Sarah Longwell (5:19)

Yeah, look, I would love to say that the American people are incensed about this, but the fact is, the number one thing we are hearing from voters in terms of what they are frustrated about really, is the economy, prices. And what they see is Donald Trump's failure to focus on those things and instead focus on things like prosecuting his enemies. And so it's not that they're not aware of it, it's just that they're like, Trump is doing this thing where it's about, you know, making himself happy and going after people he doesn't like instead of focusing on the things that I care about. But what they don't do, necessarily, unless, I mean, Democrats certainly do, but sort of swing voters, voters who aren't paying as much of attention, certainly MAGA voters, they are less interested in sort of the institutional problems of Trump weaponizing the Justice Department, going after his enemies, and they are more focused on just the fact that Donald Trump doesn't seem to be doing anything for them. It's all about him.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (6:16)

Sarah, let me ask you this. We had so many conversations, I think, sharing exasperation that some of these folks sat on the sidelines. John Bolton wasn't one of them. I mean, he jumped into the arena and harshly criticized Donald Trump when all the generals described him as, quote, fascistic to the core and meeting the, quote, technical definition of a dictator. John Bolton, when asked about it, said, essentially, Trump is too stupid to be a fascist. What do you. He didn't, though, go to the next logical step, in my view, and endorse Kamala Harris or Joe Biden before him as Liz Cheney did. But what do you make of these people without sort of natural constituencies? Tish James has sort of the thunderous, you know, palpable roar of New York behind her, of the Democratic Party behind her. Jim Comey and Bolton are sort of constituent lists. Lists. They don't have a constituency or really stakeholders. Do you think that makes any difference? Does that change how people see these indictments?

Sarah Longwell (7:18)

You know, they do live in the sour spot of public opinion to some degree. I do think, however, people, as best as I can tell, seem to feel somewhat differently about James Comey than they do about John Bolton. And I think that the reason is, is that even though, you know, a lot of people look back at 2016 and they've got very negative feelings about some of the decisions that James Comey made in those moments. I also think that people have sort of softened on him. They sort of feel like, you know, maybe he made bad choices with imperfect information, but what Trump is doing going after him is wrong. Also, I think for people who are paying closer attention, they know that his daughter was one of the people that was fired for trying to just uphold the law. And I think the way that he has pushed back specifically has sort of galvanized people. I mean, I've done a lot of live shows and a lot of focus groups since the Comey indictment came down. There's a lot of sympathy for. For Comey. I think people feel slightly differently about John Bolton, in part because there's a strong memory of the fact that specifically around this book, when he was writing it, he chose to write the book instead of testify against Donald Trump when people felt like it would really matter. And so there's some frustration there. I will say one thing that the public is aware of, I think pretty clearly is that John Bolton is being prosecuted for the very thing that Donald Trump was, was doing himself, which was keeping all of these documents, sharing them with people, showing them around when he had all of those documents at Mar A Lago. And so I do think people, though, even if they are not directly sympathetic exactly to John Bolton, they do think that it is unfair for John Bolton to to be prosecuted for a crime and go to jail for 10 years for something that Donald Trump absolutely did, in plain sight tried to cover up and then was reelected president subsequently.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (9:14)

The Comey piece from Sarah is interesting, Mike, in that and I know you've been covering him longer than just about anybody. The, the attack against Comey extends to his daughter Maureen Comey, who handled the Epstein case, but also his son in law who was pushed out of that Eastern District of Virginia. And a judge who was appointed by Donald Trump in his first term lamented the departure and the sort of going after targeting not just of Comey, but all of the sort of ripple effects, effects of his that Donald Trump's political war with Jim Comey and the family. Let me read this to you. This is from a Trump appointed judge, although I will not comment on why Mr. Edwards, who is Jim Comey's son in law, is no longer employed by the Department of Justice. I do want to say how sad I am that I will not have the privilege of him appearing in my courtroom again. I'm even more disheartened to know that the Department of Justice and our nation will be deprived of his obvious talents and integrity going forward because his work has been truly exceptional in every way, as has been all the lawyers involved in this case. I leave you with a quote from our former great president Dwight Eisenhower, who saved the world from authoritarianism when he served as the leader of the allied forces in World War II. Quote, Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men. And so it must be daily earned and refreshed. Else, like a flower cut from its life giving roots, it will wither and die. The whole Virginia story, the war on Comey, the purging of the US Attorney picked by Team Trump, Eric Siebert, the pushing out and the punishing of Comey's son in law seems to still be reverberating in this district.

Mike Schmidt (11:05)

Yeah, I think that something we've seen, and you see it particularly in the James case, is that the powers of the Justice Department are being used here in, in ways that are not about winning cases. So for like all of human history, for the sake of this discussion, my understanding was that the Justice Department was about bringing cases that they could win, that they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt and then could survive an appeal. It seems like that doesn't really matter as much to the department, especially if you look at like the James case. In a sense, there are different aspects to what's going on here in the ways that the specter of criminality is used. Trump understands better than anyone else what I call the specter of criminality. He used it against Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. He understood it to the core, to his bones, in 2017 and 2018 and 2019 when he was had the special counsel's investigation and had the SDNY investigation into Michael Cohen. He certainly learned about it four times when he was indicted, when he was out of office and had to sit through a criminal trial, and then he pledged vengeance when he came back. So in terms of what this retribution campaign means or what this vengeance campaign means and what it is and you know how it's going to play out, it does seem like they care less about winning than they do about using the powers of the department to hurt others. And that's just remarkable.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (12:44)

Well, and it is, again, if we're talking about patterns and practices, it is what Trump on the phone call asks Zelensky to do with Joe Biden. Just open an investigation. Just look at it. I mean, it always, at least in terms of what we see publicly is intended to smear someone. It is.

Christy Greenberg (13:06)

And it's about what can he spin it as? What is the narrative going to be as opposed to what are the facts that can actually lead you to be able to win a case in court? I mean, look, I don't think there is a question, is Donald Trump trying to weaponize the Department of Justice? The answer is can clearly, yes, we're seeing him do that. You know, is he weaponizing against his enemies when he says, go after these people? I mean, that's clearly not something we've seen before. For every person that says, oh, all the cases about Donald Trump, they were all weaponized. Show me where Joe Biden ever said, go prosecute Donald Trump, Jack Smith or Merrick Garland, like you know, you won't see it. It doesn't exist. So, again, I don't see the weaponization here with respect to Trump. It's out in the open. He just puts it out there. I mean, it's not even just the DM over Truth Social that he then broadcasts to the world. He is saying the quiet part out loud. And you've got, he's saying it in the Oval Office with the Three Stooges. You've got Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche and Keshe Patel lined up right behind him. He's saying, go after these people and nobody bats an eye. And now with this Bolton indictment, which I agree with you and I really was pleased to see you talking about nuance, because I do think there are many ways in which this is different than some of the other indictments. But it is the height of hypocrisy, given what Donald Trump was charged with with his mishandling of classified documents to then bring this indictment, which, again, it's in a lot of ways, deja vu. There are a lot of things in there where you're reading it and you know, anybody who cares about national security and who was at doj, I mean, I remember getting trained on how to deal with top secret and classified documents. You certainly didn't use AOL to deal with them, certainly not with people who didn't have security clearance. And because, yeah, maybe those people, maybe his wife and his daughter aren't going to share that, but you could get hacked by Iran. So you don't do it. And it doesn't make a difference whether or not it's the document or you're taking notes on the document. If you're taking notes on the document, that has to be done in a sensitive compartmented facility. You can't bring those out of those facilities. You're trained on all of this as a prosecutor or when you work in high levels of government. So, again, I was troubled by the allegations. If they're true, we'll see. Maybe he has defenses to say that he didn't know they were classified or he was somehow authorized. We'll see. But the allegations are troubling, but they are nonetheless incredibly hypocritical. And again, tells you this isn't about Donald Trump caring about national security. This is about, yeah, what, what can you find on my enemies? Whatever you can drudge up, do it.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (15:50)

Can you explain the Iran piece to me? And what, what is in the indictment makes it clear that they, they learned through surfacing the news or the fact of the hack from Iran. But Bolton's defense seems to be, hey, I told you about this. And the last. I mean, what, what. How do you understand the Iran piece?

Christy Greenberg (16:15)

Yeah. So even before, a month before Bolton says, I got hacked by Iran, I'm letting you FBI know about that. A month before that, it's important to know there was a settlement in connection with his book. And he settles with the Department of Justice because they're saying you didn't go through the proper publication process. There is a process to clear what you put in the book. You blew past that and didn't want to deal with that. And the judge in that case said that was wrong. You gambled with national security security. You subjected yourself to civil and criminal liability. There was a judge in 2020 saying that. And there was a settlement where John Bolton said, okay, I'm going to give you back everything I have, electronic hard copy, I'm going to give you back everything. And then after that settlement, a month later, according to the indictment, he gets hacked, notifies the FBI of it. But what he doesn't, according to the indictment, tell the FBI, is I got hacked and I was transmitting this national defense information to two people who didn't have security clearance. So what Iran could have gotten was this sensitive information. That part, according to the government, he left out. And that is significant, that that matters. So that, I mean, he said, well, I just went ahead and deleted things. But in 2025, the government executes a search warrant and they find not only electronic files, but they find hard copy files of these same materials that he was supposed to turn back, according to this settlement, to the government, and according to them, did not.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (17:41)

Sarah, let me come back to you. I mean, and I guess this conversation bears out your first point, right? That people may not be tracked. I can barely track all the specific details of all the cases. But to the degree that this is where Trump's intensity lies, that the most animated remarks he seemed to make all week in the Oval Office were these remarks where he name checks a list of four additional political targets for prosecution, describes Jack Smith as a criminal, describes Andrew Weissman as a bad guy, talks about going after Lisa, was. I forget who was whose puppet, and has been attacking Lisa Monaco, the former deputy attorney general, around the clock. Is it that lack of focus on the things that the swing voters, you know, sort of were persuaded by in the final weeks of the election, that is a turnoff? Or is it the fact that the economy is also a big suck according to large majorities of the American people? So this Looks like a distraction.

Sarah Longwell (18:43)

Yeah, it's that latter piece. I mean, boy, I just can't tell you. You ask people how things are going in the country, including Trump voters, and they do not think things are going well. You know, and this is where vibes over substance tend to come in. Like, they just, they see the chaos, right? It's the shutdown. There's national. The National Guard is in different cities. And they, People will sort of put things on either side of the ledger, right? They'll say, well, I'm glad Trump is securing the border quarter, but I really need prices to come down. And I'm really frustrated with it. And the more that side of the ledger of frustration, like, why is all this other stuff happening instead of, you know, them making things cheaper? That was the thing that was promised to me. And so that is just absolutely what I hear. And it's the reason. I mean, if you're looking at the polling that is coming out around Trump right now, he. It is being chipped away at. He was down. The AP just came out with a poll today. He's down to 37% and that it's his lowest of his presidency. So people do notice. But I want to make just one last point on the documents case, because here's another thing people understand, which is when Donald Trump had the issue with the documents case, shortly thereafter, so did Joe Biden and so did Mike Pence. And now we've got a situation where, you know, we've got John Bolton, who is sending classified information, allegedly. You've got the signal gate where Trump's Pete Hegseth is just signaling out war plans that people could hack. You've got Trump himself using his janky social media site, Truth Social, to communicate with his attorney general. Our OPSEC in America is not clean. We have a problem. And if they're going to prosecute John Bolton for this, then what I would. My hope is that they use that to reestablish some real guidelines for what people are doing. Because it appears that nobody is taking these things seriously and that I can't imagine. There isn't a foreign country now who isn't looking at the way that we are handling our classified information and laughing at us.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (20:36)

I mean, Sarah Jangi made me laugh out loud and choke on my coffee. But I mean, I guess. Let me just follow with you, because you and I both know no one will, because you and I both know that the guy on the signal chat who put the reporter on the thread wasn't removed from his post because anyone was worried about the operational security of imminent, active in the future war plans. It's because Laura Loomer soured on him and thought he was too closely aligned with the deep state. There is no one worried about what you just articulated. And the other thing happening, the other pillar of this, is that they have completely dismantled the leadership of the FBI, the country's top law enforcement agency.

Sarah Longwell (21:20)

Yeah, I mean, look, we're in a humiliating moment for the United States in terms of the quality of our leadership and what's happening and what I. Look, I am just mystified every day by the fact that you don't have business leaders, community leaders, military leaders, everybody talking about what Donald Trump is doing. And I know that his campaign of retribution and vengeance has a chilling effect. And people are afraid, and they don't want him to turn his eye of Sauron on them and, you know, focus on whatever their taxes or something they might have done. But people have got to stop. Everybody has got to find their spine again. And you know what's frustrating is that there's going to be a march this weekend. There's probably gonna be one of the biggest turnouts in history at this no Kings event on Saturday. And average people are gonna show up to register how upset they are with what Donald Trump is doing to the country. But America's elites have more or less rolled over. And I don't know, I remember thinking I was the most disappointed I could be in 2018 watching Republicans capitulate to Donald Trump. But watching the rest of civil society do it has been one of the more demoralizing things I've ever seen.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (22:27)

Okay, that's the conversation we're going to have on the other side of the break, because that's the one thing that can change, right? The Republican Party is Bruce Willis in the Sixth Sense. They're dead. Maybe they don't know it, but we all do. I mean, it's everybody else. It's the people right now staring at their capitulation plans, whether they're at law firms or universities or businesses or sitting on the sidelines. They could still make a decision in the next 12 hours to show up at a no Kings march.

Sarah Longwell (22:53)

Well, we'll.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (22:54)

We'll talk to everybody at the table about that. On the other side of a break. Also ahead for us, as much as J.D. vance would like to dismiss dozens, dozens of racist and anti Semitic and homophobic text messages as the work of his word, quote, kids, the fallout from those messages becoming public continues to reverberate around the Republican Party. With the New York GOP Demand disbanding its Young Republicans chapter. And later in the broadcast, podcaster Joe Rogan has ripped Donald Trump for one of his administration's signature policies, deploying troops to Democratic run cities, saying it is a, quote, dangerous precedent for the country. We'll explain why that matters. We have all those stories and more when Deadly White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Commercial Announcer (23:38)

Pandora makes it easy for you to find your favorite music, discover new artists and genres by selecting any song or album, and we'll make you a personalized station for free download on the Apple App Store or Google Play and enjoy the soundtrack to your life.

Ollie Dog Food Advertiser (23:51)

Dogs deserve the best and that means fresh, healthy food. Unlike other brands, Ollie offers five flavors that are as nutritious as they are delicious, all made in US kitchens without harmful fillers or preservatives. Head to Ollie.com, tell them all about your dog and use code HappyPup to get 60% off your welcome kit. With a bonus, you'll get a storage container for a mess free experience and it comes with a 30 day money back guarantee if your dog doesn't lick the bowl clean.

Greenlight Advertiser (24:19)

Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely and parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight today@Greenlight.com podcast.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (24:49)

We're back with Mike, Sarah and Christy. Mike, I know you've covered the law firms and the universities doing deals. I think you've called them paper truth social deals with Donald Trump. Do they seem cognizant in your coverage of them that Trump is at the lowest approval of his presidency? I think the newest number, the one Sarah just talked about, he's at 37% and that's after bouncing about 20 points up for his work in the Middle east last week. This is an all time low approval rating. 61% disapprove. He's underwater, I think more than 20 points on the economy, close to 20 points on immigration and yet they all still seem to be lining up to capitulate.

Mike Schmidt (25:28)

I don't think the law firms care. I think they just care that they're able their bottom line was not impacted and they're able to do the business that they can it was a purely economic decision and a firm like so.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (25:39)

Their brands aren't part of their economics.

Mike Schmidt (25:41)

As I think they think they can survive it and that it was more important to basically, Brad Karp thought that Paul Weiss was going to go out of business if they didn't do this deal. The problem is that every firm that fought is still standing and they've all won in court. So they can argue whatever they're going to argue. But the thing that I was wondering about, that I actually wanted to ask Sarah about was, is what Trump. To me, it seems like Trump has an incredible amount of momentum right now. It doesn't seem like anything can really stand in his way. But at the same time, it seems like he might be setting himself up for like AIT's politically risky to be so focused on retribution and to be so focused on immigration because there's so many other things that could go wrong. And is there from the political perspective and from what, you know, Americans see when they look at this, is there a risk here in retribution? Just not even in the sense of the fact that Americans think that he's not paying attention to the most important things, but that if something were to go wrong and people say, well, what was the FBI up to? And the answer is that they were up to different retribution, conspiracy investigations and such, or at least that's the perception. Is he at the same time that he looks like he has a lot of momentum in a much riskier place than maybe he thinks he's in?

Sarah Longwell (27:13)

Look, I think he's in an incredibly risky place and largely because I hear frustrations with voters that are from all different sides. Like, you know, you've got a lot of the MAGA voters, whether it's the Epstein files or the fact that he's too focused on helping Israel or that he's sending money to Argentina, like, everybody is frustrated right now. There's a reason I think his numbers are that low, despite the fact that I think in terms of big picture things, you might say he's had some wins. But the fact is the American people do not feel like those wins are redounding to them. They are glad. They want the border secure, but they think he's going too far with the ICE raids. And so, you know, so right now, the big political the only way to fight back politically, right. There's really two ways. One is to show up at something like no Kings and demonstrate the opposition. And the other is for them to win, for Democrats to win the 2026 midterms in a way that allows for real oversight, which Donald Trump is absolutely. He's so scared of. Right. He's so scared of this oversight. And so for me, what I see as Donald, because Donald Trump, regardless of whether you think he's going to try not to leave, he's not up for reelection again. And so his real political liability lies in the midterms, and there being oversight from people that uncovers, like, all the corruption that he's been doing, some, you know, some measure of accountability, because right now, there is no accountability. And if I were some of these civic leaders who've been letting him off the hook time after time, I would remember that there's a future. Like this idea that Trump's not going to be in charge forever. All of these things he's doing right now, weaponizing the irs, these things can come back at them. He is changing the country we live in, and they will have to live in it later when the Democrats are in charge. And so I think that's the risk, is that people sort of. It starts to occur to them that Trump is not forever. And they start to, at some point say, I'm going to look back at the people who capitulated to this guy, especially when he leaves office at a 29% approval rating because he did nothing about the economy and just tried to put his political enemies in jail.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (29:23)

Yeah. I mean, Christy, this is the brand question that I keep trying to understand. I mean, he's at 37% right now. There's no upward push in any of the polls. Right. So he was at about 39 two weeks ago. 39 to 41. That number has dropped to 37 to 39, which is, as Sarah's talking about the people's feelings about the economy and feeling like he's distracted from the thing that they sent him there to do is making them feel bad about everything. But the brand is capitulation. Right. So even if these law firms or universities don't feel like they'll be tainted by the ICE raids because they're not out there with masks on their face, they are capitulating to someone of historic weakness. Why do you think that's still happening, like in a zombie trance kind of way?

Christy Greenberg (30:07)

I mean, I think on the other side, there needs to be more leadership. I mean, what we're seeing this weekend is grassroots people coming together to say, this is not okay. But where are the leaders of the institutions to come in and defend those institutions, defend their work? I mean, we're starting to hear some of it, but we need more. We need. I mean, again, Barack Obama coming out and calling out those law firms, calling out those universities, that was great. Do more. More of that. You know, same with Jack Smith, Smith's interview with Andrew Weissman. I mean, it was such a breath of fresh air to hear him speak. I don't think we had heard him speak throughout because you're not supposed to under the rules. He was following the rules. But those cases are closed now. We can hear from you and we can't read your report because at least as to the classified documents, DOJ has been hiding that. But you can still speak, you can still defend yourself. When you only hear one side and the other side is capitulating, it just becomes skewed. And I think a lot of Americans who maybe feel like we don't like what Trump is doing, but we're not seeing what the alternative is other than people cowering. That's not a very attractive alternative. So you need people to stand up. We need actual leadership to really rise to the occasion and take him on. And yes, he has the power of government, but he may not always have the power of government if we actually use our voices.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (31:35)

Explain this piece that was just explained to me that if you've left the Department of Justice or the FBI, you know exactly how. I'll be as generous as I can. Incompetent, corrupt and disinterested in a blind system of justice. Kash Patel and Pambani and Todd Blanchard. But if you want to work in the private sector, all of the law firms have capitulated and they are now doing free work for the Trump administration. The cycle of chilling speech is perpetuating, doing the opposite of what you just explained.

Christy Greenberg (32:06)

Very true. And you have so many of the Department of Justice lawyers right now who are having a really hard time. They want to leave the government, and there are not jobs in the private sector for them to go to. So it's really tough. And it makes it tougher if you are somebody who's speaking out, if you are somebody who is making yourself a public enemy, number one, having a target on your back, that makes it harder for you to get employed by these firms that are not taking the same stance. So it's difficult. I'm not saying it's easy. I will be the first person to say that's not hard. If you want to stay at a law firm to speak out, the firms aren't going to want you to do that. But again, we are seeing some lawyers do it. We've seen, again, Jim, comey once he was charged, had a great speech. You've seen Maureen Comey, when she was fired, come out with a letter to her, her to the office, you know, in telling them, don't be afraid of the, don't be afraid of tyrants. So we are starting to see it. It's just, I can't. We need to flood the zone with it.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (33:11)

Yeah. And I mean to bring it back to Sarah's point. In three years, that might be the brand saving lawyer in your stable who was a public critic when Donald Trump leaves office at 21% approval. An incredible week on this front. Thank you for starting us off here at the table, Sarah, sticking around a little bit longer after the break. Take a trove of racist, homophobic, anti Semitic text messages that you almost can't believe real people sent and responded to. They were sent and trafficked between scores of Republican operatives. It is being met with largely deafening silence by Donald Trump. We'll talk about that story next.

Greenlight Advertiser (33:56)

Outdated systems and inefficient communications are bad news for your supply chain. But with Verizon business, everything just clicks. With our advanced connectivity solutions, you can automate your operations, plus you can keep your teams connected and on top of the job, helping you stay ahead of demand and the competition. It's the chain reaction your distribution needs.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (34:20)

Learn more@verizon.com distribution hey everybody, Ted Danson here to tell you about my podcast with my longtime friend and sometimes co host Woody Harrelson. It's called where everybody knows your name and we're back for another season. I'm so excited to be joined this season by friends like John Mulaney, David Spade, Sarah Silverman, Ed Helms, and many more. You don't want to miss it. Listen to where everybody knows your name with me, Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson.

Commercial Announcer (34:51)

Sometimes, wherever you get your podcasts, dogs.

Ollie Dog Food Advertiser (34:54)

Deserve the best and that means fresh, healthy food. Unlike other brands, Ollie offers five flavors that are as nutritious as they are delicious, all made in US kitchens without harmful fillers or preservatives. Head to ollie.com, tell them all about your dog and use code HappyPup to get 60% off your welcome kit. With a bonus, you'll get a storage container for a mess free experience and it comes with a 30 day money back guarantee if your dog doesn't lick the bowl clean.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (35:24)

In the wake of some stunning reporting this week which has revealed what some prominent and in some cases elected members of the young Republican groups across the country are comfortable saying in the comfort of Their own little group, chat bubbles. Republicans in the state of New York have moved to revoke the chapter of their state's young Republican group. That move comes days after Politico unveiled a massive horde of telegram chats that span more than 7 months. Chats among the young Republicans, who are all adults. We're looking at you, J.D. and in many cases, leaders of their groups in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont. The thousands of pages of chats, many of which are too vile and graphic to put on television or even read to you, show how these Republicans casually make racist jokes and use slurs about topics like slavery, rape, Hitler and the Holocaust. Peter Giunta, who Politico describes as the most prominent voice in the chat spreading racist messages, was running to chair the Young Republican National Federation and said in regards to his candidacy for that position, quote, everyone that votes no is going to the gas chamber. End quote. He apologized for what was said in the messages, but also caveat ed his response by saying he wasn't sure that they hadn't been doctored. Donald Trump has yet to say anything about the chats, but JD Vance has spoken out on the story. Listen to the sitting vice president of the United States describe the actions of people in the chat who are as old as 40 and hold jobs in politics.

Commercial Announcer (36:55)

The reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys. They tell edgy, offensive jokes like, that's what kids do. And I really don't want us to grow up in a country where a kid telling a stupid joke, telling a very offensive, stupid joke is caused to ruin their lives. And at some point, we're all going to have to say, enough of this B.S.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (37:19)

Yeah, they're not kids. Joining me at the table, former Texas Congressman Colin Allred. He is currently running for the US Senate. Sarah Longwell is still here. I want you to respond to this story and not just the fact of it. I think we, I think all of us know that there's hate, unfortunately, in all over this country, in the hearts of some people, it is far outweighed by goodness. I think, I think I still believe. I hope that's still true. But it's the response to it that I think is the flashing red light for American democracy.

Colin Allred (37:52)

No, it is. And you know, I was captain of my football team at Baylor. And let's just take for a moment that many of these are guys and let's just say that some of them are young. Right. And leadership matters. Leadership matters. Both in terms of if you hear things that people shouldn't be saying, you've got to police that in the moment, but certainly afterwards, then you have to send an incredibly clear signal that, hey, guys, this is not okay, and if this continues, there's serious consequences for them. But if anyone else does this, you're going to find out what's going to happen. And the most concerning thing, like you said, is the President of the United States has said nothing about it. And what really could he say? That, oh, you follow my example. I've not been saying hateful things all these years.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (38:33)

I mean, look, I worked for President Bush, and when there were racist leaders in the Republican Party at any level, and I would say George H.W. bush had to do the same thing Democratic leaders have had to do. When there is something poisonous in your coalition, you call it out and say, I'll win without that part of my coalition. Donald Trump, for his part, when it was David Dew, challenged Jake Tapper to tell him who David Duke was. I mean, this is not isolated, which I think is why it's a story.

Colin Allred (39:03)

Yeah, I remember my first month or two in Congress, Steve King from Iowa had just said some really vile white nationalist comments. And I was happened to be had to sit in the chair, the Speaker's chair, while he was defending himself one night. And I remember at that time, Kevin McCarthy and the Republican leadership removed him from his committees without us ever having to say anything. They decided on their campaign arm that they're going to run someone against him to make sure that he was not going to be their nominee and that he didn't represent their party and they drove him out of the party. Right. That is the response that you'd want to see to say, let's make this very clear, this has no home in our party. But what I think you and I both agree on is that Donald Trump has said very much and very clearly there is a home for this in our party. And that's why you see it showing up.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (39:52)

What do you do in a country where, you know, the last Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, testified on September 20th of 2020 about the threat environment, and this is ahead of Joe Biden becoming president two months later. But he says the greatest threat to the homeland, as opposed to the years after 9, 11, is now domestic violent extremism. And I think this is a direct quote. And within that bucket, but by far the largest group is racially motivated violent extremists. And within that bucket, it's white supremacy. I mean, racism is ancient, but that was new, that the greatest threat to the homeland was racially Motivated domestic, violent extremism.

Colin Allred (40:34)

Yeah. Unfortunately, we have example after example to point to. And you know, I've always thought, and I'm glad you mentioned President Bush because I've always thought that part of the role of the president of the United States is to be a moral leader as well and don't always live up to it. Right. But to at least try to remind the country and to point us toward our better angels. Right. And I think for most of our history, we've had presidents who have successfully, at least tried, not always succeeded. I think this is unprecedented for us to be in a period where the president of the United States is actually fanning the flames and it has real world consequences. There are real people who are being targeted and being hurt, and there are groups that feel very empowered. In fact, I was there on January 6. I saw them, I heard them. And then they are now not only empowered, they've been pardoned, they've been praised, they've been said that they're patriots. They're trying to turn January 6th into the next July 4th for them. Right. So we're in an incredibly dangerous moment. But I also agree with what you said a little while ago, which is that I think we're still a fundamentally decent country and that most people don't like this. And, you know, I've just been going around Texas. You know, this is not where people are. And I think we have to remember that, too, and not think that we're unsure on our footing and that maybe we were wrong about the country. But say, no, they're wrong about the country. This is how we can show them the way out of this.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (41:57)

All right, we're going to bring, we need to bring Sarah into this conversation. I have to sneak in a quick break first. We'll all be right back. We are back with Congressman Allred and Sarah Longwell. Sarah, this story's been percolating for a couple of days, but what's new is that the California or the California, the New York Young Republicans has drawn a line where J.D. vance wouldn't and said they wouldn't tolerate this. J.D. vance is chalking up the messages sent by, you know, men and women as old as 40 years old as dumb stuff that kids do.

Sarah Longwell (42:29)

It will look first. And I'm glad that some people at the local level are taking action. But I want to go back to Trump because it's not just that Donald Trump fans the flames of behavior like this, it's that Donald Trump's own behavior has now attracted people like this to the party. This is not an isolated incident. This is about what the future of the Republican Party is going to look like because of who Donald Trump is and who he is attracted to the party. Look, if you're Nick Fuentes and you're a white national who has white nationalist conferences, or you're Kanye west who's become a raging anti Semite, what does Donald Trump do? He invites you to dinner at Mar a Lago. And so why are they making jokes about rape? Well, maybe because the president is an adjudicated convicted of sexual assault.

Christy Greenberg (43:22)

Right.

Sarah Longwell (43:23)

Like who Donald Trump is as a sort of a, it does vice signaling. Right. Everything he has done is crazy, corrupt and indecent. And so he is attracting that type of person to the party. And in the 10 years that he's been dominating the Republican Party, he has driven out people of honor. He has driven out like it's no good to look back at George W. Bush in some ways because not only is he no longer reflective of the Republican Party, he is reviled by rank and file Republicans now. And so it is very important to understand that what you are seeing in these text messages, what you are seeing from the, the vice president and the reason you're not hearing any pushback from the president is because this is what the party represents now. It has been taken over by, let's just face it, crazy people, many of whom are sort of these racist online edgelords, because that's who Donald Trump attracts to this party. And so that is where it's going. These are not kids. They're not children. They're not 17. They are the, the strivers who are part of the young institutions that are, one of them's a state senator, you know, like they are, they are in, they are in the sort of firmament of institutional Republicanism. And so I'm glad that they're being censured in some places. But I don't think that anybody should make the mistake of thinking that this is isolated, this is who Donald Trump has been attracting to the party now for over a decade.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (44:48)

Well, I think it also the other half of the conversation has to be about the opportunity Democrats have to open up their tent to everyone who doesn't like this. Because I think Sarah is right about the synergistic nature of the things Donald Trump has said publicly over nine years and the things that appear in these chats. I have to sneak in a quick break. We'll give you the last word on that on the other side.

Colin Allred (45:09)

Sounds good.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (45:13)

We are back. Congressman. The opportunity For Democrats to speak to the whole country is massive. But it's also across all these issues, what approach do you take?

Colin Allred (45:25)

You know, one thing I'm constantly impressed by is that I think most folks are working hard and they're trying to look out for their families and they're hoping that their elected officials are working as hard as they are, and they're not spending much time on these hateful thoughts and these hateful ideas. They don't have time to. They're dropping their kids off at school and they're going to one or two jobs and they're coming home, and they are just trying to keep above water. Right. And I think we have to constantly remember that. And so while we're condemning, which we should, this kind of language and this behavior, we have to also say, I see you working hard out there. I see that you're working hard and you're playing by the rules. And with some shift in priorities, we're going to make it so you can get ahead. Right. And there, I think that's across all groups. And it's an opportunity for us to say they're obsessed with these differences that we have. We're obsessed with helping you and creating opportunity for you. Right. And I really think that in many ways, as bad as this is, as you said, sort of the creepy crawlies have all been. Rockets have been lifted up and they've all come out. Right. I think it gives us an opportunity to come back and take the broader group of the American people and say, listen, we know what we gotta do together to make sure that, as John Lewis said, we might have come here on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. We gotta take care of this House. It's the American House, and here's what we can do. And it's a great opportunity for us to step into that kind of vacuum and to do it in a way that's inclusive of everyone. And in Texas, we have a lot of folks who have just decided that the entire system is rigged. And why, you know, why should we go through all the hurdles of voting and all these things when nothing's going to change? And that, I think, is what we also have to combat. Right. Is this idea that nothing can change and that we're stuck with things like this and that this is the path that we're on. I fundamentally disagree. I know you do, too. And I think that's what we have to make sure we make clear in this election.

Host (possibly a journalist or moderator) (47:18)

Yeah, the disillusionment. Thank you so much for being here. I hope we can continue. Sarah Longwell, it is a pleasure to have you here. Thank you for spending the whole hour with us. Coming up next, millions of people could be taking to the streets to tomorrow as we've been discussing in protest of Donald Trump and his agenda. 2600 protests in all 50 states are planned. We'll talk about the rising enthusiasm and intensity around the resistance to Donald Trump. That's after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Commercial Announcer (47:49)

This ad is brought to you by Vive Healthcare, the makers of Tobito, dolutegravir, lamivudine. If you're living with hiv, look ahead. Do chase a dream. Do consider how you stay undetectable. Do learn about Devato. Divato is a complete HIV treatment by prescription only for some people 12 and older. Your doctor will determine if Devato is right for you. Do find out how many medicines are in your HIV pill. Most HIV pills contain three or four. Devato is as effective with just two medicines. No other complete HIV pill contains fewer medicines. Then do dream about tomorrow.

Greenlight Advertiser (48:26)

It is unknown if Devato is safe and effective if you have HIV and hepatitis B. If you have Hep B. Don't stop Dovato without talking to your doctor as it may get worse or harder to treat. Don't take Dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking dofetilide due to serious or life threatening side effects. If you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop Dovato and get medical help right away. Other serious or life threatening side effects include severe liver problems and lactic acid buildup. If you're female or obese, you may be more at risk. Tell your doctor about your medicines or supplements, medical conditions, liver or kidney problems, pregnancy, breastfeeding or planned pregnancy.

Commercial Announcer (49:02)

Do ask your doctor about fewer medicines. Visit devato.com or call 1-877-844-8872 to learn more.