← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
'INCREDIBLY WEAK': Trump goes off the deep end over bad jobs numbers; Fox panel stunned
00:41:00
Donald Trump's reckless manhandling of the levers of the U.S. economy, from tariff chaos to cruel anti-immigrant policy is reflected in poor numbers in the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unsurprisingly, though no less shockingly, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, following a pattern of attacking data whenever it doesn't serve his preferred narrative.
Loading summary
Transcript58 lines
- [00:01]
McCormick Representative
McCormick knows unbeatable flavor starts with the right spices. It's why we created Flavour Sealed. So anytime you peel back the seal of McCormick herbs and spices, you can be confident they will pack the same amount of flavor as the day they were packed. The kind of flavor that brings out the best of your favorite recipes and keeps everyone coming back for seconds or maybe even thirds. McCormick flavor sealed for unbeatable flavor.
- [00:29]
Political Analyst
Moms.
- [00:29]
McCormick Representative
Ready to make Back to School Healthy and stress free. Thrive Market's got you. They restrict over 1,000 sketchy ingredients so you can shop worry free. Grab high protein dinners and low sugar lunchbox faves. From lesser evil popcorn to partake cookie snack packs. They have the best kid approved swaps. And don't forget about yourself. Grab a Cures hydrogel eye mask for the perfect end of day reset. Their big back to school sale makes it the perfect time to stock up now. Go to thrivemarket.com podcast for 30 off your first order and a free $60 gift.
- [01:00]
Political Analyst
It is nearly impossible to get more than 80 votes on something in the Senate these days. I mean, maybe if you're renaming a post office, but it, I mean rarely happens. It occasionally happens though. Nominations confirmed. The ayes are 86, the nays are 8. The nomination is confirmed. Okay, that was the vote just last year on the nomination of Erica McIntarfer to be the Commissioner of Labor Statistics and she was nominated by then Biden. But she was seen as such a non controversial choice for a completely apolitical kind of nerdy job that she got 86 votes for her confirmation and she had the support of many loyal Trump fans like say, Tommy Tuberville, the current Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, some guy named J.D. vance. Wonder what he's up to these days. What's he up to? You know, lots of things. Along with 35 other Republicans, they all voted to confirm Erica McIntarver to be the Commissioner of Labor Statistics. Now, most people were probably not following that vote at the time. I don't think we were taking it live or anything. Most people probably do not know what the Commissioner of Labor Statistics does. Although if you're watching right now, you very well may by this time today. But it's actually an important and yes, very, very wonky job overseeing the nation's economic data. Which is why experienced and qualified Data scientist Erica McIntarfer held that job right up until today when Donald Trump fired her in a post on his social media site. Here's what he said. Quote, I was just informed that our country's Jobs numbers are being produced by a Biden appointee, Dr. Erica McIntarfer. At least he said she was a doctor. I suppose the Commissioner of Labor Statistics who faked the job numbers before the election to try and boost Kamala's chances of victory. I have directed my team to fire this Biden political appointee immediately. All caps. Trump then repeated that bogus claim in an interview with Newsmax just moments ago.
- [03:04]
Steve Moore
I don't believe those numbers. I think because we're doing so well and we fired her. We had. This is not something from just now. This was before the election where she got meaning Kamala. We thought it was Biden, but turned out being Kamala, where they got very, very strong numbers. I said, what's this all about? And they adjusted them and then later on they adjust them, I guess downward. But we don't want that. We want straight numbers.
- [03:35]
Political Analyst
Straight numbers. Not sure exactly what that means. I mean, now, to be clear, no Commissioner of Labor Statistics in any administration has ever been credibly accused of faking job numbers for political purposes. This is not what is in the soul of any of these people. Trump's accusation doesn't really warrant a counter argument. But just in case you need something to tell your red pilled cousin at Thanksgiving this year, I'm going to prepare you. I will note that the jobs report that came out right before the election was actually the worst jobs report of Joe Biden's final year in office. It found that only 12,000 jobs were added in the month of October, and the numbers were later revised up after the election to 43,000 jobs after Kamala Harris lost. Now, by contrast, the jobs report that came out today showed the country added 73,000 jobs, which is not good, but actually better than the numbers Trump says were rigged to make Kamala Harris look good. So that argument makes literally no mathematical sense. But maybe Trump is actually mad that today's jobs report also suggests there are even bigger problems facing our economy. Because in addition to this month's weak jobs growth, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised down the previous two months of job growth to just 14,000 jobs added in June and just 19,000 added in May. And that's a total of 258,000 fewer jobs than were originally reported. That kind of three month streak does suggest that Trump's disastrous economic policies are definitely taking their toll on the economy. And yet, when the day began, it looked like the Trump administration was going to handle this bad news the way it deals with pretty much any bad news. Just lie about it with the help of some right wing media allies helping you out. 73,000 jobs created. Unemployment rate is expected. Jobs a little bit below what Wall.
- [05:26]
Steve Moore
Street expected at 110,000.
- [05:28]
Political Analyst
But I would say mostly in line with expectations. There we go. Good news all around. Good news all around. Good news all around, says the right wing media outlet Newsmax after an objectively bad report. Also the same outlet that Trump dished an interview with. But it wasn't just them. Vice President J.D. vance also tweeted his own praise for the new jobs numbers, trying to make it seem like this was good news for American workers, which is pretty awkward given that his boss now says the report is some kind of hoax witch hunt designed to make him look bad. Now, maybe Trump flew off the handle because he didn't catch the spin that Newsmax and the vice president were putting on this bad jobs report. That's possible. Maybe he was watching Fox News where even the president's most loyal media allies could not bring themselves to pretend this was good news. The Nasdaq down about 200, going 73,000 jobs. 73,000 jobs created in the month of July, number just coming out.
- [06:25]
Neera Tanden
And that's total.
- [06:26]
Gene Sperling
Stephanie, how do you read things?
- [06:29]
Steve Moore
Well, I'm just stunned at another number in this report and that is the downward revision to the June figure from.
- [06:36]
Political Analyst
147,000 to just 14,000.
- [06:40]
Steve Moore
So looking over the last three months, we've got 80, 73,000 in July, 14,000 in June, and 19,000 in May. Those are incredibly weak headline numbers. And that's the total, not just private jobs.
- [06:54]
Political Analyst
Steve Moore, your reaction?
- [06:57]
Steve Moore
Look, I think this is all a result.
- [06:59]
Congressman Robert Garcia
This disappointing number is a result of all the turmoil over tariffs and trade wars.
- [07:06]
Political Analyst
This disappointing number is a result of all the turmoil over tariffs and trade wars, says the Fox News contributor who Trump once tried to nominate to the Federal Reserve Board, by the way. Now, it may have been coverage like that which spurred Donald Trump to lash out and fire the labor statistics commissioner. Listen, Trump's claims about the fabrication of jobs numbers are ridiculous, kind of sad. His arguments definitely mathematically make no sense. But the firing of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics has huge longer term problematic impacts. BLS puts out all sorts of data on inflation and productivity and all sorts of stuff. It's critical data used by businesses and economists and researchers and investors to understand the state of the economy. That is why it's so important that these numbers be driven by data and not by the political whims of an insecure wannabe dictator. And the thing is, this extreme move by the president is also part of a larger pattern, because this administration has declared war in data that they don't want the public to see, basically since day one. I mean, in just the last six months since taking office again. And by the way, my colleague Katherine Rampel keeps track of this, and you should follow her. She has all of it on her, all of her feeds. But just the first last six months, he deleted the Justice Department's database that tracks police misconduct. Deleted climate change data, data used by American farmers who had to sue the Trump administration to get some of it back. Deleted a database that tracks the mass abduction of Ukrainian children. Banned the national cancer instit from publishing information on vaccines, fluoride, autism, and even peanut allergies without getting special approval from the administration. Scrubbed all federal websites of anything that even remotely smacks of diversity, which at various points led to the deletion of references to important historical figures like Jackie Robinson and Tuskegee Airmen. He's laid off the team that collects federal data on drug use in America. He's eliminated the federal program that tracks maternal health in America. He stopped requiring power plants and industrial facilities from reporting their greenhouse gas emissions. He's cut the part of the government that tracks U.S. educational achievement. And he's trying to scrap the Department of Education altogether. And honestly, that's really. That's just a sample. I could spend the entire hour just listing the many, many, many ways this administration has worked to destroy Americans access to good data and accurate information. And though it can seem abstract, that data is vital because data is the basis of good policy making. It's how the government makes decisions about where the greatest needs are and where to put resources. It's how businesses make decisions about when to hire people or lay them off. It's how farmers make decisions about when to plant their crops. It's how scientists make decisions about how to stop the spread of deadly disease or fight climate change. All of that data is important. Now Trump has taken the extraordinary step of politicizing some of the most important economic data the government collects, all because he does not like what the data says about how his tariff policies and his mass firing of federal workers and his cruel mass deportations have put a huge drag on the American economy. What does that mean for our country and what can be done about it? Two people understand how important data is to policy making and good governance. Former director of the National Economic Council, Dean Sperling and former senior advisor to President Biden Neera Tanden join me here in just 90 seconds.
- [10:29]
Rob Lowe
Hey everybody, it's Rob Lowe here. If you haven't heard, I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe. And basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe please and listen wherever you get your podcasts.
- [11:04]
Political Analyst
A Lifetime Original Movie Cops think I murdered someone. I want this killer found today. I won't let you down. From the best selling author Terry Blackstock. Something isn't right with this investigation. She's on the run to uncover the truth. Why would they lie? You can still clear your name. I can't walk away from this. Starring Kat Graham. But I'm scared. Help me make the right decision.
- [11:26]
Steve Moore
Don't run.
- [11:27]
Political Analyst
Don't chase me. Terry Blackstock's if I Run premieres tomorrow at eight. Only on Lifetime.
- [11:34]
OnDeck Representative
Cash Flow Crunch On Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $100,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment. Get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend to North Dakota, all loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
- [12:12]
Political Analyst
Joining me now is Gene Sperling, the former director of the National Economic Council under Presidents Clinton and Obama and the former senior advisor for the American rescue plan under President Biden and Neera tanden, the former U.S. domestic Policy Council director, now the president and CEO of the center for American Progress. Dare I say between the two of you, I don't know if any combination of two people has sat in more policy meetings in the United States government before, which just hit me. Jean, let me start with you. You were a person who is used to. You both were. But you were used to relying on this data that came out, that was processed and put together by apolitical individuals who are data scientists. What is the danger when someone like this is forced out?
- [12:55]
Steve Moore
Well, you know, the danger doesn't go just to policymakers like myself or Nira. These numbers are relied on literally by the entire world to determine the strength or direction of the US Economy. It has a tremendous impact on investment decisions, bond decisions and People know that those numbers can change. They know that we have a system where with our growth numbers, with our unemployment numbers, where as we get better information, we revise and update. So they don't know that it's going to be exactly the final word. But what people have known in the United States is that there is integrity and non politicization of our numbers. They know that it's straight. So when you put that at risk, you put a lot of the credibility of the U.S. economic integrity at risk. And when you combine it with higher deficits, you combine it with a president who arbitrarily uses his power to compromise or extort private companies, who lashes out at the Federal Reserve and compromises their independence, and then at the same time suggests that for the first time in our history, people may have to wonder whether the economic numbers put out have been politicized. That starts creating a risk that can affect typical people because if they lose confidence in the United States, if they lose confidence in the independence of our Federal Reserve or the non politicization of our numbers, they can decide we're more risky. They can decide it's going to cost more to lend us. What does that mean? Higher mortgage rates, higher student. Student loans. So, you know, as bad as the other examples that you've mentioned are, and, and they are, when you start doing a baseless attack on these numbers and politicizing it, you hurt confidence in a way that can affect the global economy and zoom right down to higher prices and less opportunity and less investment for American small businesses and American families.
- [15:14]
Political Analyst
I think one of the questions I get a lot, and you probably get this a lot too, is like, what now? And what can be done? Because we can't control, neither of us, nor can Jean control who Trump is gonna pick to replace this poor woman who's now had her name thrown everywhere. I do think, I take Jane's point, but I do think there's this pattern of data being questioned, data being challenged, data not being accessible. Is there anything on the outside that can be done? I mean, Cap can't put together like a whole, but how can people get access to accurate information if they can't trust what's coming out of this government?
- [15:51]
Gene Sperling
Yeah, I mean, I think it's important that we have this data for policymakers, but let's be clear what's happening. Donald Trump has implemented a series of policies. They are incredibly risky. Those policies are tariffs, they're immigration policies. As you said, these are all policies. And he decided to do himself. This is a very unusual Risk pattern. Usually there's something wrong in the market, there's something structural. The actual threat to the US Economy is one man, his name is Donald Trump, and he's implementing policies that economists have said will hurt growth. And that's why he's attacking the Bureau of Labor Statistics, because he essentially is worried about us all, all knowing the facts. So while I very much worry about policymaking, I think we should also be worried that this is a fundamental problem for a democracy. When the government itself is attacking facts, then we cannot make decisions. And let's be honest, what he's trying to do, he's going to put someone in there who is more likely to gild the lily on what the economy is doing. So maybe the numbers will be better because that person who has a job knows that if they don't deliver good news, they too will be fired. That is how the corruption goes. And so fundamentally, I think the real challenge for all of us is that we will not be able to trust these numbers. We will have to rely on private sector data, private sector ADP data, household data. There is other data out there, and I think that that will be more prominent. But fundamentally, it is a big problem for us that we will no longer be able to dress what the government tells us about the economic health of the country. And that is actually his goal. And so I think it's another reason why we have to actually insist not just Democrats stand up to this administration, but Republicans who used to care about facts stand up as well.
- [17:47]
Political Analyst
No question they should. I mean, this is data. Everybody uses people who are not supporters of people we've worked for. Let me ask Eugene, because, and I'm not expecting that the Trump administration is currently listening to what we're all saying about what they should be doing. But you have sat in these rooms, you're seeing what's happening. I mean, Neera mentioned a number of the causes, I mentioned a number of the causes, whether it's immigration or tariffs. You've mentioned them. What could they do? If Trump woke up tomorrow and he said, my God, this data's terrible and people hate this in the country, what would you advise him to do at this point in time to bring things back from the cusp of where it is right now?
- [18:26]
Steve Moore
Well, I think as Nero is suggesting, what you have is just an enormous self inflicted wound. And you know, this is not, this is really not subject to kind of partisan dispute. It is absolutely clear that when he inherited this economy from President Biden, remember the expression a beautiful soft landing, growth was Supposed to be about 2 1/2% and inflation was coming down to around 2%. Now we have, you know, what's called stagflation, meaning inflation is getting higher. And all the reports we get from Walmart, Black and Decker, household names, Procter Gamble, is that prices are going to go up. And at the same time, as we saw with the job numbers and we've seen with growth numbers, growth is going down. So he, the fact that it's hard for the Fed to cut rates is because they're supposed to be worrying about inflation and full employment. And when you have growth go down and inflation go up, they're stuck. That is completely his fault. And so, yes, as we're seeing now, his response is to really attack in many ways, the rule of law, the integrity of our economic institutions. And you know, I understand politicians like to blame other people for their mistakes, but this is playing a blame game that really goes at something Donald Trump should like American exceptionalism. That for over 200 years, starting with Alexander Hamilton, we have been the country that honors its financial word. That's why our dollar is the reserve currency. That's why we are. Our treasury bonds are the same.
- [20:12]
Political Analyst
I think he may have just frozen. So let's go to you, Neera. Just, I mean, quick question before, before we let you guys go back to your weekend. What would you, I mean, you think about policymaking all the time. What do you wish they would do if they would take the advice of how to turn things back around?
- [20:27]
Gene Sperling
I mean, I would stop the tariffs. I would basically reverse a series of my policies. But you know, I think in this moment, when you're asking like what we can all do, I guess I'd say I'd really make a plea to the business community. You need actual accurate data. And I think a lot of people have asked, when will business leaders stand up? Because, you know, essentially we are facing a series of break last moments. Now, their bottom line is, and I really hope that we see more and more of the business community actually try to tell this administration to stop what it's doing. Because when you get to a point where the markets can't rely on data, that hurts their bottom line as well as workers and families, you'd hope that.
- [21:10]
Political Analyst
Would make them finally speak out near a tandem. Thank you so much for being here with me on a Friday evening. I appreciate it. Okay, Coming up, Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice has gotten a get out of jail free card. Not yet. She's not gotten one yet, but she got the next best thing. More on that just ahead.
- [21:30]
Rob Lowe
Hey everybody, it's Rob Lowe here. If you haven't heard, I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe, and basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe, please and listen wherever you get your podcasts.
- [22:05]
OnDeck Representative
Cash flow crunch OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $100,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment. Get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow, depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend to North Dakota, all loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
- [22:36]
Neera Tanden
You just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast? Easy. Just use Indeed. When it comes to hiring, Indeed is all you need. Stop struggling to get your job posts seen on other job sites. Indeed sponsored Jobs help you stand out and hire fast. With Sponsored Jobs, your post jumps to the top of the page for your relevant candidates so you can reach the people you want faster. According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs posted directly on indeed have 45% more applications than non sponsored jobs. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility@ Indeed.com podcast just go to Indeed.com podcast right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need.
- [23:41]
Political Analyst
And if people in that report are still fighting to keep their names private, Sean, they have no legal basis to do so. She was so adamant. That was Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi, of course, just last year before she was Trump's attorney general, saying that people named in government files related to Jeffrey Epstein had no legal basis for keeping their names private. Bondi went on to lay out a very specific and narrow set of exceptions. Take a listen. They have no legal basis to do so unless they're a child, a victim, or a cooperating defendant. Okay, so to make the point very clear, that was Trump's own attorney General just last year saying that not only that files related to Jeffrey Epstein should be released, but that the only names that should be allowed to be redacted from those files should be the names of children, victims and cooperating defendants. Fast forward to today and Bloomberg News is reporting that the FBI redacted President Trump's name in the Epstein files. Now, I should say that NBC News has not independently confirmed that reporting. And the White House, the FBI and the Justice Department all declined to respond or did not respond to Bloomberg's request for comment on that story. But last I checked, Trump was not a child, nor was he a victim or a cooperating defendant in the Epstein case. The FBI reportedly had 1,000 agents pulling all nighters, pouring through more than 100,000 documents related to Epstein. And people familiar with the matter tell Bloomberg that the FBI identified numerous references to Trump in that process and then blacked them out. Now, of course, the appearance of any names in the files does not mean necessarily that the named people did anything wrong. And Trump's name was not the only one blacked out. They also blocked out the names of other high profile individuals as well. But I could have sworn Pam Bondi said there would be no legal basis for doing that. Right. That's what she said a year ago. Now, the other major piece of news we got on this story today was about Jeffrey Epstein's co conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, who was of course convicted of sex trafficking minors. Now, after spending nine hours over two days just last week meeting with Trump's former criminal defense attorney turned Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, where no one knows any details of or who else was there today, Ghislaine Maxwell was moved to a minimum security federal prison camp called Camp Bryan in Texas. Now, if the name of that prison rings a bell, it may be because among its current inmates are celebrity prisoners like Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, who was convicted of defrauding investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars, and Real Housewives of Salt Lake City star Jen Shaw, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud related to a telemarketing scheme that tricked elderly people. Employees of Camp Bryan describe security at the facilities being generally lax. The minimum security facilities does not keep prisoners under strict watch and gives them some freedom within the camp because the inmates there are considered low level security risks. Now, I don't want to downplay, and I'm not in any way trying to downplay the damage and pain that Elizabeth Holmes or Jen Shaw caused their victims, but there is a massive substantive difference between the kinds of white collar crimes they committed and the horrific sex crimes Ghislaine met Maxwell was convicted of. In a statement today, victims and the family members of victims that were preyed upon by Epstein and Maxwell wrote, president Trump has sent a clear message today. Pedophiles deserve preferential treatment and their victims do not matter. Ghislaine Maxwell is a sexual predator who physically assaulted minor children on multiple occasions and she should never be shown any leniency. Yet without any notification to the Maxwell victims, the government overnight has moved Maxwell to a minimum security luxury prison in Texas. This is the justice system failing victims right before our eyes. And while a senior administration official told NBC News tonight that any false assertion Ghislaine Maxwell was given preferential treatment is absurd. That's what they say. That's their statement. According to the Bureau of Prison's own policies, Ghislaine Maxwell was not eligible to be transferred to this prison. A federal prison expert told NBC that the Bureau of Prisons management can waive those rules, but it's extremely rare and he had never heard of it happening before. As one employee of the Bryan, Texas prison camp told NBC today, if someone has a history of sex offense, of violent crime, they are not supposed to be there. So why was Ghislaine Maxwell transferred there and who made it happen? Congressman Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, is demanding answers and he joins me live next. Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, is now in a minimum security prison in Texas. And Democrats in Congress are pushing for answers about how she got there. Congressman Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, wrote to the head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons today and warned, quote, the favorable change to the conditions of Ms. Maxwell's incarceration despite being denied bail on three occasions for posing in extreme risk of flight, raises possibility that the Trump administration and the Bureau of Prisons may be affording Ms. Maxwell preferential treatment in an effort to shape or distort her testimony about Jeffrey Epstein. And joining us now is the author of that letter, Congressman Robert Garcia, ranking maver on the House Oversight Committee and a Democrat from California. Congressman, let me start. You wrote the letter to the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons seeking answers, which I think everybody would like to have. What do you want to know most?
- [29:18]
Congressman Robert Garcia
Well, we're very concerned. I mean, this continues to get more bizarre every single day. I mean, why is Ghislaine Maxwell being sent to essentially much lighter prison? Some have described it as much cushier. She's going to be able to roam more freely when she's actually not eligible for this move. And so this happens just right after, of course, this meeting between Trump's DOJ, or quite frankly, Trump's personal lawyer, Todd Blanche, who has now been, of course, working with Ms. Maxwell and the legal team. And for this to happen right after that, I think raises serious questions. We've seen and heard Trump's comments, of course, in the press. He is not ruling out a pardon. Mike Johnson Republicans continue to somehow lionize and set the stage possibly for a Future pardon for Ms. Maxwell. And so all of this, I think, begs very serious questions. And at the end of the day, we have to get back to something very simple, which is what is Donald Trump hiding? What is this cover up that the White House is now involved with? Why are they treating Ms. Maxwell this way, who, by the way, is a convicted sex predator? This is someone that has lied under oath, that has done horrific things, caused massive trauma and violence to young women and to girls. And so it's all concerning. We have a series of questions for the Bureau of Prisons and we need answers. What is going on in this case?
- [30:38]
Political Analyst
What happens? They haven't exactly been cooperative. I don't want to prejudge, but what happens if they don't reply and don't give you answers to the questions you're justifiably asking? And everybody wants to know?
- [30:50]
Congressman Robert Garcia
Well, the Bureau of Prison should be, of course, a nonpartisan agency and they should be working with both Republicans and Democrats in oversight. And that's been their long tradition. They choose to not engage with us. Now, that is a serious escalation. As far as I'm concerned, Donald Trump is not always going to be the president of the United States. And I think what's also important this moment and why it's so critical that the full Epstein files are released, is that as Ms. Maxwell is in, her attorneys are maneuvering with the DOJ. We need to be able to know what the facts are. What did Ms. Maxwell know? What was she actually involved with? If she's going to actually give any type of deposition or testimony, whether it's to the Supreme Court, as we know she's trying to appeal on right now, or to the committee, which she's going to do sometime after September. Now, according to James Comer, we have to be able to corroborate that information with what's actually in the files. And every day think this Epstein saga gets more disturbing, more bizarre. And all signs point back to Donald Trump. What did he know? What's he covering up? Why is there. Is this all this new information kind of developing and coming out about his time with Epstein at Mar A Lago? So we have a lot of questions, but I'm convinced with all the information we're getting now, that we're going to get to the truth and release it to the public.
- [32:07]
Political Analyst
Let me ask you about. I mean, you came on. We talked about this on our show around the time, maybe the night of the oversight that. Oh, the subcommittee on the Oversight committee voting to subpoena these documents, and James Comer has not yet issued the subpoena. You called for him to do it immediately. Then when do you expect him to sign it? And what. Is there anything that can be done if he decides he doesn't want to anymore?
- [32:32]
Congressman Robert Garcia
So we have been actually working with James Comer's team almost every day since then. We've seen language. We actually expect, if he keeps his word and the committee keeps their word, we expect that subpoena to actually be out the door in the next couple of days. That subpoena is significant. We think that that subpoena for all the documents, we should expect that early next week is our hope that that subpoena will be out. It's obviously pretty extensive. It matches what we actually put forward in a motion. And so that will be a significant step forward. And then once that subpoena is out, then, of course, it's all about getting the documents. What we don't know yet. And we're asking James Kilmer and the committee this question is, has he set an amount of time to actually receive the documents back? We had suggested 30 days. We think that's plenty of time for the DOJ to get the videos and the files and any documents related to this case. And so we're gonna wait and see what James Comer has to say there, that we do expect the subpoena out in the next few days.
- [33:33]
Political Analyst
That would certainly be a significant development. I think everybody watching is probably happy to hear that you've been working closely with team, which is also a big development. Let me ask you just. We only have about a minute left. But you mentioned this. James Comer also said today that he's willing to agree to Gillian Maxwell's request to postpone her deposition for the committee until after the Supreme Court decides whether to take up her appeal, which pushes it to late September. It sounds like you've been working with his team. Are you concerned about that? Or how could. Or what do you think about that?
- [34:06]
Congressman Robert Garcia
Yeah, we are. I mean, Look, I think that's something that we just don't agree with. Look, that there are two other things in that, in that letter that I think the committee we worked together on, we all agreed there should be no immunity for Ms. Maxwell. That's been the case. We all agree that she'd not, she should not get the questions ahead of time. We agreed there where we disagree, is this pushing back the deposition past the Supreme Court appeals date, which will be the end of September, as we know, the end of the day. They're in the majority. They're able to set those rules. So we're pushing back on that. But that's the date that he has set for the deposition. Regardless, it gives us a little bit more time to get all of those documents in, by the way. Also, Jen, as you probably know, there's a lot of, I mean, the victims and their families and the Epstein estate, there's a lot of information right now coming at us to the Oversight Committee. And we're working really hard to get that out and release it to the public.
- [34:55]
Political Analyst
That's, I think everybody is happy to hear that. And I know you are tireless because I've talked to you a lot. So thank you again for, thank you for coming on with me. I really appreciate explaining this to everybody. When we come back, Texas Republicans are slicing and dicing up their state to give the party of Trump an electoral advantage next November. Congressman Greg Kazar joins me next to talk about how Democrats are fighting back. He was just there today.
- [35:35]
Congressman Greg Kazar
I'm here to say hell no to Trump taking over Texas.
- [35:39]
Political Analyst
Not over hell no. Democratic Congressman Greg Kazar was at the Texas State Capitol today. You just saw him in that video where Republican state lawmakers began the process of approving new congressional maps demanded by President Trump. Trump appears to be worried, understandably, that his deeply unpopular policies will spark a Democratic wave in next year's midterm elections, which could swamp the Repub Republicans narrow majority in the US House. So even though Texas was not due for another round of redistricting for years, Trump told Texas Republicans to do it now to slice and dice Texas voting districts so that Republicans can be nearly certain of winning more seats next November. Republicans already hold 25 of the state's 38 House seats. Under these new maps, they could potentially win 30 of them, meaning Republicans could control 80% of the state's congressional delegation, even though Donald Trump won only 56% of the vote in Texas last year. How are Republicans accomplishing that? With maps that look like this? This is how Republicans want to slice up the heavily Democratic capital city of Austin. It would be carved into multiple pieces and each piece would be swallowed up by a district that snakes outward into deep red territory, making it hard, if not impossible for a Democrat to win there. That would leave one deep blue district right in the center of Austin in which two sitting Democratic congressmen, Greg Kazar and Lloyd Doggett, might have to fight it out for the seat. Congressman Kazar says he's saying hell no to Trump taking over Texas. So the question is, what's the next move? Joining me now is Congressman Greg Kazar of Texas. Congressman, thank you so much. I know you've had a long day and they are still debating, as I understand it, and discussing everything at the Texas A State House right now. So where, where are things in the process of Texas Republicans trying to jam these maps through?
- [37:33]
Congressman Greg Kazar
Well, they're having this all day hearing because it seems like it's gonna be the only hearing they have with these maps. Let's be clear about why we're here. Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in American history. Ken Paxton is the most corrupt politician in Texas history. And the two of them are working together on the most corrupt scheme I've ever, ever seen. What they're trying to do is insulate Donald Trump from any accountability for his crimes and corruption by suppressing voters of color in a way we've never seen before. It would be a huge violation of the Voting Rights act, but they're hoping that a complicit Supreme Court will rubber stamp this plan and then allow the Voting Rights act to be watered down so much that they can do this all over the country. It's a red alert.
- [38:22]
Political Analyst
It certainly is. And in a lot of states that are bluer states, there are different laws, which also makes things very challenging. Let's talk about options because you've been one of the leading advocates of taking action here and actually doing something. One of the options I think you've advocated for is a version of a walkout which would break quorum and at a minimum delay the process. Is that still an option or where does that stand at this point?
- [38:46]
Congressman Greg Kazar
Point, we need a three step process. First, we need to buy time. That means Texas legislators can do things like filibusters. You'll remember Wendy Davis filibuster, that famously defeated abortion restrictions here in Texas quorum breaks, where if Democrats leave the chamber and oftentimes leave the state, you can stop all business in the Capitol by that time. So that second, we can put up a fight bigger than Texas. This is bigger than Texas. They're not just suppressing voters of color here, they could suppress them across the nation. So that's why we need Gavin Newsom to continue his fight, to take countermeasures in California. We're hearing that brave legislators and governors in places like Washington State and Maryland and New York are looking at this, too. So if you are enraged by Donald Trump trying to rig the election before anybody gets a chance to vote, call your governor, call your state legislator to fight back and put pressure on Texas and say, if you wanna gerrymander in Texas, then Democrats might get rid of Republican members in their states. That way, we can hopefully stop this from happening. And then finally, we need to impose an enormous cost on people like Governor Abbott, putting redistricting ahead of things like flood relief. We have these devastating floods in Texas, and we need to campaign like never before against every Texas Republican that basically carried Donald Trump's water instead of taking care of everyday people.
- [40:13]
Political Analyst
That's such an important. He proposed this literally weeks ago at kind of the height of flood recovery, which is still obviously ongoing, was pretty unbelievable. And this is all around the country, to your point. One of the things that's come up, and this would not be the only state where this would come up, I assume, is that Texas Republicans could hit Democrats with penalties of up to $500 a day if this happens, as I understand it. Meaning if they walk out, if they walk out and leave the state. I know there have been a lot of fundraising going on to help defray the cost. A lot of people engaged and want to be helpful. There's this question of whether members can legally accept contributions to cover. Has that been resolved, in your view? Because I know a lot of people there wanna help and are trying to figure out how.
- [40:57]
Congressman Greg Kazar
In my view, these sorts of fines and threats of expelling members from office are all just completely unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution and under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. So what folks at home really need to know is that you've got these Texas Republicans who say they're all about freedom and freedom of speech, and they're saying they're gonna fine people and kick them out of office for opposing Trump's redistricting plan. That's ridiculous. And the best way I say for you to fight back is to call your governor, call your state legislature and tell them to fight back against what Donald Trump is doing here in Texas. And, of course, if you're in Texas, support brave legislators taking extraordinary measures, and we will see people like Governor Abbott and Donald Trump in court.
- [41:48]
Political Analyst
I appreciate you always have action items because I think people are always looking for that. Let me ask you something about something I'm sure you probably do not want to talk about. But if these maps are approved, it looks like you and Congressman Lloyd Doggett would be forced into the same district, meaning you would potentially have to run against each other. Unless one of you opted to run in another district, I guess, which is possible. But how are you thinking about that?
- [42:12]
Congressman Greg Kazar
Look, if Donald Trump is able to merge my district in East Austin with Congressman Doggett's district in West Austin into one, then we've got way bigger concerns and people's futures to worry about than the future of Congressman Doggett or my future. We've got to be worried about the futures of millions of Americans who could be disenfranchised. I'm not trying to be alarmist here, but if Donald Trump succeeds in ending the protections of the Voting Rights act for people of color here in Austin, then pretty soon he could succeed in ending those protections for people across America. My current district in East Austin that stretches then down southward is a Voting Rights act protected districts to give Latinos in this area voting power. That's part of what MLK marched for when he pushed for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And what they're trying to do here in Austin as a test case is to try to get rid of that. And they wouldn't stop in Austin or in Texas. I hear that Donald Trump next wants to go to Missouri and then Ohio and then Alabama and Louisiana. That's why we've got to stop him in his tracks right here in my home city.
- [43:26]
Political Analyst
A very powerful note to end on, a reminder of what it's all about. Congressman Greg Kazar, thank you so much for joining me this evening.
- [43:32]
Congressman Greg Kazar
Thank you, Jim.
- [43:32]
Political Analyst
We come back. When we come back, Donald Trump's latest plan for dragging America back to the good old days sparked some painful memories for some people of gym class. More on that after a quick break.
- [43:50]
Congressman Robert Garcia
Give that chicken fat back to the chicken and don't be chicken again.
- [43:58]
Political Analyst
If you attended public school in the 60s or 70s, that song called Chicken Fat might be ringing a bell or giving you a dose of trauma. Chances are you may have had to listen to it while doing push ups or running a timed mile. Can't make it up. That's because it was the official theme song of President JFK's youth fitness program. And gym teachers often played it during the infamous Presidential Fitness test. Although the test, which measured students fitness through a series of physical drills, certainly had had positive intentions. I'm sure it garnered backlash over the years for, among other things, being a source of public shaming. In 2012, the Obama administration officially replaced the test with a different program that instead aimed to prioritize overall health and personalized fitness goals. Then yesterday, surrounded by a gaggle of his favorite MAGA athletes, Trump announced he was bringing back the good old chicken fat days. Or at least the Presidential Fitness test. Now, it's hard to imagine why the man famous for how much he likes McDonald's and dislikes exercising hates it would do such a thing. I mean, it has the word presidential in it, which I'm sure he likes. And he probably thinks there's some medals made of gold involved, who knows, which I'm sure he'd like that too. But I suspect the real reason is simply to provide yet another distraction while his administration takes enacts to public education, healthcare and medical research funding. But okay, let's just say we give Trump the benefit of the doubt and believe he really does just care about fitness all of a sudden. He could always lead by example, show children why the test is so important by doing it himself. As a USA Today columnist put it. I wholeheartedly endorse Trump's decision to bring back this dreadful idea under one Donald Trump must run one mile on live television. Hey, I'd watch that. That does it for me tonight.
- [45:39]
Rob Lowe
Hey everybody, it's Rob Lowe here, if you haven't heard, I have a podcast that's called Literally with Rob Lowe, and basically it's conversations I've had that really make you feel like you're pulling up a chair at an intimate dinner between myself and people that I admire, like Aaron Sorkin or Tiffany Haddish, Demi Moore, Chris Pratt, Michael J. Fox. There are new episodes out every Thursday, so subscribe, please and listen. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.