And you know, I'm kind of like, well,
that wasn't really that helpful. Actually, Republican voters hate the
big donors, So did you need to make a big
announcement about it. Couldn't you have just started running ads
and then you see the ads and they're not so aggressive.
(02:40):
I did an X post. I know I still am
weak and I go to X sometimes. I'm also on threads.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
I'm not casting dispersions. Look, we are content makers. We
are not better than anything. Thank you, period paragraph no
offense or anything.
Speaker 4 (02:54):
Yeah, we're not.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
We're at the bottom of the barrel as far as
dignified work is concerned.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
We would have a union, but it would be too sad.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Yeah. So South Carolina blogger I follow posted a picture
of the first door hanger that they saw from the
COC Networks pro Haley effort, and it's just like vote
Nikki Haley. It's a picture of Earth her arms crossed,
reclaim the American Dream, fiscal responsibility, energy potential, secure the border.
And then that's it. And I'm like, who thinks this
(03:26):
is gonna work? This just seems like some rich guys
saying like instead of giving money to I don't know,
unhoused youth or something useful. I'm just gonna make sure
that my friends know that I kind of did something
to try to stop Donald Trump, and so we're gonna
run this generic pro Haley campaign that is maybe marginally
helpful at best, maybe actively harmful actually, because you know
(03:50):
you can. I was like talking about this in Charlie
God Love. I'm Charlie Sykes, like wrote a thing yesterday.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
For the Bulwark.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
It's like like this matters, it's better than not, and
I agree with that. But then like right after I
see him on my feed, the next post is from
insane maga person I follow with like a million followers,
and they're like Democrats and open borders donors go in
for NICKI Haley. I'm like the crazy person that I follow,
Like more Republican primary voters are reading that person. Then
(04:17):
Charlie like there's some so anyway, long story short, I
guess it's something. It's better than nothing. But I had
a fun fact that I saw this morning. I'm supposed
to be following this stuff, but so whenever I get
surprised by a fact, I feel like I like to
share it because the listeners probably don't know it. I'm
gonna quiz you. Actually, I think this tells you more
about the state of the Republican Party than the Koch decision.
Mollie junk Fast, how many Republican senators, congressmen, and governors
(04:42):
active do you think have endorsed Nicki Haley's presidential campaign
combined governors, House members, senators, not many. It's one. It's
one from her state.
Speaker 4 (04:55):
Only one.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
And it's like, these are the people that are actual
in the political game, right, It's like the donors are
wish casting, the cable pundits are wish casting. The strategists
are just saying, please don't make daddy. Yeah, they're cashing checks,
and they're they're like hoping against hope that maybe a
lightning strike will hit mar Lago. Right, But the people
(05:20):
that are actually in politics and need to get support
from Republican voters, none of them are for Nicki. And
now I'm sure in the next month, you know whoever
mint will come out and likes Susan Collins or somebody,
but you know, so she'll get up to four or something.
But the one is from her state. There's zero for
people outside of her state. We're six weeks away from Iowa.
(05:42):
This is the big Nikki momentum week, and so mate, whatever,
even if this comes out this afternoon and we're like
in nicki Owa's Campaign's like we're making a big announcement
where it's our congressional leadership team and it's like six people,
It's like, still, that's like nobody, I mean one person,
Like this party is a cult and it's at the
same day I saw this fact is one day after
e last, Stephanic is in their meeting saying you got
(06:04):
to put the Trump badge on your email, and.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
If you get the Trump badge on your email, you'll
get more donations, right, I mean, it's like Ponzi scheme stuff.
The thing I was struck by was watching Nicki Haley
talking in Iowa about how important it was that they
had to reform Social Security and Medicare, and I was like, really,
I was like, because that worked so well for Paul Ryan.
(06:28):
I mean, I actually don't think it's true. But even
if it is true, which again, why things that are
true matter? Here are who even knows? Right? I just wonder, like,
you don't win elections, you got Trump giving people heroin
and Nicki Haley is like, no, that's really bad for you.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Yeah, give some broccoli.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Look, I used to be Republican. If we want to
reform social Security so some rich people don't get as
much to make it a little more solvent, Okay, I
fine with that, you know, I hope. I don't think
my dad listened to your podcast. I don't think he
needs to get to cash in on his Social Security.
We can put that back in the trust fund. That's fine.
He did well for himself.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
By the way, people hate that.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
Rich people.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
I hate that.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
Rich people hate that. Regular people hate that. Old people
hate that exactly. They're coming for me next.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
It's so amazing because I know so many rich people
who are like I have to have my Social Security
And I'm like, you know, you have a plane, yeah,
or like you have a boat, right, you could just
not use the boat. I mean, why are you entitled
to that? Anyway?
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Go on.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
Sorry, this is where like my communist tendencies and Mike
and my free markets tendencies kind of match together. I'm like,
I like, I don't like rich people, but I also
think we should have a balanced budget. Anyway, where was
I You got me distracted? Talking about privatization of social security. Okay,
here we are. Here's the important thing in your observation,
which is what do Republican voters want? And this time
(07:46):
is directly back to the Coke thing and to Nikki
Haley's policy prescriptions. The Republican voters have spoken with unanimity
that they hate the Koch brothers political aga. They do
not like, you know, being more open to immigrants. They
do not like reforming our entitlements. They do not care
(08:08):
about corporate tax cuts. Okay, this Republican Party cares about
woke stuff the border, being mean to immigrants, being mean
to liberals, you know, making fun of cat ladies in
New York. Like, that is what this Republican Party cares about.
They have full throatdly rejected the agenda put forth by
the Kochs and Paul Ryan and Karl Rove and my
(08:30):
old people and Nicki Haley. And so it's like, why
then do we have to pretend like an endorsement from
the people that the voters have already rejected over and
over again. Matters if we could go into an imaginary
world where Nicky Haley won because Donald Trump ate the
cheeseburger of my dreams. That's fine with it, that's great.
I'm probably still going to vote for Joe Bien. Anybody
(08:51):
that worked for Donald Trump does not pass my one
issue to Trump Arrangement syndrome litness test, Like it would
be much better for our society. But it's just like
it's we also have to live in reality, and the
reality is Republican voters don't like this stuff.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
Yeah, no, I mean I think that's a really good point.
You're trying to appeal to something that doesn't exist. So basically,
what you think how this plays out? And again, we're
not supposed to predict the future, because, as Margaret Sullivan
said rightly and I quoted her in my column about
how bad polls are and how they get us focused
on the wrong things, we are bad at predicting the future.
(09:26):
But that said, this is like in AA when you
say you're not going to cross talk and then you
just cross talk. But it does seem like this is
a last ditch effort to try to pour money into
a possible, non trumpy future that won't work.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
It is a last ditch effort, and she is a
more appealing candidate than DeSantis, just just candidate skills wise,
putting aside policy elements. But yeah, it's just the math
is very like Trump is over fifty, right, And you
know I was doing this. I did this for the teens.
If you have any teens in your life. I have
a Snapchat show for teens. It's called not My Party.
(10:02):
You just tell them it down, let's snapchat. It's like
it's got a lot of memes.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
It goes like.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Three minutes in Snapchat.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Yeah, it's like I'll say one sentence and then it'll
be Timothy Shamalay will pop in, you know, to keep
him interested.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
I know what social media network is popular. When my
teens tell me please never go on it.
Speaker 3 (10:20):
There you go, So don't go on if you're a parent.
But if you have a team in your life, dog's politics,
tell them to check out Not my Party. I did
the math for the teens this week, and it's like,
let's do the bowl case for Nicky.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Right.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
It's just like Christy gets out and endorses her, and
she gets all his support, and Doug Bergham gets out
and whoever else is left I don't even know, like,
and she gets there two percent and then a handful
of good nature Democrats and Independence crossed the aisle to
go vote for her, which bumps up even more. And
then she gets a little momentum bump of a few points.
It's still like really hard to get to fifty, you know,
(10:49):
because Trump's over fifty and that is in New Hampshire,
a good state, you know, because it has Independence that vote,
and there's a lot of you know, kind of flinty
Northeasterners that don't really aren't really into the true thing,
that are more moderate. You go down to the south,
I mean here in Louisiana, the last pole I saw
had it was Trump seventy five, DeSantis eight, Niki four.
How does she get from four to sixty? So yeah,
(11:10):
it's a last ditch effort. But the math is just
very the math is very challenging.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Yeah, and it is also so interesting to me because
like DeSantis, I mean, I think the chances of him
now being the nominee are like zero, right, I mean,
do you think that's fair?
Speaker 3 (11:25):
I mean, I guess they're less than zero because a
little slightly no kind of that would have been funnier.
I guess there's slightly more than zero because i'd Bret
Easton Ellis in my mind, because you know, Trump could die.
I mean, he's not gonna but we can all whatever.
Trump could die, and then I don't know, and I
head to head with him and Nikki. If Trump dies,
maybe Vivek would take it. Actually, it's hard to know
what would happen with the Trump cultists in that scenario.
(11:48):
So I would call it, let's give him, let's we'll
do this. So you're saying there's a chance for Desanta's,
well give him. We'll give him a point eight percent
chance based on death and other unforeseen instances.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
But what is important about to Santus, I think is
that he shows that this is not about policy, that
these Trump supporters you can't win them on policy.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
No, I mean you can lose them on policy. I
guess there's like a negative polarization, right if your policies
feel like the policies of the George Bush era or
of the Libs are too nice or Rasheeta to late, right, Like,
you can do things and say things about policy that
turn them off, but you can't go give them a
checklist of maga agenda items, you know, like I will
(12:30):
build the moat with the alligators in it, and I
will whatever you know take away MSNBC's carriage rights, saying
I think about Kim Jong un. You can't like you
can't do a positive list that doesn't work. It's about
there's more to it.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
We've now entered the young Guns section of the podcast,
where we make fun of the young guns. I'm sorry,
I know that you know some of the young guns.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
Intimately, I have to tell you.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Can we This probably won't make the actual podcast, but
can I tell you I just be full surprise. I
just spent a full day with Eric cant in New
Hampshire with Jeb, and he was one of the most
dour individuals I've ever encountered in my life. And he
was so negative and so sad and so panantic and
and we're about halfway through the day. It's like the
(13:17):
car way of a driver and it's Jeb and it's
me and it's Eric cantor we're just driving for a
Ventad event and like in between the second the least
famous of the young guns, in between the second and
the third event, I get on the phone with the
campaign manager and I was like, I don't ever want
to see Eric Canter in the car for another fucking day.
The rest of this campaign. Okay, he is just making
(13:39):
Jeb sad and like he and none of the voters
like him. Just send him to a Doner meeting or something.
I never want to see him in the car again.
So anyway, that's my Young Guns store.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Is making Jed sad. So Young Guns was the book
that Eric Canter, the least famous of the group, but
probably the most attractive, possibly though it was depressed.
Speaker 3 (14:01):
I kind of like Kevin McCarthy's muppet face. I don't
know if I had to pick.
Speaker 1 (14:06):
Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan wrote a book the three
of them together, and now it seems as if Kevin
McCarthy is on it. So he's on a sort of
trying to get a cable news contributorship tour at this point,
I think, because you saw somebody leaked that he told
Trump fuck you on the phone, maybe discuss Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
He has been humiliated. To me, it's kind of been
shocking that he stuck around to keep taking the pain.
And like he does interviews, like he does these gangles
in Congress, and he looks so sad. I mean, I
don't feel sad for him. He's made his bed, but
he died, looks really sad. It's like, if I was him,
I would just stay in my office and only come
out when absolutely necessary and start and start like calling
(14:51):
Jamie Diamond or whoever's going to hire me to be
a lobbyist. I don't know, but I did see that.
I guess he told Trump whatever f off after Trump
didn't want to help him. In the speakers. I hope
that happened, because it's just really funny, you know, it's
really it's like, it's really funny.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
I mean, you just you.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
Begged, you groveled, you gave him the right color star burst,
you went down to see him when he was sad,
and then like the one time you need him, Trump's
like fuck you. That is such an allegor. And you know,
Marcarty's like, no, fuck you. It's like, sorry too late,
but you finally found your backbone after you've lost everything.
Like that is a great allegory for the Trump era.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Yeah, no, it's amazing. It's so clear to me how
you cannot do business with Trump, you cannot trust him.
But again, Santos, it sounds like we're not going to
future cast. But I'm not sure you can count on
Santos's vote, So that gets them down to four or three.
Then if McCarthy resigns early, which he's threatening to, that
(15:47):
gets him down to two or three. That's not a
huge majority. I'm sorry, I'm not a mathematician here, but
that seems like less than four or five.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
Yeah, it does seem like, Liz, there's some oldies in
that the congquers. I know, it's kind of a MacB
podcast here, but you know, who knows that could keep dropping. Yeah,
it's not good. He's not gonna be able to pass anything,
and these guys are already out out to get them.
Who knows, maybe they'll decide an election. You're it's worth
waiting it out. I always said when McCarthy got the job,
and when Johnson got the job, I was like, look,
the jackals will give them a leash of one or
(16:19):
two times where they have to get Democrats to get
a vote passed before you know, the sort of Bannon
conservative media world starts to come for them. Right, So
Johnson might have one other one other he's already done
to do it once. He might have one other budget
vote where they let him do it. But like they
can't pass anything. We all live through this. They're dysfunctional,
(16:40):
They're incapable of passing anything on their own. To pass
any legislation, they need Democrats and eventually the right wingers.
Then we'll use that against them. I'll call them right
wingers kind of so whatever, the maga nihilist freaks will
use the fact that they had to ask Democrats for
help to come for them. So you know, we're kind
of in a never ending cycle on this.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
Yeah, unbelievable stuff. Just give me the TLDR. On we
have a sort of like run up to this caucus
Super Tuesday. I mean you just expect more drama. I
mean more sound and noise signifying nothing, if that makes
sense from the few republics. You know, like they're going
(17:20):
to have sort of a primary ish right, I mean,
even though nobody can win against Trump, they'll still go
through the motions until Super Tuesday.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
I guess yeah. I mean, yes, there's some going to
go through the motions. I think Nicki's gonna run through
the tape. I think that all these people who have
fantasies about what the party is that we've been discussing,
there is some argument right for NICKI to try to
get a clear second, so that then in twenty twenty eight,
maybe people turn their eyes to her again. I don't
think that's going to happen because that misunderstands the party,
(17:50):
but other rationales for keeping going. And I talked to
a Desanta super Pac guy. Boy this is three or
four months ago now, was quite candid with me that
he was like, we really don't know what's going to
happen with the Jack Smith trial. And he's like, there's
kind of an argument if you're DeSantis. Now this is
(18:10):
when things are looking a little better for him, so
maybe the has changed, But at that time he was saying,
there's an argument for sticking around and getting seconds and
thirds and getting some delegates because who knows, right, Like,
there is this big known unknown out there of how
what happens if Trump gets convicted before the convention. I
don't really think that would change anything necessarily, but I
(18:31):
do think that all of that Trump weirdness, you know,
and the fact that we're in uncharted waters, it's going
to mean at least Nikki, maybe DeSantis, maybe Christy. I
don't know. I hope not the past time for him
to get out, but maybe some of these people will
stick around, just just as a back to the dumb
and dumber for the So you're saying this chance purposes.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Tim Miller, I appreciate you so much.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
I appreciate you.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
Molly.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
Let's do it.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
Against Congressman Eric Swahwow represents California's fourteenth district. Welcome back
to Fast Politics, Congressman Eric.
Speaker 4 (19:11):
Swah Wow, Molly, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Well, it's very exciting to have you. I've had you
on this podcast so many times when you were in
the majority, and now that you are in the shit
show that is the minority. The minority is not the
should show. The majority of this one hundred and eighteenth
Congress is the shit show.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
But wow, I.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
Mean, what is it like to work there?
Speaker 5 (19:36):
Honestly, we're the firewall. In fact, we are the majority.
What are you talking about? The debt ceiling, the well
City ours that we've passed. The majority of the votes
came from Democrats. So I think jeffries on the shit
that matters is the speaker. Yes, exactly, Molly. I would
say this is why these elections are so critical. That
(19:58):
the red wave was supposed to wipe us out and instead,
you know, it ended up being a very narrow majority
for the Republicans in the House, by the way, the
same number that Pelosi had, and it looked like, you know,
she did it with ease as far as like the
landmark legislation she passed, and a couple seat majority in
the Senate. But because we stem that red wave, we
(20:18):
have been able, you know, to be the firewall in
the Congress. And so for anyone who you know, was
down about Democrats losing the House, you know, we didn't
lose it by that much. And we are united, and
that unity has given us a lot of leverage to
protect so many of the rights that your viewers care about.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
I think that's a really good point. But I want
to talk about the insanity of this Republican party for
another minute, because today George Santos had a press conference
where usually the speaker has a press conference, right that
the steps are usually reserved for the speaker of the House.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
He's not the speaker, really not yet.
Speaker 4 (20:57):
Okay, I guess I should delete the Emaility.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Said you just ignore it.
Speaker 5 (21:03):
There's a sort of a narrative arc here to take
you a little bit back, and this is all the
old timers who I served with tell me started with
New Gingrich. He had very masterfully, if you will, in quotations,
used c span to his benefit to kind of create
theater around politics. And then had you know, Donald Trump,
(21:25):
who had been a decades long entertainer come into politics
and was had no interested in governing, you know, just
had mostly interested in ruling and showmanship. And so it's
not a surprise that someone like George Santos would say, well,
I could do that job. I could you know, completely
invent a character who would fit into, you know, the
(21:47):
circus that Donald Trump has brought to Washington. So this
just seems like the natural logical arc that started a
while back and then continue through Trump.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
Yeah, I think that's right. One of those things I
had the academic on the podcast earlier and we were
talking about the idea that the Republican Party has turned
against democracy, small the democracy. Do you think that's right?
And more importantly, I mean, you serve with these people.
They are kind of doing a show, right.
Speaker 5 (22:17):
It's completely a show, and it's for the benefit of
you know, one very corrupt, very dangerous, very incompetent person
and Donald Trump, you know, he is the only you know,
conversion therapy that's ever worked for people that you know
buying the conversion therapy. They've been converted because so many
of them spoke out against Trump, including Speaker Johnson. And
(22:39):
to your question of like do they believe in democracy
or not, go back to the press conference that Speaker
Johnson had the night that he was elected by the
Republican Conference, and he's got the whole conference standing behind him,
and you know, he stands before a microphone apparently to
answer questions, and the first question is about Johnson being
the architect of effort to overturn the election, and he
(23:02):
just says no, and the whole conference just starts booing
and shaming the reporter in such a barbaric way as
if they don't have to answer, you know, to anyone anymore.
And so yes they are. They're anti democratic and then
they're anti freedom. We just released an AD and I'll
send it to you, but it's defining Johnson and it
(23:24):
uses that press conference. And in the ad we propose, like,
how would he have answered other questions that are important
to you, like on abortion, like on no fault divorces,
which he's opposed to.
Speaker 1 (23:37):
No fault divorces were actually signed into law for the
first time by a little known Republican. It's called Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Yeah exactly.
Speaker 5 (23:49):
So, yeah, we have run this ad where we have
kind of a fictitious reporter asking questions about freedom, and
we keep going back to each answer with that mob,
you know behind Johnson, just booing them and shaming the
reporters because they are a party that's interesting interested in
ruling and taking away your freedoms, and then they have
(24:11):
no interest in governing.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Yeah. Yeah, I mean just absolutely sort of spectacularly fucked up.
Let's talk about the House right now. The vote I
think will be tomorrow, right for the Santos vote.
Speaker 5 (24:27):
Yes, so that should be tomorrow. Look, I think he's
a Gonner. It's shocking to me that it's taken so long.
I don't take a vote like this lightly, Molly, and
I get the take that, you know, we've only done
this for people who fought for the Confederacy and people
convicted of a felomy. Except with George Santo's he has
admitted to most of what he's been accused of. Now
(24:50):
there's criminal liability that he's facing, but as far as
defrauding the voters, he's copped to that, and then you
have this ethics report as well.
Speaker 1 (25:00):
Well.
Speaker 5 (25:00):
I do believe that some Republicans are worried that if
they throw out Santos. There's a really really good question
as to why won't you throw out Trump? Because I mean,
Trump has more felony charges against him than Santos does.
He has admitted, you know, uh to was it Billy Bush.
(25:22):
You know that how he treats women and how he
views he can do that. So you've got multiple Santos
like or worse ad missions from Trump and so but
it just seems that, you know, the voters like Trump,
at least enough of them in the Republican Party that
he's gonna be the nominee, and Santos to them is
just kind of an embarrassment and he's a political liability.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
It's also Santos is Republicans want to keep the House,
which seems unlikely. But for those five Republicans in swing
districts in New York, Santos is a tangible way to
show that they're not partisan, even though they obviously are.
Speaker 5 (26:01):
That's exactly right, and they're worried primarily about their own
job and being associated with Santos because they all campaigned
together to flip those New York seats and so that
this is really, you know, just survival. There's no I
wouldn't give them any medals of honor for what they're
doing here. And as I said, any good reporter should
(26:23):
follow up and say, okay, applying and projecting your logic
onto Trump, why have you endorsed Trump?
Speaker 4 (26:29):
And it just doesn't add up.
Speaker 1 (26:31):
As you're looking at all of this kind of drama
in the House, and then there's drama and the Senate.
Just back to this idea of Hakeem Jefferies as the
actual Speaker of the House, which I think is really relevant.
It does seem like Mike Johnson is not able to
pass a lot of this stuff. Like so he passed
(26:53):
his Continuing Resolution, which will kick all the spending problems
right the spending bills until January, but he can't pass
some of the underlying though, right talk to us about
where you guys are with that.
Speaker 5 (27:05):
He did exactly what McCarthy did, and it cost McCarthy's job.
I think that's very telling though, that the Republicans never
trusted McCarthy and they always feared that he was always
just about himself, and he, you know, would do anything
to say in power and cut any of these deals
with Johnson.
Speaker 4 (27:22):
They know that he is really one of them.
Speaker 5 (27:26):
He is, you know, an extreme Maga Republican proudly calls himself,
you know, Mega Mike. And so he did the same
thing and suffered no penalty. And here we are, you know,
with fifty days away until another potential government shut down,
and he has said, Speaker Johnson that he's not going
to do another continuing resolution because again I think he
(27:49):
sees that he probably got a mull again for the
first one. But they are empowered, you know, the far
far right to just put another speaker in if he
does it again. And so we'll see. I've been in
convers for eleven years, have been through multiple.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Shutdowns longer than he has.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
But Molly, we've.
Speaker 5 (28:06):
Never had a shutdown in the last eleven years, with
multiple shutdowns in an election year, and that I think
is going to be really interesting to see if they
want to play with fire, because again Democrats will be united.
We just want to govern, We want to get shit done,
and we recognize we're in the minority, and so we're
a firewall to protect against cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act,
to the Jobs Act, to the Chips Act what they want,
(28:28):
and now the Affordable Care Act, which they want to
go after, but it would be playing with fire if
he's going to shut down the government rather than pass
a funding bill. And by the way, they cannot even
among themselves pass these different appropriations bills. They're just the failures.
They're not fit for governing. That's not what they came
here to do. They came here to entertain, and they're
(28:51):
finding that the governing part of the job is actually difficult.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
There have been a lot of retirements this month.
Speaker 4 (28:59):
Enough trying Eric, lots of me to retire.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
There have been a lot of retirements in Congress. I
don't know if you read. J mart had a really
good column on this, and he talked about how like
a lot of people were retiring. Are not the superstars
like you. They're the backbenchers who are quietly doing, you know,
a lot of legislating, largely Republicans but some Democrats. Those
people do not get replaced by people who are the
(29:25):
same as them, right, talk to us about that phenomenon.
Speaker 5 (29:29):
Most Republicans who retire will be replaced by someone much
farther to the right, who will likely run, as I said,
as a maga Republican slash you know, entertainer. And when
I came to Congress, I formed this bipartisan group called
United Solutions Caucus. It was the freshman Republican and Democratic
members in my class, about thirty members in it. We
(29:50):
knew we couldn't do big things, but we wanted to
focus on building trust and working on small pieces of legislation,
figuring one day we would all be, you know, in
leadership and we could do big things. Well, when Trump
came in, that group evaporated, in large part because many
of them on the Republican side lost their primaries and
so they were replaced by far right Republicans, and the
(30:14):
ones who were still around found that it was very
unpopular to say publicly that you were working with a Democrat.
And so again this has been kind of a long
time coming since Trump brought that Circus Act to town.
But for your viewer's sake, who I know, you know,
Democrats can be very anxious and pessimistic and of the
bed wedding lot, We're going to get through this, and
(30:36):
we should be the confident ones. And I would rather
be us than them, because Donald Trump, his best day
for himself and MAGA was on the election night in
November twenty sixteen, and he's lost almost everything since. So
we know how to do and so that the pathway
to is no different than what we've did in eighteen
or we did in twenty and twenty two, and we
recently did in Ohio and Virginia. And by the way,
(30:59):
want a flag e Moally, I know you're tracking this,
sing you post about it. In Florida, they are so
close Republicans, Democrats, independents to putting abortion rights on the ballot.
They're just inches away from having the voter signatures that
they need. That in November twenty twenty four on the
ballot in Florida could be the same abortion legislation that
(31:22):
was on the ballot in Ohio and Michigan and Kansas,
and that will protect an important right but also be
just a really galvanizing force put House seats into play
and send the Senate seat into play. And frankly, Donald
Trump's gonna have to defend Florida because women are not
going to want that right taken away in that state.
Speaker 1 (31:41):
Yeah, that's a Carl Rove playbook. That's a play from
the Karl Rove book of putting gay marriage on the
ticket two thousand and four in order to support Bush.
And I do think that's a really important thing when
you see the sort of like machinations of adding stuff
done in Congress. I mean, is there any way that
(32:03):
the numbers are so small for Johnson? I mean, I
know he's much nicer to deal with, or what I've
heard from other members of Congress is much nicer to
deal with. Kevin people liked but was dishonest, but nobody
liked Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson is much more likable.
But do you think there's any world in which our
West wing fantasy occurs and he makes a deal with
(32:26):
Democrats or is it just the party is just too
far to the right.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Nice is never the problem, right right, Well except with
Jim Jordan.
Speaker 1 (32:34):
I feel like people were just like, he's so mean,
We're not going to do this, yeah, right.
Speaker 4 (32:37):
Right, I say, like, nice is not the problem with Johnson.
It's just what he believes. But he does not have
that much to do, if we're being honest.
Speaker 5 (32:44):
He's got to keep the guvernment open and on the
needs for Ukraine and the Middle East and even the
border where I think Democrats are interested in helping there.
Speaker 4 (32:53):
We have to have a funding package.
Speaker 5 (32:55):
And I do predict though, if it's a bundle package
of Ukraine, Middle East and border, there will be more
Democrats voting for than Republicans. Again, and it's a matter
of will they tolerate that and let him stay on
a speaker. But after we do that, Molly, there's nothing
to do that. There's no peace of legislation Republicans that
(33:16):
the Senate would pass and the President would sign into laws,
so he doesn't really have to do that much. That's
why it's just so bewildering that, you know, we're in
this position where we could be in another shutdown because
he's actually got just a few things to do, and
then we're in the twenty twenty four election.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Unbelievable. Eric Swahlwell, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
Thanks Molly.
Speaker 1 (33:39):
Congressman Robert Garcia represents California's forty second district. Welcome back,
too fast politics. Congressman Robert Garcia.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Thank you, happy to be back.
Speaker 1 (33:51):
You're in your office. Tell us what you're about to do.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Well, I'm about to go to the floor of the
House and make the case as to why we should
expel George Santos.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
Walk us through what a privileged resolution is and how
this works.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Let me go a few months back and explain the process.
It's about nine months ago. George Santos hit my radar
early on, we're both freshman members, saw him at orientation,
you know, immediately just got bad vibes, and then of
course all all the news about his just deceit and
lies started coming out. So, you know, I called for
his expulsion early on when we both got installed in Congress,
(34:26):
and was the first person to call for his expulsion
nine months ago. I made the decision then to put
forward an expulsion resolution against him. I reached out to
a couple of my colleagues, particularly another freshman, Dan Goldman
from New York, who within my class and I built
a relationship with, and you know, we put forward the
expulsion resolution, and by doing that, we essentially triggered a
(34:47):
vote of the House. The House put the expulsion resolution forward,
and at the time, while Democrats were felt really strongly
about moving forward, Republicans chose to punt and instead called
for this holpse Ethics a report that Kevin McCarthy was
trying to put together and so I know we that
went forward, and here we are nine months later and
the Ethics Canity report is out. It's incredibly damning, and
(35:10):
all those folks that were on board then should be
on board now and it's time to expel them and
he's got to go forward.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Republicans could have put up this resolution, right, they chose
not to.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
Right, And so what actually happened, like procedurally, is when
the House opened this week, Republicans could have decided to
make the resolution privileged essentially means that it forces the
vote to happen in the next couple of days after
I had filed my expulsion resolution. They chose not to
do so, and so we did is we basically forced
them to file a privileged one themselves or they would
(35:44):
have had to vote it essentially my resolution. They want
to be the ones who actually claimed the vote, and
so for us, it was always strategies filu privileged resolution
because they hadn't. They keep wallowing and wailing about when
this is going to happen, So we force the vote,
then they have to file their own privilege resolution later
that evening, and now we're forced to have this vote,
which will happen tomorrow and will be debated. But we're
(36:05):
opening the debate on the vote today.
Speaker 1 (36:06):
I mean, wouldn't it have looked better for them if
they had done.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
It one hundred percent? We don't know why. I mean,
the ethic is going to be cheerman. He actually filed
the resolution about a week ago, but did not make
it privileged. And so when you file a resolution and
you don't make it privileged, it's really up to the
speaker at that point to schedule that resolution at some point.
But we had no idea when this woul happened. They
could just stn't wall this. I mean, they've saved George
Santos now multiple times, why would they do it again?
(36:31):
So by us filing it as privileged, we are essentially
forcing the vote this week, and so it's a little
bit of insurance policy to make sure that they actually
did it this week. The report is out and this
guy is a con man of the Donald Trump order
and he must be renew immediately.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
Do you think that part of why they don't want
to remove Santos is because they need the votes, or
do you think part of the reason they don't want
to remove Santos is because these Republicans really know that
if they start going out after people for doing crimes, right,
the leader of their party is facing ninety one criminal
(37:07):
and diamonds.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
I think it's both things. I think that the Republican
Party is broken. The standard for integrity and service has
been completely changed because of Donald Trump, and so I
think that's certainly a piece. And when you have members
still defending him saying, oh, well, you know he deserves
a day court even though the ethnic Timoty has already
provided all the evidence. You know, these are folks that
(37:29):
love Donald Trump that'll you know, do whatever they can
to support someone that will likely be running president from jail.
And at the same time, I think, you know, they
have a slim majority, and you know Sanchos for McCarthy
especially was a vote, and so they use, you know,
the integrity of the House for power and that's wrong
and it needs to.
Speaker 1 (37:46):
You're going to go on the floor tell us a
little bit about how this is going to work now.
Speaker 2 (37:50):
So because the Republican we're going to be voting on
the Republican Privileged Resolution that we triggered. There'll be four debate,
you'll be hearing essentially mostly from the needs or Republicans,
and they'll be making their case, and you'll also hear
from me, and then I will be weave negotiated with
the Republicans to have four times so that we would
allow them essentially have their resolution come up first, and
(38:12):
then I'll speak. He'll have the same amount of time,
so we have an hour debate. He's dodn't have to
defend what we all say. And at the end of that,
the bay will close. And then Friday, first thing in
the morning, we will take a vote and then we'll
see and who actually can actually has the integrity at
the House to do the right thing. I don't know
how there could be any member of the US House
representatives that can read that report and not think this
(38:35):
is deserving of expelling. For the House.
Speaker 1 (38:37):
Yeah, you will need two thirds right to expel.
Speaker 4 (38:42):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (38:42):
We will need essentially a united Democratic caucus, which we'll
have I think close to all the Democrats who had
voted not to expel them the last time for a
variety of reasons, most of which was they were waiting
for the ex committee report. They've all signif a vote
to expel, and then there were about maybe you're twenty
four to twenty five republic insident, but are ready to expel.
(39:04):
The last time that number you've had another probably you know,
twenty five to thirty say on top of them that
they're ready to expel in now. And so we're close
to the threshold. I mean, we need really about eighty
Republicans depending on the vote count to it's sure that
he is expelled. And I think signs point to you
to an expulsion for me and you never know. I mean,
but surely these folks aren't exactly on profiles encourage.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
And there's not exactly a genius whip counter out there
whipping the votes right.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
No, these people have literally no idea what they're doing.
It's still uncertain. Look either way, neither we expel. You know,
this complete fabrication of a person from Congress or B Republican,
You're are going to have to stand up and say
that they once again saved this criminal who has lied,
who has stolen, who has cheated, who's already admitted to fraud,
who is likely going to jail, and we are going
(39:55):
to remind about that every single day. So that's their choice.
Speaker 1 (39:59):
Yeah, and it's really an incredible choice. Right, you're in Congress. Now,
why do you think Mike Johnson didn't want this to
come up just because he was right about the votes?
Or do you think that he just didn't know how
to do it, or I mean, do you have a
take on that.
Speaker 2 (40:15):
I just think that he probably is looking at that
vote count. I mean, look, he hasn't come out against
the expulsion, which is a decent sign. But he also,
of course has has endorsed a full throttle vote to
expel him. And so I think he's you know, again,
he's weak. He has a very thin majority, He doesn't
really have a huge constituency, even with his own caucus,
and so I don't know that he honestly has a
(40:37):
big following. So I think I think people are going
to vote the way they want to vote. And quite frankly,
the New York Republicans, I mean those five New York
Republicans are begging their colleagues to please get rid of them.
This is going to I mean, they really want to
try to keep the majority, which were you know, we are,
of course on our side, are intent for that not
to happen. They need to expel this guy, and he's
when they're back home. That's all they hear about, and
(40:59):
so are going around doing the best they can to
whip their to whip their members. We are answering questions
on our side, and I think you're going to see
it by partisan unit unity tomorrow and we're expel thement.
You know, the second that he gets expelled, he will
be walked out of the house by the Sergeant of Arms,
And I'm sure he will make an incredible spectacle of it,
as he always does. Right, but at least we'll be
(41:21):
doing the right thing and be able to move forward
without you know, this kind of circus that he's created.
Speaker 1 (41:26):
Yeah, I'll say really incredible. He gave a press conference
today where he wore fare Gamo shoes and also was
pretty indignant. Did you watch the press conference? And also
he opened the door to trying to go after Representative Bowman.
Talk to me about that.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
I mean, look, he's delusional. First, I think like everyone else,
I also want to know where did he spend six
thousand dollars for about but what did he buy?
Speaker 4 (41:55):
Pobby?
Speaker 2 (41:55):
The shoes he was to hold it.
Speaker 1 (41:56):
Up right exactly and iermaz.
Speaker 2 (41:59):
Maybe was that pink suit? I mean, I have crohoos.
I mean the forid trip, the trips around the country,
around the world, all the money that he's essentially embezzling
is really shameful. And so I think that he is delusional.
I think that he's doing whatever he can in this
the last few hours of his time in Congress to
try to attack others, try to expel Jamal Bildman, which
(42:21):
is going to go absolutely nowhere. Of course, members of
his own party have said so. I told this to
his face when we had an online conversation of Twitter
x spaces, that he should do the country and constituents
a favor and just resign.
Speaker 1 (42:34):
And I'm going to tell him again, was he mad
at you when you said that?
Speaker 2 (42:37):
Oddly enough?
Speaker 6 (42:38):
He was not.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
He's such an odd guy.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
Yeah, strange. We went into a back and forth, and
you know, I think our conversation lasted twenty minutes or
twenty five minutes, you know. And I will say this,
and I want to kind of just say this as well.
I like wish him no personal harm, you know, I feel,
honestly sometimes I'm saddened by like what he's allowed to
happen to himself and to people he represents. But he
(43:01):
has to be held accountable, and we have a justice
system and a process in the House to deal with this,
and he has to live up to the fact that
he won't give a full floated apology. Also tells me
that he has no remorse. That's very concerning, and he
should take the time and go work on his court truck.
I mean he and Donald Trump are gonna end up
in the same place.
Speaker 1 (43:20):
Yeah, I mean he is really facing a lot of
legal jeopardy as well.
Speaker 2 (43:25):
Absolutely, this is going to take up some.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Time now, but then you're going to have time before
you start trying to get through this cr So January
is going to be like pretty much, if you'll excuse
my French, a shit show for you guys, portals show,
because you're going to have these tiered crs that you're
gonna happen to negotiate. Do you think Johnson has the
(43:48):
will of his caucus or do you think this ends
in a shutdown?
Speaker 2 (43:53):
It's hard to know that he's such an unknown still
and has so few relationships with folks, including our own leadership,
that it's really hard to know. What I think is
becoming a parent in the last couple of days. Is
he's trying to, you know, show up his conservative base
by moving forward with an impeachment of the president. I
think that's pretty clear. I mean, obviously there's no evidence
and there's nothing there.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
Do you think that impeachment vote is going to take
place this week?
Speaker 2 (44:17):
The impeachment vote for the president will happen after some
kind of formal inquiry that they will do.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
Are they going to do the vote on starting the inquiry?
Because he said he was going to do a vote
the way that McCarthy didn't. But do you think that
happens And if so, do you think that happens soon?
Speaker 4 (44:34):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (44:34):
I mean I think if he chooses to move forward
and makes the final decision that they're going to go
for the impeachment. I think the impeachment inquiry vote I
think is likely to happen. I think he has said soough,
but we just don't know yet. And so the reality
is that anything this Republicans say, especially in the leadership,
basically they just flip flopped. They lie, they say one thing.
Another thing is you know, you can't trust what if
(44:56):
they say. And I think that's the.
Speaker 1 (44:57):
Problem, and that ultimately was the end of mcarth Are
they right? He just couldn't. People wouldn't trust.
Speaker 2 (45:02):
Him, they wouldn't trust him, they didn't like him, And
I think that's a big part of it. I think
he just made a lot of enemies really bad.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
But we really could be facing down another shutdown.
Speaker 2 (45:11):
I mean we could be, and I hope to god
we're not. You know, there's millions of people that depend
on jobs and these federal jobs and benefits, and it's
really sad and it hurts real people. And the way
that some of these House Republicans just kind of laugh
it off like it's some big joke, I think he's
really disgraceful. So, yeah, it's a really serious issue, and
I think it'll become kind of crystal clear by Christmas
what the direction of the Republicans are going to be.
Speaker 1 (45:33):
Are you worried about Republicans trying to enact revenge for
Santos despite the fact that Santos is not trying to
impeach Biden is a way of Trump enacting revenge. Do
you worry that Republicans will try that was a sort
of revenge for Santo's kind of scenario.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
Perhaps, But at the end of the day, the vote's
going to be bipartisan, and I think Republicans want have
gone too. I think he is the real aberration. He
is is someone that is these kind of people usually
don't exist in Congress. He's a walking lie. You know,
I don't put past Republicans to do just about anything.
I mean, they're absolutely horrible legislators. So they're going to
continue to do things like try to impeach, you know,
(46:13):
President Biden, or impeach the ticcature may orcus or whatever
other crazy planer, insane like plan they have. And so
I think it's our job is just to focus on
good governing, on integrity and winning the House back. And
I think winning the House we got to. We got
to get the House back and take the gavels from
these lunatics.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
Thank you so much, Congressman.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
Absolutely anytime, there no moment.
Speaker 1 (46:37):
Ofecly Jesse Cannon, Maley, Jung Fast.
Speaker 6 (46:42):
You know, James Comber initially told Hunter Biden he could
choose to testify in private or public, but who James
Comer's word never means a thing.
Speaker 1 (46:54):
Yeah, So Republicans are completely obsessed with Hunter Biden. They're
hoping that it will muddy the waters, that this will
be the corruption that will make a false equivalency between
Biden and Trump. They are going to do it in
any way they can. I think the reason why they
want Hunter to testify in a private forum is because
(47:15):
the last two hearings they held that were like this,
the one about impeaching Biden right and the last Weaponization
of Government Committee hearing. Both of those made Republicans look
really stupid. And even the most recent hearing on gun
violence yesterday, they kind of look like morons. So I
(47:36):
do think Republicans and Congress are getting more and more
concerned about how they look during these hearings. But let
me just say James Comer, who thinks he's too smart
by half for doing this hearing in private, he doesn't
get the publicity. He can't drive the news cycle if
no one sees the hearing. So there we have James Comer.
Checkmate liberal, You've checkmate it yourself, and you are our
(48:00):
moment of Fuckeray. That's it for this episode of Fast Politics.
Tune in every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to hear the
best minds in politics makes sense of all this chaos.
If you enjoyed what you've heard, please send it to
a friend. And keep the conversation going. And again thanks
for listening.
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com