B (2:24)

You know, a couple of moments ago, you were talking about, like, drunk texting your ex. You know, a few months ago, there was that Vanity Fair piece that basically blew the lid off of Susie Wiles, the chief of staff of the White House. And in that piece, she was quoted as saying that Donald Trump behaves like a drunk. And I think that, like, if any of you have ever been in a relationship with somebody who has substance abuse problems, they do crazy things. And I'm not saying the president does have substance abuse problems. I'm just going off her words that he behaves this way. I think that we have an erratic individual who behaves in violent and abusive ways towards the American people, where the abused partner in this relationship and then he has these moments where he behaves normal for a second. And that doesn't mean the abuse is stopped. It doesn't mean that he didn't commit the action that led to the abuse. And listen, Tom Homan is no angel. He is the architect of what is happening right now. Now, just because they're using Bovino as a fall guy and sending him back to California does not mean this is over. And in fact, the president may say that he's going to remove some of these ICE agents from Minnesota, but they put this into play. His own Department of Justice AG sent a letter two days ago to the Minnesota government, basically telling them that they were not going to remove ICE agents unless they handed over voter rolls, information on immigrants, and basically carried out their agenda. So don't be lulled.

A (4:01)

It feels like, you know, seeing the pulse in the culture, social media, the commentary, I mean, politics aside, it seems like there's been this watershed moment and reckoning with the images that have come out of Minnesota in recent weeks and particularly in the last 72 hours, and the disconnect between what we know, we're seeing, what people can see visually, and what was being said by key members of the administration, including Homeland Security Secretary Krissi Noem. So it feels like the culture has shifted. And then there's reporting from Wall Street Journal and others saying that people like Lindsey Graham have called the President and spoke to him in this moment. And so I'm curious if you're feeling that, though, in Congress. I know that right now you're not in session. You're actually out in New Mexico, correct?

B (4:57)

Yeah, I'm in New Mexico. We're in district work, period. But the Senate is in session. Listen, I think all of us are searching for signs of life in the Republican Party. Do they still have a pulse? Do they still care about the American people? And so I take all of these signs and symbols that they think shooting a VA nurse in the back 10 times is a bad thing. I mean, should we even be having this as a national debate? But does that mean that my point of view about what I've seen over the last 12 months and their lack of action changes what I think they're going to do in the coming weeks? No, because they have proven time and time again that when this administration oversteps, whether that's invading Venezuela and stealing their oil and kidnapping a foreign leader or shooting a VA nurse in the back, they, you know, make phone calls, they make appearances, they issue weak statements. But then do they exercise any kind of constitutional oversight? No, they don't. So I hope that they do, But I. I am not confident.

A (6:01)

Okay. And I want to get to that. I want to talk about whether, you know, when the president is making unilateral actions. What is the role of Congress in this moment is a big question I have that we'll get to. But I'm curious what you are going to do in the coming weeks, because, of course, you have a role on the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability. There is discussion about potential impeachment of Secretary Kristi Noem. I wonder if that's actively in movement. And then also if you can speak a little bit or actually, let's speak about that first.

B (6:31)

Yeah. Well, just broadly speaking, the way that I think about our action, both as lawmakers and the public right now is in three categories. It's in Congress and the courts and in our communities and in Congress, we have the power to conduct oversight. We have the power to investigate, to subpoena, to impeach, and to hold administration officials accountable. We have legislative power, and we have the power of the purse. We control the budget. And so in terms of concrete actions in the next couple of weeks, I'm proud to be one of about 100 members of Congress who filed articles of impeachment against Kristi Noem. But it's important to understand that impeachment is a congressional process that requires that enough members in the majority vote that you can actually pass a resolution to move on to that investigation. And right now, you know, you need 218 members of Congress to not only sign on, but to vote for it. And we don't have the votes because Republicans are in charge. They're not interested in impeaching. And so is it moving forward? It is Moving forward in the sense that we have filed the articles, we're talking about it, we're doing the work to build the case. But until our Republican colleagues join us in that effort, what we can do is continue to conduct oversight and to call on the President to fire or remove her. And you know, to me it's like you can cut off the head and another head will sprout and it's place. But I do think in particular Secretary Noem and her chief of staff, Corey Lewandowski have been really chief architects of the chaos that we've seen alongside Stephen Miller. And so they need to be removed. But the other major action in front of Congress is we've already handled all the budget bills that get us through the end of the week and they're now in front of the Senate. And so we need our senators, particularly our Democratic senators who have more power in the Senate because of the Senate rules, to hold their ground and not vote for any more funding for dhs.

A (8:33)

And they have to vote on these six bills that are leftovers from like November. Right. Because there was the agreement in November to continue funding the government through the end of January and now it's up for the Senate to decide if they will push forward these six funding bills, including for dhs. So we're seeing the social media campaign to call your senators these days and I'm curious, like what that actually does because I want to zoom out from this. I, I rarely use my own social media to comment on political issues. I actually don't love to talk about politics on this show. I think most Americans care about big ideas and I focus on the big ideas that infuse our politics, but try to do it from as nonpartisan a lens as possible. But I did post this weekend around ice and particularly when it came to the five year old boy, Liam Ramos. I, I saw this headline that said Preschooler detained by ICE Officials say they had no choice. And I was like, I could think of at least a few other choices. I don't know, take them to the preschool, leave them at the moms and back away with your hands up. I mean, so many choices that were available. And I said, we have a choice too. We have a choice to call your lawmaker. This isn't about politics. This is about kind of your conscience. Right? And then I thought, wow, I'm such a hypocrite. I've never called my congressperson and I'm telling people to call their con. My congressperson is Jerry Nadler and I know how he's going to vote and speak on this issue. So I feel we're aligned. But then I did it. I actually wrote an email to my congressperson. I actually happened to have Congressman Nadler's phone number, so I called him and spoke to him actually on the phone, directly, his cell phone. You know, it was a really good conversation. I just am curious, though. People wrote back saying it doesn't do anything, doesn't mean anything. So is. And people would rather post on social media than call their congressperson right now? I'm curious how you look at that.

B (10:33)

Well, it absolutely does mean something. And for me, I can tell you that on Saturday and Sunday, I received phone calls, text messages, emails, and messages on social media from friends, from family, and obviously, constituents. And I'll talk about kind of the constituent mail in just a minute. But I have people contact me that I haven't heard from in years, including, like, former coworkers who texted me who said, I don't know if this is still your number, but I'm scared for our country and for me when I, as a member of Congress, am getting messages from people that I haven't seen or talked to in years who are telling me, I'm scared, we need to do something that. I know that that is the canary in the coal mine. Because if they're texting me, then millions of Americans out there are feeling that same fear. And so if you have the personal relationship with your representatives, absolutely. Call them, text them, let them know how you're feeling. If you don't have that personal relationship, you can call their general line or send them a general email. And the way that we collate all that in my office, I have multiple staff who answer phones, answer emails is they generally batch things into campaigns and they'll say, for example, we got, you know, 500 calls yesterday on this issue. And this is what people said. And so I know that if 90% of the calls I got yesterday are from New Mexicans in my zip code, and they're telling me I need to take a stand against ice, I know that my constituency is telling me that's my job. So it absolutely impacts what I do.

A (12:23)

So I want to do, like, a bit of, like, do you remember that Schoolhouse Rock thing? That's like, how a bill becomes a law? Can we do, like, how a idea in your head becomes an initiative or a perspective of your congressperson? Because who. Who actually answers the phone? Is it, like, an intern named Chad? Is it AI who's reading the email? And is anyone, like, reading snail mail? In Congress now?

B (12:43)

Yes. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So in my office. And every office is different. So I can tell you how it works in my office. Okay, We've got our full time staff. We have one person in D.C. one person in my New Mexico office, and they oversee our internship program. We have a college and high school internship program. Both they and our interns help answer the phone so that you get a live person when you call. If for some reason we are not able to answer, it gets recorded and transcribed. And we look through all of that. We try to answer as much as we can. We have an email address and there's multiple different email addresses in our staff in both D.C. and New Mexico answer. And then snail mail actually has to get inspected before it reaches us physically. And sometimes that takes months. It goes back to the whole anthrax scare. But what my does is they take all the mail, anything that's relevant, handwritten, and they give it to me. So I actually get a sack of mail every week. And I read your mail.

A (13:46)

Your district is about 700,000 people, is that correct? Yeah. And that's the average size of a congressional district? I believe so. You said 500 in one example. How many people reach out to you in a week?

B (14:01)

Oh, well, thousands. I mean, it fluctuates depending on what's happening. So on an average week, we probably get about a thousand calls between both D.C. and New Mexico. We get thousands of emails, but there's no sort of regularity to it, I can tell you. Like right now we're getting double what we normally do. But it also depends. Like in the oversight committee, which is very high profile. If something big happens in oversight, like we quadruple the amount of people who call my office because they see it on TV and in the papers when I'm here in district, we're usually doing town halls, I'm out and about, people stop me at the grocery store, they'll stop me. I live next to the mountain, they'll stop me on the trail. And so in addition to that, people are not shy about stopping and telling me what they think about the world.

A (14:53)

But that, I mean, so it's kind of like, is it like a primary voter thing where you will hear from the same. It's a very kind of dedicated base. Do you wish you would hear from more people? There's 350,000 people voted. I believe in your last election, I don't think you're getting mail from 350,000 people.

B (15:08)

I mean, you're talking very much about people who take the initiative to themselves engage through like a one way communication. But I mean social media, we have over a million followers on TikTok. We've got, you know, hundreds of thousands on Instagram. I read all the comments on Instagram. If you put a comment on Instagram, I'm reading it and you all say some great things and you tell me what's on your mind as well. So we're kind of tracking the mood of our constituents and people all over the country in the world who share their thoughts with us. But yeah, I mean certainly there's people who pick up the phone on a regular basis and share their thoughts. But there's also like one of the things I, we try to do with a lot of intentionality in my district is have town halls and spaces where we can reach people who are not normally engaged in politics. So we've done like a lot of town halls and high schools and for example, we do lot at Albuquerque High, if there's like a volleyball tournament going on, like you get a lot of parents who might not show up to a town hall but then they're like, oh wait, that's the congresswoman, I can talk to her. So you know, we try to create space for anybody to have an interaction with me, whether that's on TikTok or on their way to their kids sporting event.

A (16:26)

And what's a quorum for you? Like at what point do you say, oh, this seems like it's, you know, you gave an example of 500 people wrote in, 90% of those were about this particular issue or initiative. So is it a sense of volume? Is it kind of like you get a mood check between social media and people writing in and it's just a vibe check versus there's a certain threshold that changes your mind on something or.

B (16:51)

Yeah, it's both. So I mean, I think social media is the most immediate, right? Like if we post something and there's immediately 100 messages that are like, you suck. Why did you do this? Then I'm like, whoa, okay, we need to recalibrate. We did not understand how all of this was going to land or we made a wrong decision. So actually that's one of the things that's really powerful about social media is it gives you sort of immediate feedback from the hive mind, if you will. But exactly what you said, I mean if we are receiving. So a very good example, we get calls all the time on all different issues. But the weekend that Trump invaded Venezuela, our call volume tripled and it was 90% unique calls. From New Mexico. That was unheard of in my office on any issue. And it wasn't because people were, like, focused on Venezuela specifically. They were scared that Donald Trump was using the United States military without Congress to invade a foreign country and worried what that would mean for the United States. So that is like the alarm went off, like, if New Mexicans are freaked out about this, we need to be listening. So it's a vibe check, it's volume. And also it's sort of like, in comparison to what is the, the kind of normal state of affairs.

A (18:10)

I think social media has kind of become a replacement for calling your congressperson. It feels like people feel like they post and that's what they're. That's. That's their billboard.

B (18:20)

I don't think replacement at all. And let me tell you why, because not all members of Congress are even on social media.

A (18:29)

You are a young congressperson.

B (18:31)

I know that's hard to believe in this day and age, but I mean, I used to be a Senate staffer. I don't know if this is still true, but there were senators even a few years ago when I was a staffer that didn't use cell phones, like legit. They're still on flip phones, so. So, yeah, it's not a replacement, but.

A (18:49)

Flip phones are in now. Like, a lot of Gen Alpha have flip phones and they like them more. But I don't think that's why any senators are using it.

B (18:55)

Yeah, no, but these are ones that are. These are folks like my mom who had her flip phone repaired so she could keep using it. But for me, you know, like I said, I, I. Instagram's kind of my main platform that I am personally on. I sometimes I'll spot check TikTok, but I don't think most members of Congress are doing that who are not late Gen Xers and younger. And you have to remember, I'm 47, almost 47 years old. My birthday is on Saturday. I'm still one of the youngest members of Congress and that is probably shocking to many people out there.

A (19:30)

No. Happy birthday. It's funny because I was trying to remember what your sign said and I actually typed in Congresswoman Stansbury sign. And the first thing that popped into Google was Aquarius, where I'm like, okay, this is what's wrong with Google and why we've all moved on to chat Daddy and AI, whether it's Gemini or whatever, because it understands what you're asking as opposed to just tell. I'm like, I would love to know your star Sign. But that wasn't what I was looking for, but. Happy almost birthday.

B (19:59)

Thank you.

A (20:02)

I was curious like. So we usually do a game called Fuck, Marry, kill. But I feel bad to use bad language in front of you, so I'm going to make it more pg.

B (20:11)

I often get in trouble for swearing. I'm trying to cut back, so. But we can use an unswear word as a replacement.

A (20:20)

You can keep, you can consult and you can kill one of these three methods of communication, a poll, phone calls, social media. As in for you getting a sense of what people think.

B (20:32)

Oh, I mean they're all useful. I find polls are the least useful. And actually I think that's part of the problem with politics right now is that like we're kind of in this weird generational change right now between like how politics was done for the last 20 years and like, I don't know if people know this. It costs like 30 grand to run a public poll in a district and it takes several weeks and it's useful, especially in a campaign. But it is not going to give you your finger on the pulse because people may be outraged about one issue one day and then two weeks later they moved on to something else.

A (21:11)

Yeah, especially these days. I don't even remember what happened two weeks ago. I think we were almost in Greenland. I mean.

B (21:16)

Yeah, we are literally so. And I think this is part of the problem is that many politicians are primarily using polls as decision making tools. And they're an important tool. But like in that lineup, I think hearing most directly from the public. I think the challenge with social media is it's self selecting and it's like what platform are the people you're interacting with even in your district or not. But I think if you are adept at kind of decoding that, it's a good, kind of put your finger in the wind to figure out what's going on.

A (21:50)

Okay, so it sounds like you're going to keep the calls, consult social media and can. Or kill the poll.

B (21:56)

I'm not going to kill it, I just will consult it in a less frequent manner.

A (22:02)

Okay. Constrain the poll. I don't know what the right word is, but yes, people can do what they want with euphemisms. What? Actually there's also a thing. What can you call somebody who's not your congressperson? Like if I call a Congress a lawmaker in Texas, they're going to care what I call in New York City. Think they're not going to be like this Yankee?

B (22:18)

Well, I can't Speak for Texans, they probably will say that, but no. So I think it kind of goes back to how I was saying, how I interpret the incoming that comes into my office. And it kind of depends on every member of Congress. You can call anybody you want. This is a democracy. And have your voice heard. I do think that campaigns to call congressional offices are important. And particularly, you know, Republicans made a choice at the beginning of last year to stop having town halls. And so their only feedback they're getting from the public is either through calls and letters. And I think they need to be hearing from the American people. So there's kind of different ways to approach it. You can call a member of Congress and speak your mind. It's going to have the most impact if you know them personally. It's going to have the next most impact if it's your congressperson because you're a voter. And then it's going to have the third most impact if you're just a random American caller calling somebody else. But you could also ask a friend or family member. So if you live in Manhattan and your bestie lives in Staten island, have your bestie call their congressperson. So that's their way to do it.

A (23:28)

I'm curious for two examples. One is where you've changed your mind because of something you've heard from a constituent in one of these situations. And the second is where it's changed the course of an actual outcome. Not in your district, but maybe more broadly.

B (23:46)

Yeah, I mean, I think the most obvious one is the public outcry in Gaza. I think that given the way politics has happened for many decades on the Hill and the massive numbers of people who contacted their members of Congress and said this is unacceptable, you know, you can't support this. I think it changed the course of hundreds of members perspectives on the issue and what actions and votes they were willing to take. So that's the most obvious one to me. But I also think it happens for me daily because I try to be responsive and there's a lot of votes you take where it's like you could argue it either way. And particularly because Republicans control Congress right now. And I don't know if people know this or not, but like, I don't get to put a bill on the floor. I'm a Democrat in the minority and I'm a rank and file member. I'm not in leadership. So Mike Johnson decides what goes to the floor. I don't get to decide what goes to the floor. And they.

A (24:53)

You just vote when it's on the floor.

B (24:54)

Exactly. And these guys are crafty mfers. I'm not going to say the swear word. They love to put gotcha bills on the floor. And these are like Sophie choice bills where it's like, if I vote this way, like, you know, these, for example, they've had all these immigration bills where they name them after somebody who has had this horrible tragedy that has happened and then it wants to cut off all the civil and due process rights of Americans. And it's like, you know, the messaging is terrible to vote against this bill, but I'm not going to vote to take away the due process rights of people. And so the, those are the.

A (25:33)

Yeah, but then the headline is like, you know, know, Congresswoman Stansberry votes against the, I don't know, Martin Luther King bill or something or.

B (25:40)

Exactly.

A (25:41)

You could just do something like that. You can trap somebody.

B (25:44)

Yeah, exactly.

A (25:45)

Do Democrats do that too? Isn't that just politics? When Democrats were in leader, when we're in the majority, do they not do that?

B (25:54)

So I've been serving since 2021 and I came in summer 2021. Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Joe Biden was President. Nancy Pelosi did not trifle with messing around. She had an agenda. She had bills she wanted to pass. She did not put things on the floor that she did not intend to pass and she did not have the votes to pass. So no, they did not waste our time with those kinds of stupid bills.

A (26:24)

Yeah. Do you think that in the last weeks and particularly the last four or five days, that the, the like calling your congressperson has made a difference and has made a difference to lawmakers on the Hill. Are you hearing that from people or do you have a sense of that?

B (26:41)

You know, because I'm not in D.C. and I'm not interacting with my colleagues from other places, I can't say for, for certain. But the fact that we are seeing Republican members of Congress who we know have reached out to the president, they posted public statements. I think it is very clear that the public outcry, whether it's social media, the calls, whatever, I think certainly influenced them. And I'll just say you were asking, you know, does it ever change the course of things? I'll give you one really concrete example where I can point exactly, which was during the big fight over the big ugly bill that passed this summer, there were a lot of things that people lobbied against, particularly the health care cuts to Medicaid and others. But in particular the idea of selling off public lands became A cause not only for folks on the left, but folks on the right because people are sportsmen and they love the outdoors and they think our public lands are important. And so there was a broad coalition and movement online and calling members on both sides of the aisle. And ultimately there were five Republicans in the House who said, I won't vote for this. And I spoke to one of them afterwards and I said, thank you, you for, for using your voice because they didn't even have to vote on it. They just made public statements. And one of them said, well, I had to because the calls wouldn't stop. So if you wonder if your calls matter, they absolutely matter.

A (28:11)

So we'll take a quick break and when we're back, I want to talk about what impact Congress has these days. Like if you're calling Congress and it matters, does Congress still matter? Especially right now? We'll take a quick break and we'll be right back.

B (28:26)

Guys.

A (28:26)

Today's sponsor, Dumb Question is from me. I'm going to take the minute to tell you a little bit about smart girl dumb questions and to ask you for your help in continuing to make independent, fact based and curious journalism. No, I'm not going to ask you for money. Here's what I need. I would love you to tell 10 of your friends about the show or 100, I don't know, blast that reunion group that you muted and definitely tell your mom and tell your mom to tell her friends too, even if you don't like the show and you're just like, hate watching it or listening to it, tell 10 of your friends to hate watch it too. Numbers are numbers, people. So this is a good time to shift gears because yeah, the meta question is like I'm writing to an entity that and that entity should matter. But we're in a time where the president elides, bypasses, ignores, shuns, whatever word you want to use. Congress on several situations, some of which have precedent with prior administrations from both parties and some of which, like the tariffs are, you know, being seriously considered for their constitutionality in the Supreme Court as we speak. So, you know, I think that there's a question though, right now is like, is Congress defunct?

B (29:35)

You know, I think that like, you know, you called it a meta question. I'm going to make it even more meta, which is does democracy matter anymore? And if the answer to that question is yes, then Congress absolutely matters because the foundation of democracy is checks and balances. And the check and balance as it's designed in our Constitution is three branches of government that are co equal. And the responsibility of Congress is the budget, oversight and writing the laws. The executive branch, actually by design. Interesting fun fact. When the founding fathers actually created our modern republic, they didn't even create an executive branch. They were so freaked out by what King George had done that they just created Congress was the first version of it, because they believed that democracy had to be like, with the people. And then eventually they were having problems with, like, debt and banking and making up their minds. So they created the executive branch, but they made sure that it was small and that it was constrained in its powers. And then the courts, of course, were created to provide that legal check. Now, I think that part of what Trump's entire movie, his project 2025 Allies, these people that are pushing the boundaries, are trying to do, is that they are trying to take executive power and push it to whatever legal limits they can get away with. But in reality, the courts, especially the lower courts, the lower federal courts, by and large, are ruling against them. And even though it may not look like it because of their messaging, they are complying with the lower courts. They're appealing. But, like, if a court is saying, okay, there's an injunction, you can't do that, they do comply with those injunctions.

A (31:23)

Yeah, they. They hold.

B (31:24)

Yeah.

A (31:25)

And stay.

B (31:26)

And these budget bills, you know, Trump sent us his president's budget last year saying, I'm gonna eliminate most of the EPA while the budget that we passed in the House, and that hopefully it gets through next week. I mean, it. It funds most of the same programs largely at the same level. So Congress is. Is still exercising its authority, but here's why it matters. I believe that many of the crimes that this administration is committing right now, and I say this as a member of the Oversight Committee, for those crimes that do not have statute of limitations, they will be held accountable when the Department of Justice is doing its job again. And, you know, we may not have the votes at this moment to impeach people like Christy. No. But she's committed crimes that she will be prosecuted for even after she leaves this job. So it may appear that it doesn't matter right now, but I do believe our country's been through some rough and dark times, and I think we're going to come out of this and you better believe, like, we're going to hold all these people accountable.

A (32:35)

I mean, it seems like there's this thing that's happens in Congress where the legislative branch has the lowest indicator of trust across all of government. I think it's around 30% in the last reading of this, or in 2023, I imagine might be lower. Now, what is the way out of that?

B (33:01)

Well, my background, we were talking. My background's in water resources, but I have a graduate degree in sociology. So I think about this. Sociologically, Americans are. We are deeply individualistic and rebellious people. It's like in our blood, it's in our culture. It's who we are. And so I think we are just by our nature and culturally, deeply suspicious of the man, the government, whoever the government is. We don't like politics, we don't like politicians overwhelmingly. It's just part of the culture. But yet we're like super hyper political environment. And so even when people say, I hate politics, you're sending your friend Cliffs on of like people talking about politics. And so when you ask someone in a poll, do you like Congress? I'm going to say, I don't like Congress. You know, if somebody polled me, asked me that, no, I don't trust those guys. But you asked me, do I believe that democracy is important? I'm going to say yes. So I think a lot of it is like, like, it's also reflective of just like the culture. But I do think that what people are deeply troubled by. I'll just use that word because I can't think of anything better at the moment, is just the erosion of trust in institutions. If people were already culturally, you know, sort of predisposed to think the government can't be trusted, now you've got people breaking the law in the White House, you've got the courts ruling against our basic rights, and then you got a bunch of slimy politicians in Congress that aren't standing up for basic dignity and saying stupid things on the air. And so I think that our political environment has created a lot of mistrust in our institutions and politicians. And my antidote is why I'm sitting here. When I moved home to New Mexico, I worked in D.C. for several years. I worked in the Obama administration and in the Senate doing water and science and tribal issues. I got asked to run for office for the state legislature. And that year was the 2018 cycle. And I asked Emily's List for support. They help women run for office. And they told me at that time, the largest number of women who had ever asked for their help to run for office was 900 women in the 2016 cycle. In 2018, 42,000 women ran for office. 42,000. And every single cycle since then, it has grown exponentially. If you look at what Congress looked like in 2017 versus what Congress looks like now, it has completely transformed. We have completely changed the body politic. We're not in power right now, but I can tell you, like here in New Mexico, where all that transformational change happened over the last several cycles, we passed universal childcare. We passed voting rights protection. We've passed universal college. We passed, you know, food and healthcare protections. And so I think people feel very hopeless and helpless right now. But we have already transformed the political fabric. And when we come back into our power and our ability, it's not like we're just gonna go back to where we were. There's a whole different group of people there with different values who want to transform this country for the good of this country. And so you asked me, how do we get out of it? We're not going to get out of it by polling and asking what they think of politicians. Like politicians. Well, we got to.

A (36:39)

Yeah.

B (36:40)

Who the politicians are and what they do with it.

A (36:43)

I also think there's like, a bit of what you see in any kind of trust survey where it's like, I don't like. I don't like we get as journalists. It's like, I hate the media, but I like my local journalist.

B (36:52)

I hate.

A (36:53)

I don't trust science, but my doctor is great. Like, you know, and I think people feel that way about their personal congressperson often. I think part of the problem with the challenge of the institution right now is that Congress was designed constitutionally to be separate and equal. And right now, it doesn't feel equal, in part because of the executive expansion that we've been seeing through the courts and through the executive branch seizing it in recent years, and in part because it doesn't feel separate. And I say that it doesn't feel separate right now. You don't get a lot of people voting against their president. And by the way, you didn't get that also in the Biden administration. I don't know your voting record and alignment with the president's at that time, but a lot of Democrats like you get a very close. I had a friend who was a lawmaker and voted with the President 98% of the time, and that was a low number relative to many other lawmakers. So you get a sense or they vote with the party or what the president's agenda is all of the time. And I feel like that is actually the crux of it. It would be interesting to see separation of Congress. I don't know. It's my.

B (38:06)

I mean, I think that what is different about this moment is that Donald Trump's violating the Constitution. And like, that shouldn't be partisan. That's not about voting with the president. He's invading foreign countries, violating the Constitution today. I was just listening to the news before I got on this. You know, they just killed another two individuals on a boat through another illegal strike in the Caribbean. They're violating the law daily. Daily. Like, we've never seen a president like this before. And I think why people are deeply distrustful is that Congress is not only enabling it, but they're not stopping it. And so I think they're angry at both sides of the aisle over that. And I think that. But people are wondering, how is it that I can't break the law as an everyday citizen, but the president can go break the law every day, and how did we not have a contingency plan to stop this? And, you know, the only tool we have is impeachment, but if you don't have the votes, then you can't do it. And so I think people are angry, they're scared, they're frustrated, and they're mad at Congress because they don't see us stopping.

A (39:22)

Of course, Secretary Rubio and the President would say that this is. Or they have said that the Venezuela action is within the bounds of what the executive can do without. They have to notify Congress, but not seek their approval because they say it's short of, you know, an act of war. But I. I do think that the level of. Sorry, go ahead.

B (39:40)

Can I interject there?

A (39:42)

Yeah.

B (39:42)

No. They're committing more crimes. And I. The reason I can tell you that is because I've sat in all the classified briefings and read the legal arguments from the White House and doj, and their arguments are they're actually arguing that drugs are a weapon of mass destruction.

A (40:00)

Yes.

B (40:01)

They're claiming it's fentanyl, which. It is not fentanyl.

A (40:04)

It is not fentanyl.

B (40:05)

Yes. Yeah. It's just. I'm going to use the swear word. It's bullshit. What is astonishing to me is that I will see my colleagues, especially in oversight, which is very much a political arm of the White House, on occasion is like, they will lie. The White House, or, you know, for example, these shootings in Minnesota. And then my colleagues will come in and they don't even take a beat. They are happy to just lie to the American people. It doesn't seem to affect them to even, like, pause before repeating the lie. And I. I do. I think that that's really disturbing.

A (40:43)

Is that does that go. Is that part of the. The fact that Congress has become. Everything is like a spectacle right now. We were talking about social media. It's like everybody is always on performing on their version of like, Real Housewives, Capitol Hill. It seems like everyone's always performing. I never thought I'd live in a day of like viral C Span or, you know, people turning to Capitol Hill for late night content. But we live in that moment now, and everything is clipped and cut up and disseminated, and therefore it changes people's behaviors. And then you all, like, are, you know, hanging out at Capitol Hill and going to the same gym. And I wonder how, you know, are people play acting? Do they just let their guards down when you're all like, working out in Lululemon? What? Or aloe, whatever is your poison of choice? I don't know.

B (41:33)

Yes and no. I mean, there are some members who, their commitment to their onstage Persona is consistent with their offstage Persona. So it kind of is. It depends on the person. And I will say this, I think it's worth noting that like 535 members of Congress, probably the average person could name 10 or 20. And that's because there's only a handful of individuals on either side of the aisle that really have these really high profile social media presence and are on the news all the time. But the rest of the folks in there are kind of everyday people. And. And you would be surprised by what Congress actually looks like if you knew every individual who's serving. But yeah, I see it all the time. One of the things that I find interesting, we have a bipartisan women's lounge. And it's such a metaphor for me in Congress because we didn't even have a significant threshold of women serving in congress until the 90s. And so there wasn't even a bathroom, a women's bathroom, next to the House. Yes, that's the 90s. And the women of the House petitioned to get a lounge so that they would have a private space to spend. And so there's now a bipartisan women's lounge right off of Statuary Hall. And I love that lounge because it is a third space inside the Capitol where the cameras are off, there's no staff in there. And I have real relationships with women on the opposite side of the aisle because we sit and eat lunch, we've had interesting conversations, and their private Persona is completely normal. And then when the cameras go on, you're like, oh, okay, we're back to that. So it is absolutely.

A (43:21)

This is like the Wing. You probably don't know if the wing was like this, like, notorious women's club that happened in Manhattan. Manhattan. And then it led to a men's movement that kind of filed a lawsuit against the. It was a whole thing. Audrey Gellman was involved. But it's like a women's wing. And I.

B (43:35)

And I.

A (43:35)

It's so funny to say that the people's Personas will just switch in and out. You famously served on House Oversight and Accountability with Marjorie Taylor Greene. Did you guys? Do you miss. Do you miss Marjorie Taylor Greene?

B (43:49)

You know what? So we're actually preparing for a reboot, a new season of the DOGE subcommittee, as you were saying. And Timberchat of Tennessee is going to be our new ranking member. And he and I just met a couple of days ago, and I'm cautiously skeptical but excited. He wants to try to reboot in a bipartisan fashion. But, you know, MTG and I always had a very professional relationship from the first time she took the gavel till I was made ranking member. We met in her office. We had conversations that were very collegial and civil. And then, yeah, the cameras would go on and, you know, the kind of like partisan warfare would erupt in the room and then to your point, things would get clipped. And actually there was a viral moment where she was gaveling me that was super, super viral. And it's funny because she did gavel me really hard and it did really mess up my eardrum that day. But it was like, you know, three minutes out of a really boring three hour hearing. And if you watch the rest of the hearing, you would have been like, o. That was dumb. But that moment went like, super. I'm the chair of this committee. That's not how I'm the chair procedure. You're not recognized. You're not recognized either. You can't just speak anytime you want. I'm the chair of this committee. People often think, like, she and I were like, at loggerheads, and I was just like, no, she was like, smashing the gavel in my ear and I was irritated, you know.

A (45:18)

Yeah, she was showing like an image of someone flicking off the. The committee before they were supposed to come testify or something. And you showed the full, full image, which showed the guy throwing like a backwards peace sign or whatever.

B (45:31)

You know, I think that was. And that's a funny clip. Again, speaking to the power of clipping. That was a second thing that happened.

A (45:40)

Oh, that wasn't the same one you're referring to.

B (45:41)

No. But you know, what's Funny about that is that there's actually a picture, I think, a politico photographer in the hearing room. And you would be surprised having seen that clip, because in the hearing room, she had a giant poster, and I was holding up eight and a half by 11 of the actual picture, saying that this is game day. One moment. A point of order.

A (46:03)

You're not, you're not.

B (46:04)

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. The. The document that you have up behind you is a misrepresentation of the actual post. It appears that you're trying to misrepresent. Present a witness here. Point of order. Actual picture. Ms. Stansbury, you're not recognized.

A (46:21)

Ms. Stansbury, YOU'RE NOT RECOGNIZED. Ms. Stansbury, did you feel you were.

B (46:26)

In a safe environment. And in the this huge hearing room? It didn't look funny. It just looked like I was holding up a piece of paper, but the way the cameraman in the room zoomed in on it, and then my hand kind of went into the frame, and then Jimmy Kimmel clipped it, and he kind of added his commentary. And when I saw it, I literally fell out of my seat. It was so hilarious. And I was like, that's so funny, because it's just this moment that got caught in a particular kind of way.

A (46:57)

You're like the dude with sign of Congress. You know, dude with sign, social media. You know who he is, right?

B (47:03)

Somebody asked me in an interview. They were like, how do you destroy somebody with a normal piece of office paper?

A (47:09)

I know that's my thing. You got to move. Of the 8 and a half by 11. I feel like that's really, like, the country, you know, things are not normal. You got 8 and a half, 11. Next thing we know, you're going to be like, with an index card. It's going to be quite, quite sad. You didn't tell me if you miss Marjorie Taylor Greene. I think you do.

B (47:27)

You know, she's an interesting person. I don't know. I'll answer it. As a sociological thing, I found her evolution really interesting, and I, I, I appreciated that in her final months, she used her platform to expose Donald Trump for who he is and to stand with the Epstein survivors, and that in her new incarnation, she's continuing to hold them accountable. I hate her politics. I don't like the particular issues and especially cultural issues she stands for. And I think that her rhetoric and actions caused a lot of harm to many of our communities, particularly in the LGBTQ community. So I, you know, it. She's a complicated human. Yeah.

A (48:19)

Who's your favorite workout buddy in the Congressional Gym?

B (48:23)

Oh, my gosh. Well, I don't work out at the gym personally, but I do live in a building that a lot of members live in, and I'm trying to think. I see people there.

A (48:33)

You know what?

B (48:34)

I have a lot of different friends. I would say our main activity is probably drinking, more as a coaching strategy than working out.

A (48:41)

But who do you guys drunk text or drunk drunk dial? You can't call. I guess you could call your own lawmaker, but that would just be calling yourself, you know, yourself.

B (48:50)

I call my. I called both or I texted both of my senators to tell them to not vote for Homeland Security funding. So I can do it. All of you can do it, and.

A (49:01)

I can definitely do it.

B (49:03)

Senators staff, yesterday I was like, I lobbied him personally, and they're like, oh, we know. He told us.

A (49:08)

Oh, they know, they know. Okay, perfect. We love it. By the way, if the government shutdown goes, is anyone going to be answering the phones at your local lawmaker?

B (49:17)

So because of the appropriations bills pertain to specific agencies, and we passed some. If any agency shuts down, it'll be Homeland Security. So, yes, there will be.

A (49:31)

Okay. All right. Unless you want to call Kristi, in which case can't get through.

B (49:35)

I doubt you could.

A (49:36)

Now, can we do just very quickly, before you run, a very quick lightning round of a few questions of things that you have insight into that we don't. But you were. I misspoke earlier. You were on the Doge subcommittee, where Marjorie Taylor Greene was the chairwoman at the time. You're still on the Doge Subcommittee. DOGE survives the actual Doge initiative or whatever. What is the latest on Doge? Have we doaged yet? What's going on?

B (50:05)

Yeah, so like I said, I just met with Tim Burchett, who is. A lot of people know him for his comedic appearances on tv, and he's always wearing his Carhartt jacket. Tim is an interesting person. He is very friendly with people on both sides of the aisle. He himself, by his own admission, is very far right ideologically. But he contacted me and said, I'm going to be the new chairman, and really in the majority, you control the committee. So he does not have to be by bipartisan. He did not have to contact me and say, you know, let's do this collaboratively. But he did. And so I met with him and the staff last week, and we agreed that we would do some. We would attempt a grand experiment of normal bipartisan oversight hearings on efficiency in the coming Months now. Will that continue? Will members on the committee be interested in that? We don't know yet, but we're going to attempt to restore some normalcy and see what happens. It's an experiment. Okay.

A (51:17)

There is some reporting last week that the. I think the Social Security Administration said it discovered that DOGE employees at the agency were secretly and improperly sharing sensitive personal data with a potent. In a potential violation of the Hatch act with. So this is according to a whistleblower. This is data from potentially hundreds of millions of Americans to an insecure server, I believe. Is there any further information on that? Because you hear a lot of theories about what happened to DOGE data. Do we know anything more? Will we know anything more? When will we know anything more?

B (51:57)

Yeah, I mean. Well, specifically about Social Security. You know, immediately when we found out that they had infiltrated the Social Security system, there was lawsuits, and it was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court could have chosen to say, hey, this is a violation of privacy laws. But instead they said, we'll wait till the lower courts decide this, but for now, you can continue to share this data. So the Supreme Court is very much in dereliction of duty right there. And so we know from this whistleblower of one instance in which data was shared with a private political entity, but who the hell knows what they were doing with that data for months? And we have plenty of whistleblower and other evidence reporting that not just Social Security data, but treasury data, other private data, was not only leaked, but it was downloaded to private servers. Is it being sold on the open market? We have no idea. But again, this kind of goes back to what I was saying earlier. Normally, these are federal crimes that would be prosecuted by doj, but because DOJ is not doing its job, they're not prosecuting these crimes. I believe that in a future administration, all of these individuals, whether it's Elon Musk, it's individuals who illegally infiltrated these data sets and illegally shared data sets. They'll. They'll be criminally prosecuted.

A (53:26)

And this was from a DOGE file. Sorry, Doge. This was from a DOJ filing, the Department of Justice filing. There's too many do somethings here going on. Okay, very quickly, you're one of nine Democrats who broke with the. With the party to penalize the Clintons for not appearing before Congress. And the Epstein investigation, what was your thinking there?

B (53:48)

In this moment, when we see a completely lawless administration not complying with the Constitution, the law, and Congress's separate but co Equal powers. It is deeply concerning to me that we continue to exercise congressional authority to its fullest extent. And in the specific case of what happened with this subpoena, we subpoenaed a number of individuals on a bipartisan basis as part of the Epstein investigation. And I want to be clear, if we were. If the Republicans were actually holding people accountable for the Epstein crimes, we would have DOJ in front of the committee and we would be holding the DOJ AG in contempt. But they are weaponizing the committee. They're going after the Clintons. But also, we did subpoena the Clintons, and on the day they were to appear in front of the committee, they didn't show. And so while they were in good faith negotiations, and I believe ultimately, if this goes to a vote on the floor, there will not be grounds to hold them in contempt. To me, it was important in that moment to make a statement about the subpoena power of the committee. I don't care if you're a Democrat, I don't care if you're a Republican. If Congress subpoenas you, you come to the subpoena. And so that's why I voted the way I did.

A (55:17)

Have you gotten a lot of flack for that?

B (55:19)

No, not at all.

A (55:21)

No. Interesting.

B (55:22)

A lot of. A lot of media are interested in it, but not from constituents at all, I think, because the American people understand the moment we're in in terms of democracy and the Constitution. And I think people genuinely across the ideological spectrum want to know what happened in the Epstein case. And so we want to hear from anybody.

A (55:45)

By the way, seven Democratic lawmakers broke with the party in the House and voted to continue the funding for dhs, correct?

B (55:53)

Yeah. You know, I don't know that I would say they broke with the Democratic Party because in this particular instance, everyone voted their own conscience in their own district on all of the budget bills. I voted no on all of them, even the ones that had things in it that I had advocated. Advocated for, because I felt like in this moment, my voice is my responsibility. And so my voice was, I'm not going to vote for any more money for this administration to continue to break the law. But I think it's also just important context. And I'm not defending it. It's just important for people to know that each of us, and this is kind of by design, you know, we represent the people in our districts. And so the individuals who did vote for the funding, all of them are in Trump districts. And so, like I said, I'm not justifying what they did, but I think they're looking at their districts and they made decisions based on that. But I've also seen that in the last 24 hours, a couple of them have made public statements saying they made a mistake.

A (56:57)

So people are getting phone calls from their constituents, I assume, very upset about that.

B (57:01)

Oh, yeah.

A (57:02)

Or just. Just having their conscience. But that's. It's interesting what you said because you just said voting your conscience and voting for your constituency. But do those often actually collide for you?

B (57:14)

For me, no.

A (57:16)

Yeah, but for certain people, I imagine they do. Right. Like, at the end of the day, you're kind of obligated. You don't have a fiduciary responsibility to vote your constituency, but that's why they vote you in. And I don't know, have you seen lawmakers kind of go down the path of voting their conscience and then being voted out? I guess kind of happened to the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump in the first term.

B (57:39)

Yeah, I mean, I think that it's hard to know. And I'm just a regular person. Before I ever took this job, I was. I was a water resources manager. I was just a nerdy water resources manager. And, you know, it's easy when you're.

A (57:56)

Is being a water resources manager more or less fun, Fun and engaging than being a congressperson?

B (58:04)

Well, I got to go out on rivers a lot more. So that was. No, but I mean, this work is deeply meaningful. But what I was going to say is that, you know, it's. It's easy. Or maybe it's not easy because the public is angry and confused right now watching how people are voting. But when you don't really know what you're going to do, and sometimes I don't even know what I'm going to do until I walk down to the floor and the bill is in front of us. Us. And you have to press that button. And so what I can tell you, and the button is the yes, no, or, or not vote, but you're supposed to vote no matter what. And so, I mean, what I can.

A (58:44)

Tell, they should have a button. You know, you guys should have one in Congress just be like, constantly on.

B (58:50)

Or just like, you know, in America's Got Talent where you can just do a buzzer. I would love to just have a buzzer. Like, this legislation sucks. I'm not voting for it.

A (59:00)

But.

B (59:00)

But you have to vote. Right? And so every person is weighing a lot of things when they walk down to the floor and press a button. You're saying, have I heard from my constituents, have I heard from major organizations, whether that's state or local governments or tribes in my district, Is my district more conservative or is it more liberal? How do I personally feel? What, what for people who are people of faith, what is my conscience or, you know, what is my, my moral faith? Tell me about this issue. And you take all of those things into consideration. And for me personally, I was raised by a strong single mother who was always spoke her mind, always spoke her conscience, and she passed away a couple of years ago. But my mother always said to me, do what's right. Do what your conscience and your heart tell you. And so I try to keep a fidelity to that, that. But people are always weighing different considerations. And I guess if it's helpful, you know, when, especially for these individuals that are running in frontline districts, you have to understand, like, the Republican machine is going to run tens of millions of dollars against you. And so for a lot of them, when they're about to press their. But that button, they're thinking, if I vote yes or no on this thing, is then $10 million going to drop on my local TV station saying that, that I voted for some terrible thing that led to the death of people or something. So it's not as simple as people saying, like, this is what I believe versus this is what my district wants. Sometimes people are thinking about the consequences politically and what that will mean for their overall service. But for me, I feel fortunate that I can vote my conscience and that by and large, my district supports me in that.

A (60:51)

Yeah, there's been this leveling of an idea that part of what has made this, these interactions between cities and Border Patrol ICE agents such a tinderbox has been the rhetoric around these individuals that these men are scared as they're going into the cities and trying to do the job that they've been assigned to do. Do you believe that at all? I want to be very clear that I don't think that's an excuse for the kind of violence that we have seen in Minnesota recently. And. But do you believe that there's, like a cycle of fear that's happening here?

B (61:27)

I think that what is going on is that Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem and this cast of characters who are involved in militarizing and deploying both our domestic law enforcement and our National Guard and troops into American cities have explicitly recruited people under this paradigm that we're going to attack American cities, which is totally outside the norm for the United States and illegal. And so you have a huge influx of people who've joined ICE and CBP since then, also because of these signing bonuses, who. Who are excited about that mission. They. They're choosing to do that. Right. And so are. And then you add the fuel to that fire, which is you have a president and cabinet secretaries that are inciting violence. You have the Vice President going on national meeting, media and saying, you just shot a woman who's a mother for nothing, and you have total immunity. He said that on national tv. And to me, that was a dog whistle. That was the vice President saying, if you go out there acting for the president or this administration and you kill an American, we're going to have your back. And so that is what is inciting violence. And then there, you know, he subsequently.

A (62:56)

Tried to walk back that claim. He'd said that the agent was protected by absolute immunity. And then tried to say, yeah, tried to walk it back, I believe, but.

B (63:04)

But he said it multiple times and they were all over the media. I mean, I heard Stephen Miller in histrionics for days doing his crazy thing. So these guys are inciting violence. And I also think that it is important to recognize that. I do think in Minneapolis, you know, the president himself was tweeting about using the Insurrection Act. I think they were intentionally inciting violence to give it a go to see what would happen and. And see how it would be deployed.

A (63:33)

Do you have any evidence from.

B (63:35)

For that, or. That's your president's own tweets.

A (63:38)

He tweeted. I mean, that's what you're referencing. There's nothing beyond that you're seeing in terms of a plan.

B (63:44)

They're pepper spraying people in their faces and kicking them on the ground and shooting people and mass arresting members of the clergy.

A (63:52)

You know, when we look at what happened in Minnesota in the last week or weeks, and we think back to the fact that, well, in summer of last year, this was already in la. We were seeing, you know, what was coming out of there. We saw what happened in D.C. we saw Chicago. I mean, I don't want to be like a person who is a grieving person asking was there something that we could have done or is there something that, like, you know, as. As those moments were happening, was it so localized? Were you not hearing from constituents then about their concerns about border enforcement? I'm just curious, like, how we got here and whether there was anything that we could have done sooner.

B (64:36)

I mean, we could have elected Kamala Harris as president. That's the Most important thing we could have done. I mean, honestly, all the signs were there. We knew that this president, he was announcing it in his mass rallies, he was putting it on his social media. He told us that this is what he planned to do and now he's executing it. And you know, I think that, that local government, state governments, civil society are doing their best to hold it back by using the courts and organizing in our communities. But there was a president elected that has little regard for the Constitution or the American people. And I think that it is escalating in front of our very eyes. And I fear that it'll get worse in the coming months and year. And I think we have to continue to use the tools that we have. Personally, I was doing town halls. I did over 50 town halls. I heard from tens of thousands of New Mexicans. I feel like I have done everything that I know to do and I'm always inviting people to share ideas with me because we got to think outside the box. Because clearly the checks and balances that are in the System were written 250 years ago and are not made for this moment. And so, you know, whatever we have to do to protect our people, I'm all in. But I, I think that the, the only threshold thing that would have set us on a different course was to have elected a different president.

A (66:13)

So now one of the things that people can do is to call and call their congressperson. This is so a thing. Now. I've advertised that you should do it. I tried it once myself. I've called somebody else's. I've even crossed the border and called somebody else's congressperson. Thank you so much, Representative Stansbury, for speaking to me. The last question we ask everyone before they leave is what to the point of don't know? What is something that you don't know that you would like the answer to a fun dumb question that we could go help you find out.

B (66:41)

Well, if I might just add one more thing to the last point, please, a more serious thing, and then I'll move to the fun question. Yeah, there's more than just calling your member of Congress. And this really goes to what are the real things we can do right now? We can't wait, obviously till the next election to take action. And that's why, you know, actually physically being in the streets and exercising our voices and organizing and protecting our communities is important and putting pressure on members of Congress is important and using the courts to stop them is important. But, but we have to flip the House and one of the most impactful things anyone can do right now is to help a member of Congress who's either in a difficult district get reelected or get your favorite Democrat elected to a Republican district. So I highly, highly encourage everyone to get involved, run for office, support your state legislature. Your state legislature is the front line for helping to protect against these attacks on our Constitution, civil liberties. So make sure that you're getting involved in the political process. It does matter. In terms of fun questions, we're trying to think of something fun. You know, it's my birthday on Saturday, and I was just talking to a reporter who. Right before I got on with you, who. His birthday was also this week. And it got me to thinking. We were talking about Aquariuses. And if you are a person who's into astrology, and there's a lot of really amazing Aquariuses serving in Congress. So I think my question is, what is it about astrology that impacts people's personality, their life course, what calls people to certain professions? So, yeah, I think that's the question. I guess I could.

A (68:33)

You're a believer? You're an astrology believer?

B (68:36)

Yeah, I mean, I am, too. It's the whole mix. Right. What is your sign?

A (68:41)

I'm a Scorpio.

B (68:42)

Oh, okay. Fiery.

A (68:43)

I'm a Scorpio. Yeah. And I believe in it, too. I'm like. I feel like there's a weird intersection of the Venn diagram of people who hold graduate degrees and believe that the world is divided into 12 categories of people based on when they were born. And I'm, like, totally part of that, I have to admit.

B (69:02)

But, I mean, whether it's. Whether it's nature in the cosmos or it's nurture, I mean, like, every Aquarius I know is, like, deeply concerned about, like, the state of humanity and public service and creative. I'm not just trying to pump myself up.

A (69:20)

But I was gonna say. Yeah, I think every. Neil DeGrasse Tyson said every astrology book is, like, written to just make everybody feel they're the best of the 12. But I believe that I actually think Aquarius a pretty good sign. Maybe you should do an Aquarius lounge. And that could be the path to bipartisanship. It's like if we start organizing caucus around astrological signs.

B (69:46)

Interesting. I thought more like a salon. I was thinking how matchmakers find compatible. Yeah, could be. I don't know. I mean, like, for some reason, a lot of my friends are Aries, and I can't explain why, but maybe it's. I'm sure if you're out there and, you know, astrology. Please tell me why. I would get a lot of Aries. But, yeah, maybe that's a way to find people to do bipartisan lawmaking with.

A (70:11)

Maybe, you know, hey, it seems like we're trying everything these days, so might as well try that. Thank you so much, Congresswoman Stansbury. Thank you for being with me. And you said to call you Melanie. I feel uncomfortable calling you Melanie. But you got to follow. You got to follow Melanie on social media because there's a lot of great content. And in addition, you know, I think obviously you are a Democrat. You speak a lot about Democrat issues. You also speak a lot about institutional issues and about how Congress works, which I find very helpful to understand. So thank you for the transparency that you want to that.

B (70:42)

Absolutely.

A (70:46)

All right. Astrology. That's the fix to all of them. Of our congressional woes. I think probably not. You know, on the show, I never want to tell people how to vote, but I think when it comes to what you care about, whatever it is that you care about, it is important to call your lawmakers. And certainly I care about this issue of the violence and acting with impunity that we have seen by ICE agents in cities in the United States and most particularly in Minneapolis. And I will be calling my lawmakers on that issue in particular. But what I found really fascinating about that conversation is I entered just kind of dumb about what does that even look like, what happens on the other side? And it was just really interesting to hear about the mechanics of how that all works and what an impact and dent it could make on a person and a position. I guess sometimes we forget, like, we live in this democracy and we actually have a way to change the course of things. It doesn't feel like that a lot, but I guess next time I pick up the phone and drunk text my lawmaker or drunk email them, I will always remember that. Like, that is something that we have the possibility to do right now in the United States of America. And I think it's, for me at least, I'm very much moved to be doing that these days in these times as it relates to what we've seen in. In Minneapolis. And, you know, I. I don't want to be lulled, and I want to be hopeful that there's some better thing that comes out of it, because this feels like a watershed moment where we have. Have drawn a line on what we will and will not allow to happen in this country. That's what it feels like to me. But I'm curious what it feels like to you, so feel free to call. After you're done calling your lawmaker, you can call me at 1-855-MYDUMBQ. You can drop us a note at naimaraza101, mail.com or on social media at Smart Girl Dumb Questions. Today's episode was produced with Dusta Wonderad, Dana Belew and Melissa Lee Gibson and mixed by Johnny Simon. I'm your host, Na Ma Raza, and we'll see you next week on Smart Girl Dumb Questions. Sam.