← Next Up with Mark Halperin
Next Up with Mark Halperin
Trump “Death” Rumors Made Him Stronger, Sen. Schmitt on GOP’s Best Defense, DC Power Player Circuit
01:13:55
Mark Halperin opens the show with his reported monologue on the viral “Trump is dead” rumors and how they mirror the 1969 “Paul is dead” controversy about Paul McCartney. Just as conspiracy theories around McCartney’s supposed death only strengthened his legend, Mark argues that Democrats’ public wish-casting of Trump’s obituary reveals more about their own anxieties than Trump’s future. Far from weakening him, those fueling speculation about Trump’s health only reinforce his larger-than-life presence in American politics. Then, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri joins for a wide-ranging interview on the Republican agenda heading into 2028. Schmitt details his new best-selling book, and why the courts are the GOP’s “Last Line of Defense” against progressive policies. He also weighs in on Section 230, federal overreach, lessons from COVID, and the role of government in protecting children online. Plus, Schmitt offers an inside look at how Senate Republicans are preparing to fast-trac...
Loading summary
Transcript157 lines
- [00:00]
A
To realize the future America needs. We understand what's needed from us to face each threat head on. We've earned our place in the fight for our nation's future. We are Marines. We were made for this. Hey there, Nexters. Mark Halpern here. Thank you for tuning in. I've got a question for you. Have you ever listened to the Smerconish podcast? I am a regular guest on his show and I know you will love it. On the Smarkonish podcast, Michael Smarkanish brings you a balanced news presentation on the biggest issues of the day, every day. Oh, and by the way, balanced, it doesn't mean boring. Michael offers you interviews and conversations with newsmakers, policy experts, and listeners from all corners of the nation. The SmartKonish podcast. It's a forum for curious people who want more than talking points. Listen please to the smercondish podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. If you check the calendar on your phone or your sundial, you'll know today is Thursday. And you know what that means. It's time for another episode of NextUp. Welcome back, Nexters. I'm Mark Halpern, editor in chief of the live interactive video platform 2way, host of this program where I bring you my exclusive reporting, all my analysis of the top news, great guests, everything that matters now. So you know what is coming next up. That's why we call it next. Up with us in just a little bit, the Republican senator from Missouri, Eric Schmidt. He's got a new book out about the courts. It's a barn burner and truly it is. It's a great set of stories about his time as attorney general of his state, dealing with COVID and Big tech, et cetera. Eric Schmidt will be here and then the political politico, Capitol Hill bureau chief Rachel Bade will be here. We'll talk about the anthropology of Washington, Donald Trump's relationship with Congress and the Democratic presidential field for 2028. Stay tuned for all of that, but first, my new reported monologue on what's going on with Donald Trump's mortality. Yes, we spent a lot of time over the last few days dealing with a lot of people online and on cable TV on the left saying Donald Trump was either really sick or perhaps dead. Yes, I said dead. Donald Trump is no more dead. I'm here to report, according to multiple sources than Beatle Paul McCartney was in 1969. Explain that. Just when we thought we'd seen it all in terms of various manifestations of the frustrations of people in this country who don't like Donald Trump and how that expresses itself. Over the last week, we got this thing, incredible to me. Hashtags all over Twitter, where is Trump? Or hashtag Trump is dead? My inbox, texts and emails from serious people on the left asking me if Donald Trump had died because he wasn't doing public events in the last week of August. All of this got me thinking about the historical precedent that's so resonant for me from 1969, the pre Internet age, when the famous Paul is dead rumor spread. For some reason, Beatles fans and others got in their head the notion that Paul McCartney had died and been replaced by some sort of double or. Or that the Beatles were putting out old music to convince people with a conspiracy that he was dead. Back then, pre Internet, pre digital, all this was spread by college papers, late night DJs and teens spinning their vinyl records backward, looking for secret clues to what they claimed was the death of Paul McCartney. It was like a national scavenger hunt. The various clues were decoded by people pretty much already convinced, looking at Beatles lyrics and album covers, that Paul McCartney had died. He didn't die. Spoiler alert. All right, some of you know exactly what I'm talking about, the whole Paul is dead thing. But for those of you not familiar with this extraordinary event that had echoes with Donald Trump this past week, here is an ABC News report on it from 1969.
- [04:05]
B
Big mystery surrounding one of her most famous subjects, Beatle Paul McCartney.
- [04:09]
C
A rumor that he is dead has.
- [04:11]
B
Been stoutly denied by several people, including Paul. There was even one report that McCartney was killed three years ago in an auto accident and a double put in his place. For a report on how it all got started, here is ABC's Gregory Jackson. As any parent can testify, the lifestyle of the Beatles has always been somewhat different. And if you believe current rumor, their style of revealing Paul McCartney's alleged death is being carried out with singular taste, like reading tea leaves. All clues are in the album. For example, in this one, McCartney's guitar covered with flowers is resting on a grave. Inside the COVID McCartney's supposed lookalike is wearing an armband with the letters OPD, which in England means officially pronounced dead. On the flip side of the record jacket, Paul is the only one standing with his back to the camera. On another album, the Beatles sleuths notice that McCartney's double is sitting above a sign which reads I was you. And in another picture, three of the Beatles wear a red rose while McCartney wears a black rose. And on their latest album we see the four Beatles walking away from a cemetery, one dressed as a grave digger, the others in mourning, and Paul wearing black and barefooted as corpses are prepared in Italy. And that's only a sampling. Other clues are said to be found by playing the records at different speeds or even backwards. And there is a degree of truth to it. For example, in the song I Am a Walrus, we played it here on this record and taped the play and then ran the tape backwards. And if you listen closely, you can hear someone saying over and over, paul is dead. In London, Paul McCartney has been vehemently denying his death. Here in New York, the city's largest record store said today that the Beatles latest album cost about $2 more than the past albums. And he said they haven't been selling very well, at least up to now, before the rumors started. This is Gregory Jackson, ABC News, New York.
- [06:29]
A
I love the whole tone of that. I love that that guy basically was saying how ridiculous it was without saying it. But that catalog of items suggesting Paul McCartney had died was like virtual proof compared to what we've seen this week with Donald Trump. There were other things that morbid fans seized on about McCartney. The Abbey Road album cover mentioned in that ABC report has another alleged sign that Paul was dead. The license plate on the Volkswagen Beetle in The background reads L MW 28 if which some claim meant Paul be 28 if he were alive. And the letters LMW were spun to mean Linda McCartney weeps again. All of this pre Internet. Imagine if the Internet had been around then. Also in the Sgt. Pepper image referenced in the ABC report, fans held up a mirror to the lonely heart's drum and claimed that if you held up the mirror it read 19 he died. Interpreted as October 9 or November 9, Paul's death date in British order. They looked at lyrics he blew his mind out in a car from A Day in the Life. John Lennon's mumbled tag on Strawberry Fields Forever where he says cranberry sauce was interpreted as I buried Paul. All right? All of that, as I say, practically proof that Paul was dead compared to what the left seized on in the last week to say that Donald Trump was dead or dying. That modern echo parlor game was amplified, unlike in 1969, by the speed of broadband. Right. Dorm room conversations move slower, spread less far than threads on X. You've got push alerts now compared to back then payphones and cable news panels around the clock. A lot more viral and spread more widely than local radio call in shows. The medium. All of this technology has accelerated the spread of such a thing and made it more intense. But the credulity and the hysteria, exactly the same as in 1969. In this case, the conspiracy theories are about everything related to Donald Trump, especially Donald Trump, because there's so much anxiety on the left about how he's doing back in the White House. There's so many digital homes for people to go to and so much mainstream uptake. Again, this is not confined to the fringes. What we've seen serious journalists have been musing over the last week about Donald Trump being very sick or dead. There was a CNN panel I saw that volleyed the theory back and forth. Even a governor, the governor of Minnesota, Tim Waltz, joked about the prospect that Donald Trump might be dead. Here is just some. Believe me, we could run this thing for an hour. Here's just some of the speculation that was done about whether Donald Trump was sick or, as I said, dead. Roll S2, please.
- [09:25]
C
Where's Donald Trump? How come we're not seeing him? Bottom line is he's clearly got some health issues. The lack of transparency on his health. What is going on? Why does, why are both of his hands bruised? He's. He's likely taking some medication.
- [09:38]
D
It's really just concerning. The president has been very vocal with press all the time. He, I think In August, he. 26 days doing public events or talking to press. So to go down for six days and just have a slew of true social posts that are very chaotic and people can't follow all of them is very concerning. There could be actually something wrong. The problem is, is we don't know and they're not being transparent about it.
- [09:57]
C
But it's also questions that are legitimate about what's going on with the president's health. These bruises that are on his hands that they now, they keep saying are because he's shaking a lot of hands. Trump is a famous germaphobe. He doesn't shake a lot of hands.
- [10:11]
D
The mainstream media, media will not touch these questions about Donald Trump's obviously declining health. His ankles are the size of watermelons.
- [10:23]
A
He can barely.
- [10:24]
D
They're like elephant legs, you know, they're.
- [10:26]
A
Like elephant legs straight down, barely walk.
- [10:29]
D
Down a flight of stairs.
- [10:30]
C
Although I will say this, the last few days, you woke up thinking there might be news. Just saying, just saying there will be news sometime.
- [10:40]
A
Just so you know there will be news. Now, all this occurred over the last week of the holiday season, ruined my time off to some extent because I was getting all these texts from people saying Is Trump dead? Is Trump on death's door? Finally, the spell was broken to a large extent when Trump after Labor Day came out and had a press availability in the White House and Fox News Peter Doocy said to the president, hey, did you know that people think you're dead? Roll S3 something completely different, but about.
- [11:13]
C
A big viral social media trend over the weekend. How did you find out over the weekend that you were dead?
- [11:21]
A
You see that?
- [11:22]
C
No, people didn't see you for a couple days. 1.3 million user engagements as of Saturday morning about your demise.
- [11:29]
A
Really?
- [11:29]
C
And it's dead. You know, I have heard it's sort of crazy, but last week I did numerous news conferences, all successful. They went very well, like this is going very well.
- [11:40]
A
And then I didn't do any for two days.
- [11:42]
C
And they said there must be something wrong with him. Biden wouldn't do him for months. You wouldn't see him. And nobody ever said there was ever.
- [11:50]
A
Anything wrong with him.
- [11:51]
C
And we know he wasn't in the greatest of shape. No, I heard that.
- [11:54]
A
I get reports again after that. These, this thing sort of died down. But where did it come from? Why did so many on the left, including some public people in the media, some politicians, why did. And some serious writers. Why did so many of them spend their last week of August when it was clear that Donald Trump was on social media? He was seen playing golf, he'd just done a three hour event with his cabinet. Why did so many of them go out and say all this? And why did so many of them text me? Well, part of it is born out of frustration. There's a new Democratic school of thought that says Trump must be fought and everything he does must be scrutinized. That it's important, like Gavin Newsom has tried to be, to be tough to go after him and that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And a lot of Democrats haven't really come to terms with something we've talked about here so many times, Joe Biden's mental decline, his cognitive decline was real. But there's still some Democrats in denial about that. And they look at Biden being forced off the ticket and his position in history redefined by the way his obvious mental decline played out as an injustice. That it showed that the right, through the media, through politicians, through social media, could hound a Democratic president with, in their view, false or exaggerated claims about mental capacity or bad health and succeed politically. And so what they're saying is, here's this vacuum. Trump is not having daily public events last week of August. So let's go out there and be tough and aggressive. And I think there's some of that, but some of it is different. Some of it is based on the reality that they cannot deal with Donald Trump. They cannot deal with what is going on. Trump himself put out a fundraising appeal to take advantage of this. Just this morning, says the fake news media and the radical left tried to spread lies saying your favorite president, Donald J. Trump, was dead or sick. Can you believe it? Disgraceful. Let me tell you something. I'm more alive than ever. And that's the problem for the left. They're concerned really that Donald Trump is in fact more alive than ever for a lot of these people. Again, not just a tactic they really convinced himself with Trump was dead, they really did. Musing about body doubles, cover ups, trying to figure out how to piece it all together, just like they did for Paul McCarty in the 60s. It all happened, though, in the face of contradictory public evidence. Trump did that three hour cabinet meeting. Trump was out and about on social media. Trump went out and played golf. They still wanted to say it because they're having trouble dealing with the reality that Trump is even taking a break a little bit for a late summer slowdown. Trump is in fact continuing to dominate our politics, taking a week off and recharging a little bit before the fall. That's normal. That's what millions of Americans do. And of course, Trump's staff, a lot of them were off. And so there's less opportunity to be fully staffed, doing events. And I will say there are legitimate health questions about Donald Trump, right? Some acknowledge, he acknowledged that he had some problems with his legs. He's put out some medical information. He's older, he's got bruises on his hands, not fully explained for a lot of folks, the swollen legs. A history of being, at best opaque, sometimes misleading about medical disclosures. The press, you've heard me say this before, has to be vigilant. It's warranted for any president, particularly an older one. And given the long tradition in this country of COVID ups of presidential health problems, it's not just Joe Biden. The press has to be vigilant. They cannot be like the kid in that Bruce Willis movie who saw dead people. They have to be direct and questioned. And this president needs to be more forthcoming about his health, no doubt. But this was an indulgence even after Trump reappeared and made it clear he was not only alive, but seemingly in perfectly good health for a man his age. The New York Times dismissed the rumor and made fun of it in a long piece. But they also luxuriated in the Freudian comforts that the left needs reflecting a left that hasn't consistently figured out how to beat Donald Trump in a decade. Okay, this, what I call the obituary wish, is the opium of the perpetually outmaneuvered. Donald Trump doesn't win every time, no doubt. But this late summer delirium, the conspiracy theories aside, here's the sober fact. Trump is alive and he's politically on the march. And. And in most realms, not all political opponents for Donald Trump remain at least a couple steps behind him. Now, look, he may not succeed eventually. Real questions right now about the economy, not just now, but over the next couple years. And between now and the midterms, he's grappling with the lack of leverage over Putin and xi. That's a huge issue for him. And he's taking a big risk on policy, on health care, all of which could lead to a really bad midterms. I'm not telling you Donald Trump is definitely going to have a successful presidency, but he is pressing the advantage. And honest Democrats I talked to say unless the courts intervene or Congress, Republicans in Congress change their mind, Donald Trump will continue to get his way. He's getting his way on the optics of law and order. He's turned DC Into a deterrent stage. He's using the federal forces to put down a theory that cops on the corners is better than quibbling about statistics about crime, on tariffs and trade, again, it's up to the courts. But so far, he has more effectively than I think almost anyone could imagine, except maybe Trump himself and some of his top aides. He's found a way to use the tariffs to leverage himself all sorts of ways with other countries. Now, look, prices may be going up. We see some signs of that. But it remains a potent talking point for him that Democrats can't really decide what to say about it. Immigration, you all know the facts. There's simple frame. He's controlling the border. Democrats continue to audition different adjectives to criticize him. But that's another winning issue where he's on the march on the budget. He's, he's engaged in brinksmanship. Not even all the Republicans are comfortable with it. But Trump is comfortable having fights over spending. And his opponents are bringing footnotes to a knife fight where Trump is determined to demonstrate control over the federal budget on the courts. Again, Trump's on the march. He's won more than he's lost at The Supreme Court. He continues to litigate. When he loses at the lower courts, he goes to the Supreme Court. He's trying to do that on the Fed. He's going to try to do that on tariffs. Again, Trump is on the march. And of course on redistricting. You all know that Trump has edged out Democrats there. The maps and the numbers work to Republicans favor. He's being aggressive. So what is all this talk about Trump being dead or sick about? It's a mass hysteria and speculation about his health and mortality that to me is really a misplaced coping mechanism of sorts. The people who are talking about this thinking by calling in the corner, they're winning. In fact, what they're really doing is writing another scene for Trump, the showrunner of his presidency and of our political debate. Wishing him away has always been what Trump's critics do. It's their comfort food. They write long think pieces for the last decade about how Trump's political Locke is not going to sustain that. He can't possibly continue to have political victories. That's been written over and over again for 10 years. He doesn't win every time, but he right now is on a political roll. The indictments and the ballot fights to keep him off the ballot. In the last election cycle, that was another way they were trying to cope with Donald Trump, by going in a different direction, by doing things that have clearly been part of a backlash. And now they're having what are in effect, digital seances, saying, well, Trump's going to die and so he'll be off our hands. Politics and journalism, it's not sorcery, it's a street fight, and the rules are written in pencil. Trump himself draws outside the lines, to be sure, but he stays on the page for the most part. Meanwhile, a lot of Trump's opponents are spending time now arguing about the shape and size of the eraser. Why is this McCartney parallel so biting? Why is it so resonant? For me and for so many people who I've mentioned it to, McCartney was not alive. He wasn't. He was dead. But he was in the studio. And the rumors of his death enlarged him, made him a bigger figure, a larger than life figure. And the Beatles, of course, went on to great success. After all of this, each death watch gives Trump something he not only loves, but benefits from. The spotlight, the grievance, the fresh claims that Trump can make, as he did in that fundraising email I read to you, of indestructibility. Trump's alchemy is pretty clear. He converts disbelief into dominance. The more his enemies fantasize about his absence, the more present he actually becomes. What would be a healthier approach? You know, treat for the media, treat Trump's health like any other issue. Ask for disclosure, press for disclosure, apply the same scrutiny to Trump as you would to anybody else, and deal with the tangible government policies that affect the real lives of real people. How much does stuff cost? Where is crime? And is what Trump doing on crime effective? How is he dealing with trying to end the wars in Israel and Gaza and Ukraine and Russia? Deal with the anxieties of the public? And there's plenty of that. There's lots of polling out this week, including in the Wall Street Journal, that shows how concerned people are about what's going on in their daily lives. This incident, with echoes of what happened with Paul McCartney, demonstrates I think once again that the left is still trying to figure out how to grapple with Donald Trump. They know in all likelihood he will not be a presidential candidate or a vice presidential candidate in 2028. But for the foreseeable future, in this short term now, they still haven't learned the lesson. An obituary wish is not a plan. It's a lullaby. It's distraction that's keeping the left from truly grappling with what Donald Trump is doing. They want him to be dead. But like Paul McCartney, he's still alive. Around 2020, not that long ago, the American left pushed very hard into kids books. They got all sorts of titles onto the bookshelves of schools. Things like Activist Baby Woke Baby, Anti Racist Baby, Non Bind, Very Baby. You get the point. Well, our new sponsor thought if schools are doing that, they're doing the whole political kids books thing, why shouldn't other topics, other concepts, be included? So out of that came Capitalist Babies. Capitalist Baby is a fun, illustrated A to Z kids book. It's on sale now. Go to Amazon.com, capitalist baby. Beautifully illustrated, it's a little tongue in cheek. A clever A to Z book for kids and parents who love business and capitalism. The best part is Capitalist Baby is optimistic. It celebrates the ideas of American entrepreneurship and business. And it's instructive without any preaching. Real business concepts are woven into the charming text and the illustrations. Capitalist Baby is your alternative to those leftist kids books that were so popular with some. After 2020, you can buy Capitalist Baby now for yourself, for your kids grandkids. Give it as a gift. It's a delightful read that deserves a spot on your bookshelf. For the first time in human history, there's an 8 as the Alphabet book for people who believe in free enterprise, entrepreneurship and commerce. Go now. Buy a copy or maybe three. Search Capitalist Baby on Amazon.com today. Hey there, nexters. Mark Halpern here. Thank you for tuning in. I've got a question for you. Have you ever listened to the Smerconish podcast? I am a regular guest on his show and I know you will love it. On the Smerconish Podcast, Michael Smarkanish brings you a balanced news presentation on the biggest issues of the day every day. Oh, and by the way, balance, it doesn't mean boring. Michael offers you interviews and conversations with newsmakers, policy experts and listeners from all corners of the nation. This Smerconish podcast, it's a forum for curious people who want more than talking points. Listen please to the Smercondish podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. All right, next up, Senator Eric Schmidt, Republican from Missouri. He has got a new book out and it's a complicated book. Complicated in a good way. Dealing with so much about American history, recent history, how the founders saw things, and about a blueprint for how conservatives should think about the courts going forward in the political battles being fought. It's called the Last Line of How to Beat the Left in Court. Senator, welcome.
- [24:36]
C
It's great to be with you, Mark.
- [24:39]
A
There's so much I couldn't ask you about. I'm so interested in the intersection between law and politics. I'm so interested in what you did as attorney general in your state and your blueprint. It's also interesting and unlike your friend and mine, Tucker Carlson, we don't have two hours together. So of course, I'm going to start with, with toasted ravioli. Explain to people who've never been to your state what that is.
- [25:02]
C
It's a delicacy of Missouri, St. Louis specifically, where it's a ravioli, but it's deep fried, so it is. It's a wonderful thing. You wash that down with some Tedri's frozen custard and we will anoint you honorary St. Louis, no doubt.
- [25:19]
A
And you can get it in almost any restaurant. Like I go get Chinese food in St. Louis. They have it there.
- [25:24]
C
Oh, yeah, it's, it's everywhere there. You know, you got, you got Anheuser Busch, you got toasted raviolis, Ted Drews and Cardinals baseball. That's part of the fabric of our existence.
- [25:35]
A
I consider toasted ravioli to be a top three comfort food.
- [25:38]
C
But okay, good.
- [25:39]
A
There's one thing, there is One thing about St. Louis food. You Left off that I consider to be almost a national disgrace that almost no one knows about. Tell people how you serve your pizza.
- [25:49]
C
Oh, come on. It's outrageous. We have thin crust pizza in St. Louis.
- [25:55]
A
Talk about the cheese, Senator.
- [25:57]
C
Yeah, Provo, explain.
- [25:58]
A
Not mozzarella.
- [26:00]
C
It's a big divide in the country. You're either pro provel or anti provel. I'm on the pro provel side. It's a little different, especially when it's cold and you try to warm it up. Again, it looks a little bit like plastic the second go around, but it's delicious.
- [26:18]
A
Yeah. So Senator, you've just defended your, your city's use of not mozzarella, but prevail on pizza. And then you said when it's cold, it looks a little bit like plastic. So again, if this show were aggressive about accountability, I would point out just how we have to.
- [26:35]
C
What's the whole line? You have to, you know, have opposing. Be able to hold opposing points of view at the same time. There's something out there like that, right? Yes.
- [26:41]
A
Yeah. All right. All I, all I know is when you're in D.C. and you're able to get pizza with mozzarella, you probably secretly prefer it. All right, enough about food. Let's. Outrageous. All right, let's talk about the book. And again, thinking about what to talk about. There's so many things I'm interested in here, and I want to start with just your basic view is as attorney general in your state, you had success fighting back against a bunch of stuff that the Biden administration was doing. I don't really consider the judiciary a co. Equal branch. I know that's a little bit against what the founders thought, but they're unelected. They're the unelected of the three branches. And you're basically, seem to me you're saying it's necessary to go to the courts in some of these disputes, whether it's between the state, a state and the federal government, or between Congress and the executive. But even though President Trump put a lot of judges and justices on the court, federal court, there's still a lot of liberals there. So aren't you proposing a strategy that's something of a crapshoot. And we see that now with President Trump, he's losing a lot at the lower court level because you're getting judges who are liberal and result oriented.
- [27:52]
C
Yeah, well, that's true. I think though, that as those cases that in Trump 47, as they made their way toward, you know, to the appellate courts and then ultimately Supreme Court, by and large, he's been successful on programming and personnel and then on immigration, which are clearly kind of Article 2 powers. So I think that, yes, you're going to have a Judge Boasberg here there that gets their 15 minutes. But at the end of the day, by and large, he's been successful in this book. The Last Line of Defense, how to Beat the left in Court, sort of outlines, as you mentioned, a playbook. Because as a conservative, we cannot see the Article 3 branch to the left. For a long time, the Supreme Court even, they viewed as kind of a super legislator that that ultimate backstop for them that was results oriented. That's changed. So you might quibble with a Supreme Court decision here, there. I know I've had, you know, some my issues, but by and large, it's a conservative majority that views judicial restraint seriously and wants to apply the law as it's written, not how they want it to be. And that's all I ever want from a judge. I don't want him to put a red jersey on. I certainly don't want a blue jersey on. But you want to call balls and strikes. But the battles that we were engaged in, Mark, I think, were really consequential. And it's sort of a happenstance of history that I was in that moment at that time. But this was a time and you've talked a lot about it. This was a. I think it's easy now. We're on the other side of the fever dream. There's so many things President Trump is doing well that Republicans and most of the country, or majority of the country can celebrate. But it wasn't that long ago we had lockdowns and compulsory Covid shots and DEI struggle sessions and CRT being pushed down to our kids in a censorship enterprise that we uncovered in the Missouri versus Biden lawsuit. That was shocking. And this got to remember when we filed that lawsuit and uncovered it through discovery. That was before Elon Musk had bought Twitter, and it was before we had all these congressional hearings. And so what we found in that discovery, which was an important strategic decision, Mark, was before we wanted the injunction. We asked the court for discovery. We were granted it. We took Foushee's deposition, we took Elvis Chan's deposition and exposed all of this stuff. And they had these secret portals. I mean, it's pretty wild. And we can't ever let that happen again.
- [30:01]
A
You write about two of the big stories of the left and of conservative uprising. One is Covid and the COVID policies and the other is big tech. I want to talk about big tech. And again, the book is so rich with stories that are important, and if we had two hours, we still wouldn't get to all of them. So I'm being selective here, Covid. I'm a little bit less. What's the right word? I'm a little bit less upset about it only because it was a confusing time. And even President Trump supported policies, at least back then, that today looked like they were an overreach in terms of government power because the country didn't know the government officials didn't know. The tech stuff, though, I think is one of the biggest stories of the last 20 years. These giant, largely unregulated monopolies, which at the time leaned not just left, but hard left, and were using their extraordinary power in all sorts of ways, but in the political realm to help Democrats in a way that was impossible really to overcome. You write about your piece of it, which is an important piece, but the larger book still needs to be written. Maybe we'll collaborate on it. How did the tech companies decide, based on what you learned as Attorney general, what you know now, how did they decide that they wanted to interfere in the election to try to hurt Donald Trump? Was it the CEO?
- [31:22]
C
Yeah, I think part of it. I mean, let's just take Facebook, for example. I think Zuckerberg in particular, who maybe he's saying what's expedient now, or he's been red pilled or whatever. We'll find out who's kind of done a mea culpa on the censorship piece. But I think in 2016, when President Trump came in office, there was this belief that somehow big tech and Facebook played a role in that. And then as you get into 2020, you had the Zuckerbucks, and it was, I think, his way of atoning for that sin that so many on the political left had ascribed to him. But it goes much deeper than that. And I think that this sort of visceral desire to suppress conservatives was then supercharged when the government really got involved. And we know, Mark, that the government can't engage in censorship. They can't outsource it either, which is exactly what was happening. And so on day three, we uncovered in the lawsuit, on day three of the Biden administration, they turned this thing on. They started deplatforming people like RFK Jr. For, you know, vaccine hesitancy, misinformation. They tried to destroy the careers of somebody like a Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who committed the Sin of saying natural immunity is still kind of a thing. He's now the head of nih. You know, rfk, I guess it's worth noting, is the head of hhs. But what they were willing to do to suppress speech and dissent, it was anything like we've ever seen before. And those weren't my words. That was a federal district court judge who said this was the most egregious assault on the First Amendment in American history. Because if you think of the town square, it's not just being on your soapbox by the courthouse anymore. This is the online platform that the world sees and they control it. Some of the biggest companies in the history of the world. But there was a different level of coercion here that in this case made it a little bit unique, which was, hey, you got that Section 230 thing. It'd be a shame if that went away or there might be an antitrust investigation hanging over your head. Or Biden was actually at the time talking about criminal prosecutions because these social media companies might be responsible for people dying for not taking the vaccine. So it was a pretty wild time. And the pressure mark that they put on these social media companies was unique. And they were outsourcing it to Stanford and University of Washington. It was really this, you know, I coined it, dubbed it the vast system censorship enterprise. Other people have called it the censorship industrial complex. It really was a web of censorship aimed at the American people.
- [33:48]
A
So insidious to use the power of the federal government in the context of an agenda, but also in the context of an election to basically collude with these unprecedentedly powerful platforms. They're not really the biggest in terms of valuation, but their reach and their influence on the national town squares. There's never been anything like it in human.
- [34:07]
C
There has it? And let me, let me add a little bit of color that. And we go into it, the last line of defense, how to beat the left in court. You can get it on Amazon. It's actually a New York Times bestseller mark, which is pretty remarkable.
- [34:17]
A
Congratulations. I've heard, I've heard that's a great thing to have.
- [34:19]
C
It is, yes. But let's just add a little bit of color. Like we took the deposition of Elvis Chan in that lawsuit. Elvis Chan was the FBI agent in charge of the Northern District of California where the big tech companies were headquartered. He testified that in. In 2020 he would have monthly then weekly meetings as they approached the election in 2020 with these big tech companies. Now they knew the FBI knew that The Hunter Biden laptop was real. It had been verified in 2019. But Elvis Chan was telling them to look out for a, quote, Russian hack and leak. Russian hack and leak operation, end quote. Yoel Roth, who was the Twitter like integrity guy and as sworn affidavit said he specifically mentioned Hunter Biden's laptop. So here you have the FBI then working with these companies to tell them, hey, look out for this thing. We know it's real, but it's going to be Russian misinformation. And that's how the suppression started. One of the also interesting quirks of history, the general counsel for the FBI in 2016, when the Russia hoax came down, when President Trump first ran, was a guy by the name of James Baker. Guess who was the general counsel for Twitter in the fall of 2020? James Baker.
- [35:34]
A
So got to be a different guy, right?
- [35:36]
C
Nope, same dude. It's, it's just kind of, it's just sort of wild. The links that they went to, to affect the election and this was the government and then they turned that machine on once Biden got in, in a different way.
- [35:49]
A
Right. So here, here's what's troubling to me. You mentioned Zuckerberg and whether he's red pilled or he's gotten religion, you go through Silicon Valley. In my experience, some of them have become true believers. They basically said we went along to get along because we were part of this liberal community. Our employees were all liberal, the boards were all liberal. But some of them, I think are just cynical and they don't want to be on the wrong side of the current administration. These companies still have extraordinary power. They're giving money to your party. They're, you know, this week they're showing up at some, or showing up at a dinner with the President on the new Rose Garden disco. But, but they still have this enormous power. And if WES Moore or AOC becomes president in 2024, 2028, then what? In other words, don't we still have a problem that your branch is not, I say respectfully, smart enough to outsmart the well paid lobbyists of these tech companies. And while they seem to be favorable towards your party now, they're not. They're not. There's no way to force them to behave in the public interest.
- [36:51]
C
Well, you're hitting on an important point, which is it's been exposed, it's in retreat, but it's a story as old as time. People want to aggregate, accumulate and exercise power in silence dissent. And our republic is supposed to stand in opposition to that. But to your point, as far as the Article 1 branch goes, because of my experience with these lawsuits and this one in particular, I filed legislation that would do two things. One is if, as you know, Section 230 protections were granted to these platforms. In the 90s when the Internet was becoming a thing, the idea was you couldn't sue a platform the same way you would sue CBS News or Time magazine. Because they're publishers, they're making editorial decisions about the veracity of things. These platforms are just hosting points of view.
- [37:39]
A
Right.
- [37:40]
C
So they're protected from litigation. I fully support that. If that's actually what they are. As almost a free speech absolutist, I'm good with that. However, that's not how they're behaving. So the legislation that I have would say you have to pick a team here. You're either a platform or you're a publisher. But you don't get to have it both ways. So the minute you cross the line into this kind of censorship activity, you lose Section 230 protections and you can be sued. The other thing that should be done is individuals should have a private right of action against individual government actors if they violate their First Amendment rights. That would change the dynamic for the bureaucrat that's being told to flag posts or talk to Twitter about censoring. Because in the administrative state there's very little accountability, if any at all. This would restore some of that. So you wouldn't need some ag to file a lawsuit. You know, Tucker Carlson or Jay Bhattacharya could sue that individual government actor for damages. I think that would change the dynamic.
- [38:37]
A
Whether you're watching us or YouTube or listening at the podcast, I hope you're following all this. And if you need to hit rewind if you few times, please do. Because you may not agree with the Senator's perspective on all these issues, but he's framing these super important issues in a way that not, not everybody can do. And, and again, we have to grapple with it. We cannot let these institutions, I'm a big fan of them and I think they've been historic and they've given America a technological and economic edge around the world. But we have to grapple. Another thing that hasn't been grappled with is kids. How old are your kids? You've got three, I think. How old are they?
- [39:09]
C
I have a 21 year old son with special needs who's non verbal. Then I have a daughter who's 17 and daughter who just turned 15. Yeah.
- [39:17]
A
And what do you do to regulate and monitor their use of social media?
- [39:21]
C
Well, we've been pretty good about the platforms and we as parents, I mean, I live this, we do the best we can to keep them off of certain ones or try to regulate it. But I mean, like any parent, it's frustrating because they're just bombarded with this stuff all the time.
- [39:37]
A
And are they, are they on Tick Tock?
- [39:40]
C
No, no, no.
- [39:42]
A
Not on their devices, no.
- [39:44]
C
So, I mean, yeah, they're not on Tick Tock. I think I've, I've successfully scared them enough about what Red China.
- [39:50]
A
Are they, are they on Instagram, Instagram or YouTube?
- [39:54]
C
Well, I don't want to get into what my kids social media profiles are.
- [39:58]
A
Okay, yeah, understood. But for parents in general, what's the role of the federal government in forcing these platforms to do more to help parents keep their kids from content that can be harmful?
- [40:14]
C
Well, first of all, yeah, TikTok. I support TikTok ought to be banned in the United States. I view this as a true national security issue. What China's able to access through keystrokes, not just on that app, but other things that you're doing on your phone once you have the TikTok app downloaded is scary.
- [40:32]
A
Can you, can you imagine. I'm sorry to interrupt. Can you imagine how much they laugh at us in Beijing over this?
- [40:37]
C
Yeah, it's crazy. Can you imagine, can you imagine in World War II if we would have allowed Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan to have, you know, 200 million censors walking around our country?
- [40:51]
A
Yeah. Why, why hasn't, why hasn't, why hasn't President Trump banned it?
- [40:55]
C
I hope that, I mean, Congress voted on it and that that deadline has been extended, and I hope that that goes away. I mean, Congress has kind of spoken on that and again, I view it as a national security problem.
- [41:08]
A
Okay, but, but Congress did. Congress did speak, and the President keeps extending the deadline. And as you know, if you talk to the president's pollster, his political advisor said, say, political suicide. We can't be the party that takes something kids love away from them. How can this be an appropriate executive branch action when the law has been signed and he just keeps ignoring it?
- [41:29]
C
Yeah, well, what. I think he's preventing it from taking effect. The issue is what needs to happen, and I support, actually, is if TikTok is sold, because it's really not about the content, although I have issues with the content and what they do with their algorithms. It's really about who's actually hosting all of the Information. Who has the information? I mean, China's. They're trying to get, you know, DNA information on Americans to, you know, potentially weaponize super viruses somewhere down the road.
- [42:01]
A
So anyway, leave TikTok aside because it's a special case for all the reasons you said.
- [42:05]
C
Right.
- [42:06]
A
Great. American companies produce YouTube and Instagram. I would say if you just took the upside of those companies, economic upside and the joy they bring to people and the interconnected. The amount of Frank Sinatra videos I've been able to watch on YouTube, it's very valuable. But the downside, particularly for kids, is substantial. So I say again, what should the federal government's role be in regulating those kinds of companies and not the. Not TikTok. These American companies who produce content.
- [42:37]
C
Yeah, I've signed on the bills. I mean, I think for minors in particular, we have a wide degree of latitude, and especially under the age of 16, I think you've seen that, quite frankly, minors, I don't think should be able to access social media in that way. Under the age of 16. I think it's 14. We're talking about raising that to 16. I don't have any problems with that. Now, when you get into content, I mean, they can have content policies that are lawful and that they deal with pornography or they deal with sort of information that's been widely regarded as the courts of. Outside the bounds of just, you know, free expression that the government actually can't control. But once you get out of that space, then, you know, you're in. You're in kind of the wild west. And once people are adults and, you know, I'm on social media, I'm an adult, I try to. I try to put it in proper context, but it's very difficult, I think, for kids as they're bombarded with these images that as we're in kind of a scrolling nation now, so I think there are things for us to do, especially for kids.
- [43:42]
A
Yeah. If there were a pandemic right now, and again, this draws on the experiences you write about in the book. If there were another pandemic right now with the same variables of lots of people getting sick, some people dying, inconclusive information on the front end about how to best contain infection, what do you think would happen? What lessons do you think the federal governments and the state would have learned.
- [44:08]
C
From COVID It's a great question and one of the reasons I wrote the book, Last Line Defense. The first few chapters are devoted to this kind of COVID tyranny. Tyranny. And I would agree with you that initially, Mark, people really didn't know what was going on. But one thing that's very clear, and it came through in the deposition we took, we took of Anthony Fauci, is he was operating on a kind of a different parallel track than the president. And that's why you ended up seeing Foushee candles and him as the head of the resistance. In many ways, he sent his chief deputy over to China early on during the pandemic. We could talk about the Wuhan lab and how that got funded, but he sent his chief deputy over there, came back, he fell in love with the lockdown idea. Now meanwhile, a friend of his emails him in March or April of 2020 saying, I'm getting on a flight, do I need to wear a mask? And he says, of course not. Masks aren't effective. And then he ends up saying, everyone needs to wear a mask before you can go anywhere, especially kids to school. So I think that the lesson was, as that went on, power doesn't necessarily corrupt. But in my view, power reveals. And way too many people had way too much power that they exerted in ways I never thought were imaginable. So when I was AG, we sued 50 plus school districts for the mask mandates. Again, this is a year and a half into the pandemic. Then, when there was no data to say that this was helping kids, there was more data to say it was actually harming kids. And kids were twice as likely to die of a dog attack than dying from COVID Now the lesson would be maybe we ought to treat the 80 year old with two comorbidities differently than the kindergartner, right? But that didn't happen. And so I would hope that there's lessons learned here, but I don't think that this sort of the vaccine mandates. Another example, I think we were lied to about transmissibility. We were lied to about contracting based on the vaccine. Look, if you want to get it, get it. But this idea that people were going to lose their jobs and we lost 8,000 people from our military over this thing became a political weapon. That can never happen again. So the left in many ways weaponized this virus for political means. And that then of course led to the justification mark of all the things they did on censorship because they felt they, they were the ones in the right and they knew better and trust the experts and we are the science. That kind of thinking, that kind of group think, I just reject. And why, when I was ag, we kind of thought that, I guess I'm a bit of A contrarian by nature. So that role suited me well in that time. But there's definitely lessons learned that I write about in the book.
- [46:29]
A
All right, Some quick things that are in the news. I'm not asking your view of what the federal government's role should be, but as a parent, as a person interested in public policy. Florida just said no mandatory vaccines, even for kids who go to public school. Is that a good policy or should kids in public school be required to get some vaccines for the most communicable and common disease?
- [46:47]
C
Well, I think there are some that if the time in which that they would get the vaccine, it's appropriate, should. But I will say we're having all this fallout now. The CDC director being dismissed. The public health officials brought this on themselves. They have destroyed trust in public health. And I think for me, more information, the better for parents can make these decisions themselves.
- [47:10]
A
But are you or would you be comfortable sending your kids to a public school where other kids were unvaccinated for measles and other common diseases that have been controlled by vaccines?
- [47:20]
C
Well, I think that again, you have to take it on a case by case basis. I mean, there really isn't an outbreak. If there's an outbreak of measles, I mean, think then that's a different deal. And I think that, that vaccinations for some of those things for kids is appropriate. And I guess we could go through the whole schedule. But I do think we do have a number of vaccines that have just been piled on over the years and there's not been a lot of discussion about it. And now would be a good time to have that discussion.
- [47:42]
A
It is a complicated topic. But you're not troubled by, or are you troubled by Florida saying no vaccine requirements?
- [47:48]
C
Yeah, I'm not 100% anti vax. I'm more skeptical of government mandates, that's for sure. But I do think it's been a long time, Mark, since we've had a real debate about which vaccines should be required and which ones shouldn't be.
- [48:00]
A
Yeah. All right, I'm going to hold you to yes. No. In the next three, will the Senate change the rules to make it easier for you all to confirm nominees of the executive branch?
- [48:08]
C
Yes. And I think that'll happen next.
- [48:10]
A
Yes. Okay. Will there be another reconciliation package this year?
- [48:20]
C
Maybe. I would like to see that. I. I would like to see that. If you're asking me would I do it. Yes. Would I do another decisions package? Yes. I don't, I don't know what the will of the body will be. But we still have the ability to do that next year, even if we don't do it this year.
- [48:35]
A
Okay. And lastly, will the St. Louis Cardinals win the World Series?
- [48:42]
C
This year? Is not looking.
- [48:43]
A
What's up with your Cardinals? What's up with your Cardinals?
- [48:45]
C
It's hard. It's hard. You know, the crown jewel, the national league, is basically a.500 team this year. Heimbloom is coming in as the new gm. There's a new player development guy that's coming in. They kind of have to rebuild the farm system. This year is going to be very difficult. But you're not going to find a bigger Cardinal fan than me. But there are not blue skies that we're bush dating right now.
- [49:05]
A
I'll tell you who I the other big Cardinal fan I know is your former Senator McCaskill. She's a pretty big Cardinal fan.
- [49:12]
C
But that might be one thing we could find in common. That might be one that we could talk about.
- [49:16]
A
Yeah. Yeah. Again, tell people for this book, and again, it's a lot about maybe I divide into two parts. It's a history of your time as attorney general in your state, litigating all these important cases with and against the federal government, last line of defense. And it's also, as you say, kind of a blueprint for how the right should approach dealing with an essential forum for so many of our political fights. Now the courts tell people, tell us who should buy the book, who should read it. Who are you targeting this to?
- [49:45]
C
Well, it's not written for lawyers, although I hope every lawyer in the country buys it. It's really not. It's really written for people who saw this madness happening and unfolding and what were the strategies? How did we, like, how did we take on the student loan debt forgiveness case and why did we win the Supreme Court? So as you were watching, all the COVID craziness of the censorship that we really uncovered initially, if you want to learn more about that and get some behind the scenes stories of what it was like to take Fauci's Depot and what that, you know, all those sorts of things were like, this book is for you. I think it's from a cultural perspective, from a legal perspective, from a political perspective. It kind of combines all those things and people can get it on Amazon right now. I really think your viewers, your listeners will enjoy it.
- [50:27]
A
The only thing more amazing perhaps than the book itself is the people you got to blurb your book. I stopped getting blurbs for my books because my publishers Said no one really cares about blurbs. But my goodness. Vice President, United States. A lot of your colleagues. Don Jr did you solicit all these blurbs or are they written by AI? How'd this happen?
- [50:46]
C
Bobby Krf Jr. RFK Jr. Has a blurb. The President. The President came out and said everybody should read the book. So, yeah, I'm very gratified by it. I think that again, just kind of standing up and fighting back was an important thing to do in that time. And I'm just, I'm very appreciative and grateful for, for all the support and kind words people have. Have showered on the book.
- [51:08]
A
Last question, which I've asked every senator I've ever interviewed except for Barbara Mikulski of Maryland. When you look in the mirror, do you see a future president?
- [51:16]
C
No, I'm good. I'm here in the Senate. I'm enjoying my time.
- [51:20]
A
Yeah.
- [51:20]
C
You know, my family is. I go back and forth to Missouri every week. So I'm happy what I'm doing right now. That's for sure.
- [51:27]
A
But airline flies from D.C. southwest, there's.
- [51:30]
C
A lot, there's a lot of direct flights back and forth, Southwest and American. So I have a by way of commutes. It's pretty easy compared to the western states. I will say the one line you asked about that is I do. I was told early on when you get to the Senate, you look around for the first few months and you say, how did I get here? And then after that you look around and say, how did these people get here? And that's. I could probably.
- [51:51]
A
Yeah, it's a, it's an august group, except with some exceptions. Again, it's a last line of defense. How to beat the left in court. Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri, or as some people like to call it, Missouri Center. Grateful to you for making time. Congratulations on the sales and the blurbs. And we'll go out for some mozzarella pizza at some point.
- [52:10]
C
We'd love to have provel. That'd be great.
- [52:14]
A
All right, thank you. All right, next up, political's Rachel B. We'll talk more about Capitol Hill. Dunk away. That is Southwest.
- [52:22]
C
There's a lot, there's a lot of direct flights back and forth, Southwest and American. So I have a by way of commutes. It's pretty easy compared to the western states. I will say the one line you asked about that is, I do. I was told early on when you get to the Senate, you look around for the first few months and you say, how did I get here? And then after that, you look around and say, how did these people get here? And that's. I could probably.
- [52:43]
A
Yeah, it's a, it's an august group, except with some exceptions. Again, it's a last line of defense. How to beat the left in court. Senator Eric Schmidt of Missouri, or as some people like to call it, Missouri center, grateful to you for making time. Congratulations on the sales and the blurbs. And we'll go out for some mozzarella pizza at some point.
- [53:02]
C
We'd love to have Provel. That'd be great.
- [53:06]
A
All right, thank you. All right, next up, political's Rachel B. Will talk more about Capitol Hill. Dunk away. That is next time, when inflation jumps. When you hear the national Debt is over $37 trillion, do you ever think, hmm, maybe now would be a good time to buy me some gold? Whether as a hedge against inflation, peace of mind during global instability, or just for some sensible diversification of your portfolio. Birch Gold Group believes every American should own physical gold. And so they created something special until September 30th, if you're a first time gold buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to $10,000 in free metals on qualifying purchases. To claim eligibility and begin the process, request an info kit now. Just text the word next to 989-898 plus Birchgold can help you roll an existing IRA or a 401k into an IRA in gold and you are still eligible even if you do that for a rebate in the free metals of up to $10,000. Birchgold is the only precious metals company I trust, as do their tens of thousands of customers. So text the word next to 989-898, claim your eligibility and get your free info kit. Again, text the word next to 989-898. Hey there, Nexters. Mark Halpert here. Thank you for tuning in. I've got a question for you. Have you ever listened to the Smerconish podcast? I am a regular guest on his show and I know you will love it. On the Smerconish Podcast, Michael Smerconish brings you a balanced news presentation on the biggest issues of the day every day. Oh, and by the way, balance, it doesn't mean boring. Michael offers you interviews and conversations with newsmakers, policy experts and listeners from all corners of the nation. The Smerconish Podcast. It's a forum for curious people who want more than talking points. Listen please to the Smerconish Podcast wherever you listen to podcasts. Next up, Rachel Bage she's the Capitol Hill bureau chief for Politico, one of about a half dozen reporters who I read every word they write because Rachel's stories are always interesting, important, and tell me stuff I don't know. Can't say that about everybody whose work is out there. She's got some of the best sources all over Washington. She's been a specialist in Congress, but her sources and information range far beyond that. So next up joining us now, Rachel Baid. Rachel, welcome in.
- [55:38]
D
Hey there, Mark. Thanks for having me back.
- [55:41]
A
Do you have a favorite joke?
- [55:43]
D
A favorite joke? Yeah, but my husband told me one this morning. Why did the golfer take two pairs of pants? And I actually got it. Do you know the answer?
- [55:53]
A
Because he got a hole in one.
- [55:55]
D
That's easy, right?
- [55:56]
A
Yeah, it's pretty easy. So here's my favorite joke, and I use it all the time, and it's a list of three, but the third one's always different. So here you go. Do you know what the three most complicated relationships are in the human race?
- [56:08]
D
I've heard you say this. The last one is a mother daughter relationship.
- [56:11]
A
Well, the second one is. Oh, the second one, it's landlord, tenant, mother, daughter. And then for today's purposes, it's Donald Trump's relationship with Congressional Republicans. That's what we'll start with because it's so complicated and it's so interesting and one of the things that you're so great at is kind of the anthropology of some of this stuff. So what's the current state? And if it's different between House and Senate? Please differentiate. What's the current state of President Trump's relationship with his flock in the Senate and his flock in the House? How would you characterize how things are between them now?
- [56:46]
D
You know, I gotta say, I had expected by this time in Trump's second term that his relationship with Hill Republicans would start to fray. I mean, obviously when he won reelection, there was this sort of gust of goodwill. We knew that he was more powerful when he came back than he was when he left. And Republicans were sort of folding left and right to do his bidding. You would think after a few months, that sort of sheen would wear off. One of the things that has just been most surprising is just how much it really hasn't. I mean, take a look, for example, at what's going on right now with this discharge petition, with the Epstein situation. I mean, Thomas Massie, who is one of the few Republicans on the Hill who has a really terrible relationship with Donald Trump. They hate each other. They go after each other often. Massie, obviously more of a libertarian who sort of relishes his role as a troublemaker in the party. He's been trying to get the votes for this discharge petition to force the release of the Epstein documents. And he's only two Republicans away from getting the votes. And I'm not saying he won't, but the fact that he hasn't already, when this has been in the news now for how long, we've had survivors come forward just yesterday telling their stories and sort of begging lawmakers to sign onto this. And yet you have a lot of Republicans who just a couple of weeks ago were saying, of course we need to release the Epstein files. They haven't done it. And the reason they haven't sort of signed on is because of Trump himself. The White House sort of reaching out, asking them not to do this, perhaps paying lip service to this notion that they want transparency as well, which you can question, of course. But the fact that they're not there yet with the numbers and quickly their liquidity split is a surprise to me. I wouldn't think that by now this is especially interesting given what we've seen the President do recently. That totally goes against GOP orthodoxy. Think about, you know, the chip manufacturer, was it intel? Right. The 10% government will have 10% of a private corporation. They're going to nationalize part of it. This goes against Republican orthodoxy in every way, and yet you don't hear a peep about it. So, yeah, he's obviously got a lot of power. Republicans know that. And because of that, they're just. They're not going to criticize him.
- [59:20]
A
Mark? Yeah, I totally agree with you. And I agree with you pointing out that we both expected that things would be in rougher shape. Let me give you my theory, and I want to hear what you would either subtract or add from my list of why things are the way they are. First of all, as you said, of course, the president's powerful. He's the dominant figure in the party. They don't want to cross him. Number two, I think this staff at the White House who's in charge of dealing with the Hill, I think they're very attentive. From what I hear, you've seen past White Houses where they're not contacting them, they're not in touch, they're not coordinating. I think there's a lot of coordination. And then lastly, the president's famous for having a temper and holding grudges. But take the intel thing. There are people speaking out against it. There are members of Congress, Senators and House members saying this is horrible. Ted Cruz said it, Todd Young said it. But the White House doesn't, doesn't slap at them. They pick their fights. And as long as they're not going to stop the President from getting his way, they're in fact willing to let members say stuff. The Biden White House wouldn't have stood for it. They'd call those senators and they'd rip into them. This White House is like, go ahead, vent. You don't like it, that's fine. But they pick their battles. What do you think of my list?
- [60:26]
D
Yeah, that's interesting. I hadn't seen that Cruz had spoken out against it so vocally. And he's obviously a top ally of Donald Trump. Yeah, I think, look, they're on a certain, let's see, how long is the leash, I guess is the question. Yes, let them speak out. But as long as they're not going to try to upend this deal, that's a totally different story. Yeah, I do think that their Legislative affairs shop has been very effective with Capitol Hill. And that is, it's interesting too because there was a lot of criticism of the structure of it when Trump came in for his second term. Typically, the White House Legislative affairs director is someone who reports directly to the President. That's actually not the case in this White House. That person reports directly to someone who reports to someone who is Susie Wiles who reports to the President. And so we actually did. I heard a lot of Hill Republicans sort of griping about that feeling like there were too many people removed. But clearly it's worked. They've got their legislative agenda passed. Nobody's a huge threat up there on Capitol Hill. And it obviously helps that Trump himself just picks up the phone and calls these members. I mean, at late at night between like 10pm and what, like 1am he's talking to lawmakers all the time. He has people in different factions that he goes to to sort of get a sense of where are the moderates, where are the more sort of libertarian esque type Republicans. He's close with Johnson and Thune, obviously, so he's kind of like a reporter in that regard. He's like constantly sniffing out information and just phoning people.
- [61:55]
A
Yeah. President Obama once famously said, I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriter and I'm a better fundraiser than my fundraiser. Very Obama esque comment, but it had a lot of truth to it. Donald Trump is the head of Legislative affairs, as you said. He's, he's doing his own consultations, he's doing his own coordination. And the same thing with messaging. You know, they have all these meetings this week where Caroline Levitt and James Blair and Tony Fabrizio were talking to House members and their teams about how to message the big reconciliation package. And I sort of laugh at that because, sure, they're moving the ball down the field, but in the end, the president's going to message this and they're all going to be singing from whatever hymnal he's singing from.
- [62:39]
D
Yeah, I think that's right. And obviously their recommendation in this meeting was like, don't call it a big beautiful bill anymore, which was. Everybody called it that because that's what the president called it. And now he's saying, let's call it the Working Families Tax Credit, Tax Cut and Jobs act, and that's what people are going to start calling it.
- [62:55]
A
So, yeah, we talk all the time about Lisa Murkowski in the Senate and Susan Collins in the Senate and Mitch McConnell, maybe Thom Tillis. Those four. Are there other Republican senators just focused on the Senate, five for a second, who are restive now, who you think may decide in the end of this year, beginning of next year, before the midterms, whether they're up for reelection or not, to put more distance between themselves. The president, or is it still just that small group?
- [63:22]
D
It's a good question. One person we're watching closely, especially this week with all the drama over at the CDC and with RFK is Cassidy, Senator Cassidy from Louisiana. He's up for reelection. He's somebody who voted to impeach the president the second time around after January 6th. So naturally, Donald Trump does not like him a lot. And Republicans are obviously big fans of his. They want in the Senate, they want him to run for reelection again. And they've been sort of playing this intermediator role where they're trying to get President Trump not to endorse someone else against him in a primary. And if they can just get Trump to be quiet and say nothing, because of course the president's not going to endorse someone who voted to impeach him. If they can just get him to stay quiet, they think Cassidy will be fine. Cassidy, though, just watching him and knowing him and his background, there's a lot of things happening in the administration that he doesn't like. And right now you can see him sort of very gently issuing some criticism here and there, but, you know, he's not going full bore. Does that change if he decides not to run for reelection. I would not be surprised. I mean, if you just look at the actions of Thom Tillis, who, after he decided, you know what, Screw it, I'm not running again. I don't want to deal with this pressure from President Trump. He's become a pretty vocal critic himself. So Cassidy's somebody else I would, you know, keep an eye on. As far as we know, he wants to run again, and he's hoping to sort of smooth things over with the president, even if it just means, you know, getting him to say nothing. But again, that calculus could change. And once members decide they're not running again, you know, obviously the muffle comes off and they start to speak more candidly.
- [65:02]
A
Yeah, he does seem like he wants to run again to me, and from his public statements. And therefore, you know, as you say, is conduct could be different. One more about the Republicans, and I want to ask you about the Democrats. John Thune. I covered him when he first ran for the Senate, and I have a decent sense of his personality. You know him better. Is he, unlike Mitch McConnell, who was constantly, publicly and more frequently privately at odds with the president substantively and often kind of attitudinally is Thune just made peace with this? He doesn't seem to be too flustered by the president. When it's clear that he doesn't like what he's doing, he just kind of rolls with it. Is that. Is that a constant state for him or is this a struggle?
- [65:46]
D
Look, I think he Learned from Mitch McConnell's very adversarial relationship with Donald Trump. I mean, Mitch McConnell wouldn't come out and criticize Trump all the time when they were, you know, leading together. But privately, he would push back on him. And like, the president definitely got a sense that McConnell thought he was. Was either stupid or didn't know what he was talking about, and the president didn't like that. And then, of course, after January 6th, they had that huge fracture in the relationship. McConnell was very vocal in saying Trump incited, you know, an insurrection, and that was sort of the end of that relationship. I mean, look, Boo knows that there is a, you know, a tightrope that you got to walk here with Donald Trump. There are very different types of leaders doing more of a traditional, you know, free market Republican. He's also just a very decent and very, like, kind person. I mean, I've covered him before. He's nice to all the reporters up there. Even if he doesn't like your question, he takes the time to stop and talk to people in the halls, even as, you know, leader. And people really appreciate that. So he's not. He's not combative. He's not, you know, going to get out there and, you know, take huge swings at his critics the way that Donald Trump would. So very different type of men. But look, I think that they have a good working relationship behind the scenes. I mean, Thune has not really challenged him publicly on pretty much anything that I can really think about. And if he does have issues, he takes in to the president privately. And that's what the president expects at this point. So even though they did have a chilly relationship for a while, given Thune's close relationship with Mitch McConnell, Thune has navigated this very well. And because of that, he has the confidence from the president and in the president, and, you know, things are going well for him.
- [67:36]
A
Totally agree. I said. I said move to Democrats. But I want to ask you one more Republican. Is there any Cabinet member or White House official who is rubbing the hill the wrong way, where they're feeling that, you know, they don't get the respect they deserve or they have big disagreements? Obviously, Bobby Kennedy with some of the latest stuff, has raised questions, but anyone besides him, you know, what I'm finding talking to members is they mostly get along pretty well, that the normal kind of tensions don't exist for the most part. I'm wondering if, you know of any exceptions to that.
- [68:05]
D
Yeah, I think you're right. Kennedy is definitely probably the one they feel pokes them in the eye most frequently. I have heard a lot of concern about Hegseth over the past six, first six to eight months of this administration. But I think there is an understanding that he's not going anywhere. And so what's the point in squatting? You just have to sort of put up with it. But those are probably the two I hear the most about.
- [68:33]
A
Okay. This is a topic I haven't seen anywhere, but maybe someone's written like, a whole book about it and I just missed it. But I'm curious what you think if you talk to political strategists or donors in both parties when they think about the presidential. There's sort of a general view of governors are better than senators, they're more likely to win, they've got leadership credentials, et cetera. And yet the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton has nominated people who've been senators and not governors. Right? Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, they haven't nominated someone who's been governor. Now, you know, since since 96 and for the first time, 92. That's a long time. Most of the people who get buzzed about now as presidential candidates for the party are governors.
- [69:19]
D
Right, Right.
- [69:21]
A
Or somebody like Pete Buttigieg, who's been neither a senator nor a governor, but not a governor or not a senator, rather. Amongst the senators, are there people who you think are gearing up to run? Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar? Are there senators who are talking about it that you hear that people should be paying more attention to given the party's history of nominating senators?
- [69:47]
D
Yeah, I definitely think one name you didn't mention, Chris Murphy. He seems to be stepping into the spotlight in a new sort of more antagonistic way against Donald Trump that we have seen in the past. Not to say he was ever a Trump supporter. Obviously he's not. But I feel like he has been leaning in more than I've seen him lean in in the past and seems to be putting him out there and building a profile in that regard. So I would watch Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Klobuchar. Yes, of course. I'm in. Rand, before a lot of people think she will run again. I mean, my question on that is, like, what's the difference between then and now? Like, if, you know, if you were not successful back when, what makes you think the environment is different now? That sort of people are going to be buying what you're selling more?
- [70:37]
A
All right, well, let me, let me follow up on this. Start with Klobuchar. You know, she and Pete Buttigieg did something I don't believe has ever happened in the modern era. They got out of the race when they had money in the bank and they still had a chance to win. And I believe they got out in a story. I've said this before, never really been told that Barack Obama said, if you guys don't get out, Bernie Sanders will be the nominee. You need to get out. So I don't know that you necessarily failed. She had some success. And a lot of, a lot of times people learn. She. Most campaigns, as you know, they end because there's no money. She had money. She wasn't, she wasn't broke. She just didn't have an obvious path that wouldn't get Bernie Sanders the nomination. So I'm surprised there's not more talk about her. Chris Murphy. And again, I got nothing against the guy. For all I know, he'll be the next president. I don't get the focus on him. I get that he's willing to be on TV a lot you know, he should have his own MSNBC show, given how often he's on.
- [71:29]
D
He's on Twitter and online, too.
- [71:31]
A
Yeah, but. But what? What are the strengths of a Chris Murphy for President campaign except that he seems interested in it? Like, can he raise a lot of money? Nobody knows who he is.
- [71:40]
D
They're good questions.
- [71:41]
A
Does he have any distinctive ideas about what he'd do as president? Does he have anything on his resume that suggests he could be Commander in chief? Again, I got nothing against the guy. I'm just. And I'm not. I'm not faulting you for raising him, because you're right, he's talked about as much as any other senator at this point. But what are the strengths of Murphy for president that I'm missing?
- [71:59]
D
I will just say, you mentioned at the top of this question that the most. The folks. The folks that people are talking about more are governors. And I think there's a good reason for that. The strongest candidates that we're seeing so far, potential candidates I agree with you, are totally, 100% governors. But in terms of what, you know, Senate Democrats are whispering about, he's certainly a name that comes up. You mentioned Booker, too. Clearly he's looking at this, too. Senator Booker. He has been sort of leading the charge, trying to put up some sort of resistance to Donald Trump at a time when the base is like, fight, fight, fight. You need to do something. Booker was the one who took to the floor and talked for. I can't remember how many hours it was. It was a really long time. Some sort of, like, filibuster where he was out there talking about standing up to Donald Trump. He's done a sit in, in front of the Capitol, maybe 24 hours. I can't remember how long that one was either with Hakeem Jeffries, another sort of form of protest. And he did get praise from that, and they certainly raised his profile. But again, when you're putting him up against, you know, someone like, you know, Whitmer, if she were to run, or Newsom or Wes Moore, it's hard for me to see sort of any of these senators sort of breaking through in a way that some of these governors are breaking through right now.
- [73:18]
A
Yeah. I'd say about Booker, what you suggested about Klobuchar, which is. I really don't know why he think he'd be any better than he was the first time when he didn't have very much success at all.
- [73:29]
D
Yeah.
- [73:30]
A
Yep.
- [73:31]
D
Don't disagree with you on that. Klobuchar you mentioned, she had money. Could it just be she was trying to raise her profile in the moment and then they're going to run for real another time? So I don't know.
- [73:41]
A
Yeah, yeah. Most people, in my experience, when they run, they run for real. They don't run for, they don't run for practice. But, but certainly it's. Certainly. I don't know. I don't know if she know.
- [73:50]
D
You've been saying on your shows that Gavin might run but then get out very quickly. Right. So maybe that.
- [73:55]
A
Well, not. But not because he's toying with it. I just think the scrutiny is going to be more than he wants to deal with. Maybe I'll be wrong, but that's what I keep thinking. Last question is, you know, D.C. and obviously the Trump administration has been caught up in all this crime stuff. There is this thing about whenever there's a new president, even though this is an odd new president because he's president, about the culture of Washington. People going to restaurants, there's, there's some new clubs, there's some new restaurants that are popular. Is Washington fun now for the political class, the journalists, the people in the administration? Is it a fun place or not?
- [74:27]
D
Wait, are you, are you asking, is it fun now because the National Guard is here, like change?
- [74:31]
A
No, I'm saying, I'm saying separate, you know, separate from the National Guard that's been getting all this attention.
- [74:35]
D
I see.
- [74:36]
A
But we've got, we've got a bunch of new people in town, a bunch of billionaire cabinet members. Like, are the parties fun? Are people excited?
- [74:44]
D
You know, exclusive clubs? Yeah, I went to the Ned Club, which is this.
- [74:49]
A
I saw your name in the bold face print.
- [74:51]
D
Yeah, yeah. Party for Nigel Farage. Potential next, you know, leader of Great Britain. We'll see. Maybe. But it was beautiful. And I have to say, a lot of people from the admin came. Everywhere I turned, I was like, oh, my God, I want to talk to that person, that person, that person, that person. So, yeah, there's been a couple of little hangout places that have cropped up in town since Donald Trump returned. That's one of them. The other one is more of a maga wing restaurant on Capitol Hill called Butterworth, which I have also gone to as well. And you can see people there. So, I mean, yeah, I mean, the, anytime you have a rush of new people coming to town and new administration people are out, they want a gab. It's great for networking, it's great for sourcing. So, yeah.
- [75:39]
A
All right, Rachel Bay, very grateful to you. Rights for Politico and her content is available to you now. You can also follow her on social media where she's got game. And we're grateful to you for being here. Thank you, Rachel, of course.
- [75:52]
D
Thanks, Mark.
- [75:53]
A
That is it for for today's show. We'll be back Tuesday, a brand new episode. Make sure to subscribe and download next up, this program, wherever you get your podcasts and watch us on YouTube like us there and subscribe. You'll always know what's coming. Next up.