D (7:59)

Happy New Year, Jen.

B (8:00)

Happy New Year to you, too. So let me start with what you said this weekend. I mean, this weekend you spoke about the powers that Democrats would have to hold Trump officials accountable if they retook even just a single Chamber of Commerce of Congress. So, so walk us through, I mean, what, what Democrats could do to hold Trump officials accountable if they retook the House. Obviously the Senate is addition onto that, but just the House. Walk us through what they could do.

D (8:25)

Yeah. Well, first let me just tell you on costs and affordability, we have the ability to reverse the tariffs. We have the ability to put the Affordable Care act subsidies back in place. That has to be the priority. And I watched as Speaker Pelosi in her second term of speaker, the last two years of Donald Trump's first term, she picked that guy's wallet every single time to claw back the damage he had done in the first two years. So I expect a Speaker Jeffries to do the same. But on accountability, the truth is Republicans don't think we have the balls to do it. They think that we will be nice and modest and kind. And if we telegraph now, no, you're coming to the Judiciary Committee, the Oversight Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, the truth is going to come out. We're using the subpoena power. We're seeking accountability. All the dirty deals that were done by law firms, by university presidents, by entertainment companies, we are going to seek to understand all of it. We have the power to restrict funding if we need to. If we telegraph that now, we may not reverse the deals that were done in the past, but we may stop the next drug deal that the president is cooking up right now.

B (9:32)

And he's also shown. What's so interesting about this to me is he's also shown he's not exactly going to protect all of these people, which I don't think they're all digesting. So you brought this up in the context of Pam Bondi and the Justice Department not following the law and releasing all of their files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Let's just focus on her for a moment. I mean, what does accountability for her look like to you? And what would you hope that you Democrats in the House who are in a positions of power ask for or request or what to do to hold her accountable.

D (10:07)

Well, what I would first do is exercise the power of the purse that Congress has. And we can do this right now, by the way, Jen. Right. Like almost every member of Congress, essentially 534 to 1 between the House and the Senate voted to release the Epstein files and gave it a deadline that they have not met. We could do this right now. We could restrict the funding at the Department of Justice. If they were actually doing their job and going after terrorism and money laundering and sex trafficking, you know, maybe that restricted funding would hurt them, but they're using their funding right now to go after the President's enemies. And so I would say put DOJ funding on the table and say that is something we're willing to restrict. If we don't get the Epstein files. I'd start with the money first.

B (10:49)

That's smart. They need money to function. They need money to fund the things they want to fund. You could also haul a lot of them before Congress, which is something I'm sure people are thinking about. I know they are. And get a lot of their documents. Let me ask you about. I mean, you're running for governor. I see it all over social media. You've been doing tons of stuff out there. I know you made this announcement. Of course you were going on offense. Part of what we've been talking about is your effort to do exactly that. What else should people expect? What is going on offense for you, as potentially the future governor of California, mean.

D (11:23)

To me? If you're going to run around our state masked and not showing yourselves, not showing ID and terrorized women, then you should not have a driver license. The governor has the power to grant driver's license in any state, and I call it reveal to wheel. If you're going to go into our communities in a way that no other law enforcement agency does, masked, and as I said, as a, you know, terrorizing bandit that women are afraid of, then the governor should revoke your driver license and really go on offense and restrict your ability to harm people. We were told that the most violent individuals would be the ones targeted. Instead, we see farm workers running through the fields where they work, people at car washes, running through their places of work, Home Depot parking lots being raided. This is not what anyone signed up for. And so to me, I can allow the people of California, the most vulnerable, to be on their heels and play defense. Or is the governor, with the powers of the state, go on offense?

B (12:23)

You've also been targeted yourself as you've been pushing back on, aggressively, publicly accusing, even accused of mortgage fraud. That seems to be their favorite thing they love to accuse people of. Tell us about kind of what you've learned about being targeted by the Trump administration, how you're going to approach it moving forward, how you think people who have not yet been named but will be targeted should approach it in the, in the year ahead.

D (12:49)

And so the lesson that I've taken away from these targeted prosecutions is to stay on offense. So the president and his team have gone after Adam Schiff and Tish James and Lisa Cook at the Federal Reserve with this nonsense mortgage fraud claim. The claim against me is also nonsense. But what I'm doing is I've brought a lawsuit against the administration for privacy law violations and what we call First Amendment retaliation, seeking to go after me because I've exercised my right to speak out against the administration. And so we just recently sent Susie Wiles a basically a savior documents letter telling her that her text messages, her emails, all of her correspondence with Donald Trump about retribution, which she talked about in the Vanity Fair story that she was profiled in need to be saved. And again, I just want to send the message that it's not going to be free. If you're going to use the powers of the Department of Justice in taxpayer dollars to go after your enemies, there's going to be a cost associated with it and hopefully that deters them from going after whoever they want to go after next week when they come up with a mortgage fraud allegation, just as they have in the past few weeks.

B (13:56)

Bill Pulte, man, he's, he's been, I guess they're getting his money, their money's worth out of that guy. Congressman Eric, Swell. Thank you so much. Happy New Year to you. Thanks for joining me.

D (14:07)

Thanks, Jen, you too.

B (14:08)

Okay, coming up, apparently the Trump Justice Department just suddenly discovered millions more Epstein documents and they say they're working around the clock to review them. I guess good for them, sort of. It's all crazy for a lot of reasons, but it's also yet another reminder that they're breaking the law. More on that with one of our favorite legal eagles when we come back.

E (14:32)

Mazda. Once you discover the Mazda CX5 Mazda, it doesn't take long to get it. With standard all wheel drive, a premium interior and advanced safety features, it's an SUV that gives you more at every turn. It will have you saying Mazda, the Mazda CX5, it's made to move you.

F (14:50)

Every Mazda SUV offers you an elevated driving experience and refined performance.

B (14:56)

Discover it at your local Mazda dealer.

C (14:58)

Today.

B (15:01)

The US Military deployed on the streets of America. Whole communities targeted for removal. There was tremendous anxiety as they saw neighbors and friends being taken. And when accountability finally came knocking, the Berne order to cover it all up. I never believed that America would be doing this. A stain on this country. One that we said we would never repeat.

C (15:25)

Rachel Maddow presents Burn Order. All episodes available now.

B (15:36)

Well, it turns out there are more Epstein files than originally expected, and I mean a lot more. I mean, you may remember last week on Christmas Eve when the Justice Department said they had suddenly discovered an additional 1 million documents that might pertain to Jeffrey Epstein. Now, the New York Times and Reuters have reported earlier this week that the DOJ has a total of 5.2 million files left to review before they're released. And to do so, they're pulling in 400 lawyers to comb through those materials through the end of this month, except the deadline was two weeks ago, meaning the Justice Department is not complying with the federal law that required them to release every single Epstein file other than personal information about victims or depictions of abuse. Now, for his part, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche didn't seem to have any real excuse at all except to say that they've been, quote, working around the clock through the holidays. Now, to be clear, on the day of the deadline, back on December 19th, Todd Blanche said that there were only hundreds of thousands more documents to review. Now that number has suddenly become 5.2 million, which is to state the complete, obvious, kind of a huge, big difference, especially since as of today, according to the New York times, only about 130,000 documents have actually seen the light of day. So by my rough math here, it would seem the public has seen less than 3% of the files the Justice Department was required to produce by two weeks ago. And don't forget, this is all months after Pam Bondi had DOJ do what the agency called an exhaustive review of all the materials in their possession. They may have called this exhaustive, but it's kind of okay. This is all exhausting to all of us. Joining us now is Christy Greenberg, former deputy chief of the Criminal division at the U.S. attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and an Ms. Now legal analyst. Okay, Christy, I have not reviewed legal documents to be redacted like you have. But, I mean, I keep thinking about the review the Trump team called exhaustive back in July. It's why I just mentioned it. Do you buy this notion that the Justice Department didn't know there were millions more documents.

E (17:46)

Well, if they didn't know, they should have known. One thing that just needs to be said, this is publicly available information. Back In April of 2021, DOJ filed a brief in court where they said the discovery that they produced just to Ghislaine Maxwell, which is not all of the Epstein files, just the discovery they produced to Ghislaine Maxwell was 2.7 million pages of discovery. 2.7 million pages. And when the Epstein files, when we got at least some of them, I went through them and just reviewed for the discovery letters to Ghislaine Maxwell, and sure enough, it matched up. The last one I could identify was November of 2021, and it was roughly 2.7 million was the last Batestamped page. So, you know, that doesn't take a crazy amount of good lawyering to just figure out that this was in the millions. And out of those discovery letters, you also know that there's roughly 2.2 million of those are just the search warrant returns from roughly over 60 devices that they obtained from Epstein, from Maxwell, from these residences. So this was always going to be a very large document production. It shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that it was. You know, this is the easy stuff. Identifying and collecting the files should be easy. Just ask the agents and the prosecutors where they're filed, where they are. You know, things like, you know, just giving victims the basic decency of picking up the phone and calling them before you say, we want to unseal documents from the grand jury. You know, these are very basic things that prosecutors do. And so when they can't get the easy stuff, Right, the hard stuff, like actual investigating, prosecuting and convicting sex traffickers, or when they say in the memo, there's nobody here to investigate, that's the hard stuff. And that's where there's really no trust in this Justice Department if they can't get the easy stuff, Right?

B (19:52)

No, the easy stuff. I mean, Todd Blanche's post was also kind of. I guess he was trying to get some sympathy or something for working so hard over the holidays, even though they missed the deadline by two weeks. And to your point, they just hired 400 lawyers now, but it seems like it would have been knowable six weeks ago when the law passed. Right. That they were going to need a larger influx of lawyers to do this. Not now.

E (20:17)

Right. And no one should feel the sympathy for Todd Blanche. I highly doubt he is the one spending his holidays reviewing these materials. Right. I feel the sympathy for the line prosecutors who are doing this work and it's work that didn't need to be this last minute crunch that should ruin people's holidays. They knew about this. They knew that this was legislation that that was, you know, that stood a very good chance of being passed. They knew that for months. And so, and again, going back to July, they said they conducted an exhaustive review. So two things can't be true. It can't be true that they collected everything and they reviewed it all and they determined there was no one to investigate back in July. And then now they're scrambling to actually collect everything and figure out how to redact it all. Like, you know, clearly, you know, again, one of those things is not true. They either didn't get everything back in July that they said they did, or, you know, they are just, you know, scrambling now to try and pull it all together.

B (21:18)

I know you get asked this question a lot, probably by friends and family members over the holidays who know your legal expertise. But now that Congress is coming back and they're not abiding by, I mean, they've missed the deadline by two weeks already. It seems like they keep adding numbers to the number of documents they need to review. Congress and Democrats are really, they're trying to come up with ideas to pressure them. What can be done legally to compel them? Is there, are there other things that could be done from the outside to really compel them to follow the law here?

E (21:50)

Well, I'm really looking for the DOJ to identify when they are withholding documents and when they are redacting documents, what is the basis for doing so? So Todd Blanche is saying, well, we are only redacting what we are legally required to redact. But that is not true because they are claiming a whole lot of documents, like prosecution memos, are privileged. There's attorney client privilege, you know, deliberative process privilege. That's not, there's no requirement for the DOJ to claim those privileges. They could waive the privileges and just produce them to us. They are making a decision, a choice to actually withhold that information from the American people. So he, he needs to go through. The DOJ needs to tell us when they are withholding and redacting information, what is the bas? If it's to protect victim identifying information, there's no, there's no concern about that. That's what they should be doing. But they're actually doing far more than they need to. They're redacting information of the law enforcement agents and the prosecutors, which is something I haven't seen before and certainly doesn't seem to be required by the act. So they need to be transparent about what they are doing here in this process. And I think really that will come with a lawsuit. If, if Chuck Schumer is able to get a vote of the Senate and have them that they should, they should bring a civil lawsuit to compel this Department of Justice to produce the files. That would be a great first step because then a court can go through and say this is information that shouldn't be withheld under the act. There is no basis to withhold for these privileges under the act. You are therefore compelled Department of Justice to produce the information. And then there would be a court order. And if they didn't comply with the court order, they would be in contempt and there could be sanctions that are involved for them just blatantly defying a court order. We'd seen them do it before, but this would be yet another example and hopefully there would be a judge who would be willing to actually hold their feet to the fire here.

B (23:49)

Christy Greenberg, always teaching us so much. Thank you so much. Lots of stuff to watch. Appreciate you joining us.

E (23:55)

Thanks for having me.

B (23:57)

Okay, coming up, if you told me last year that one day Marjorie Taylor Greene would be ripping Donald Trump to reporter for the New York Times, I might not have believed you. I wouldn't have taken that bet. But here we are. The reporter who talked to her about everything from healthcare to the Epstein files to the president's push for revenge joins me next.

E (24:18)

Mazda Once you discovered the Mazda CX5 Mazda, it doesn't take long to get it. With standard all wheel drive, a premium interior and advanced safety features, it's an SUV that gives you more at every turn. It will have you safe saying Mazda. The Mazda CX5, it's made to move you.

F (24:37)

Every Mazda SUV offers you an elevated driving experience and refined performance.

B (24:43)

Discover it at your local Mazda dealer today.

C (24:47)

Start your day with the MSNow Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust, standout moments from your favorite shows, and fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up at Ms. Now.

B (25:07)

If you'd made a bingo card last January for how you thought Donald Trump's first year back in office would go, I imagine there are a few squares that you would have made sure to put on it, like lots of unhinged middle of the night truth, social rants and lots of time off spent golfing, you could have bet on all those things. But then there were some things that you probably didn't think to put on that bingo card, like him taking a literal bulldozer to the White House. Or maybe you did predict that, and if so, I guess good for you. But do you know what was certainly not on my bingo card. Maybe it was on yours. Who knows? Two of maga's biggest die hards, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, publicly breaking away, at least to some degree, on some things, from their beloved leader. Now, they are for different reasons, and neither is exactly embracing Democratic policies either. But these two congresswomen built their entire identities around being among Trump's most loyal foot soldiers. But here we are one January later, and that loyalty appears to have run out to some degree. To different degrees, perhaps. Now, back in November, both Greene and Boebert publicly defied Trump by supporting a measure to force a House vote to release the Epstein files. But it actually hasn't even ended there. I mean, this week, Trump vetoed a bill that was set to score Boebert a major drinking water project in her district, and she responded by yet again, publicly defying him. I mean, that one is for home political survival. But still, as we've seen play out over the past few weeks after, among other things, Trump called Marjorie Taylor Greene a traitor, she has transformed into one of the most fervent Republican critics. I mean, at least Trump critics, I should say. Now, whether Boebert and Greene's newish defiance of Trump turns out to be long lasting or a sign of a bigger trend remains to be seen. But they do make one thing clear, that they are certainly cracks taking shape in the MAGA coalition for even different reasons. In an interview with the New York Times, Greene had this to say about her loyalty to Donald. I was just so naive. And she suggests that she isn't the only one waking up to that naivete. They, meaning Trump's White House, have major problems and it's only starting to build. That was Marjorie Taylor Greene. Now, joining me now is New York Times journalist Robert Draper, who just released a lengthy profile of Marjorie Taylor Greene based on years of interviews. It was really so interesting to watch. It's great to see you to read. It's great to see you because you kind of go back to talking to her years ago when she was just a fervent, at times, even defensive, defender of Trump. And now she seems to have evolved quite a bit. But reading your piece, it's a little bit more nuanced than I think a lot of people think out there. Tell us what your take is on her evolution here.

G (27:49)

Sure. Well, for starters, Jen, you have it right that at a time when many people in the Republican Party were wanting to move away from Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene arrived in Washington just after, just as he was departing it, saying the Trump is stillthe party is still Donald Trump's. He's not going anywhere. The party remains in his grip. And she really remained this kind of lonely voice on Capitol Hill as this avid cheerleader of Trump. She did say to me that over the years, I mean, she found she had certain misgivings about the way people could be so worshipful of him. She liked him personally, was supportive of his policies, but she thought it was a bit gross that a lot of people in the MAGA community looked at him as a godlike figure. She was uncomfortable with the sexualization that you would see at Mar a Lago, and that she thought that that represented a poor sort of role model for young ladies like their daughters. But she still was very much in Trump's camp and very eager to get to work in the beginning of 2025, when Trump, you know, when the Republican Party ran the table. But that's when things started to fall apart piece by piece.

B (28:50)

Now, a lot of people, I mean, I guess some hopeful Democrats saw her standing with the Epstein victims, who were survivors, who were incredibly inspiring, and thought, oh, maybe she's going to become one of us. That's not the case either, though.

G (29:03)

That's not going to happen. No, I mean, it' syou know, she did. She had always been, you know, very much against sex trafficking vocalyou know, very vocal on that subject. When she met some of Epstein's victims in a closed meeting of the House Oversight Committee hearing, she really, you know, could see that theythis was not an act. No one was putting them up to this. This was not an opportunity to sell a book or something like that. And she was really touched by that. And meanwhile, she was really. She couldn't help but notice how Trump was so fervent in his opposition to releasing the files. And he finally screamed at her on the phone, and everybody in her office could hear it. And he said to her, according to Green, my friends will get hurt if I release the files. And she basically said, what about the women? Don't you want to meet the women? Why don't you bring them to the Oval Office? And he said, worse, to the effect of they're not worthy of it. And that was a very clarifying moment for her.

B (30:01)

I just mentioned Lauren Boebert, too. It's a little bit of a different scenario, I think. I mean, she had it was a water project in her district. It seems to be an issue with the governor and sending a message which is completely inappropriate. But it's more of a local political issue in some ways. Do you think But Marjorie Taylor Greene, also in your piece, and I just read this, sort of gave a bit of a warning out there that the Trump White House is in trouble. Do you think this is a part of a trend of more Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene for different reasons, or is this sort of a one off for a range of reasons?

G (30:31)

Well, no and yes, I guess. I mean, you can still count on one hand how many elected Republican officials who are not safe from the Liz Cheney wing of the Republican Party or really, I guess any wing of the Republican Party are out there criticizing Trump. I mean, there are very few and far between. I do think, though, that we are seeing a weakening of his stranglehold over the party. And we're hearing more and more people define for themselves not what waiting for President Trump to do it, what it means, America first, what MAGA means. And that suggests that already, just at the end of his first year, he's already kind of a lame duck and people are looking to 2028 a lame.

B (31:10)

Duck after a first year. I can see you've been covering presidential politics a long time, is quite fast to be kind of a version of a lame duck. The other thing I thought was interesting, there's a lot of interesting things in your piece and we'll repost it. I'm sure a lot of people have already read it. But was what she had to say about Mike Johnson, and this has struck me as he's sort of given power to Trump. That's not normally the role any speaker of the House, including from the same party of a president does. She's been pretty vocal about that. Others have been. Nancy Mace, what do you make of that? What do you think that means for Mike Johnson?

G (31:40)

Well, I think that, I mean, yes, she's not the first to say, to suggest that the House has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the executive branch under Donald Trump with Speaker Mike Johnson. But she certainly has been a vocal critic of his they've never gotten along. And I think that, you know, she had hoped that the legislative branch would codify all these, you know, sort of sentiments of Trump that have been expressed in executive orders. Because as Greene said to me, this isn't in the story, but she said, you know, he's going to be a temporary president, even his ballroom is going to be renamed something else. The Kennedy center will be renamed something else because none of this has been enacted into law. And she puts that as much on Johnson as she does on Trump.

B (32:22)

Albert Draper, I'm always happy when I see that you've written a piece and hopefully it's not been someone I'm working for because then there's always going to be interesting details in there. But it was really compelling piece. Thank you so much for being here.

G (32:32)

It was my pleasure, Jim.

B (32:33)

All right, we've got to take a very quick break. But up next, Trump just chickened out on his signature economic policy. Once again, the Wall Street Journal of all outlets had some things to say about that. We'll be right back. This morning, Donald Trump posted a message on his social media platform praising tariffs as an overwhelming benefit for our nation. And then just a few hours later, his administration walked back, threatened tariff increases on Italian pasta makers. So much, I guess, for the overwhelming benefit, it was very short lived. Now, that's after Trump scaled back tariff increases on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets and vanities one day before they were supposed to take effect. The so basically these tariffs are such an overwhelming benefit to the nation that Trump felt the need to give exceptions to a huge number of industries that would be impacted. Now, moves like that have earned Trump the nickname taco for Trump. Always chickens out. Trump's on again, off again approach to tariffs led to a scathing takedown on New Year's Day by none other than the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, who summed it all up pretty well by writing, rarely has a president worked so hard to cover the damage from his policies without admitting it. But hey, if he can't seem to grasp the economics of consumer prices, at least Trump can boast that his economic policies are employing more Americans, right? That's been what he's been saying, including at his big economy speech in Pennsylvania just last month before I entered office.

F (34:13)

100% of all new net jobs we're going to migrant workers.

C (34:17)

Think of that. 100% of new jobs were going to migrant.

B (34:23)

These are government numbers, by the way.

F (34:26)

These are not Trump numbers.

B (34:28)

Migrant workers and illegal aliens got 100%.

F (34:32)

But since I took office, 100% of.

C (34:37)

All net job creation has gone to American citizens.

B (34:43)

How about that? So how about that? Now, this may shock you, but that claim isn't really true either. And I have just the person to explain why. Bharat Ramamurthy is the former deputy director of the White House National Economic Council. Hardly anyone explains economic stuff better and he joins me now. It's great to see you Happy New Year. Let's just start there. I mean, the Washington Post did a pretty good piece on this today, but Trump and his Labor Department have been claiming, as you know, for months, that a million immigrants have left the workforce and that all the new jobs are going to U S born workers. Can you just give us the 30,000 foot view there on Trump's claims?

H (35:24)

Yeah, look, the data doesn't support that at all. And in fact, if you look at the very specific data that the government produces, which tells you the unemployment rate for American born, native born workers, it has gone up from 3.9% to, to 4.4% since Trump took office. In other words, there are more unemployed people, unnative born people than there were when Joe Biden was president. In fact, unequivocally, native born US Workers were doing better under Joe Biden than they had been under Donald Trump. So this is largely a misreading of the government data in order to back a talking point that the President likes, but is simply not based in any fact. If you look at the job market overall under the Trump economic agenda, it is very poor. And what I mean by that is that if you have a job right now, it's very hard to switch jobs because there's not a lot of new hiring going on. And if you are unfortunately out of work, it's very, very hard to find a job. We're in this period of stasis where it's very, very difficult for workers to switch to better options or to find something new if they're on the sidelines right now. And all of Trump's immigration agenda hasn't helped that. And one final point on this, it's important to remember that yes, immigrants come to this country and they can take jobs. But the other thing is there's another side of the equation. They create demand. In other words, they come here, they buy things. That means that businesses have to hire more workers in order to satisfy that demand. You have to think about both sides of that equation as you evaluate the impact of net loss of immigration on the economy. It's been unequivocally a loss for the economic benefit of the America of America under Trump.

B (36:59)

Yeah, it's a huge economic argument in addition to a moral one, of course, as well. Let's talk about tariffs for a moment. I mean, in the latest retreats, I just read part of what the Wall Street Journal editorialized about it today of all outlets. I mean, and there are huge exemptions, I mean, on Italian pasta and on some furniture and kitchen Cabinets. It's just some of the many part of the long series of carve outs on tariffs for consumer products. Bananas, coffee, smartphones. When you try to explain to people what the heck is happening here, all these carve outs, yet Trump is still out there saying, these are great. I mean, what do you tell them?

H (37:36)

Yeah, so I think the way I look at it is this way. He announced these massive tariffs across the board tariffs back in April on Liberation Day. And if all of those tariffs had gone into effect, it would have massively increased the average tariff rate on all imported goods into the United States. As you said, over time, he has periodically walked back a number of those tariffs. But still, if you look at it today, the average tariff rate on the average import into the United States is 18%. When Trump took office, it was 2%. So there's still been a very, very large increase in the tariffs on average coming into the United States. The interesting thing in the data is that you see so far that the companies that are paying these tariffs have by and large been eating that cost themselves rather than passing it on to consumers so far. And again, that shows up in the jobs data because you're seeing companies, companies who have to pay these tariffs, pulling back on hiring new people, pulling back on labor costs, but they can only do that for a certain amount of time. And my view, the view of a lot of economists is that that that period is going to come to an end very rapidly and we're going to see that flow into higher prices for consumers next year for a variety of imports. Because as you said, some things have been exempted, but the rule has been more than not, things have been these.

B (38:49)

Tariffs have been applied and not a lot of self reflection going on in the Trump econ team right now. Before I let you go, I mean, we're obviously in the new year. Millions of Americans are facing huge increases because of the failure to extend the Obamacare premium tax credits. Congress has obviously failed to extend the subsidies. But there's a window of time here where they could still be extended. Talk to us. I mean, you can answer from like an economic perspective or as you look at the impact on people out there in the workforce, what is the window like? Is there a way for this crisis to be addressed in the next couple of weeks without having a massive impact on people?

H (39:29)

Yeah, I'd say that there's still a limited window. As people know, you have to sign up for health insurance and you start paying those premiums usually on a monthly basis. Congress can come in and say we're going to help reduce those costs going forward. You can't do anything about the cost that you've already paid, of course, but it can help you going forward. I think if you're looking at the dynamics in Congress right now, I think that that kind of help is really unlikely. And the other thing, Jen, that you have to remember and that you well know is that on top of all of these health insurance spikes, because of the Republicans failure to extend the Obamacare subsidies, their big bill that they passed last year made huge cuts to Medicaid. So millions of people starting later this year are likely to see loss of Medicaid. So you're really going to see this health insurance crisis across the country, whether you rely on private insurance, whether you rely on Obamacare or whether you rely on Medicaid. And it comes at a time when the cost of childcare and housing and transportation all are going up as well. There's really been, as I like to call it, an anti affordability agenda from this administration at a time when Americans are saying that their biggest priority is the cost of living.

B (40:35)

Barbara Muorty, thank you so much on giving us a little education there. Have a great of your new year. We're going to take a very quick break, but we'll be right back. Okay, we have another full hour of live coverage coming up. Congressman Robert Garcia is going to join me to talk about his push to get the Trump Justice Department to release all of the Epstein files, of which there are millions more to come. Plus, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee decided to release the full video of Jackson Smith's deposition on New Year's Eve. Of course, a former top FBI official is going to join me with his reaction. And I'm also going to talk to Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, who just announced an absolutely eye popping fundraising hall. Be right back after a quick break. Okay. We're almost a year into Donald Trump's second term and after all of the many scandals we've already seen, one thing is pretty clear. For all of Donald Trump's coverups, all of his attempts to conceal things from the public, to withhold documents, to avoid tough questions and gaslight them when he does answer them, there really isn't a lot of mystery to what is going on inside of this White House. I mean, take for instance, Trump's most literal coverup, his recent habit of covering his hands in concealer to disguise some sort of bruising. You can see it there on your screen. Back in July, the White House tried to explain away Trump's mystery condition, claiming that the bruising was the result of frequent handshaking and his use of aspirin as a standard cardiovascular prevention regimen. Now, that explanation struck a lot of people as odd, or at least very incomplete. Plenty of people shake a lot of hands and don't end up covered in bruises. And plenty of people take aspirin for heart health and don't end up covered in bruises. E But there seemed to be more to the story that the White House didn't want us to know. Well, this week we finally got more, thanks to new reporting from the Wall Street Journal. It now seems that the mystery bruising on Trump's hands should never have really been a mystery to begin with. I mean, as Trump told the Wall Street Journal, he takes a large dose of aspirin daily, which causes bruising, and he has been encouraged by his doctors to take a lower dose. But Trump reportedly refuses to lower his dose, saying, quote, they say aspirin is good for thinning out the blood. And I don't want thick blood pouring through my heart. I want nice, thin blood pouring through my heart. Does that make sense? Actually, no, it really doesn't make any sense. But that's sort of my point, because that bruising seems to have been caused by conditions we already know. Trump definitely does suffer from stubbornness, a refusal to listen to experts, and a third grader's understanding of human anatomy. I mean, remember, this is the guy who suggested injecting bleach as a cure for Covid, the guy who once said he doesn't exercise because he thinks his body will run out of energy like a battery. It's not really that surprising that he thinks his cardiovascular system works like a soup that's been left on the stove for too long. My point here is that usually the thing Trump and his allies are trying to hide from you isn't really a mystery. It's something sort of obvious. I mean, consider this. Last month, Republicans demanded that former special counsel Jack Smith come testify before Congress about his investigation into the president's attempts to overturn the 2020 election. But they insisted Smith's testimony be held behind closed doors and out of view from the public, even as Smith himself offered to testify in an open hearing. And it wasn't because they were discussing something super sensitive that the public couldn't hear. Nor was it because Jack Smith had some shocking new information about an event we all watched happening on New Year's Eve, when everyone was celebrating and ignoring the news. Republicans then quietly released the transcript and video of that testimony and the result was exactly what you would expect. Smith defended his strong case against the president and Republicans failed to knock him off his game. Because despite Republican efforts at secrecy, the truth about Trump's efforts to overturn the election have been pretty obvious since January 6, 2021. I mean, the whole entire country watched live as Trump ginned up the mob and then stood by as they attacked the Capitol. Everyone has heard Trump on tape urging Georgia's Secretary of State to find him 11,000 votes he didn't get in order to change the result of that election. There is not a mystery here. And the COVID up just makes them look ridiculous more and more, that seems to be the lesson within this administration, even when it comes to Trump's most expansive and mysterious cover up to date, the Epstein files. I mean, today marks two weeks since the Trump administration blew past the deadline to release all the Epstein files. On New Year's Eve, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche provided what he called an update on X, saying that DOJ officials are, quote, working around the clock through the holidays to review documents in compliance with federal law. Poor them. That update was immediately tagged with one of X's community notes pointing out that the Justice Department is not fully complying with the law and has over redacted documents while failing to fully protect victims. But even as we await the full release of those documents, at least some of what the administration is hoping to conceal is becoming more and more obvious. I mean, new reporting from the Wall Street Journal reveals that for years, Trump's Mar A Lago club sent young employees to Jeffrey Epstein's private home. According to the Journal, the House calls went on for years, even as spa employees warned each other about Epstein, who was known among staff for being sexually suggestive and exposing himself during the appointments, according to the former Mar A Lago employees. Now, the Journal also reports that the calls eventually stopped after one 18 year old employee reported Epstein had pressured her for sex. And there's no indication Trump was involved in any of Epstein's wrongdoing. But all of this is just more evidence of what we have known all along. Trump and Epstein had a long relationship that spanned the period when Epstein was abusing women. It's not a mystery what Trump is trying to hide here. It never is. And the relationship between Trump and Epstein is about as easy to conceal as, say, you know, a big purple bruise covered up poorly in makeup. Joining me now is Congressman Robert Garcia, ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. All right. I mean, no one is looking at this all more closely than you And I just wonder how you think about what I just laid out. I mean, we know so much already about Trump's relationship with Epstein and yet the COVID up is continuing. What does that tell you at this point as we look into the New year and they still are withholding millions of documents?

F (47:19)

Hey, Jen, look, first, I think we should be clear with the American public. The President and Jeffrey Epstein, as we know, were best friends, according to Jeffrey Epstein, for over a decade. And those are his words, they had a very close relationship. Clearly they were both very well known and active in the same circles in Palm beach and in New York. And what's happening now. And that reporting, by the way, from the Wall Street Journal, I think is really important. We've been looking at this. I think the way they reported it out was really important. I think it shows clear connections that there was an ongoing operation by Ghislaine Maxwell, by others at Mar A Lago. We know this has also been, as we know, discussed by some of the survivors in essentially bringing in women, some who were trafficked from Mar A Lago to Epstein and to Epstein's properties. And that piece of it and what Donald Trump either knew or who he's covering up for now, and what actually happened, I think is gonna be a very important part of this investigation going forward. And all of this reporting that's coming out right now is happening at the same time as we're getting 5 million new documents, according to the DOJ. And by the way, our team has done an estimate that we have only now received about 5%, probably less than 5% of all of the Epstein files and documents the DOJ has. And so in the weeks ahead, we're going to be getting a lot more information, a lot more to investigate. And Donald Trump can rest assured that this is not going to go away this year. In fact, it's just beginning and going to intensify.

B (48:57)

I was talking with Christy Greenberg about this in the last hour, just about how it's kind of, it should have been kind of obvious how large the set of documents were. And then suddenly they discovered a million more documents on, I guess it was Christmas Eve. Right now they, as you just said, they have 5.2 million documents they're now reviewing. I mean, what do you make of them discovering this all now? Do you buy that they really didn't know there were millions of documents?

F (49:24)

I mean, I don't buy that. I just don't see how you have that many documents. This is a critical, well publicized case. Everyone is talking about the Epstein files and didn't Pam Bondi already have these on her desk? Susie Wiles, according to Vanity Fair, had already seen them. So this idea that somehow, this is somehow new to them or they just happen to find 1 million new documents is just not believable. You know, Todd Blanch here is out here partying next to the President on New Year's Eve at Mar a Lago. He's over meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell in secret, giving her, giving her special deals and is now essentially finding new documents out of nowhere while they continue to redact the President's name in places where we know it shouldn't happen. This is a directed White House cover up by the President and the attorney General. I mean, there's no question of that. And I think the American public now see that. And it's very clear we've got to be very careful and diligent in going through these new documents and holding Pam Bondi accountable if that means contempt or other measures, and using the legal process, which we've already begun doing some of the groundwork on and you'll be seeing and hearing about in the weeks ahead.

B (50:32)

I want to get back, I want to get back to that. I want to ask you first about something that Congressman Swalwell, I talked to him in the last hour too, and he kind of alluded to accountability for people like Pam Bondi is of course, one of the people we discussed. Maybe that's possible if Republicans are still in control of the House, but if Democrats win back the House a year from now, you're going to be the chairman of the House Oversight Committee. What does that look like to you as you think about accountability for someone like her?

F (51:00)

I mean, first, Pam Bondi is one of a lot of folks, quite frankly, who need to be held accountable, not just on this case, but so many others. I mean, look, the Department of Justice, obviously, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, there is an enormous amount of questions that we have for the Deputy AG, for Mr. Blanche and who's clearly at the center of this cover up at the White House and obviously, of course, for the Attorney General as well. I mean, they are essentially right now just completely turn their backs on Congress and defying Congress, both the Senate and the House, in the action around the Epstein files. And it's not just the accountability for these officials and for anyone that is part of this cover up that's doing the overreacting that's directing essentially for, on one hand, survivors names to be, to be present in these documents. We know they should be protected. And on the other hand, we're seeing Trump and others being overly redacted. Why are we protecting coconspirators who are the names of these powerful men? So that accountability piece will be important, but so will getting access to the information that's necessary. Take this Mar a Lago case. There are so many people that we need to talk to, whether it's former folks at Mar a Lago with Jeffrey Epstein's pilots and folks that worked with him, folks that knew and worked in the House. There was a lot of people that we want to speak to that Republicans, quite frankly, are not interested in talking to because they don't want to get to the truth. And so with the power of oversight and subpoena, we will be able to actually get to the truth of exactly not just what happened with this investigation, but with all the horrors that are happening, whether it's at ICE and dhs, whether it's here at the Department of Justice and so many other places in the administration.

B (52:34)

I think it's such an interesting part of what could happen if Democrats won back the House. And accountability is a good thing unquestionably right now. Let me Congressman Khanna and Congressman Massey have said they're working on contempt charges against Attorney General Pam Bondi. I'm going to venture to guess that's something you're supportive of. Do you see this as something there's been kind of interesting building of bipartisan efforts, I guess, when it comes to the Epstein files. Do you think that could build enough bipartisan support to actually happen?

F (53:04)

I think there's definitely some bipartisan support here. I've talked to obviously very close contact with Congressman Khanna, and he obviously, of course, is on the Oversight Committee. So a lot of coordination happening. And I think there is going to be some pretty swift actions against the doj. But also Pam Bondi when Congress reconvenes here in just a few days. And so we're obviously supportive of those efforts. We've also I'm tag teaming with Jamie Raskin on the judiciary side, and we have a lot that we are discussing with our two committees to take on this issue, but more broadly, the issue of Trump corruption at the DOJ and across government. But the Epstein files is clearly something that the American public understand, but it is part of a broader agenda of Trump corruption that has infected our government. And it is really working to destroy our norms and our democracy. And so the Epstein case is critical and center to that. When you're directing the doj, when you're trying to cover up what's happening at the White House when you're protecting men who raped and abused women and children, that needs to be exposed. And we got to use every tool that we have as Democrats and people that believe in good government to hold those folks accountable.

B (54:11)

Congressman Robert Garcia, you're pretty tireless. I hope you will come back and talk with us when you have more to say about what you're all cooking up. Thank you so much for joining me. Okay, up next, ahead of another anniversary of January 6th, we're going to really dig into all of the things Jack Smith just said on Capitol Hill because you really have to hear them and because there are definitely some warning signs in there for everyone. Michael Feinberg was a top official at the FBI before Cash Patel pushed him out. I know he's had a lot on his mind since this deposition was made public. And he joins me here at the table when we come back. Well, it turns out the Republican majority of the House Judiciary Committee got far more than they bargained for when they decided to subpoena former counsel Jack Smith for a closed door deposition last month. And that might explain why they released the video of that deposition on New Year's Eve when they assumed nobody in the world would be paying attention. Smith, of course, brought two criminal cases against Trump. One over the highly classified documents he stashed at Mar A Lago and another over Trump's attempt to defraud the United States and subvert a Democratic election. Neither case went to trial before Trump was elected president again. But when it comes to Trump's culpability in the crimes he alleged, Smith was pretty definitive.

C (55:34)

The evidence here made clear that President.

B (55:37)

Trump was, by a large measure the.

C (55:41)

Most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy.

F (55:45)

These crimes were committed for his benefit.

B (55:50)

The attack that happened at the Capitol.

F (55:53)

As part of this case does not happen without him.

B (55:57)

I mean, that's pretty clear there. And Republicans, I mean, they may have been hoping for a gotcha moment during that eight hour deposition. It is hard to keep yourself together during an eight hour deposition. But the staffer questioning Smith never quite seemed to get the kind of answers he was looking for. Like in this exchange about whether Trump's election lies should be protected by the First Amendment.

A (56:19)

But the president's statements that he believed.

G (56:22)

The election was rife with fraud, those certainly are statements that are protected by the First Amendment, correct?

F (56:29)

Absolutely not.

C (56:30)

If they are made to target a lawful government function and they're made with knowing falsity.

B (56:37)

No, they're not. That's not probably what he expected to hear. Joining me now is Michael Feinberg. He's a former assistant special agent in charge of the FBI and an ms, now National Security, an intelligence analyst. And then one of the things that was so interesting about this is I used to say back when all of these investigations were going on, nobody really knew the sound of Jack Smith's voice, right? It was like, how would he answer questions, how would he talk about things? And now we know he's a very confident guy. I mean, incredibly and obviously can present himself very well. It seems like Republicans must have known subpoenaing him was a risky move. I mean, he has quite an extensive background. What do you think their goal was here, and what do you think they got out of it or didn't get out of it? I guess so.

C (57:25)

I'll answer the second part of that question first. I don't think they got anything out of it except a robust amount of embarrassment at their attempts to undermine him and his investigation. The committee which Jim Jordan chairs does have legitimate oversight responsibility, which does allow it, and indeed, it should practice rigorous inquiries into how special counsel and Justice Department investigations are handled. But that's not what was going on here. What they were essentially trying to do is rewrite the history not only of what occurred on January 6th, which all of us who are in D.C. remember rightly as a horrendous day, but also attempt to subvert all the investigations to assign responsibility for who caused that riot and that attempt to overthrow a free and fair election. And frankly, Smith ran circles around them, and they did not succeed in any of their real goals.

B (58:25)

Apparently not. I mean, that last one I just showed, that last clip I just showed, I think he expected different. Answer the questioner. Of course, I wanted to play. We played a couple of the moments, but I wanted to play another one. It's a part where Smith described what Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows told him about the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan. He basically, we'll play it, but he basically says that Meadows believe that Jim Jordan was scared on January 6, which is pretty interesting. So. So let's watch it. We'll talk about on the other side.

C (58:51)

What I recall was Meadows stating that.

B (58:58)

I've never seen Jim Jordan scared of anything.

F (59:01)

And the fact that we were in.

C (59:03)

This different situation now where people were scared really made it clear that what.

B (59:08)

Was going on at the Capitol could.

F (59:10)

Not be mistaken for anything than what it was.

B (59:14)

One of the things that was so interesting about that is that Republicans have Obviously been trying to rewrite the history of January 6th, as you just noted. And as I said earlier, we all watched this play out before our eyes. What do you think? That was very effective. What did you make of that moment?

C (59:29)

There is a real irony in what the Republican members of Congress have been trying to do in this, in that the people who actually helped Jack Smith's investigation the most were the electors chosen by Trump who realized that what the then president was trying to do was manifestly wrong and quite frankly, un American. And now they're trying to erase their own roles in that because they don't have the integrity of those witnesses who came forward and helped Smith. And Jim Jordan can't erase what he did that day and the fact that he asked the president to help him while they were under siege, any more than, for example, Senator Josh Hawley can erase the footage of him running scared from the rioters after he had encouraged them only hours earlier.

B (60:24)

All of that exists to your point. It's on tape. We've all seen it. And I thought that was a really interesting moment. There was a lot which isn't particularly unexpected, but a lot that Smith couldn't say, of course, during this deposition. How much more do you think we could eventually learn about the cases he brought against Trump? It's clearly. I mean, Democrats obviously will continue to try to shed light on this, but what do you think?

C (60:48)

Well, Smith essentially wrote two volumes to summarize his investigation, and one of them, the one involving the false elector schemes and the attempts to overturn the 2020 election, has been made like, I don't know that we're gonna get a whole lot more in the future on that beyond learning who some of the redacted and protected names are at a later date. Maybe. There's a second volume on the classified documents investigation, which Judge Eileen Cannon in Florida, who was hostile to Smith's endeavors from day one in a manner that got her quite often slapped down by the appellate court in the circuits, is sitting on that right now, despite admonitions from the appellate court that she needs to release it imminently. So I think they're trying to slow roll it, but I'm really hard pressed to see how they're gonna avoid being able to release at least a redacted version of that volume with the classified information cut out.

B (61:54)

Seems like one thing we know they'll try to avoid is having Jack Smith testify again, because it doesn't seem like a winning circumstance for them. Michael Feinberg, thank you so much for coming. This is my first time meeting you in person.

C (62:05)

Likewise.

B (62:06)

Thank you for being here. All right, we have to sneak in a quick break, but my next guest just scored another huge court victory against Donald Trump. Very few people in the country have been more successful against Trump in court, and he's definitely not done yet. We'll be right back. We'll talk about all that. There's been a full year of hand wringing in Washington and among Democrats grappling with the question, how do we fight Donald Trump? It's an important one. Well, the Democratic attorney general of California, Rob Bonta, has an idea. Sue them a lot. With Bonta at the helm, California sued the Trump administration 52 times in 2025. California has filed or joined lawsuits to block federal domestic funding freezes and mass layoffs at the Department of education, and Trump's orders to cut off SNAP nutrition benefits to 42 million Americans. Bonta told the San Francisco Chronicle last month that in about 80% of the cases, the courts have ruled in the state's favor or the Trump administration has dropped its opposition and agreed to a settlement. If you're winning 80% of your battles, you're doing something well. Well enough that we can call it a model for how state elected officials can stand up to Donald Trump. Now, just this week, Banta in California notched another win. President Trump announced on Tuesday that he would be pulling the National Guard out of several major American cities, including Los Angeles. And it came after California sued to force the National Guard out and won. It's a stark reminder to the country right now, if you stand up to Trump and try to stop him, you can win maybe even 80% of the time, depending on. Joining us now is Rob Bonta, the attorney general of the state of California. It's great to see you. Happy New Year. There is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. As you are well aware, federal courts are stacked with Republican appointees. And yet, I mean, I've just gone through this. You've been going into court and you've been winning. Why do you think this has been such a fruitful avenue in the effort to fight back against Trump?

I (64:07)

It's a reminder that the rule of law is in full effect and that when you fight to make sure that the law is enforced and implemented, you can win. And in front of the U.S. supreme Court recently, with a6.3 majority to multiple cases where Trump appointees and other Republican appointees have said things like, this is the most blatant violation of the Constitution I ever seen or the the Trump administration is untethered from the facts and other extreme language that represents the extreme actions that they're seeing before them. We're winning because it doesn't matter if you're Republican or Democrat. We go to court when we have the facts in the law on our side. We only go to court when we believe the law is broken, not because we have any ideological or, or political difference or grievance. It's just based on the law and the facts. Facts. And in courts of law, they are sanitized spaces where politics should not penetrate those spaces, and the law and the facts will prevail. And so that's why we've won over 80% of the time. We've protected $168 billion of funding for the state of California, 3 trillion nationwide, protected constitutional rights and freedoms, and we're going to continue to fight. It's 52 and counting. If Trump doesn't break the law, we don't sue. If he breaks the law, we sue. And most of the time, we win.

B (65:24)

He seems to have every intention of breaking the law, so you're gonna probably have a busy year. That's been his friend in many respects. I mean, California has obviously been a top target of President Trump's. It's also tried to be a model for pushing back in many ways. We've been discussing, and I just mentioned him as well. I mean, Trump, he pulled the National Guard troops out of la, plus Chicago and Portland. But as you all know, they're still in New Orleans and Memphis and of course, here in D.C. which has a slightly different, different legal situation. But how can other states or even cities use California as a model now that you've kind of won this, to keep the National Guard out of their communities?

I (66:02)

Yeah, we were the first state, and la, the first city where Trump deployed the National Guard. And so I think we created essentially the blueprint for how to defend yourself against unlawful actions when Trump invokes laws that. That shouldn't be used in the situations that we see on the ground. And I know that the other states have used similar approaches to ours. They reached out to us, and we spoke to the AG of Oregon, the AG of Illinois, to make sure they knew what we were looking at, the laws that we were pursuing and exploring. And these are laws that haven't been the subject of a lot of judicial review over the years, because there hasn't been a president who's done something so extreme, blatant and brazen. And by trying to deploy military in American cities to be involved in civilian law enforcement in violation the Paste Dictatis act, without any emergency or invasion or inability to execute the federal laws. And so we essentially handed over all of our thinking and legal approaches, and it was used by others. And I think it can continue to be used. Trump shows no signs of slowing down from his desire to use the National Guard as his private roaming army and police force and to treat it as the Royal Guard. So I think we have a lot of important learnings that we are willing to share with others so they can defend themselves appropriately as well.

B (67:29)

There are so many things Trump and his administration are doing to sort of test the law. I mean, they seem so outrageous at times, but that seems to be the trend, too. California has a new law as of yesterday, as you all know, but viewers may be learning banning law enforcement officers from covering their faces in most circumstances. And I think so many of us have watched in kind of horror in seeing what is happening in communities with ICE agents and others really terrorizing people and not identifying themselves and feeling they don't have the need to do that. The Trump administration is, of course, suing to block this bill. There, I guess, is some. You can tell me I'm wrong here, but some federal precedent that they would argue on their side. But. But tell us more about why you think you can win this case, because it's, again, another one which is going to be very applicable in other cities across the country.

I (68:20)

Yeah. Let me first just say I very much agree that California is a role model for how to stand up for your rights and push back against the unlawful actions, the blatant, brazen, consistent, frequent unlawful actions of this Trump presidency and passing laws by the legislature is one way to do that. And if you can't tell the difference between an ICE agent who's masked and not identifying who they are and a criminal who may be trying to harm you, kidnap you, that is a major problem. And everyone knows that anyone with common sense and that these ICE agents who are masked and not willing to identify themselves when every other law enforcement officer does, and most circumstances, police officers on patrol and sheriff's deputies on patrol, they don't wear masks in normal circumstances. So it's a major problem. And communities are terrorized and traumatized. And we're in court defending the laws of the state of California, including this law. It's our job, it's our role, it's our duty and obligation. And we believe we're going to prevail in this case, as we believe in. In, you know, in nearly all cases that we can prevail and defend the laws if something is, you know, we have duties of the court to concede in certain circumstances, but this is not one of them. And we're going to fight as hard as we can to defend this very important law passed by Senator Scott Weiner.

B (69:42)

ROB anta, ATTORNEY general of the State of California. I hope you got some sleep. I hope you have a good stock of coffee out there. I mean, 52 cases is about one a week. You don't need to be a mathematician for that. So thank you for being here and for doing all you've been doing, doing over the last year.

I (69:58)

Thank you. We got a full tank of gas, full of energy ready for whatever comes next. Thanks for having me.

B (70:02)

There you go. Thank you. Okay. Coming up, the countdown to the 2026 midterms is officially underway. At least mine is. And we are just two months out from what might be the most interesting primary day on the entire calendar. We will see. James Talarico is running for the US Senate in Texas, a state where the eyes of Democrats are getting increasingly What? And he joins me after a very quick break. Don't look now, but we are officially in an election year. Last year was an election year, too, but this one is a big one with lots and lots and lots of races. And after Democrats either won or overperformed in basically every single race we saw in 2025, the party is understandably bullish about their chances for 2026. And yes, Democrats are. Democrats are very hopeful about the prospect of retaking the House next November. Very hopeful. You hear about that a lot. But all of a sudden, their chances of taking back the Senate don't seem quite as insane as they did a year ago. But they'll have to pull off some big upsets to do it. And one of the states we're going to be watching very, very closely. Everybody should be watching very closely. Is the possible upset in the possible upset bucket, of course, is Texas. And believe it or not, we are now just over two months away from primary day in Texas when three Republican candidates will try to out MAGA each other on the Republican side, including Ken Baxter, of all people, and Congressman Jasmine Crockett and James Talarika will face off on the Democratic side. Now, Democrats haven't won a statewide race in Texas in 30 years, but they do have a few things going for them this time around. For one, Donald Trump is unpopular, as unpopular as he's ever been, and his policies are continuing to wreak havoc across the country, including all across Texas. Also, those Republican Candidates are extremely unimpressive, and they're tearing each other to shreds right now. Also, we're seeing a huge influx of cash into those Democratic campaigns. James Talarico just announced that he raised nearly $7 million in the last quarter of the year, bringing his fundraising total to $13 million since launching his campaign, which is a pretty hefty sum. And joining me now is James Talarico. He's a former public school teacher, a Presbyterian seminarian, a STET representative, and now a candidate for U.S. senate. It's great to see you, and happy New Year. Happy New Year. That is an impressive fundraising total, as you well know, and I'm sure you're gonna tell me this, too. Money is not the only thing. We've seen Texas Democrats crush it in the fundraising department before, because Texas is like the big white whale for Democrats across the country. But why do you think this time might be different?

A (72:41)

Well, I think what's even more impressive than that big fundraising number is where it came from. It came from more than 215,000 individuals who gave 5, 10, $15 at a time. And it came from 240 counties across Texas, which is almost every county in our state. That's blue areas, red areas, purple areas. That's big cities and small towns. There is something brewing in the state of Texas. There's a backlash growing against the extremism and the corruption that we're seeing at all levels of government, but particularly in Washington, D.C. and I'm seeing it at our events. We've got thousands of people showing up to rally with us in every part of the state. And people come up to me at the end of these events, and they tell me that they're not Democrats, that they're independents or they lean.

G (73:29)

Right.

A (73:29)

But they are sick of what they're seeing in their government, and they want someone who's going to stand up to the billionaires who are controlling our politics.

B (73:37)

Yeah. The detail about all counties all across Texas is interesting. I mean, there's been all sorts of studies about how even if people give $5, they feel invested. Right. Or if they give $5 and they volunteer, they feel invested. Now, obviously, as you well know, and I just mentioned this, the primary is about two months away. You have a tough primary to get through before this general election. Congressman Crockett just got into the race last month. I think a lot of people out there are looking at this primary as kind of a test for the Democratic Party and how it sees its future. How do you see it?

A (74:11)

Well, I think the reason that people are giving to our campaign, showing up to rally with us and signing up to volunteer. We have 13,000 volunteers already signed up for our campaign who are right now making phone calls, sending messages, who are going to be knocking doors this weekend. I think the reason we've gotten this response is because people, people are hungry for a different kind of politics than the politics that we've seen over the last 10 years. This kind of, you know, politics as, as bloodsport politics, as trolling and owning and name calling. I think people are really sick of that and they're ready for something completely different and a politics that's rooted in honesty, in service, in, in and kindness and love for our neighbors. That's what we're building here in Texas. It's really a movement to fundamentally change how we do politics in this country. And I think we're seeing that response all over our state because people are ready for that.

B (75:09)

Let me ask you about something that's going on here in Washington that I know is impacting the people of Texas. I'm sure you're hearing about from people. I mean, yesterday, those Obamacare tax credits, the premium tax credits that have been kind of at the center of the argument here in Washington, they kind of expired. That's going to mean skyrocketing health care costs, as you well know, for tens of millions of Americans, millions of people in Texas. Again, I'm sure you're hearing a lot about it, but what are you telling voters when they ask you about it?

A (75:37)

Yeah, it's going to hurt Texas in particular because of our state government's refusal to expand Medicaid. And so that means a lot of folks rely on these ACA subsidies. And because of this decision in Washington by D.C. republicans, we're going to see millions of Texans lose their health care. And this is personal to me. I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in my very first campaign for the state House almost eight years ago. And I went to Walgreens after that diagnosis to pick up my first 30 day supply of insulin and it cost me $684. I couldn't afford that, so I put it on a credit card. And so I know what it means not to be able to afford the medication that I need. And I know that Texans across our state are facing those same kind of pressures when it comes to their health care. I believe health care is a human right. And I think most Texans agree with me. And I think in this upcoming election, we're going to be able to elect a Senate majority that will guarantee health care for all Americans going forward.

B (76:38)

I mean, there are a few issues where a majority run by Democrats, people could be impacted more than health care. Sometimes I find, and I obviously spend a lot of time working on political campaigns, that the debates here in Washington have a direct impact on people in states like yours, like with these tax credits. But other times, my guess is you feel like the conversation here in Washington is pretty disconnected from what you're hearing on the ground. Do you feel like that's happening right now? And if so, how specifically?

F (77:05)

You know.

A (77:07)

I've said this to you before, that I don't really see politics as left versus right. I see it as top versus bottom. And I feel like D.C. a lot of the folks there are still stuck in this partisan mindset of the blue team versus the red team. You know, most people in Texas, especially most working people, they just want someone who's gonna fight this broken, corrupt political system, who's gonna get the money out of our politics, that we can have a government that works for us, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or an independent. And so that's why I've been running on an anti corruption platform. I've been running on banning super PACs so that billionaires can't make unlimited secret donations to our campaigns. I've been campaigning on banning lawmakers from trading individual stocks and enriching themselves while they're in office. And I've been running on a national ban on gerrymandering in all states in the union so that we can finally have free and fair elections in every community. And I think that's what most folks are hungry for. They want to change the system fundamentally and folks in D.C. i think, are oblivious to that fact.

B (78:12)

Yeah, I think that that is a fair statement and big change is often what people are really looking for and looking to hear from people running. James Talerico, thank you so much. Happy New Year to you. Thanks for joining me. We're going to be right back after a quick break. Okay. That's going to do it for me tonight. Happy New Year to all of you. I will see you back here on Tuesday at 9pm Eastern. It's another anniversary of January 6th and Congress is going to be back in town. My guest, as I've spoken with many of my guests about tonight, is we're going to have a lot to talk about.

E (78:47)

Mazda. Once you discover the Mazda CX5 Mazda, it doesn't take long to get it. With standard all wheel drive, a premium interior and advanced safety features, it's an SUV that gives you more at every turn. It will have you saying Mazda. The Mazda cx. It's made to move you.

F (79:05)

Every Mazda SUV offers you an elevated driving experience and refined performance.

B (79:11)

Discover it at your local Mazda dealer today.