Doug Collins (8:12)

I want to play a clip from this BBC interview from former President Biden.

Kamala Harris (8:16)

Take a listen.

Doug Collins (8:18)

It was a hard decision, but regrets, though? No, I think it was the right decision. I think that the, well, it was just a difficult decision.

Mark Halperin (8:36)

But you shouldn't have taken it early.

Doug Collins (8:38)

Well, I don't, I don't, I don't think so. I mean, I don't know how that would have made much difference. So should President Biden have gotten out of that race earlier?

Mark Halperin (8:46)

But I'm not going back a year.

Doug Collins (8:47)

You're not going back?

Mark Halperin (8:48)

No, I'm not. You know, I don't want to.

Doug Collins (8:49)

Isn't that a big part of where.

Mark Halperin (8:50)

The Democratic Party is? No, no, it's not. It's nothing to do with Biden right now or Kamala Harris. The question is what is the fundamental issue in politics? Which side are you on? Well, he's right that that's a fundamental issue. But the Democrats I've talked to say if you fail to grapple with it, you don't have credibility with the public and you don't understand the dynamics of the Democratic Party. Now. It's not like in 2028 they're going to face the exact same issue. But the Democrats, again, who, some in the party, some who've left the party, say it's an embarrassment and it, and it gets away from an authentic discussion. All right, those are the backward looking ones. Now, I'm going to tell you some of the ones that are germane right now that these Democrats say must be discussed not just privately but out in the open if the party's going to have a chance to have a revival and a strong chance to win the White House. The first one has to do with the media and what kind of information Democrats are taking in. What are the sources since about 2015 that Democrats have relied on to say, what do we know about the world? What do we know about Donald Trump's appeal? What do we know about how our party is doing? And these Democrats say if they continue to stay in their blue bubble, it's not just about Pete Buttigieg going on a podcast that Donald Trump's going on. It's about consuming programs, including programs like this, that try to find the truth about the party rather than just relying on things that keep them from the truth. It's pretty fundamental. Now, I'm sure some people on the left will say, well, that's what the Republicans do. They're just watching conservative media. They, they, they, they see plenty of things like CBS News that they can take in and understand what's going on on the other side. So that's one. Then there's another one. Again, these are hard questions to grapple with gender. What kind of party does the Democratic Party want to be regarding men and women? And what some Democrats said to me this week, one in particular with a fair amount of emotion, is, are strong men men who are strong, strong by traditional definitions or roles? Are strong men welcomed in the Democratic Party, or is the Democratic Party not want to be welcoming to strong men? It's a tough question conversation to have because there are plenty of people in the party who would say they don't want traditional gender roles to play a role in the party. So that's a tough one. Here's another one about speech. What these Democrats said is for a lot of people in our party, if somebody says something we don't like, if we find it to be offensive or negative or not consistent with our worldview, we call it hate speech or we call it racism or misinformation or fascism. Is that the way to deal with dissenting voices, to make it a big, broad party, to make it a stable party, and to adapt to changing circumstances, these Democrats see an intolerance in the party for dissent and they think that's a good way to build a party. All right, another one about coalitions, okay, how to build the biggest possible tent, how to draw People in. And what some Democrats say is they're deliberately excluding people. They're taking groups of people and saying, we don't want that group in the party. And one prominent example is, is people in. In. In. Big Tech. Big tech. And this is a huge irony. Big Tech was instrumental in helping. Trying to help Hillary Clinton win in 2916, instrumental in helping Donald Trump, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump in 2020. And yet now you see lots of tech leaders saying they don't feel welcome in the Democratic Party. And they're taking their influence, their. Their money, their capacity to affect public policy conversations, and they're saying, we don't love everything about Donald Trump, but we're welcome in the Republican Party. Democrats have said to too many groups, in the view of the people I talk to, not just that, you know, we're not going to court you aggressively, but do we think it's a positive to kick you out of the party, that we are better off as a party to exclude rather than include. And that is seen by my sources as a real problem. Next, can Democrats appeal to Latino voters if they're not honest about how Donald Trump improved his standing and support with Latino voters, including on the issue of immigration? For years, Democrats told themselves, if we're tough on the border, we'll alienate Hispanic voters. We can't do that. Better call them Latinx and say, we're for the Biden policies on the border. Well, the data is pretty clear, and you can see it in focus groups and polls. A lot of Latino voters who are in this country legally, they don't want an open border. And so it turns out for at least some of those voters, the Democratic theory of the case was exactly backwards, that supporting tougher policies on illegal immigration actually can appeal to Hispanic voters. Democrats haven't had that conversation. My sources say they knew they need to. Young voters, okay. Young voters supported Donald Trump in numbers that are baffling to so many Democrats. They need to figure it out. Young voters historically have been a pretty big source of support for Democrats. And instead, what you see is a lot of young voters see the Democratic Party as not cool. You think? Not that long ago, Barack Obama defined cool for younger voters and many others. And now what you see is a Democratic Party that doesn't seem to have the capacity to communicate with young voters in a systematic way to be the cool party. Now, part of that might be that a lot of the Democratic leaders are 70, 80 years old, but it's also, in the view of my sources, a cultural problem. A Communications problem, a symbolism problem, a personality problem. How can the Democrats have an honest conversation about why young voters supported Donald Trump? Maybe the biggest one is working class voters, union voters. Again, they move towards Donald Trump. How do Democrats who are in denial explain that? How do they come to terms with the fact that the parties have flipped? Being the working class party is a good thing to be in politics for all the obvious reasons. In terms of numbers, there's a lot of working class voters, and yet Democrats haven't seemed to find a way to have that conversation. That's the one where there are a few efforts. My sources say of all the issues I've raised, that's the one where there is some sort of public conversation. But in their view, it needs to be a lot fuller and a lot more honest about what's wrong. Okay, this is the big one. This is the most important question that I continue to hear from Democrats who, who are in denial, who are in their blue bubble. And they'll say to me, a couple of them said it to me when I was on Michael Smerconish's radio show this week. They said, you know, you don't need to call Trump a racist, more you need to say Trump's, you know, hoodwinking people. The paradox to me is the people who have the most Trump derangement syndrome, the people who think are the most outraged that Trump is president, are the ones who need to spend the most time understanding how he won because they're the ones who say he's such a horrible guy that he couldn't possibly win. And I heard this From Democrats in 2021, when it looked like Donald Trump might run again after January six, before some of the criminal indictments occurred, they said Trump will never win. Trump can't win. It was a fluke in 2016. Well, he did win, and he, and he won the popular vote this time, of course. And yet the worse you think Trump is as a person, the more horrible, disgusting you think he is, the less appeal you think he has. That should have, create an inverse proportion. It should make you desperate to answer the question, most of all, why is Donald Trump popular? I listen to so many interviews with Democrats, I talk to so many Democrats beyond the ones who are informing this conversation. And, and, and they rarely grapple with the question of Trump's popularity. They, they'll tell you why they think he's bad. They'll tell you why they think his poll numbers have gone down and will go down further. And there's no doubt that there's Truth. There's no doubt there's lots to say bad about Donald Trump, even if you're not a diehard Democrat. But the conversation, the worse you think Trump is, the more you should want to know, why is he popular? What is it about Trump and everybody? And sometimes the answer will come back, well, he's a racist and we're a racist people. Well, I have no doubt there's some racists who voted for Donald Trump, but it's not the majority of his support, to say the least. There are plenty of people who are out there and you can hear them every day. If you come on any, any place in any diner in America in blue, red, purple state, find some Trump voters and ask them why they voted for Trump. They won't say, I voted for Trump because he's racist. It won't even say that. Anything that leads you to believe that's why they voted for him. A lot of the reasons they voted for Trump was the Democrats haven't grappled with these questions. The next presidential election is not that far away. And that presidential election, the Democrats, regardless of who they nominate, how strong or weak that person is, regardless of who the Republicans nominate, the people I talk to, many of whom have high experience in Democratic politics at the presidential level, they say if our party can't have a public debate about these issues of gender, of, of, of values, of policy, of the history of Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and Bobby Kennedy, if we can't have that public conversation, we are doomed to lose. And the gap between how much that conversation is occurring even in private, let alone in public, and the need to have it is vast. Parties that lose, particularly party that loses to someone like Donald Trump, who they detest and don't understand, have to have a full conversation. They can't have their head in the sand or their, or their face up against the TV screen watching msnbc. They have to have the conversation. This isn't an anti Democrat conversation I'm talking about here. In fact, it's a pro Democrat conversation because if the Democrats don't have it, they'll lose again. I've seen lots of aftermaths in all the elections I've covered. Whenever one party loses the White House, there are postmortems, their conversations, their meetings. The gap, again, between the conversation the Democrats need to have, in the view of my sources and the one they're having is massive. And if they can't figure out how to fix that, it's going to be very difficult for them to turn things around. Coming up in just a moment, my conversation with the secretary of the Veterans Department, Doug Collins. Next up, tax day may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble, it's just getting underway. If you missed the April 15 deadline to pay your taxes or you still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement every day. You wait. Well, that only makes things worse. With over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies and wage garnishments, the IRS is applying pressure on individuals now who across the country look, increased administrative scrutiny means collections are moving very fast. The good news, though, there's still time for Tax Network USA to give you a hand if you're self employed or you own a business, even if your books are just a mess, they've got it covered. Tax Network USA specializes in clearing up financial chaos to get you back on track quickly. Even after the deadline, you can still regain control. Your consultation, it's completely free and acting now, could stop penalties, threatening letters and surprise levies before they escalate. Call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com NextUp. You may have missed that April 15 deadline, but you haven't run out of options. Let Tax Network USA help before the IRS makes their next move. Again, that's 1-800-958-1000 or you can visit tnusa.com NextUp and now NextUp, the secretary of the Veterans Department, gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Doug Collins. Congressman, Secretary, welcome to NextUp.

Kamala Harris (20:47)

Hey, it's good to be with you, Mark.

Mark Halperin (20:49)

I've watched so closely how you've run the department and it is, it is such an important job because our veterans need to be taken care of. And there's been a huge focus on veterans healthcare and we'll talk about that. But it's not all the department does. And you've got a broader brief than that. And you've been caught up as much as any secretary, I think, in this question of what actually are you doing? And as you point out, the press, you have a lot of disagreements with the press and you spend a fair amount of time, not your main job, of course, trying to correct the record. So the first thing I want to say is you and I know each other probably best from appearing on TV together. And what I, what I always enjoyed when I appeared with you is you made it a point to say some appearances you agreed with me and some appearances you disagreed. And then there's this one.

Kamala Harris (21:35)

Well, the Democratic Party's always thought that the big stars always Resonated. And at times it seems to work, and at times it doesn't. I agree with Mark. They've, they've done what they wanted to do. I may disagree with Mark just a little bit, though. I think what they're trying to do is they're presenting a party that doesn't exist anymore.

Mark Halperin (21:49)

So I like that appearance because he agreed with me and then you disagreed with me just a bit, which is, as I understand it from spending some time in the south is the way in Georgia, you say that guy's coldly wrong, Mark.

Kamala Harris (22:02)

At least I didn't say, bless your heart.

Mark Halperin (22:03)

Okay, Exactly. That. That would have been telltale. So, so the, the, the, the big thing that you spent a lot of time focusing on is you want to deliver higher quality service health care benefits and treatment for veterans at a lower price. That's the goal. And that, that should be the goal of everyone who's had your job. And yet the, the accusations are that you're doing, you're cutting and you're, you're hurting the health care benefits. So talk about first. And I want to, I want to go as slow as we need to to get to the truth here, talk about where there can be cost savings, not reduced benefits for veterans, but where can there be, as you've seen it so far, working with Doge and on your own, where can there be cost savings at the department?

Kamala Harris (22:49)

Well, I think this is, and I appreciate the time to actually explain this, because what we're looking at is a very measured approach on how we're looking at it from a system that you have to have the perspective to understand. In the last 10 years, we've had about 9.1 million veterans being enrolled in VA Healthcare. That stayed constant for 10 years. What's not stayed constant is we've added about several hundred billion dollars and we've added several hundred thousand employees taking care of that same number of people. And that's in our benefit side as well as we go. But in healthcare, it's 9.1 million. And what we have found is that our numbers, by the way, Senator Blumenthal yesterday tried to bring up that the numbers had changed the way we calculated it. That happened under Biden, not me. But what they also did is they went back and they changed all the historical numbers. So there is no apples to oranges. It's all same apples. So, you know, we're not changing numbers to make anything. In fact, we're using the same numbers that VA VHA has used for a while. Those numbers have went up, wait times have went up, backlogs on disability benefits have went skyrocketing. So the issue is not really money or people. But the question is how are we using the money and how we're using the people? Just to give you a few examples on areas that we're looking at right now, there's a huge middle management layer. It's a multi management layer that is in between our hospitals and actually in between the central office that everybody has, over time, had probably good intentions, but has added a lot of people, a lot of different things that are taking doctors, nurses and administrators away from frontline healthcare and into more management roles where they're only in a clinic, maybe even if they're even part time, a few hours a week. We need to actually put those doctors back in, those nurses back in the system, and give them much more clinic time so we can see more patients. Then we have the issue of just generalize, everybody doing their own thing. There's an old saying that if you've been to one va, you've been to them all, and that's just a lie. In fact, if you've been to one va, you've been to one va, and that shouldn't be either. Every I've had a hundred. I've got 170 hospitals and I've visited. You know, we're up into the 15, 20 of them. And now I think at some point, and every one of them are completely different. And what I hear from veterans is they're all run differently. Like one VA would approve something, another VA wouldn't approve it. Same system, same thing, same kind of materials, but they do things differently. This has led to us to have six or seven hundred people doing payroll. They shouldn't ever been doing payroll at all for the last few years, because that was supposed to all be centralized in the central office, but yet the hospitals kept their own payroll systems. We see contracting that is bloomed into tens of thousands of people that could be centralized, could be more compartmentalized and made it much more efficient. These are the kind of things in addition to what we saw with dei, what we saw with interior designers, what we saw with landscape technicians, what we saw with others that are not doing the work toward the veteran, but could be looked at to say, how can we reposition that money? Or are those positions to better help a veteran?

Mark Halperin (25:42)

So again, just want to summarize and make sure I understand. You're saying that money, some amount of money can be saved. That doesn't affect the health care that veterans Receive by cutting middle managers, the number of middle managers, the number of bureaucrats processing things and contractors. Do I understand that correctly?

Kamala Harris (25:59)

Yes. Well, also, let me also say this as well. Last year, the former one administration officials in the VA, when they put out PowerPoints, I think as they said it, they were looking that they, they, they could cut 28,000 people. This was last year. It never got the headlines. Nobody ever talked about it. But this was even under the Biden administration. They knew that they were top heavy.

Mark Halperin (26:21)

Okay, how many veterans are alive in America today?

Kamala Harris (26:25)

They're about 14. Between 14 and 15 million, depending on the day.

Mark Halperin (26:30)

And you said 10 million of them get. Get healthcare in part through the va, correct?

Kamala Harris (26:35)

Nine million. About nine million.

Mark Halperin (26:37)

Okay.

Kamala Harris (26:37)

And that stayed about constant. And, you know, there's been some discussion that. Well, we had a lot that added on during PACT act and other things. Well, we also have to remember that we also lose about 400,000 veterans every year just to natural death and causes. So our numbers aren't changing in that regard. But what is changing is that some of those veterans are now getting more benefits. The same veteran getting more benefits because of PACT act and others, and some new ones coming in who had not been getting benefits before.

Mark Halperin (27:04)

The day you start, as the Secretary of Veterans of the Veterans Department, how many employees did you have?

Kamala Harris (27:10)

Well, that's a great question, because the day I started, I couldn't. I didn't know the answer because my human resources department couldn't give me a figure. It took about a week and a half for us to figure it out. There were somewhere right around 470,000 people.

Mark Halperin (27:23)

Okay, and how many are there now?

Kamala Harris (27:25)

About 468, 69,000. For all the discussion out there about how we've axed the workforce and everything else is just not true. The only folks that have been let go at the VA are less than 1/2 of 1%, or roughly a little over a thousand people.

Mark Halperin (27:41)

Okay. So I've covered the VA throughout my career because it's a big and important story. Sometimes you hear people say it's the best health care in the country, it's better than Medicaid, it's better than Medicare. And then, as you know, sometimes there's these horror stories about not just it's disrespectful to our men and women who've served, but just as a matter of government inefficiency. Long lines to see, long waits to see doctors, horrible facilities. What is your or your description of VA care today? Is it a crown jewel of the American health care system or is it a disaster and an embarrassment or somewhere in between?

Kamala Harris (28:17)

I think somewhere in between. I think you legitimately have some centers in the same state that are better than each other. You have one doing better and. And it goes down to leadership, Mark. I think that's been the big thing missing in many of our areas at VA is just simple leadership to set a vision to say, look, we're not going to be 170 different hospitals. We're going to be one hospital system under the same purpose, and that is to help our veterans. The biggest thing that I see many times though is what's actually hurt us is this idea that we have to. It's an old government adage, and I know you've seen this before, that we have to spend our money or we have to use it, otherwise people won't give us more. Well, one of those came up from the first Trump administration where we had the Mission act, which gave community care access to veterans. If the wait times or their distance to a facility or the doctor and the patient agreed that they could go into the community to get that care was started. It's a great thing. But under the previous four years, one of the things I discovered when I got here and we saw actual evidence of this in memos and other things, they were actually telling our VA folks to hold up, not send people out to the community, keep them in house as much as possible. And that's led really a lot of what you see to our wait time issues as we go along. So healthcare at the va, among the doctors and stuff, when they get in it, we have a lot of people who are very satisfied. It's just with any big healthcare system, you're gonna have some that like it and some that don't. But we need to do better at explaining that our main purpose is our veteran and not our organization itself.

Mark Halperin (29:47)

So I want you to speak in as specific terms as you can, not platitudes at the end of your time in this job. And let's say you serve all four years under the President, let's just say that hypothetical. How will the VA be different as you leave office as compared to how you took it on? No platitudes. No, it's going to be better healthcare, whatever. How many employees? What are the metrics of success? Metrics, not platitudes. Thank you.

Kamala Harris (30:11)

Yeah, I'm not sure, Mark, I'll give you a metric. I think it'll be less employees. It'll be a very similar in our size. Our we have A lot of mandatory spending in our budget. So we're not going to cut benefits in health care. That's part of that part. But I will tell you what it will show. Metrics are going to be. It's going to be quicker wait times to get either into VA Direct Care or into the community care to get the help that they need. They're going to have less forms to fill out when they go to the VBA to get their benefits and make sure that they get those quicker. You're going to have a system set up where they can actually get decisions within days, not weeks and not months. That is actually being done now. The backlog will be virtually non existent. We're going to have wait times to completion for our VBA claims back into the well under 100 days. Should be with the process we're in. If we're not meeting those metrics, then I think then that would not be satisfactory in my term because those are the true metrics that are going to say veterans are happy with what they're getting and if we can do that with a 10% cut in personnel, great. If we do that with a 5% or if we do that with a 15% or those are the kind of things, as I've always said, that's a goal. But we're never losing sight of how those metrics of wait times backlog actually getting the benefits and making it easier for a veteran. And here's a metric that is going to be hard to quantify, but I think we can get there. Because if we make it better is 60% of all constituent casework in a senator or congressman's office has to do with VA in some way. It's either vha, VBA or something. If I could hear from members of Congress that their constituent calls have dropped about having to deal with the va, then we're being a success. That's a metric that I can take. So instead of 60%, they're getting 20%. That's a metric because no other industry in the world has a place where people can call and try and get around a system in which they can't work in.

Mark Halperin (32:01)

So you're surrounded by two groups, at least of skeptics. They went up to Capitol Hill this week and the Democrats beat you about the head and shoulders, metaphorically. And the press corps, which is right, to always ask questions and be skeptical. But you see them. I watch so much your social media. You're like, it's like Vox explainers versus the Dukes of Hazard. They're Just, they're just extremely. Make a lot of videos and a lot of your videos that you make with your team are about the press. I want to show a part of one that you, you put out the other day. This is 104, please.

Kamala Harris (32:35)

Hey, everybody, it's Doug again. I can't believe it. I've been here about a week and you know the one thing that hadn't changed about D.C. it's the media up here that like to tell you stuff that they want you to believe. I'm going to give you a breakdown. This is how it happens in the media up here.

Mark Halperin (32:49)

First of all, I wonder if the founders ever envisioned that a member of the President's cabinet would say, hey y' all, it's Doug again, or whatever you say. I like, I like the informality, obviously. So. So the press corps, as you say in that video, is looking to say Elon Musk and Doug Collins sat in a room and crossed off a bunch of doctors and nurses jobs and, and our veterans got worse care. So obviously the VA is not going to be perfect. There's no perfect health care, except maybe my friend's concierge doctor here in Manhattan. That seems pretty close to perfect. But besides that, can you, can you look the American people in the eye right here in the camera and say you will not allow, with few exceptions, because there's always going to be exceptions. But, but you are not permit there to be cuts that would in any broad way affect at all, in a negative way, the treatment of. The treatment of our veterans.

Kamala Harris (33:43)

That's exactly right, mark. I'm a 23 year Air Force still in the Air Force. I was in the Navy as well. I'm not going to do something that goes against what the President actually told me to do, and that's take care of veterans. We're not going to do that. I'm the one that swore, I'm the one that raised my hand and swore at the end is the Secretary of va. I'm the one that makes the final decisions. I'm the one that takes all the input from everybody and says, what are we going to do that make it better for our veterans? That's my only metric. My metric is, is are we making it better for veterans, families, spouses and caregivers? Are we making that metric better? If we're not making that metric better, then we're going to find something else to do.

Mark Halperin (34:16)

So it must be very frustrating for you to say publicly as you just did. My only goal is to take the resources we have with the president's pledge and make sure there's not a reduction in medical care for our veterans. And I read probably 25 stories about your stewardship of the department and almost all of them are Collins Musk conspiring to cut benefits. So is this going to be chronic or are you going to over time, do you think, be able to convince the media and the Democrats? So actually Collins, Collins was true to his word.

Kamala Harris (34:49)

Yeah, I just say, look, I'm also very, I'm also probably one of the more. I mean, we got a lot of this cabinet, I think you would agree, is very transparent. A lot of what we do. Most of us have learned that the best way to take our message is to go straight to the, to the people and especially for my case, the veterans, to make our case that what's happening, I think we're going to win them over is trust but verify. I don't blame people for being skeptical. This is the whipping post agency of the federal government. It is VA has been the whipping post for everybody. I mean, everybody wants to. The Congress wants to give it a little money and then whip it for being bad. And so I've just decided we're no longer be the whipping post. We're going to get better. We're going to make our services better, we're going to make our benefits better. And you know, Congress, if you want to complain about us, fine, but you better come with accurate results. You better come with accurate information and not guess and not be hypothetical. And the same is true for the press. And this is what we saw especially early on and we still see it to this day. I mean, I had to face it yesterday, you know, with, you know, you've already cut thousands of people, Mark. I've already told you that ain't. That's not happened. Yes, we had some that were brought back by court, which is still pending litigation. But that's another part we've not done what many people say that we've done. Even yesterday, this was an interesting point. Senator Duckworth had claimed early on that we had cut people who actually answered our help line, our veteran crisis line, the 988 number. Even she had to admit yesterday that we, that we did lay off some people in the back offices, the room of staff that were not helping. And immediately when we heard that, we put them back because we didn't even want it to be appearance that we were stopping the veteran cross line. But even she could not say that we laid off somebody who actually picked up the phone. That's the kind of stuff that scares veterans and scares our employees that I've just determined I'm just not going to let happen. We can agree to disagree about how we do things.

Mark Halperin (36:35)

We.

Kamala Harris (36:35)

But you're not going to use the scare tactics. I'll give you one more example. We had a senator and a congressman go into an unopened cboc, which is one of our clinics down in the Hampton Roads area, went into it and then claimed. Because we're opening it in phases, which is why all of these are opened in phases, that we had cut everything so that they couldn't open it with a fully staff, which, by the way, is supposed to be fully staffed by the end of the year. So, I mean, I just called it out and I said, you're not going to go into someplace where you're going to tell stories about the good stuff that frankly, the previous administration, by getting the approval started and getting these buildings built, we've now opened them and doing it the way that the VHA has always done this. You're not going to go tell stories because in the end, Mark, that scares the very veteran I'm trying to help. That just perpetuates a fear in the veteran that they're not going to get the health care they need. And frankly, it's just a lie.

Mark Halperin (37:29)

You mentioned the Cabinet, and the President's very proud of the Cabinet, and you guys have convened a few times. We're going to play cabinet word association. I'll name one of your colleagues. You tell me. One word comes to mind when you think of them. Let's start with Pam Bondi, Attorney General. One word.

Kamala Harris (37:41)

Very sharp.

Mark Halperin (37:42)

Very sharp. In Georgia, that counts as one word. I love people in Georgia. Just kidding. All right. Pete Hegseth.

Kamala Harris (37:51)

Aggressive.

Mark Halperin (37:53)

Okay. Scott Bassett.

Kamala Harris (37:57)

Brilliant.

Mark Halperin (37:58)

Brilliant. All right. Bobby Kennedy.

Kamala Harris (38:02)

Passionate.

Mark Halperin (38:03)

Passionate. Interesting. How do you feel about Maha Make America Healthy Again?

Kamala Harris (38:08)

I think it's recreated. A lot of it's recreated. I've actually went back and thinking about the stuff that I put in my. I used to be probably one of the worst eaters that's ever won. I used to actually love you. Remember when McDonald's had the wings, the McWhings? I used to think those are the greatest things in the world. I think a lot of what he's bringing is bringing some awareness to what we eat, how we stay healthy. I'm in the gym. We're working on a secretary's challenge to make sure our veterans are out working, you know, getting out walking, doing just the basic stuff. So I think it's a very good thing for us to start looking and eating and taking care of our health.

Mark Halperin (38:41)

I made some jokes about Georgia. I love Georgia. So I'm going to make one at South Carolina's expense right there. You're kind of your rival state in some ways, right? A little bit. What do they call McWings in, in South Carolina?

Kamala Harris (38:51)

I have no idea.

Mark Halperin (38:52)

Gourmet. All right.

Kamala Harris (38:55)

Well, I was with him for a while, so.

Mark Halperin (38:56)

Yeah. Howard Lutnick. One word.

Kamala Harris (38:59)

Funny.

Mark Halperin (39:01)

Funny. Interesting.

Kamala Harris (39:02)

Yeah, he's. He's a great person to be around.

Mark Halperin (39:04)

There's. There's all this talk about tension between Howard Lutnick and Scott Besson. You ever seen any of that?

Kamala Harris (39:10)

No.

Mark Halperin (39:11)

No. In the Cabinet meetings, everybody. There's this criticism that some people may say you all just blow smoke up. The president's behind that. Everybody's just in there saying he's the greatest person of all time. Is that a fair criticism?

Kamala Harris (39:24)

I don't think so. I mean, what are we going to, you know, when you come into a Cabinet and you come to the successes that you're going to have and we discussed the stuff, you know, again, this is an administration and a president who's run business. He knows it. We're going to talk about successes. And then we're also, we've already been dealing with our issues to get to those successes. So I think, you know, look, it's something that, you know, seeing into a Cabinet meeting, hearing from each of the Cabinet officials and is something we've not seen in this country and we definitely didn't see it in the last administration. So I think it's just a window into an opportunity in which you have a Cabinet as the president has picked, that all of us have either either worked together, served together, or known each other for at least a relative amount of time, that we have a really good working relationship with each other.

Mark Halperin (40:04)

I think it may be, in my point of view, it's maybe a little bit excessively focused on the president. But I say to people like, what do you expect the Cabinet to come in and trash the job everybody's doing? Doesn't make sense. Now, you served in Congress, you ran for the Senate, and now, first time you're serving as a Cabinet secretary. What's a surprise? You think that people wouldn't know about what it's like to be a Cabinet secretary?

Kamala Harris (40:25)

I think it's who can get stuff done. I love being in the House and when I was in Georgia and also in Congress and you were able to get a lot of stuff Done. And we passed legislation. But now, if I want to make something happen, especially if it's not statutorily bound, if it's policy, I can work with our staff and with a pen, can change things. I think that's the biggest part. And for me and Mark, you got to know me a long time ago. We passed 19 pieces of legislation on Hill, very bipartisan. I mean, Hakeem Jeffries was on the First Step act, our Music Modernization Act, a lot of other bills, criminal justice bills that we did, and we got stuff done. And for me, being able to get something done for our veterans is the most rewarding thing that I've had the privilege to do.

Mark Halperin (41:07)

I mentioned Elon Musk a couple times. Did you know him before you were in the Cabinet?

Kamala Harris (41:11)

No, I did not.

Mark Halperin (41:12)

All right, so what's he like?

Kamala Harris (41:13)

He's one of those individuals that you like to hear, to talk to, because he has ideas and perspectives, and I've not talked to him a great deal. I'm not one that we don't. In fact, I've met with him a couple of times as far as meetings go. But he asked very. He would be asking questions that anybody would ask, well, how does this work and how can we help here? It's been very good conversations. There's none of this, you know, the perceived media backroom, especially with Elon, about, you know, doing things that would be, especially from my perspective in the. In the VA that would be harmful to anything we're trying to do. In fact, he's been very supportive.

Mark Halperin (41:49)

What time do you go to work in the morning?

Kamala Harris (41:51)

What time do I. Yeah, I get here at 5:30.

Mark Halperin (41:55)

5:30. A lot of people there.

Kamala Harris (41:58)

When you get there, they're getting to be. We got a lot of folks coming in. I get in about 5:30. I do a workout. We do have a facility, so I work out and then I'm at my desk. But lately, with our folks coming back to work, our breakfast line is getting longer, which I'm glad to see. And people are. I think it's gonna be good for folks to see each other and to have that communication again as we help our veterans.

Mark Halperin (42:17)

How has the Collins family been impacted, if at all, by the tariffs?

Kamala Harris (42:21)

So far, the tariffs, we've not. I mean, I think the issue is, is we've actually seen our egg prices go down. And in Georgia, my son is driving my diesel truck, which I don't get to drive right now anymore, and he's paying a lot less for diesel. So I think we've been Helped out.

Mark Halperin (42:35)

As far as, you know, you're not paying more for anything or not buying anything because of the terrorist.

Kamala Harris (42:40)

No, we're, you know, we're continuing on. We've always been a frugal family, so we, we get the stuff that we need.

Mark Halperin (42:46)

All right, I'm going to ask you one political question and maybe you'll tell me you can't answer it, but who's going to be the Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia now that Governor Kemp has said he's not running?

Kamala Harris (42:55)

Great question, Mark. Yeah, I have no idea at this point. It's, look, it'll be a wide open race. We'll see what happens down there. You know, it's definitely. I didn't, I was personally one that never thought he was going to run. I respect Brian. I've known him for 25 years, but I didn't think he was going to run. So this is not a position that I didn't foresee coming.

Mark Halperin (43:18)

I would ask you how it could be that the state you represented and hail from could have two senators as liberal as Ossoff and Warnock. But we don't have four hours for you to explain.

Kamala Harris (43:28)

I think you can say you need, we need a little more time. And I could explain some of that.

Mark Halperin (43:32)

Yeah, tell me. I ask all the Trump Cabinet folks this. Tell me one thing about Donald Trump that you think is misunderstood by the public at large.

Kamala Harris (43:39)

His empathy for other people, which runs.

Mark Halperin (43:43)

Opposite to what many would say. But tell me where you've seen that.

Kamala Harris (43:47)

Where I've seen it. I saw it with my father. My dad is 86 years old. He's a former state trooper. I had the chance to bring him to D.C. to see me in my office, and he doesn't walk as good as he used to. And we were able to take him over to see the president and he was struggling a little bit. We had a wheelchair for him, which actually made it better. He can walk most of the time. And, and to watch the president deal with my dad and actually set him in the seat, got pictures with it and talk to him and be really concerned about. Was he okay? My dad was nervous. He didn't eat breakfast before he flew up here. He was excited. He didn't know he was going to get to see the president. But watching the president with him and then just watching also the president with my family and others over the years, how he actually takes time, that empathy, he really, genuinely cares about people. And personally, on a note, whether I was ever in the Cabinet or not, his kindness to My father will never be forgotten.

Mark Halperin (44:43)

Great story, Mr. Secretary. Very grateful to you for making time. And I'm going to do some spot checks on some of your facilities and I'll call you from there if I see any issues. Thank you for making time.

Kamala Harris (44:52)

Take care.

Mark Halperin (44:52)

Look forward to seeing you down there soon. Thank you. Thanks again to Secretary Collins. And next up, more next up right here. And now I'm going to tell you a story about a fella named Leo Grillo. Leo was on a road trip and he came across a Doberman, a dog who was severely underweight, clearly in need of help and in a lot of trouble. Leo rescued that Doberman and he gave him a name, Delta. Sadly, though, Delta was just one of many animals that needed help, which inspired Leo to start Delta Rescue. It's the largest no kill, care for life animal sanctuary in the whole world. They've rescued thousands of dogs, cats and horses from the wilderness and they provide their animals with shelter, love, safety and a good home. This dedication and everlasting love to animals is Leo's mission and it's his legacy. Delta Rescue relies solely on contributions from people like all of us. So if you want caring for these animals to be part of your legacy, speak with your estate planner. Because there are tax savings, estate planning benefits too. You can grow your estate while letting your love for animals live well into the future. Check out the estate planning tab on their website to learn more and to speak with an advisor. We all call dogs man's best friends for a reason. You can help those who need it the very most. So Please today visit Deltarescue.org to learn more. Again, that's Deltarescue.org Next up, it's the Bidens on the View, the former first couple or the guests on Thursday. For the entire hour of the View. I'll jump right to the lead, which is maybe because it was 11:00am and not PM. Joe Biden was just fine. He had some moments of hesitation, but there's no sort of major gaffe. It was not the hardest hitting interview of all time, but they did ask him about all the relevant topics. And joining me now to break down with some madness chalk talk, the Bidens on the View. Bhat Youngar Sargon, Friend of all Small Children Animals this program columnist for the Free Press, Batya, welcome in.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (46:59)

Thank you so much for having me, Mark.

Mark Halperin (47:01)

So I watched this expectantly and and of course we we shouldn't grade Joe Biden too hard because lots of politicians, including his predecessor slash successor, say things that Aren't true, you know, say things that are a little off point. So I don't want to, I don't want to fly spec every answer by some ridiculous standard. He's a politician and as I said, he was fine, we're going to look at some of it. But Baja, I'd love to know your overall impressions of, of the interview.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (47:27)

So overall, when I experienced Joe Biden over the last, I would say, three years, I had these sort of competing emotions within me. There was a part of me that was angry both at him and at the elites who were clearly pushing and unsustainable, embarrassing and undignified situation. But there was a part of me, Mark, and I'm curious if you had this as well, that found it almost unbearable to watch an elderly person who had devoted his life to service, however you judge that service just be ritually humiliated in such a big way on such a big stage. And so him faltering in physical ways, very much complicated emotionally, my ability to see him and judge him through a more intellectual lens in terms of the failures of the policy. And so watching this View interview, I agree with you. Physically, mentally, he was much better than in many of the appearances we have seen, which sort of freed me up emotionally to hear what he was actually saying, which brought back a lot of the anger of the failures, both the policy failures, but also the spiritual failure to see himself as the president of the whole country, including the president of people who had voted for Donald Trump. I think that was a central failure of his presidency, which I felt freed up this morning to remember and get angry about.

Mark Halperin (49:13)

Great point and great framing. All right, let's look at it. He was asked early on about why Kamala Harris lost and he praised her as a good candidate. Again, he's got to say that we know privately he did not think she was a good candidate. It was one of the reasons he clung to the nomination as long as he did. And it was a little bit contradictory. He said she was good, but. And he said he would have won had he been the nominee, but he basically said she couldn't win one because of COVID and a general anger at governments, incumbent governments and particularly left of center governments. And then he said, if not for the first time, I don't recall him saying it. He suggested that she lost in part because of an effort, efforts, sexist efforts against her. Let's play 109, please.

Doug Collins (49:59)

They went the route of the sexist route, all the whole route. I mean, this is a woman. She's this, she's that right. It really, I've never seen quite as successful and a consistent campaign undercutting the notion that a woman couldn't lead the country. And a woman of mixed race.

Mark Halperin (50:19)

Yeah. So that's an explanation that of course, goes to the question of voters being sexist. But do you think that's, that's an explanation he actually believes, or that's just a convenient thing to say? How would you appraise that? Answer?

Batya Ungar-Sargon (50:32)

The fact that in the year of our Lord 2025, Democrats are still letting themselves get away with the myth that the country is racist and sexist is a large part of why they lost had nothing to do with her identity. Of course, it was the fact that she was an unbelievably weak candidate. Having to defend a president who had opened the border, which is something now even Democrats can admit was a huge mistake. And goes to the heart of their not just branding problem, not just messaging problem, but, but their policy problem. The fact that they have lost touch with what it means to be working class. They've lost touch with the fact that immigration for working class people is an economic kitchen table issue. Elites fundamentally struggle with understanding that because mass migration puts money in their pockets, because they are able to employ people who demand half the amount of wages, but those wages would have been a working class person's wages. So what the Democrats did to sort of mask this as an alibi for the fact that they were enriching themselves at the expense of their working class neighbors was they developed this language around race and immigration where it's racist to want to have a secure border or it's sexist to want men to have access to good manufacturing jobs. Right. And the fact that he is still out there pushing that mythology until they can understand that that's not just false, it's not just a turnoff, but it gets to the heart of why they lost the working class, the multiracial working class, by the way, this time around, they're not going to be competitive.

Mark Halperin (52:10)

And this was a masterclass in avoiding and evading the questions that I raised at the top of the program that the hard questions the Democrats need to ask each other and talk about publicly, one is, you know, was Biden responsible? Was Harris responsible for the loss? Here is another question from Alicia Farah Griffin asking Joe Biden if he takes responsibility for what happened.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (52:33)

And do you take any responsibility for Trump's reelection?

Doug Collins (52:36)

Yes, I do. Because, look, I was in charge and he won. So now I take responsibility.

Mark Halperin (52:43)

Now, unfortunately, after he says I take responsibility the next four minutes was him saying it wasn't his fault and he was a great president, and it was like people didn't appreciate the infrastructure bill. So, Batya, do you think as. As the Democrats I've been talking to do that, saying, not explaining adequately why Trump won, including for some of the reasons you just said, is harmful to the Democrats?

Batya Ungar-Sargon (53:05)

It definitely is. I have to say, though, I also have a real problem with a lot of these Democrats who sort of knifed him after trying to push him through when they thought nobody else could tell what was going on. You know, now suddenly having their come to Jesus moment. There's something about that that really irks me. You know, the same who were willing to hide from the American people when they had access to how bad the situation was when it became clear during the debate, then sort of stabbing him in the back and now trying to say, well, we knew all along, or he was the reason or he's the problem. There's something about that that I find to be just so deeply offensive and horrifying. So even the Democrats now admitting it, I find myself not wanting to say, oh, finally you came around. I find myself wanting to say, like, how dare you, like, act like he was the problem. He never would have gotten this far if not for his enablers. Right.

Mark Halperin (54:02)

Well, there's no, there's no doubt he was enabled. We'll never know what would have happened if, after the midterms where the Democrats did surprisingly well, and that's part of, I believe, from my reporting, what encouraged him to seek reelection. We'll never know if, after the midterms, if he had said, you know what I said, I'd be a transitionary figure. And I'm going to be. And I'm going to. I'm going to endorse Kamala, but I'm going to say this should be an open process. We'll never know if the Democrats would have produced a nominee who could have won a general election. But. But there's no doubt that his decision to stay in and his denial that it continues, at least on face value today, there's no doubt that continuing to stay in left the Democrats with a very weak candidate. And I'll say again, there's this paradox. Every day he stayed in was a day where he could say to himself and to people privately, if I get out now, Kamala will be the nominee, and Kamala can't win.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (54:53)

Yeah, definitely. And the fact that he and so many of the other elites had so little faith in her as a candidate, I think made a lot of people feel some type of way about the switcheroo that ultimately ended up happening. I think there are a lot of people who feel like the better path would have been for him to simply say, you know what? I'm going to pull this through. I got in this long. I'm not going to take away from the 14 million people who voted for me their franchise effectively, and put in somebody just because that is where the elite consensus ended up. And so if we get Donald Trump, we'll get Donald Trump. And I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Democrats, again, to avoid dealing with their failures to cater to the working class, their working class base, the way that they allowed themselves to become convinced that Trump was this unique threat and then painted themselves into a corner where they call him Hitler every day, effectively calling 80 million Americans Nazis, right, people willing to vote for Hitler. So again, their hatred of him, to me, seems to be almost a reflection of their unwillingness to allow the electorate to choose against them, to vote against them. A fundamental unwillingness to accept that what they are offering is not popular just because it's what they are offering.

Mark Halperin (56:16)

So, again, they were on the show for almost the full hour. And I'll tell you some other things that were said that were at least new, at least to my ear. Joe Biden said he talks to Kamala Harris often, including giving her advice about whether she should run for president or governor. He pointedly said he wouldn't reveal what advice he's given. He also denied that that's been reported, that he told her, there can be no daylight between us when she became the nominee. The reporting suggested he basically tied her hands in his interpretation of what she said on the View. When she was on the View and famously said, I can't think of anything I would have done differently. His, his explanation of that was, was not credible. I'll say. He said what she meant was she wouldn't have done any of the good stuff differently. Which, of course, was not the point of the question. The point of the question was a 100 degree, 180 degrees opposite. Jill Biden said a lot of interesting things in this interview. She talked about Joe Biden doing poorly in the debate and acknowledged that that he did, but said that she told him right after the debate when he said he effed up, that he had to go out and inspire everybody and act like, you know, it was just a 90 minutes of, of, of aberration. She also was asked pointedly, did you cocoon him? Did you keep him from, from being exposed to others and that public exposure. And again, her answer was not consistent with the facts. She said, no, he was out there all the time. He was in the Oval Office. He was giving speeches. He was, but he was also cocooned. And she said, quite sympathetically to me, she said that they were hurt by their friends who abandoned them. He said the only reason he got out, and he said this before, was because the Democratic Party was divided over his staying in and not the whole Democratic Party, just the elites. And of course, that's not true in at least two ways. One is there were plenty of rank and file Democrats who didn't think he should be the nominee even before the debate. And also he got out because they said to him he can't win and that they would start to ratchet up the pressure against him. Not that he sacrificed himself willingly because of divisions within the party. All right, another thing, and this was maybe the most pointed moment because the Bidens have not had an opportunity to answer this question. Both Bidens were asked, and Joe answered, then Jill, then Joe. Again, we'll start with Jill's answer. Her, her answer. Both Bidens were asked if there was cognitive decline that has been widely reported and visible to the naked eye. Here's what she said.

Jill Biden (58:52)

The people who wrote those books were not in the White House with us. And they didn't see how hard Joe worked every single day. I mean, he'd get up, he put in a full day and then at night he would, I'd be in bed, you know, reading my book. And he was still on the phone reading his briefings, working with staff. I mean, it was non stop. It's the White House. Being president is not like a job. It's a lifestyle. It's a life that you live, you live in 24 hours a day. That phone can ring at 11 o' clock at night or 2 in the morning. It's constant. You never leave it. And Joe worked really hard. I think he was a great president. And if you look at things today, if you look at things today, give me Joe Biden anytime.

Doug Collins (59:56)

That'S worth the invitation to come to the show.

Mark Halperin (60:00)

So throughout the interview, Joe Biden criticized Donald Trump as he did in an earlier interview at the BBC. He, he said it was the worst hundred days of any president and, and said some specifics, none of which, none of which would surprise you. But on this issue, Bacha, of whether Joe Biden suffered mental decline, the Bidens deny it and they don't even show some of the, some of the, I say weakness, but they don't even acknowledge that he slowed down. They basically said he was every, the best Biden ever, every bit as good as he'd always been. My Democrats who I talked to say this is not just a matter of having history be accurate. It's not just a matter of, of, of, of channeling their anger and venting their anger at Joe Biden for staying in even though he declined. But it's simply a matter of credibility. And we looked earlier at neither Bernie Sanders nor Elizabeth Warren. They're most Democrats willing, even after the fact to engage on this. Why do you think Democrats are clinging to, it's understandable why the Bidens would maybe. But why are they clinging to this notion that there was no decline when everybody could see it?

Batya Ungar-Sargon (61:03)

Because they all lied about it. So for one person to admit it is to admit that they lied. It's not just to admit that it happened. It, it's to admit that they were part of the COVID up. There's not a single one of them who wasn't engaged in this big facade. Right. So they fundamentally cannot admit the truth that we all saw, you know, as they were telling us. Who you going to believe, us or our lying eyes? I want to make a point about, well, first about Harris and then about that Joe Biden clip. I thought it was very classy that for a long time Kamala Harris refused to criticize Biden. Not that she shouldn't have had a very clear policy agenda to say here is what he did and here is where I will go. But she refused to engage in the sort of George Clooney, Obama backstabbing. And I thought that that was pretty classy of her. Although after the fact with the reporting of him threatening her and saying no daylight or whatever, it complicates it a little bit. But at the time I remember thinking that that was a sort of dignified way to help usher him out the door in a very humiliating time. This clip with Jill Biden, you know, you watch that and it's almost like you're watching your grandparents, right? You know, like your grandmother sort of talking up how great, great shape your grandpa is in. And it's sort of sweet and charming except that he was the president. And also then she always, they get to that last line like she can't just keep it about him answering the question. She has to say, I would take him any day over the terrible situation we're in now. When you look at what we're in now and actually there is so much positive happening. You know, the border is closed. We just signed a trade deal with a 10% tariff on the UK that the UK is thrilled about. $2 trillion in manufacturing investment. Like there's a lot going on right now that would have been considered wins in the Democratic Party of, I'm talking 15 years ago.

Mark Halperin (63:04)

Right.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (63:04)

Like, it's not that long ago that these were Democratic policies. So again, it's like part of me feels so sorry for them. Like, what was the goal of this interview? Clearly they are in a desperate situation where they, you know, the legacy is on the line, their future is on the line. How are they going to support themselves? They had to get a lot done with this, these interviews that he's doing, which is clearly why he's doing them. And then always at the last minute, this divisive language, the refusal to choose to be uniters instead of dividers. And you see this just so frequently with people at that elite level in the Democratic Party. And I think that that is really what's sinking them UL ultimately.

Mark Halperin (63:42)

Yeah, as you know, the Bidens would say that, that the, that the Republicans and this current president are, are, you know, the ones who are the dividers, as you know. So the Washington Post reported this morning, or sorry, Politico reported that, that the Bidens have hired as a person who was a spokesperson for them at the Pentagon, a very high powered PR person and that the, you know, most presidents don't go on the view, you know, 110 days or whatever it is after they leave office and people are saying he wants to burnish his legacy, etc. And there's no doubt if you watch the interview that that's a motivator. But I talked to someone yesterday who knows the very, very understanding of the Biden family and this person basically said it's all hiding in plain sight. Yeah, they want to burnish their legacy. Yeah. Biden is addicted to the life he's had for decades where, you know, it's all about being in the public stage. But it's also about, as they say, the Benjamins, that the Biden family, Hunter not going to prison because he was pardoned. But Hunter's earning potential, at least currently, is nothing like it was when he was, you know, a lawyer and a fixer and a burisma board member or an art salesperson with his dad in the White House, that his brothers, who made a lot of money for the family also now don't have a president or a vice president or, or someone who might be President in office. And that all these grandkids who had very cool lives and lots of free stuff and access to, you know, special things, that the gravy train has been cut off. And that as a former president, because of the way he left office and because of his lack of connection to some of the most moneyed people in the country, that he's not getting $800,000 speeches, he's not going to get a book deal the size of the Obamas. And that part of what this is about is trying to put him back in play as a figure who can be a rainmaker for Biden Inc. How do you see that?

Batya Ungar-Sargon (65:35)

You know, there's a great speech that Marco Rubio gave last night. I really encourage everybody to watch it. It was about 15 minutes long. It was hilarious. I didn't know he was funny. I guess I kind of spaced on that. Very sharp, very genuine. He sort of moved into Spanish a little bit. It was at a Hispanic caucus heritage. He got an achievement award for something. But at one point he said one of the joys of his job is that he sees people who were interns for him, you know, five years later, 10 years later, 15 years later, and, you know, they're much more successful. And he says a lot of them, in fact most of them are making much more money than he is, and their clothes are much better than his are. And that there's a sort of real joy to that. And it really stood out to me because I was just thinking about that in contradistinction to just the bare bones, basic millions of dollars that a Democrat retiring would consider to be the baseline that they would need in order just to exist. Like, when did that happen that you needed to be making millions and millions of dollars in order to just retire from public life? There's just something really crazy about that to me, and it's. You see it in a lot of these people because a lot of them are making just millions and millions and millions of dollars. But that. That thing where, you know, 65% of people now who make more than $500,000 a year are Democrats, and 75% of Silicon Valley donors donate to the Democrats. 95% of donations coming out of the top three management consultant firms go to Democrats, and just this sort of idea that the Democrats become the moneyed party, the moneyed side of things. Not to say that there are no Republicans doing this, obviously.

Mark Halperin (67:30)

Yeah, there are. And of course, Donald Trump has buckraked in the White House more literally, you know, probably in terms of the money he's made off the office than every other president combined. So it's not a problem for Democrats, except it's a personal problem for the Bidens. And I've seen this with other people I've covered over the years. If you're, if you're a senator or a presidential candidate, you, you hang out with donors who live on Fifth Avenue, you hang out with other elected officials who are multimillionaires and you hang out with celebrities and, and it's just like, well, I want those things too. I want, I want to be able to have a house on Martha's Vineyard or I want to be able to fly first class or fly private. And the Bidens had Biden Inc. And again, that, you know, I say this about, about the President's health and I say this about the COVID up of his decline and I say this about Biden Inc. It's, none of them are as bad as the Republicans claim, and none of them are as innocent or fine as the Democrats claim. And in the case of Biden Inc. You don't have to be the most vociferous critic of how Joe Biden allowed his brothers and his son to make money off of, by trading off his, his public office to see that those guys made a lot of money trading off his public office. Like you could assume, you can assume the least negative about Joe's involvement or awareness, whatever. And I don't assume the least because there's documentation for it. But even then, the reality is he is no longer able to, they're no longer able to leverage him the way they did before. And my senses from, particularly from this person I talked to, that the more he rehabs himself, the more he's seen as a relevant player, the more likely is that those guys are going to be able to figure out how to make money off him again. And they need that. There's a lot of grandkids, their great grandkids, you know, going to be coming and in greater numbers, and he's been the source of their ability to make money.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (69:26)

Yeah, our friend Emma Jo Morris was, I forget who she was quoting recently, but she said that Joe Biden has been sort of like that book, the Giving Tree, you know, where everybody around him is sort of squeezing him for whatever they can get out of him. You know, I think the reason that the Democrats are hesitant to, you know, have even acknowledged this is because they love to point out what you pointed out, which, that Trump has also made money, you know, in the time that he was president, off the office or what have you, his children and so forth, you know, but they'll always say, oh, that's not the same because Trump has made so much more money. They act like the fact that Trump is better at it somehow means that there's like a difference in kind when it's really just a difference in degree.

Mark Halperin (70:03)

There's a difference. There's a difference in kind of. I would disagree. So look at the way he's. He's leveraged the office directly. I mean, again, I'm a.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (70:13)

Wouldn't you prefer that, Mark, because you know exactly who's doing it. You know exactly who he's. I don't know.

Mark Halperin (70:18)

I don't know. I take your point. I take your point. And, and, you know, the Bidens, the Bidens probably made a higher percentage of their wealth from leveraging office than Trump has. But the way Biden, the way Trump's done it, I consider also unseemly. I don't consider it better because it's been more open.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (70:34)

But do you think it's worse, though?

Mark Halperin (70:38)

In some ways, yes. In some ways, no. I would say in some ways, yes. In some ways. All right, Batya, thank you for joining Bhatja Angar Sargan of the Free Press and a friend of all I do, which I'm very grateful to you for. Thank you for.

Batya Ungar-Sargon (70:50)

Thank you for making me mark anytime.

Mark Halperin (70:53)

And thank you all for watching. This program is on every Tuesdays and Thursdays. We welcome you to watch us on YouTube and to listen to us on wherever you get your podcast. One of my favorite phrases in the history of media, wherever you get your podcast. But if you haven't yet, please, like, subscribe, download, tell all your friends. You can always find us on it. Pretty much every platform possible by searching. Next up, Halperin. We'll see you again next week for more episodes. Thanks for being part of Next Up.