Gavin Newsom Walks Back His Fumbled Answer on AIPAC as Dems Prepare for Battle Trump

Summary

---

IHIP News Podcast: Gavin Newsom Walks Back His Fumbled Answer on AIPAC as Dems Prepare for Battle Trump

Hosts: Jennifer Welch & Angie Sullivan
Guest: Adam Mochler (Progressive Influencer)
Date: February 27, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this candid and lively episode recorded deep in a red state, Jennifer Welch welcomes progressive influencer Adam Mochler for an unfiltered conversation on Democratic resistance, party leadership, special interest money, and the looming 2026 midterms. The discussion centers on the struggle for authentic progressive leadership in the Democratic Party, accountability to the base, controversial alliances, and candidate approaches to Israel, corporate influence, and trans rights. A key moment is Adam's interview with Gavin Newsom, in which the governor is pressed to clarify his stance on AIPAC and other special interest groups.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Aggressive Progressive Messaging in Conservative Media

• Adam Mochler’s Approach on CNN ([01:12]):
  • Adam describes the “double standard” he faces when on panels with MAGA spokespeople:

    “I'm a 23 year old dude who makes YouTube videos. Why are you holding me and Trump to the same standard?”
    He emphasizes aggressive pushback:
    “I always have the goal of being a little bit more aggressive than I see other Democrats be... why can't we just punch back...?” ([01:33])

  • Strategic tightrope: being assertive without coming across as “an entitled 23 year old.”
  • Clips are used intentionally to “push forward a more progressive, pro-democracy message.”

2. Frustration with Current Democratic Leadership

• Jennifer’s Critique of Hakeem Jeffries & Chuck Schumer ([02:33], [03:20]):
  • Expresses deep disappointment, calling them “controlled opposition.”
  • Outraged over their adherence to “norms” when Republicans disregard them:

    “They're trying to uphold a level of normality that just isn't there anymore.” (Adam, [03:20])

  • Adam states:

    “I want to see a Democratic Party that's less risk averse... willing to punch back... and actually willing to take the fight to them.” ([04:33])

3. The Influence of Special Interest Money

• Palantir & AIPAC Donations ([05:15]):
  • Jennifer points to Hakeem Jeffries’ $25,000 donation from Palantir as emblematic of institutional capture.
  • Ongoing controversy over AIPAC money and blank-check support for Israel.
• Adam on Political Incentives:

  “Currently the incentives in our institutions... are pointing our politicians towards basically, like, flailing these donors, being as nice as possible to these donors, always appeasing the donors first and foremost.” ([06:27])

  • Mentions Project 2029: a plan to “end corruption and special interest group control... rewire the incentives that push politicians.”

4. DNC Transparency, Israel, and the Voter Base

• Democratic Electoral Autopsy Suppression ([07:48]):
  • Axios leak: progressive voters stayed home or voted third party over “the blank check to Israel.”
  • Critique that Dem leaders are “scared to talk about this,” in contrast to right-wing media.

5. The Gavin Newsom Interview: Stance on Special Interest Groups

• Key Excerpts from Mochler’s Newsom Interview ([09:36–10:15]):

  • Adam puts Newsom on the record:
    • Big Oil:

      “Big Oil’s number one enemy is me. So not a chance in hell.” — Gavin Newsom ([09:56])

    • Big Tobacco:

      “No damn way.” — Gavin Newsom ([10:12])

    • AIPAC:

      “AIPAC? Never have and never will.” — Gavin Newsom ([10:13])

    • General Approach:

      “Look, I think you follow the money. Every time something goes wrong, follow the money.” — Gavin Newsom ([10:21])

• Adam’s Commentary After the Interview ([10:46]):

  • Newsom had “refined his answer” after previous faltering on AIPAC questions.
  • Adam’s framework:

    “We cannot have unconditional aid to any country whatsoever.” ([11:41])
    Differentiates between Ukraine (funding justified) and Israel (“they are not the good guys... our funding isn’t making a difference”).

6. Electability, Progressive Coalitions, and Primary Battles

• Concerns over Newsom’s Progressive Credentials ([12:55], [14:31]):

  • Jennifer worries Newsom is “committing political suicide” by courting right-wing podcasters and defending billionaires; fears Democratic base abandonment.
  • Desire for a “bloody but healthy” primary to forge stronger candidates.
  • Adam pushes back:

    “Him seeding ground on those podcasts shouldn’t supersede the great work he’s done in California...” ([14:31])

• Trans Rights and Democratic Compromise ([15:26–17:46]):

  • Jennifer highlights the pain caused when Dem leaders, like Newsom, appear to waver on trans rights under MAGA pressure:

    “It’s really painful for [the community]... when you see your guy that’s supposed to stand up for you, sit down with [a bigot].” ([16:32])

  • Demands “moral clarity” and no compromise on marginalized communities.
  • Adam agrees:

    “We should have someone who’s not willing to cede anything to Republicans.” ([17:22])

7. The “Zoron” Lesson: Progressive Populism Wins

• Grassroots Victories & Populist Messaging ([17:46–19:58]):
  • Jennifer and Adam praise Zoran Mamdani for beating both establishment Dems and Republicans through “authentic, intuitive, anti-corporate, anti-establishment” appeals.
  • Adam on the populist skill set:

    “On the national stage, having a charismatic anti-establishment, populist person... is a pretty strong campaign to run.” ([19:27])

  • Jennifer:

    “For a MAGA voter... There’s no difference between a centrist Democrat and a Zoran Mamdani... but on issue-by-issue, the majority agree with progressive policies.” ([19:58–20:51])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Double Standard in Media:

  “Why are you holding me and Trump to the same standard?” — Adam ([01:12])

• On Democratic Leadership:

  “I want to see a Democratic Party that's less risk averse, that is willing to take risks, willing to punch back, is not going to be beholden to special interest groups...” — Adam ([04:33])

• On AIPAC Money:

  “AIPAC? Never have and will never will.” — Gavin Newsom ([10:13])

• On Unconditional Foreign Aid:

  “We cannot have unconditional aid to any country whatsoever.” — Adam ([11:41])

• On the Imperative to Fight Harder:

  “We’re fighting for people’s lives, we’re fighting for the heart and soul of this nation. I think they need to call each other out.” — Jennifer ([22:09])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Aggressive Progressivism in Media: [01:00–02:33]
• Norms & Democratic Leadership Critique: [03:20–05:15]
• Special Interest Money and Project 2029: [06:27–07:48]
• DNC Autopsy & Israel Issue: [07:48–09:36]
• Newsom Interview Excerpts: [09:36–10:15]
• Adam on Interview & AIPAC: [10:46–11:47]
• Electability and Party Coalition Worries: [12:55–15:26]
• Trans Rights Discussion: [15:26–17:46]
• The Zoron Example: [17:46–20:51]
• Role of Podcasting in Advocacy: [20:51–22:44]

---

Conclusion

This episode is an incisive critique of Democratic leadership and an earnest call for the party to return to its populist, progressive base. Adam Mochler and Jennifer Welch agree: for Democrats to compete, they must reject corporate influence, fight unapologetically for marginalized groups, embrace transparency, and build a broad, authentic progressive coalition. Mochler’s sharp questioning of Gavin Newsom on AIPAC and special interest money, plus wide-ranging assessments of 2026 dynamics, provide vital context for anyone following this pivotal election cycle.

---

Transcript

[A]

Oh, no, my coffee. Brawny here.

[B]

New brawny 3 ply is now more absorbent. Wow.

[A]

Got a clean shirt. Do you wear plaid?

[B]

Some of the strongest.

[A]

Welcome. Today I am joined by social media sensation, progressive influencer Adam Mochler. You've probably seen him go toe to toe with a little show pony Don Donald Trump show pony Scott Jennings on cnn. It's really great stuff. Adam, welcome to Ihip News. How are you?

[B]

I'm doing well. Thank you for having me. It's, honestly, it's a, it's a pleasure to be on here. I'm a big fan of the way that you guys do your work and I'm excited to chat.

[A]

I'm a big fan of seeing you on CNN squaring off with Maga. And I think there's this clip where you talk about that you're, you know, how old are you?

[B]

23.

[A]

20. That you're 23 and you just read Scott Jennings for filth. And I've been on CNN as well on Abby's show. How do you feel after you're on that show?

[B]

Yeah, well, the clip you're talking about, the problem is Scott Jennings will always try to equate my behavior with the President's behavior. So he'll be like, he'll be like, why don't you try to set the standard and then blame it on Trump? And I always go, Dude, I'm a 23 year old dude who makes YouTube videos. Why are you holding me and Trump to the same standard? They do this multiple when I'm on there, so I always have to call it out. And it's a perfect illustration of the double standards that you see. Right. But when I go on there, I always have the goal of being a little bit more aggressive than I see other Democrats be because for the past few years I've turned on cable news and I see older Democrats in a suit and tie being very cordial and trying to play by the rules. And I'm just like, why can't we just punch back and be a little bit more aggressive when we're out in these spaces? Right. So I go in there with that goal and of course there's a line I have to walk too. Because as a 23 year old, I could seem very entitled if I'm a bit too, if I, if I, if I'm a bit too energetic, it'll be like, who's this entitled 23 year old? So I have to walk the line a bit. But overall, when I get done, I feel pretty satisfied because I'm like, listen, I feel like I got my points across pretty well. I got to illustrate my point pretty well. Every once in a while, you take a hit, too, and you're like, man, I wish I. I wish I would have done a little bit better there. But overall, it's a. It's a. It's a good way for us to push our message. And you know that the clips do really well online as well. So it's just. It's a vehicle to push forward a more progressive, pro democracy message.

[A]

I think the. The Republican side, the MAGA side, we could sit here and talk about every day, because I don't know what they're going to do today, but I know it's going to be unethical. I know it's going to be corrupt. I know that they are going to shake people down. I know that Trump's going to enrich himself. I know that they're going to protect pedophiles, and they're going to do that tomorrow and the next day and the next day. What I'm interested in right now is something that I want to invest in, which is the resistance. Like, what are Democrats doing? And I have been so disappointed in Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. I mean, just like, so disappointed. Like, I sometimes I watch them, like, I cannot believe that this is the resistance. How. How do you feel about Hakeem? And chuckles.

[B]

I think that norms in a democracy work like consent. So in order for there to be meaningful consent in any relationship, there needs to be parties consenting, or else it's not consent. In the same way that norms work, both parties are playing by the norms, or else there are no norms anymore. For the past decade, Republicans have repeatedly smacked down any type of norm. We tried to appoint nominate Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. They said, no, you can't do that a year before the election. And they do the same thing with acb. We can go through the stolen election. We can go with the way that Donald Trump conducts himself every single day. There are no norms on the Republican side. So then when you come over to Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, they're the ones playing by the norms. Time and time again, they're trying to uphold a level of normality that just isn't there anymore. I'm not saying that we should all be Donald Trump or, like, punch back in the way that he does. Obviously not. But I think there is something to be said about using the leverage you have at your disposal and Asking for as much as possible rather than conceding or like pre conceding that maybe we won't get everything that we want. The DHS negotiation and funding is a good example. It's a good start that they're using the leverage that they have to try to block DHS funding. But some of their asks were like, do you remember when it was like, they should be able to wear masks. They shouldn't be able to wear masks most of the time. And it's like, what are you guys talking about? There should be no masks here. We shouldn't be negotiating things that are already our constitutional rights. And I'd like to see people who are maybe a little bit more punchy communicators. I. I don't even know if it's the communication, because it's not like John Thune on the Republican side is the best communicator, but he knows how to use the leverage at his disposal. So just to wrap it up, I want to see a Democratic Party that's less risk averse, that is willing to take risks, willing to punch back, is not going to be beholden to special interest groups, and is actually willing to take the fight to them. And I think that we need new leaders in Congress to do that.

[A]

I do, too. It recently has been revealed that Hakeem Jeffries took a $25,000 donation from Palantir. And as we all know, Palantir is, you know, this big surveillance state owned by Peter Thiel and that cokehead Alex Karp, you know, who just completely insane people. Palantir pays zero percent in taxes. So I'm with you. Like, I see that we're playing two different games here. And every time I hear Hakeem Jeffries or Chuckles Schumer speak, I'm like, this just can't be it. So then I start like, why are they being like this? And I think they are kind of controlled opposition. Wajahat Ali recently asked Hakeem Jeffries, are you going to take AIPAC money in the future? Which is now becoming a really toxic thing on our side, because people don't want Israel to have a blank check to kill innocent people. I mean, it's a pretty moral centrist position. And Hakeem Jeffrey said he was going to continue to raise money the way he always has. And then I. My brain just goes to, oh, my God, like, these corporations control the Democratic Party, too. What is your thought on that?

[B]

I think that politicians work just like any other human in the sense that the incentives around them will guide how they act. And currently the incentives in our institutions, there's this institutional rot where the incentives aren't pointing us. Sorry, aren't pointing our politicians towards helping the average person, but they're pointing our politicians towards basically, like, flailing these donors, being as nice as possible to these donors, always appeasing the donors first and foremost. And that is a huge problem with the structure of American politics. And I absolutely see it with Hakeem Jeffries. AIPAC is one of the. One of the most clear examples due to their outsized power. But it's not just AIPAC. There's a bunch of different PACs. There's a bunch of different lobbies that Democrats and Republicans are beholden to. Now Republicans more. I think Democrats are on a different level. I think that they're beginning to wake up and they're beginning to push in the right direction. But there is an institutional rot that needs to be fixed. And that's why my team is working on something called Project 2029. It's a plan to end corruption and special interest group control and revive our democracy. It starts with, like, banning congressional stock trading and all of that. But we're trying to flesh out a broader platform where we're able to, I guess, rewire the incentives that push politicians, because, as I said, it feels like the incentive structure is. Is leading them to be holden to corporate interest groups.

[A]

Yeah. And so you probably saw recently, I think it was a couple days ago, Axios leaked that the DNC did an autopsy. Like, how did we lose to a convicted felon? Dipshit. To me, that's very important information to have. And Ken Martin spiked the autopsy, said he wasn't going to release it to the public, which I found incredibly patronizing and condescending. Like, you don't get to know the truth, but we want your vote anyway. Like, that was really insulting to me. And I believe we're either the party of transparency or we're not. And so when I see the DNC behaving this way and Axios has leaked that a lot of progressive voters stayed at home or voted third party because of the blank check to Israel. And it feels like the Democrats are really scared to talk about this. And you have people on the right. Tucker Carlson has no problem talking about it. Marjorie Taylor Greene has no problem talking about it. Blank check to Israel is just not a popular issue on the right or the left. I mean, it is to, like, Lindsey Graham or Ted Cruz or Huckabee. They're all in on all that because they're rapture preppers. But the rest of people, the rest of Americans are not in on this. And so you recently interviewed Gavin Newsom, who is kind of the front runner right now. If we were to say who could actually win a general, I think we'd all probably say Gavin Newsom. Could I have been a little bit disappointed in him not wanting to tax billionaires? And what really pissed me off was him sitting down with like, Ben Shapiro and the late Charlie Kirk, because I'm like, why isn't he sitting down with Hassan, which you recently sat down with Hasan, like really building a coalition on the left from center all the way to leftist. So I want to play a little clip right now of your interview with Governor Newsom.

[B]

These special interest groups, these disproportionately powerful interest groups and lobbyists out of politics so we can make real progress for the American people. I want to list off some special interest groups. And will you say yes or no if you don't take money from them?

[C]

All right, let's go.

[B]

What about Big Oil?

[C]

Okay, seriously, you're talking to the wrong guy. Like, literally, oil's Big Oil's number one enemy is.

[A]

Is.

[C]

Is me. So not a chance in hell.

[B]

Big Tobacco.

[C]

And by the way, the. The. They're the polluted heart of this climate crisis. Big Oil. And, and the lies and the mistruths they've been perpetuating. American people on the global world and the globe are disgraceful.

[B]

Big Tobacco.

[C]

No damn way.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

What about apac?

[C]

Apac? Never have and will. Never will.

[B]

Were you promised to fight disproportionately powerful special interest groups that are hurting the American people?

[C]

Look, I think you follow the money. Every time something goes wrong, follow the money.

[A]

So, Adam, kudos to you because he was asked about this in another podcast and it really took him. He was flat footed on it. He was like, interesting, interesting like nine times. And it seems like there's a little bit of an evolution with him on this. Was this planned beforehand or did you organically go into asking him about all of this?

[B]

I told him I was going to ask overall about special interest groups, but the questions that I asked were organic.

[A]

Yeah. And were you surprised with his answer by apac?

[B]

I, you know, I kind of hoped he'd refined his answer a bit of. I was like, I hope his answer has been refined to such a degree where he can answer it very cleanly but really quickly to, like, touch upon what you were saying a minute ago. I think the framework that we should apply for funding foreign countries or funding foreign wars. And this should be applied among all Democrats is like two prongs. First of all, are they the good guys number one and number two, do they actually have a chance of losing? So with Ukraine, in my opinion, they are the good guys. So we should fund Ukraine and they actually have a real chance of losing. Our funding could make a difference. But with Israel, I don't believe they're the good guys. Number one, they're doing a lot of bad, bad stuff and our funding isn't even making a difference on their day to day war. So we're just endlessly shoveling money into them. We cannot have unconditional aid to any country whatsoever. So that's the framework that we've been approaching it with.

[A]

Do you think Gavin Newsom is the front runner right now?

[B]

I mean, yeah, Gavin Newsom is the. He's basically the front runner in all the prediction markets. And due to name identification, he's gained from Proposition 50. Now I mean, I have criticism with Gavin Newsom. I don't think we should be like shaming anybody or browbeating anybody into endorsing or lining up and behind a candidate two years before the primary. It's going to be so nice to have a healthy battle in our primary. Hopefully it's healthy, hopefully it stays nice. But we're gonna have a huge battle in our primary that's going to be good for the party. But yeah, Newsom's the front runner and a lot of people were mistaking like me interviewing him with me like endorsing him or lining up behind him. I genuinely plan to interview all of the front runners. And yeah, I, there's a lot of good, genuine criticisms of Newsom. I will point out California does have the most progressive tax structure in all of America and I think it is insufficient. The tax rate needs to be higher. But a lot of people think that he's like very, very pro billionaire. He's like bought out by the billionaires. And I agree the billionaire tax should be applied to every single state. But it's worth pointing out there's a very progressive tax structure in California.

[A]

I think Gavin Newsom is, if I talk about electability only, he's electable in a general. I think my problem is if you, if you compare this, if you combine this with the autopsy that's been leaking that the Democratic base is abandoning the progressive left and if we have a politician that is sitting down with Ben Shapiro and not sitting down with Hassan Piker and he's seeding ground to Ben Shapiro and If we have a politician right now, there is a very active eat the rich mentality on the left, right and center, and he's saying he's going to stand up for billionaires. I think, keep thinking, is this man committing political suicide? Is he just a corporate dim? Is this going to be another corporate dim? I agree with you about primaries. They need to bloody each other up a bit. Not in the most toxic way. But I do think, like, right now, people are like, Jasmine Crockett's being too mean to James Talario. And I'm like, you know what? Quit being. This is the problem. They're in a primary. She's. Her brand is. She's a fighter. His brand is whatever it is. And. And the Democrats are just so emotional about everything all the time. And I think bloody each other up a bit, take shots at each other. I think it's healthy to make them all better candidates. But I worry about Gavin Newsom with the progressive left, and I feel like whoever our nominee is, if they do not build a coalition with the progressives, the Democratic Party is going to be an absolute. Just cemetery.

[B]

Yeah, I totally agree. I feel like I'm. Now, just because I interviewed Newsom, everyone thinks I'm like, Newsom's number one defender. But I totally agree. He should absolutely build a broad coalition. I hope that we have a really, really healthy, great primary. And yeah, I mean, there's definitely an argument to be made that he ceded too much ground to Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk on those podcasts while not interviewing Hassan Piker. Yeah, I just. One of my problems is, though, just to be candid, like, I think that him ceding ground on these podcasts, now I am defending Gavin Newsom. Shit. Him seeding ground on those podcasts shouldn't supersede the great work he's done in California, making it a very progressive state. It's a sanctuary state for trans people. I think that a lot of people think, like, people in my comments were saying, why are you talking to this transphobe, this transphobic governor? And I'm like, guys, I think that. I think that you're taking it a bit too far and saying that he's transphobic. I think that he made some comments that were really, really, you know, not smart on Charlie Crook Spot or his podcast.

[A]

I wanna. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I do want to say something to you that I think is really important regarding the trans issue. As a person who's lived in a red State for 50 years, and when the trans community sees somebody like Gavin Newsom, prior to the Charlie Kirk interview, they think, oh, my God, we have a warrior. We have it this attractive, heterosexual white male that's defending us. And then MAGA just starts all of this transphobia. Horrible. The commercial, you know, Kamala is for they them. Donald Trump is for you. And this. Less than 1% of the population gets so marginalized. And when. When you see your guy that's supposed to stand up for you, sit down with Charlie Kirk and seed ground when you're the most vulnerable you've ever been because you have all these rabid rubes after you, it's really painful. That pain that he seated, even though it might not mean that much to you or me, or maybe their policies are this. If you're a trans person and I have a. Some of my best friends in Oklahoma City have a trans daughter, it's really painful for them when they see somebody who's supposed to champion and be equal rights for everybody. Seed grounds to a bigot like the late Charlie Kirk. And so that's the problem where I get with Democrats, where we have to say we have to pick and choose. We don't have just moral clarity. Fighters or Gavin Newsom would have said Charlie Kirk. I'm not throwing that community under the bus. I used to be the mayor of San Francisco. I've marshaled all the gay pride parades, and I will not pick on marginalized people. And I just don't feel. I feel like we always have to settle as Democrats. We always have to give something up. And I think we. I don't know who my favorite is in the primaries, but I know I haven't seen them yet.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Because I want somebody who doesn't compromise,

[B]

somebody who punches back, someone who can earn our vote. I mean, yeah, I agree with everything you said there. I wasn't trying to imply that. That Gavin Newsom is perfect on trans issues. I personally think he ceded too much ground there as well. But, yeah, we should have someone who's not willing to cede anything to the Republicans, especially at a time when they will continue to yank our country far right and continue to, I don't know, create, like, new lows. So, yeah, I agree.

[A]

Okay. And then let's talk about Zoron really quickly. I think it's pretty cool that he took on the Democratic establishment. He took on the oligarchs and the billionaires, and he took on the Republican Party. And he wins on all accounts. Grassroots donations goes to the White House. Trump's fawning all over him. And I think the lesson in this is people like people that believe in something, that don't play pick me politics, that don't try to be shape shifters depending on who they're speaking to. So what's your take on Zoron? And do you think that is just something that exists only in the electorate in New York or do you think this is a, a sign that progressives can win across the country?

[B]

I, I interviewed Zoharan like a year ago like before the primary because his wife is Syrian and my family is from Syria, so they would always send me like his reels and stuff that he posted and say, I love this guy. And he, I knew that he was very, very charismatic off the bat. I think he fits the perfect mold of what works nationally. So it's people who are anti establishment against the establishment, people who are populist and people who have intuitive ideas that they can sell to the American people. As much as we hate Donald Trump, when he would go out there and say like no tax on tips or build the wall, that just, it appeals to people because it's so simple and clean. And Zoron had a lot of policies that were just like that. He was able to be anti establishment, be populist. Of course. He has a very warm personality and his ideas were very intuitive. And you know what? I think it's not even about how far left you are because there was a poll recently, I don't know if you saw this, people thought that Kamala Harris was basically like the same on policy as Zoran. They thought they were both the same far left. So like, it's interesting because it's not about where you lie on that spectrum. Zoran was viewed as pretty far left, but his ideas were intuitive and were helpful and people then voted him in. Now, I don't know if like Zoran Mamdani would be able to get elected in Governor Andy Bashir's seat. So it does, it does depend on where you are. There's different, like different political styles, but on the national stage, having a charismatic anti establishment, populist person, I think it's a pretty strong campaign to run.

[A]

Yeah, I completely agree. I think that the more progressive candidates are and less beholden to corporations. Here's what's interesting about the poll that you just brought up. So I lived in Oklahoma for 50 years and for a MAGA voter, for a Republican voter, there's no difference between a centrist Democrat and a Zoran Momdani. Yeah, they're all demon crats and liberal, period. That's just how, how it is. So if you take issue by issue, single issue items. Zoran Mamdani isn't that radical. If you poll the public on, on, you know, do you want child, child care? Do you want help with health care? Do you think corporations should pay their fair share in taxes? The majority agree with progressive policies issue by issue. Just not a progressive.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Candidate. So I think that's interesting, but I want to leave us with this. I think that this is a really important conversation to have heading into the midterms. You said a lot of people were pissed at you because you interviewed Gavin Newsom. And I think that's chicken because I think we should. People that are in your and my spaces should interview everybody. And I thought you getting him on record saying that he would not take APAC and he would not take big oil money is good to have injected into the record. Now, Gavin Newsom's going to have a hard time with, with several factors of the electorate. But I think it's important that if somebody is running for president in the democratic space, they go on as many podcasts as possible because I also think it makes them better candidates because people don't just do cable news anymore.

[B]

Yeah, I totally agree. And I hope that I can interview more candidates and I'll ask more like, you know, precise surgical questions as time goes on. That was kind of a quick, like, last minute. I flew out and did it. I have like 5 minutes, 10 minutes to talk. So we just, you know, did it. But hopefully I get more sit downs. Hopefully you do as well. And we're able to surgically grill and ask our politicians what we want. That's a healthy democracy. That is how we push our party in the right direction. And I'm excited. I think it'll be a good primary and it might get bloody, it might get a bit bloody, but that's. We'll see.

[A]

It needs to. I think it needs to like we're, we're fighting for, for people's lives. We're fighting for the heart and soul of this nation. I think they need to call each other out. I think podcasters need to call them out. I think that they should be, you know, anywhere and everywhere. I think that that's what this moment calls for. I think it's just so important. But thank you for all of the work that you're doing. I love watching your clips on social media. I think you have a real talent and a real skill and I look forward to us collaborating more in the future, especially as we head into these midterms yes.

[B]

We're going to do some great work together. And keep killing it on your end as well. Thank you for everything.

[A]

Thanks, Adam.

[B]

Sam.