Hakeem Jeffries: More Is More

Summary

Below is a detailed summary of the episode “Hakeem Jeffries: More Is More” of The Bulwark Podcast, hosted by Tim Miller and featuring Hakeem Jeffries. The discussion weaves together domestic political strategy, foreign policy challenges, oversight and corruption issues, local New York politics, and even touches on pop culture and sports. The conversation is marked by frank exchanges and memorable one-liners, as well as pointed critiques of the current political landscape.

──────────────────────────────

1. Episode Overview
   ────────────────────────────── • Purpose: The podcast centers on discussing pressing political issues—from foreign policy challenges such as the support for Ukraine to domestic concerns including the militarization of Washington, D.C., gerrymandering, and congressional oversight.
   • Tone: With its “radical candor” policy, the conversation is unabashed, frank, and includes humorous asides (e.g., the discussion of hip hop and sandwich tossing) while balancing policy analysis and personal viewpoints.

────────────────────────────── 2. Opening Banter and Pop Culture References (00:12 – 01:56)
────────────────────────────── • Tim Miller greets listeners and introduces Hakeem Jeffries, highlighting his long tenure and leadership role.
• The conversation starts with a lighthearted exchange about hip hop preferences.
  – Hakeem defends his 90s-to-early 2000s hip hop tastes (“I’m Biggie, Jay Z, Nas – that era is my zone” [00:32–01:20]).
  – Tim teases him about cultural references like the “Sesame Street hip hop” and the ABCs of democracy, admitting that it might seem “a little corny” while Hakeem explains its viral impact.

────────────────────────────── 3. Foreign Policy and the Ukraine Conflict (01:56 – 04:29)
────────────────────────────── • Hakeem Jeffries stresses that the United States must support Ukraine’s fight for freedom, democracy, and territorial integrity.   – Quote [03:03]: “Ukraine is fighting for its territorial integrity, but also fighting for freedom as opposed to tyranny... the United States should always stand on the side of freedom, democracy, and truth.”
• Discussion touches on Trump’s controversial meeting with Russian officials and questions about Republican colleagues compromising on traditional conservative stances.   – Jeffries criticizes current GOP members as lacking the courage of figures like Liz Cheney, reminding listeners of the legacy of leaders such as John McCain and Mitt Romney.

────────────────────────────── 4. D.C. Federal Overreach and Unlawful Power Grabs (04:29 – 07:31)
────────────────────────────── • Conversation shifts to the controversial federal involvement in Washington, D.C., specifically the move to have the DEA boss run the Metropolitan Police Department.
• Jeffries describes this as “an unlawful power grab” that violates the city’s home rule statutes.   – He references a strongly worded letter from the D.C. Attorney General (07:31) defending local authority. • They discuss potential future escalations if the federal government continues occupying D.C. beyond 30 days, with Jeffries asserting that “there is no single Democratic vote” to legitimize such an action.

────────────────────────────── 5. Gerrymandering, Redistricting, and Midterm Election Concerns (07:31 – 09:02, 23:07 – 26:14)
────────────────────────────── • Jeffries warns that redistricting efforts—citing the North Carolina example where mid-decade redistricting shifted the delegation dramatically—are an intentional effort by Republicans to “rig” the midterms.   – He points out that comparing the narrow majority (three seats) with past successful Democratic gains (e.g., 40 seats in 2018) helps put the threat into perspective. • They debate the use of terms such as “rig” versus “cheat,” with Jeffries emphasizing that when redistricting deviates from the once-in-a-decade cycle for partisan gain, it is indeed an attempt to undermine free and fair elections.

────────────────────────────── 6. Oversight, Accountability, and Corruption in Washington (09:02 – 11:42, 41:07 – 45:45)
────────────────────────────── • The discussion turns to congressional oversight responsibilities:   – Jeffries criticizes the lack of aggressive action on corruption, particularly regarding the Trump administration, noting that “truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” must prevail.   – He touches on issues like the Epstein files blockage and questionable crypto transactions involving foreign agents—stating these are “unprecedented” levels of corruption. • He underscores the need for oversight committees (including Judiciary Committee and Homeland Security Committee chairs) to follow up on not just Trump’s actions but also internal misconduct such as Congressional stock trading. • Furthermore, Jeffries calls for systemic reform in ethics, noting that even the Supreme Court currently lacks an ethical code of conduct.

────────────────────────────── 7. Domestic Policy Priorities: Economy, Healthcare, and Clean Government (37:08 – 41:07)
────────────────────────────── • On the upcoming budget battles, Jeffries names three critical issues:   – Lowering the high cost of living through addressing housing, grocery, childcare, and utility costs.   – Canceling harmful healthcare cuts and renewing the Affordable Care Act subsidies.   – Cleaning up corruption in Washington—ensuring government works for the people rather than “the privileged few.” • He firmly denounces the Republican spending package, arguing it targets essential services like healthcare, veteran services, and housing.

────────────────────────────── 8. Recruiting the Next Generation of Democrats and Embracing Diversity (26:32 – 29:27)
────────────────────────────── • Jeffries discusses strategies for recruiting strong, community-oriented candidates (“Blue Dog” types) in swing districts.
• He emphasizes the importance of including candidates with diverse backgrounds—ranging from military veterans to teachers—so that they resonate with local communities. • The conversation briefly touches on the internal debate about ideological litmus tests within the party, with Jeffries defending ideological diversity as part of the House Democratic caucus’s strength.

────────────────────────────── 9. Local New York Politics and Endorsement Decisions (52:23 – 54:35)
────────────────────────────── • The conversation shifts to New York issues: the endorsement of Zoran Mandani in the mayoral race.   – Jeffries explains that his endorsement is contingent upon follow-up meetings with community leaders in diverse and historically underrepresented neighborhoods of Brooklyn. • Tim playfully criticizes the delay, suggesting it’s “prolonging the pain,” while Jeffries defends his cautious, information-based approach in local politics.

────────────────────────────── 10. Lighter Moments: Sports, Knicks, and a Hip Hop Finale (59:00 – End)
────────────────────────────── • The discussion eases into lighter territory with both speakers reminiscing about Knicks’ history and current NBA Finals hopes.   – Notable mention of longtime courtside favorites like Spike Lee, Fat Joe, and Busta Rhymes. • In a playful closing segment, Tim proposes an outro song from 90s New York hip hop.
  – Hakeem chooses “Notorious B.I.G. – Sky’s the Limit” as the outro, tying back to the earlier discussion around 90s hip hop culture. • The episode concludes with a live musical performance that blends political banter with genuine cultural homage.

────────────────────────────── Memorable Quotes & Timestamps
────────────────────────────── • [03:03] Hakeem Jeffries: “Ukraine is fighting for... freedom as opposed to tyranny. They’re fighting for democracy as opposed to autocracy. The United States... should always stand on the side of freedom, democracy, and truth.”
• [06:03] Jeffries comparing the Ukraine conflict to a “Churchill or Chamberlain moment” and warning that “appeasing the dictator never works.”
• [09:02] On D.C. power grab: “We are not under any responsibility to actually comply with any directives from any so-called acting head...” • [23:09] Discussing gerrymandering in North Carolina: “They took three seats held by Democrats... and made them safe Republican districts.” • [44:24] On ethics: “No matter who’s doing it, Congressional stock trading should be banned.” • [42:08] Summing up oversight on corruption: “Wherever the truth leads us, the truth leads us.”

────────────────────────────── Conclusion
────────────────────────────── In “Hakeem Jeffries: More Is More,” both speakers navigate a broad spectrum of issues—from aggressive federal overreach in Washington, D.C., partisan gerrymandering, and government corruption, to strategies for mobilizing the Democratic base on economic, health, and political reform. Interspersed with cultural references and sports talk, the episode underscores a determined “more is more” approach to policy and political engagement, reflecting the urgency felt by many Democrats in pushing back against an increasingly polarized political climate.

This comprehensive summary should give listeners a clear picture of the episode’s content and its blend of detailed policy discussion with lighthearted cultural commentary.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign.

[B]

Hello, and welcome to the Bulwark Podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. Delighted to welcome to the show the representative from New York's 8th congressional district in Brooklyn. He's been doing that for seven terms, and then he succeeded Nancy Pelosi as the House Democratic leader in November of 2022. You might know him as Hakeem Jeffries. How you doing, sir? Good.

[A]

Great to be with you, Tim.

[B]

We got so much to talk about. We have so much news to talk about. But I like, you know, the podcast is a policy of radical candor. Okay. You know, I just. I like to be honest. And so I've got to come clean with you on something. I've given you a little shit recently over the Sesame street hip hop. All right. I'm not quite. Maybe it's a cultural bridge that I'm missing. You know, I was in. Working on it a little bit myself. I was like A, E, I, O, U, An Epstein investigation hanging over you. You know, you're kind of doing that sort of stuff. What's. What's the deal with all that, you.

[A]

Know, the Sesame street hip hop? I think that I'm Biggie smalls, Jay Z, Nas. 90s into the 2000s hip hop aficionado. You know, that's kind of my zone. I don't really go beyond that.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

I don't really go beyond that.

[B]

You don't. You don't want me quizzing you on NBA Youngboy or anything like that?

[A]

Listen, those are my sons, but that's not me. Listen, I appreciate the genre and how it's developed, but I think that nothing, you know, comes close to, you know, late 90s into early to mid to late 90s into early 2000s hip hop.

[B]

All right, so you're not worried that, you know, people. This might be a little corny, you know, some of the letters. Little cornies.

[A]

You mean the ABCs of democracy?

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The ABC is a democracy.

[A]

ABC is a democracy.

[B]

It's a little corny. No, it's a little bit.

[A]

No, listen, I think that it speaks for itself. It went viral for a reason. I don't know. The comments speak for themselves.

[B]

All right, we'll hash it all out. I just wanted to let you know that for me, it was a little corny. That's okay. Not everything has to land with everybody.

[A]

Yeah, that's exactly right.

[B]

All right, let's talk about some news. We got this summit today up in Alaska or in Russia, as Donald Trump thought where he thought he was going kind of as we're taping, people are arriving. Trump and his posse are in the air, headed there. Sergey Lavrov, a foreign minister from Russia, arrived wearing a CCCP shirt. I don't know if you saw that. Kind of like the old Soviet Union hockey jersey. Yeah, that's not a great sign. I don't think. There's some rumors that Trump's gonna be offering maybe some economic deals with them to try to, you know, cajole them to stop their invasion of Ukraine. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on the meeting today, and I'm wondering also, like, if you've been having conversations with your more pro Ukraine colleagues there on the GOP side in the House and whether there's potentially any opportunity there.

[A]

Well, I think that this is a clear issue in terms of which side the United States of America should stand on. Ukraine, of course, is fighting for its territorial integrity, but Ukraine is also fighting for freedom as opposed to tyranny. They're fighting for democracy as opposed to autocracy. They're fighting for truth as opposed to propaganda. And the United States of America should always stand on the side of freedom, democracy, and truth. And so it's not even a close question as to our continued support for Ukraine. Yes, we'd like to see an end to the war, an end to the bloodshed, but it's gotta be on terms favorable to Ukraine, the Ukrainian people, the rule of law, and the NATO alliance.

[B]

You know, when you talk to some of your Republican fellows, I noticed that some of them are wearing the Ukraine pins. Like, I'm a former Republican. A lot of them I know are. Most of them are older than me, frankly. And so they came up in a Cold War kind of era. I would assume that some of them, naturally, would bristle at the idea that we're going to go play nice with a guy in a Soviet Union sweatshirt. I don't know. Behind the scenes, do you get any sense that those guys have concerns about this, have concerns about the way that we're playing patty cake with a dictator?

[A]

Well, listen, I certainly think that the traditional conservative Republicans have been of the view that we've got to stand on the side of Western democracy and stand against brutal authoritarian dictators like Vladimir Putin. That certainly was John McCain's position. It was Mitt Romney's position. What we have seen with a lot of the current members, this version of the Republican Party, is that they simply fall in line with what Donald Trump tells them to do. And Donald Trump's been playing footsie with, with Vladimir Putin for years. And it's an embarrassment to who we are as a country. Last few months, Trump seemingly has come to a little bit of a different conclusion as it relates to Vladimir Putin's lack of seriousness in terms of actually trying to get a resolution here in a manner consistent with international law and with the rule of law. But I'm doubtful that many of our Republican colleagues, my Republican colleagues, are going to actually show some Liz Cheney like courage, Adam Kinzinger like courage, and speak up against, you know, the wannabe dictator at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who just simply tells them, fall in line.

[B]

Yeah, I'm not optimistic about today either. Well, we'll see by the time this kind of comes out that something will be happening. And so we'll have a live reaction over on Takes feed for our bulwark listeners.

[A]

One thing I can say on this issue, though, and this is our point to Mike Johnson and Republicans. Last year, when we were working hard to make sure that we funded the Ukrainian war effort, it was a struggle, but we ultimately got it done, is that this conflict between Ukraine and Russia, it's sort of like a Churchill or Chamberlain moment. We are either going to appease the dictator or we're gonna aggressively oppose the dictator. And as we saw with Chamberlain, appeasing the dictator never works.

[B]

Yeah, we're aligned on that. This isn't the Tucker Carlson podcast over there. They're trying to relook at the World War II, thinking maybe Churchill was the bad guy. I think that we're seeing things a little more clearly. I want to talk about kind of the authoritarian stuff at home here, the militarization of D.C. and what we've seen. We news yesterday that the head of the DEA is now going to be running the D.C. police Department, at least for a little while. I mean, I was told that these guys were going to be laser focused on the fentanyl problems and the problems facing, you know, people that have been dying around the country because of drug deaths. But if the DEA head is also running the D.C. police Department, that feels like that might be a distraction in addition to just kind of the threat to, you know, home rule, threat to blue cities. Maybe it's going to come to New York. Maybe it's come to your city. Next, what's your reaction to what we've seen so far in D.C. i mean.

[A]

The Washington, D.C. situation is a unlawful power grab that is in part designed, we believe, as a distraction, but an extraction, of course, that we've got to take seriously because it violates the autonomy, the home rule statutes of the District of Columbia. I think the D.C. attorney General issued a strong letter making it clear that in his view, in the assessment of the authorities in the District of Columbia, whoever Donald Trump seeks to install allegedly to run the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C. has no authority and that they should continue to to take direction solely from the police chief of the Metropolitan Police department in Washington, D.C. i thought that was a strongly worded letter. He cited a lot of statutory provisions. I think the attorney general was exactly right.

[B]

I agree with the letter, too. But what do you think they should do if this thing starts to come to a head? I mean, a strongly worded letter is one thing, but what they're doing is legal because of some peculiarities about the D.C. home rule laws for 30 days. But after 30 days, the federal government can't continue to occupy the city. They're already talking about how they might go beyond that. We've already heard that from this White House. If it reaches that point, what do you guys do? What do you think the D.C. local government does if this thing comes to a head in a month?

[A]

Well, my interpretation of the letter that was written by the D.C. attorney General was we are not under any responsibility to actually comply with any directives from any so called acting head of the police department installed by Donald Trump. That was my interpretation, that it was a statement of oppositional defiance to set the tone as it relates to how D.C. is going to approach this situation. Now, there's an open question as to whether the Trump administration and is once again using the notion of emergency powers to try to overstep and engage in a power grab. I mean, crime in the District of Columbia in terms of violent crime is at a 30 year low. And if you actually look at other cities that are in red states, you see crime much higher than in Washington, D.C. or in Baltimore or in New York City, Los Angeles, Shreveport, Mike Johnson.

[B]

City right down the other side of my state. Maybe we should send the military into Shreveport. I wonder what Mike Johnson would think.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, the whole thing is just a phony attack, politicizing the Department of Justice, federal law enforcement, because Donald Trump, at the end of the day, there's no track record of accomplishment that can justify any effort legitimately to go back to the American people and say, keep us in power. That's why we're seeing all of this activity. It's why we're seeing the gerrymandering efforts in Texas and beyond, because they know they have to try to rig the midterm elections to be successful. These People passed this one big ugly bill that actively hurts everyday Americans in order to reward their billionaire donors with massive tax breaks. I mean, who does that kind of thing, ripping health care away from the American people? Millions of folks closing hospitals down in Louisiana and beyond, which is what is going to happen. Nursing homes will shut down, community based health clinics unable to operate. People are going to die as a result of this one big ugly bill. And they also have ripped food away from the mouths of children, seniors and hungry veterans. This is extraordinary stuff. So they have no track record of accomplishment. They failed to lower the high cost of living, which was their core promise. That's why they are desperate. They have no track record to run on. They're running scared.

[B]

I want to get a little bit more into the policies of that bill and the budget stuff, but just really quick on the militarization. And there's some way that it's not a distraction. It could end up being a distraction. We don't know what their plans are, but I think we're seeing a lot of potential alarming signs that this is just the start. What we've seen in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. the reporting about how the Department of Defense is planning like a 600 person squad that will be dispatched to cities if there's unrest. You mentioned the midterm shenanigans. You know, who knows, like maybe they'll decide that military needs to go into the streets in some of these cities or districts where there are competitive races. Aren't you kind of alarmed about the trajectory that we're on here? Is there, is there, you know, any thoughts on that?

[A]

Yeah, my take on it is that it's designed as a malignant distraction, but a distraction that we have to take seriously.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And the two are consistent with each other. We need to understand why it's all happening in terms of, you know, Trump, his increasing unpopularity, the unpopularity of the big ugly bill. They cannot run on issues or project any confidence with respect to what they've done for the American people. So these are all malignant distractions, but distractions that we have to take seriously. So in the context of the Washington D.C. situation, I think what we all are monitoring and prepared to push back aggressively against is this notion that he can go beyond the 30 days to purport to take over the police department and law enforcement functions in Washington D.C. that requires congressional authorization. And I don't believe that there is a single Democratic vote in the House or even in the Senate to allow that to continue.

[B]

You seen the video of the guy throwing the sandwich on 14th Street.

[A]

I have not seen that.

[B]

You haven't seen the Sandwich man video?

[A]

I haven't seen Sandwich man yet.

[B]

You got to watch it. I mean, you know, I'm not endorsing throwing subway sandwiches at police officers. It's a funny video, though. He throws it and then he runs very slowly away and then they're chasing him. It's something to look into. I don't. Do you have any thoughts on sandwich resistance? You don't have any?

[A]

Listen, I mean, I think. I think my view is nonviolent civil disobedience, civil rights level. Resistance is important.

[B]

The sandwich tossing, is that a nonviolent or violent. It feels like. It feels like a gray area.

[A]

Probably above my pay grade to figure that one out.

[B]

Feels like a gray area to me.

[A]

On violent does seem to be a bit of a gray area. But I do think, look, we're in a moment of principled resistance. And as I've repeatedly said to my Democratic colleagues across the country, I think we're in a more is more environment. Right? We just have to continue to do more. More protests, more demonstrations, more rallies, more press conferences, more speeches on the House floor, more speeches on the Senate floor, more town hall meetings in Democratic districts as we've been doing. More town hall meetings in Republican districts as we've been doing and leaning into, you know, more Democratic led hearings on Capitol Hill, off the Hill. We're traveling across the country to do those type of things. More site visits, of course, which we've done repeatedly at, you know, ICE detention centers, courts, things of that nature. More site visits even off the Hill or out of the country, as we've seen from Senator Chris Van Hollen and other members of the House of Representatives and more extraordinary actions like that being taken by the courageous Democrats of the Texas legislature to try to make sure they're doing all that they can to block this effort to gerrymander the congressional map in Texas and rig the midterm election. We're just in a more is more environment.

[B]

Y' all know Ridge, they make amazing wallets, luggage and premium everyday gear. And I think the last time I was talking about Ridge, our sponsor in the wallet, discussing, like, how sturdy and masculine it was. And I was talking about how the. I feel like it'd be a good recommendation. I forget if it was around Father's Day or for the. For the heterosexual men in your life. So I did the ad. I was reading the ad. Maybe a day later, I was hanging out with some other gay dads down here, you know, we have a little gay dad mafia. One of them takes out their wallet, the Ridge wallet. So here I am, you know, kind of doing internalized homophobia on the AT reads. So as it turns out, the Ridge wallet. Steel, sleek, sturdy, masculine. Good for gays and straights alike. Ridge is doing a sweepstakes. Fun news for the fifth time this year, and it's crazy what they're offering. Two lucky winners will get to choose between a $280,000 Lamborghini Stirato or a $100,000 Hennessey Velociraptor or 100,000 bucks in cash. Boy, I think for me, I think I'm taking the cash. I don't know about you. I'm not a big car man. I'm happy with my car. What would I do with a $280,000 Lamborghini? For many of you guys, Lamborghini might sound great. Think about how cool that would be. I think I'm taking the $100,000 in cash, though. I've got some ideas about what I'd do with that. Anyway, it's a good. Why not give it a try? You get a good wallet out of it and you get a chance at a velociraptor. It could be worse than that. Ready to upgrade your wallet and maybe your ride? For a limited time only, head to ridge.com and use code the Bulwark at checkout for 10% off your order and a chance to win Ridge's biggest sweepstakes ever. A Lamborghini Stirato, a Hennessey Velociraptor or $100,000 cash. No purchase necessary to enter. Oh, look at that. No purchase necessary to enter. Well, you should purchase it anyway. But every dollar you spend gets you more entries. That's ridge.com and use the Bulwark at checkout. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Let's get into that. So we saw a strong push from Newsom and from the California legislature yesterday. You know, they're talking about as I feel like it's probably a stretch. He was talking about as many as nine seats. Maybe we haven't actually seen the maps yet. Could potentially be squeezed out of. Out of California. Some of your Republican colleagues, Kevin Kiley, who are going to lose their seats. California and others have been trying to push back. What do you think about this? Like, can California is doing be used as leverage to get them to de. Escalate, do more States need to act like, where are you at on the state of play?

[A]

It seems to me that this kind of unprecedented midterm interference as part of this effort to rig our free and fair elections by gerrymandering the congressional map, wherever they think they can do so, requires a forceful response from us as Democrats when they go low on gerrymandering. We need to hit back and hit back hard. That's the only response that these people will understand at this moment. It's the response that is required on behalf of the American people. So I'm very thankful for the work that's being done by Governor Newsom, by the leaders in the California state legislature, and by the congressional delegation in California. The whole team has been incredible. Recognizing the moment that we're in. My general view on this is that we will respond forcefully and decisively from coast to coast and at all points in between, and we will not allow them to gerrymander their way into Republicans artificially maintaining control of the House of representatives in 2026.

[B]

I usually don't like this nitpicking on language stuff, but I think it's a worthwhile thing to ask you. Stephen Richards, who acted so bravely in the face of the Trump effort to actually steal the 2020 election, was complaining about like kind of Democrats using this word rig, I guess, that really, they're not really trying to rig it, they're trying to cheat. I guess they're trying to cheat. Do you just worry that since it sort of takes the air out of that, that claim, because, you know, there's a lot of Republicans out there that were falsely accusing Biden of, of rigging the election. They were full of shit, of course. I mean, is it better just to be more precise about what we're talking about?

[A]

Yeah, listen, I mean, I think you are trying to rig the election when redistricting should occur once every 10 years, period, full stop. That's the process. And so if you are altering that process simply for partisan political gain, because you don't have any confidence that you can make your case to the voters on the merits, which is the situation that extreme MAGA Republicans find themselves in, then yes, they are trying to rig the midterm elections. By the way, the lesson that they learned in terms of mid decade redistricting and gerrymandering, it comes straight from what just happened in North Carolina, where in the last election cycle, North Carolina Republicans engaged in unprecedented mid decade redistricting. North Carolina is a 5050 state. Donald Trump narrowly won it in November of 2020. Four, Josh Stein won the governorship. A Democrat won the lieutenant governor's race. A Democrat, Jeff Jackson won the Attorney General's race. Democrats won across the top of the ticket and won a very competitive state supreme court race in North Carolina. It's a 50, 50 state. When fair lines were drawn in North Carolina after the 2020 census, the North Carolina delegation was seven Democrats and seven Republicans. 50, 50 state, 50, 50 delegation. Because Republicans won the state Supreme Court majority two cycles ago. They immediately turned around, went into court and got permission, quote, unquote, to redraw the lines in the middle of the decade. And the Republicans went in and they took three seats held by Democrats from the people of North Carolina and made them safe Republican districts. And so as a result, the North Carolina delegation on January 2, which was the last day of the previous Congress was 7, 7. On January 3rd, the first day of the new Congress this year, it was 10 Republicans, 4 Democrats. Republicans only have a three seat majority right now. In other words, they wouldn't be in the majority, Tim, if they hadn't gerrymandered in North Carolina.

[B]

That's it.

[A]

It matters.

[B]

Well, so this is a good point though actually because this, I mean this matters to the country, it matters to you. It matters whether or not your speaker like so all the math on this stuff matters. Their cheating matters. It's not just North Carolina and there are a bunch of states that have been gerrymandered to. Hell, let me just be the devil's advocate because I agree with this strategy. But let's just look at what's out there. New York, your state, really can't Reid district this year because of laws like they might be able to do it ahead of 2028, but not this time. You can tell me if I'm wrong about that, Sean Trend over at Real Clear Politics, who's really smart on this stuff. I was watching something that he was doing yesterday and he says that you have a full out race to the bottom because of the way that Republicans have various legislatures and red states across the country, the GOP can end up gaining, you know, as many as 20 seats. He said if, especially if SCOTUS throws out section two of the Voting Rights Act. If you look at Indiana, Flor, Florida, Missouri, other places, do you worry about that? I mean, like, have you gamed out the math here on whether there, you know, there's enough ammo on the Democratic side if this thing becomes a race to the bottom?

[A]

I respectfully disagree with that assessment from the standpoint of, you know, we've got to be able to match what they're doing in every single location. And I think the people who have concluded that somehow we should just wave the white flag as if that will cause Republicans to stand down haven't been watching the modern version of the Republican Party where facts don't matter, hypocrisy is not a constraint to their behavior, and they've concluded that shamelessness is their superpower. So the notion that Democrats are supposed to wave a white flag doesn't make any sense to me.

[B]

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying like math wise, are there enough districts out there in blue states to offset what they're trying to do?

[A]

Yeah. So let's reset the baseline here. We're only three seats short. Yeah, they're in the majority because of North Carolina and North Carolina alone. Yeah, we're only three seats short. That's the narrowest majority that any party has had in Congress since the Great Depression. When we took back the House In November of 2018, we were 24 seats short. We overcame that during Donald Trump's first midterm election and blew through that number and picked up 40 seats. So by the Republicans own standards of what they would need to do to give themselves a gerrymander based victory, they've got to somehow get themselves to around 24 seats at minimum, if not 40, which is the number of seats that we picked up in 2018, by the way, Republicans themselves in 2010 picked up 63 seats in a red wave and 54 in 1994. So how can they conceivably think that they can gerrymander their way to victory? And that's just assuming that they go nuts across the country and we wave the white flag.

[B]

This brings up something. We're going to get just dorky in the districts for a second. Then we'll get back to, we'll get back to policy, I promise you hit one of my hobby horses here, which is like this. The potential size of the map and you know, in we got, we're getting old leader. I'm for, I'm now I'm forgetting which midterm is Which. It was 2018, the first Trump midterm.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

You know, Democrats won seats in Oklahoma City, in South Carolina.

[A]

Utah.

[B]

Yeah, Utah, There you go. And some pretty red places. But in a wave, you know, if you got people on the field, you know, if they have maybe some, a different view maybe on certain issue or if they have a different type of background, you know, you can surprise people. So I'm Just wondering where your head's at on that. As far as recruiting is concerned, potential future colleagues that might be outside. What would usually be expected for a swing street Democrat?

[A]

It's a great question. And much like we were able to do in 2018 where we had an incredible group of Democrats who were first time candidates in many instances didn't hold elected office, were outsiders, so to speak, but had also had a lifetime of service, either military service, National Security Service, doctors, pediatricians, nurses, teachers of the year. Of course, you know, some of our candidates were social workers, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, small business folks, outsiders who demonstrated a life of service and came to the conclusion that, you know what, this is crazy what's happening in America. We gotta do something about it. So I'm gonna jump into the congressional arena to try to help Democrats flip a seat. So we are engaging in that same level of recruitment, outsiders who have a lifetime of service and making sure that we are fielding candidates in the competitive districts, but also in what we would call opportunity districts where in a wave like environment, if you have a strong candidate, you can win.

[B]

Yeah. What about people who have different views on some of the issues? There's, I think, complaints that Democrats get too litmus testy because you recruit somebody that's running one of these red states who has a different view on abortion or guns or trans or whatever the issue may be.

[A]

Yeah, well, listen, we've got to have people who match the values of the district, of course, in a manner that's consistent with our core Democratic American values. And I think that will be the case in all of these places in most districts where they are swing elect or it's that you can go in one direction or the other. The reality is that these are going to be new Dem type candidates, Blue Dog type candidates who are the ones that can win. And so, you know, we've got a candidate who narrowly lost in Wisconsin, three running against, you know, Congressman Van Orton, who is kind of a maga. Extremist.

[B]

Insurrectionist.

[A]

Insurrectionist. Rebecca Cook, grew up on a dairy farm, is a Blue Dog.

[B]

You got a favorite Blue Dog colleague. You got to rank them a lit favorite.

[A]

All of them are my favorite.

[B]

Angie, you don't want to give Marie glues and Camp Perez. You don't rank her ahead of anybody else. You know, I want to get you in trouble in the cafeteria.

[A]

Yeah, MGP is doing her thing. Mgp. And you know, she's great. Of course, Jared golden, who's also a leader of the Blue Dogs, is tremendous. He was part of that class of 2018 that flipped the tough seat and, of course, has continued to hold the tough seat, Served multiple tours of duty overseas as a military hero, came back home to Maine, and now is representing his district in Congress. These are the type of folks.

[B]

Yeah, Jared's broken. He's a great example. He's broken from you guys on certain things, and that's fine, right? I mean, obviously, you want party unity as much as possible, but you're not kicking people out. You're not recruiting people just because they might have a different view on some cultural issue or whatever.

[A]

Yeah, listen, the ideological diversity that we have within the caucus, whether that's progressive, super progressive, centrist, left of center, some conservative Democrats, at the end of the day, we embrace that ideology. We always try to hash it out on a given issue and then find the highest common denominator. Always putting the American people first, allowing progress to be made and building upon what we've been able to do and trying to continue to go forward even further on behalf of the hardworking American taxpayers that we're there to serve. Listen, as. As a Democratic caucus, I believe that we are most consistent with what the framers conceived the House of Representatives to be the institution that most closely resembled the American people, that reflects the hopes, the dreams, the aspirations, the fears, the concerns, the anxieties, the life experiences and the passions of the American people. That's the House Democratic caucus. And you've got to value diversity in every possible way, including diversity of perspective, diversity of life experience, and diversity of ideology within, of course, the broad sense of the Democratic family.

[B]

All right, y'. All, it's the time of year where you start thinking about protecting your skin from the sun, but you also should be thinking about protecting it from things like collagen loss and inflammation. And maybe, ideally, if you're really moisturizing, well, you can repair some of the damage you did when you were younger. And the good news is, we've got the sponsor for that. It's called One Skin. I've been using their whole line of mineral SPFs for face, body, and lips lately. Can I just be candid with you guys? I just. I just want to be candid. I've been doing it like when I went to Universal when I'm going to the pool. Not that I've had a lot of pool time, but when I've been going to the pool, when I was on my vacation, But I'm not that good about it. When I'm just, you know, walking around town, when I'm just casually out and about. And so occasionally I get well intended listeners or viewers, I guess, in this case telling me they're concerned about some of the sun damage. You know, what also had happened to me recently, I was in Los Angeles and It was like 70 degrees. And now that I moved to Louisiana, I'm like, you can't get sunburned when it's 70 degrees. You can, this is something you can actually get sunburned when you're 70 degrees. So anyway, long story short, you should be using your Oneskin not just when you go to the pool, but also when you're gonna be outside for anything. Oneskin was founded in 2016 by an all woman team of scientists with PhDs in skin regeneration, stem cell biology, immunology and bioinformatics. So they're smart. After testing the efficacy of more than 900 anti aging peptides, they developed the OS1 peptide, the first ingredient to reverse skin's biological age by reducing the accumulation of senescent cells. Cells. OS1 works at the cellular level to improve key aging biomarkers while reducing the visible signs of aging, including lines, wrinkles and sagging skin. Oneskin believes the purpose of skin care is not just to improve how you look, but to optimize your skin's biology at the cellular level. Oneskin is the world's first skin longevity company. By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, Oneskin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. For a limited time, you can try OneSkin with 15% off using code bulwark at OneSkin co. That's 15% off at OneSkin Co with code bulwark. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Okay, this diverse conference, this diverse. Let's talk about what you guys might be doing going ahead when you get back here from the extended break. Since they were hiding from the Epstein story and then potentially into 2026, some of your base voters might not say it exactly like this, but I think they're excited about Gavin's actions and the Texas legislature's actions because They' thought that D.C. democrats have been pussies when it comes to fighting back against Trump. What would you say to that critique and what's the plan going forward?

[A]

Well, I definitely understand why people have anxiety about what's been happening in the country and are demanding appropriately that Democrats stretch themselves in Washington, D.C. and across the country to push back as aggressively as possible. But I think the evidence speaks for itself in terms of what members have been doing in the House, in the Senate. But of course, I can speak most closely to the experiences in the House. Showing up in the streets, in town hall meetings, in rallies, in protests on the House floor, unified opposition to Donald Trump's one big ugly bill. From the very beginning of that bill being brought forward all the way through to the end, and members understanding the importance of us speaking in one voice. The first vote that we took on this issue was in late February, and you had two members, Brittany Petterson, who had just given birth to a beautiful baby boy, Sam. Of course, Republicans have gotten rid of in the House proxy voting, including for expectant and new mothers. So Brittany, who represents a district in Colorado, took her new baby boy, Sam with her, flew across the country for the first time since giving birth in order to be there and join House Democrats and strongly opposing the one big ugly bill. On that same day, you had Kevin Mullen, who had just had multiple surgeries, leave the hospital shortly after those surgeries, fly across the country. Represents a district in Northern California with his wife so she could change his IV on the plane in order to be present in Washington, D.C. those are just two of the unheralded stories of people showing up, standing up, and speaking up for what is right. And again, I understand the notion that people are anxious because this guy is totally out of control at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Donald Trump.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And he's breaking every norm. It's, you know, unprecedented levels of chaos and cruelty and corruption. At the same time, failing to keep his promises to make life better for the American people, unleashing masked agents on law abiding immigrant families, undermining our democracy in the American way of life. So, of course, this is like an all hands on deck, DEFCON 1 situation. Every hour, every day, every week, every month this year, next year, until we can get through this national nightmare.

[B]

Brittany Patterson, proud of Chatfield High School, not far from where I grew up. That was good on her. Okay, I like that. Let's test out the fighting here. We got a government funding thing coming up. You know, they've been doing the rescissions. They've been lying to you. They've been cutting things that you guys have voted on and approved and were signed into law by the president. Is there any deal they could bring to you that would make you feel like you'd want to vote to pass their budget?

[A]

Well, House Democrats strongly opposed the Republican spending agreement that they tried to jam down our throats and more importantly, jam down our throats to the American people in Mars. We Were a hard no, because it was a bill that was going after health care and veterans and housing and nutritional assistance that we had no part in putting together. They basically presented us with a my way or the highway approach. And we said, there's i95. You take the highway. We're not down with it. That was our perspective. And I don't really see how that's necessarily gonna change unless Republicans are actually willing to come together with us to try to address some of the challenges that we feel need to be confronted, particularly as it relates to our broken healthcare system, which they are destroying. Largest attack on healthcare in American history as part of this one big, ugly bill.

[B]

Yeah, let's get to that, actually, because they're not gonna come to you. I think we can agree they're not gonna come. You can hope Spring's eternal. You never fucking know in this world what could happen. I mean, one of our stupidest Americans is the president two times. So anything can happen. But we don't see that happening. Let's say that Speaker Jeffries has the gavel in 2027. I mean, then you actually have some negotiating power, more so than now, at least. What do you take to them? Healthcare is one example. They're kicking a lot of these Medicaid cuts. They're kicking a lot of these cuts past the midterms because they don't want to deal with the consequences. Josh Hawley basically says he voted for the bill because he doesn't think they're ever going to go into effect. Is that an agenda item for you in 2027, trying to claw back the cuts that they included in the bill?

[A]

Yeah, without question. Listen, I think our focus will be on three issues, beginning with the economy. We have to lower the high cost of living. That's the core challenge that everyday Americans are confronting all across this country. The cost of living is too high, starting with housing costs. But housing costs are too high, grocery costs too high. Right. Child care costs too high, insurance costs too high, and utility costs are too high. So we have to focus like a laser beam on lowering the high cost of living, starting with housing and grocery prices and utility bills. That's our commitment as Democrats. So we've got to deal with that issue. Second, of course, as we were discussing, we got to cancel the health care cuts and save our hospitals. Right. This is not that complicated. And we can start by working on, in the context of this upcoming spending bill that has to be addressed by September 30, of renewing the Affordable Care act, subsidies for working class and moderate income Americans. That's something that we should start now. And then we can get to, of course, canceling the Medicaid cuts before they take immediate effect shortly after the midterm elections. That's critically important. And then I think the last thing that we want to focus on as Democrats is cleaning up corruption in Washington, D.C. so we can actually deliver a government that is focused on making life better for the people as opposed to the privileged few doing the exact opposite. That's what we'll do as Democrats, the exact opposite of what we've seen from Donald Trump and congressional Republicans who've been nothing more than a rubber stamp for the administration's extreme agenda.

[B]

Let's talk about that. Cleanup corruption. This would be probably my top complaint about Democrats from the first Trump term and even during the Biden time was just the enthusiasm for oversight of Donald Trump's corruption was not where it needed to be. And if you just look at what Republicans did on Benghazi, for example, could roll your eyes at it, but they're like dogs on a bone on Benghazi. And it probably was the reason why Donald Trump got elected for kind of some strange reasons of the Clinton email scandal coming out of that. So where do you spend your focus on oversight? Is it, Epstein, is the fact that foreign people are bribing Donald Trump by buying his crypto coin? What's the focus on oversight?

[A]

Well, listen, I think oversight is going to be incredibly important. Epstein is certainly a place that we will continue to lean into from the standpoint of the American people. Just need to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is not that complicated. Either one or two things have happened with respect to this.

[B]

You're not worried that the whole truth might implicate some of your pals?

[A]

Listen, I Democrats listen. Wherever the truth leads us, the truth leads us. That's the reality. That's been the position.

[B]

You haven't gotten any calls from Chappaqua telling you to trap?

[A]

I haven't gotten any calls from anyone on this issue saying stand down. We are going to continue to lean into this aggressively, led by Jamie Raskin, of course, who will be the chair of the Judiciary Committee, members of the Judiciary Committee, Robert Garcia, who will be the chair of the Oversight Committee. And they're doing the work now along with a whole host of other folks. Because listen, either one or two things is true here. Either one. This is option one. Donald Trump, Pam Bondi and Cash Patel and that whole crew, either they've been lying to the magaverse for the last several years about the deep state conspiracy connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Either they've been lying about it. That's option one, that's why they don't want to release the files, because their lies will be exposed. Or option two, they're not lying, which is why they're deathly concerned with who might be exposed when the Epstein files are released. It's only one of two options here as to why they actually are stonewalling our ability to get this information to the American people. It's why we are on recess now, as you indicated. I mean, this is in the August district work period. Seems like it's, number two, the Epstein recession, because they got out of town before sundown because they were so afraid of this.

[B]

What about the crypto stuff? Foreign agents are paying Donald Trump money. It's unprecedented in American history.

[A]

We're seeing a level of corruption that is completely unprecedented and will certainly be part of the aggressive oversight that we will need to do relative to the Trump administration moving forward.

[B]

Do we see special committees on any of these things, or.

[A]

Well, I think that's to be worked out in terms of the House Democratic Caucus, our conversation. What I also can tell you pretty clearly, and we're in alignment about this, is that one of the first things that we believe we need to do is to end Congressional stock trading. That should be banned. No matter who's doing it, it should be banned.

[B]

I mean, I guess I don't really care if some guy in Congress is buying Walmart stock. I care about the fact that there are Chinese criminals putting $10 million, millions of dollars into Donald Trump's pocket directly. Like, shouldn't we be subpoenaing them and getting information from these crypto exchanges?

[A]

Congress absolutely should be undertaking those subpoenas. Democrats have pushed efforts to have those subpoenas issued, have that information revealed. Republicans in control right now in the House of Representatives have consistently blocked it. I do think that to have credibility with the American people, however, we have to look at the entire system that exists and make sure that we are cleaning up corruption in our own House, right in the Congress, in the Supreme Court, which has its own challenges, and they need an ethical code of conduct. It's crazy that they're the only ones in Washington, D.C. who don't have an ethical code of conduct. And of course, the Trump administration, which is ground zero for the corruption that exists right now in Washington, D.C. for all the reasons that you've articulated, and there's been an absence of aggressive congressional oversight from the Republican majority.

[B]

This is, I guess this kind of hits in corruption, but it's really oversight. What about on the immigration stuff? Do we need a special committee looking into how they sent Venezuelans to El Salvador with no due process to go into a foreign gulag? Who approved that? Who was in charge of that? What their evidence was that these men were part of gangs? Because it seems completely fabricated. Fabricated based on what we know, the way that they're manhandling people. I mean, do you think that there needs to be oversight and investigations of that and potentially looking into criminal activity by this administration on that?

[A]

It's my expectation that Kristi Noem will be one of the first people hauled up to Congress shortly after the gavels change hands to get a real understanding for the American people as to this conduct that has taken place. The lack of respect for due process, for the rule of law, the unleashing of masked agents on law abiding immigrant communities, and the disappearing of people in some instances to other countries without any real evidence that criminal behavior took place. Listen, this guy. The administration said they were going to focus on violent criminals. We're all for that. Sure, violent criminals, felons should be deported, but not law abiding immigrant families, including in some instances, US Citizen children who've been sent overseas to a place that they've never known. So all of this is gonna require aggressive oversight activity. Listen, my expectation is that you'll have the next chair of the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson, who has experienced in oversight at a high profile level, of course. He led the January 6th committee and he'll chair the Homeland Security Committee. Jamie Raskin. I mentioned oversight. And we'll figure out what the formulation looks like.

[B]

I think the reason why there's some skepticism is you look at what happened when Biden came in. You had Merrick Garland at the doj, and there's a lot of concerns about slow movement there. Do you look back at that and think that Merrick Garland moved too slowly as far as looking into accountability of criminal wrongdoing of Trump?

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

It seems to me that the Department of Justice could have potentially done more, moved earlier and been more aggressive. Now, here's the thing I will say, just in defense of the House, Right. I think every moment of accountability that we've been confronted with in terms of the Ukraine scandal, the abuse of power that took place there, I was an impeachment manager, one of seven.

[B]

I agree with that. You're right.

[A]

On the Senate floor after we impeached him in the House. Same thing in the immediate aftermath of the January 6 violent attack on the Capitol that was led by Jamie Raskin for a second time. And of course, for over a year, you had an aggressive effort to expose what took place on January 6th. Thankful to Speaker Pelosi for putting that together and then presenting that information in a compelling way through the testimony largely of Republican former members of the Trump administration.

[B]

I agree with you. No, that was very well done. I agree with you. You got nothing but praise at the Bulwark for that leader Jeffrey Senda and the whole crew there. One more thing, just new stories related to the corruption. And then I want to get to some New York stuff, a little fun stuff where I lose you. It's a new story out this morning from Axios. The West Wing has created a scorecard that rates over 500 companies on how hard they work to support and promote the OBBB bill. Axios says Trump works transactionally and companies have rushed to pay a demonstrative homage like he's some fucking third rate royal or Banana Republic autocrat. Now senior aides will have data to consult when considering corporate requests, the story says. This comes on the heels of a story that the administration wants to take a stake of intel. Like, what is your reaction to the way they're bullying corporate America?

[A]

Seems to me that the Trump administration is running the largest pay to play effort and scheme in the history of modern day America. And everybody knows it. Corporate America knows it. People in Washington D.C. knows it. We've got to make sure the American people know it. Because if this pay to play scheme is underway in different forms, they're not doing the business of the American people. Instead, they're scheming to line the pockets of their family members and friends. And yeah, we should be very concerned about that as Americans. And that's the reality of the situation that we're in. It's extraordinary to me that there's a lot of silence from people who otherwise claim to be proponents of a free market economy.

[B]

Amen.

[A]

You bully corporations, you bully law firms, you bully universities. You order the CEO of Goldman Sachs to fire his chief economist because you don't like the information that is coming out of Goldman Sachs. You actually fire the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because you don't like the information that the BLS put out relative to the collapse of job creation in the United States of America under the Trump administration, even though the person that Donald Trump fired had just been confirmed by none other than J.D. vance in the previous year. All of this is an unprecedented attack on A market based economy. And it seems to me that there should be more leaders within corporate America standing up to this effort because accountability is going to come and it may come in the next Congress. It certainly will come in the next administration. And people have got to make a decision about whether they're going to stand on the right side of the law now or be held accountable for failing to do so down the road.

[B]

Yeah, I don't want to hear crocodile tears from corporate America when the Democrats are back in charge. If they just do nothing Right now, they just wither while Donald Trump bullies them and threatens to take stakes of companies that he doesn't like. All right, I want to do some New York talk really quick. I want to do some, you know, I want to do a little Knicks and hip hop talk at the end, but we got to do New York politics really quick first. Well, I guess I don't understand what the holdup is on endorsing Zoran Mandani and the mayor's race. Could you explain that to me?

[A]

Yeah, so I didn't know Zoran at all. First time I ever sat down and met with him was last month, you know, in connection with him becoming a Democratic nominee. It was a good conversation. He was out in East New York in that part of the district that's very important to me, very important to Brooklyn, very important to the city of New York, often doesn't get a lot of attention. It was a candid conversation. It was comprehensive and we were really having a community focused discussion about the things that would matter to communities like East New York or Brownsville or the West End, the Coney Island, Canarsie, working class neighborhoods traditionally and continue to be predominantly African American and Caribbean American. The things that would matter to them as well as in the southern Brooklyn part of the district that I represent, which is predominantly Jewish. So that was a good conversation. It was an important one to have. Right. I don't just simply endorse folks based on no understanding of what the plan is to actually deliver and make life better for the people that I'm privileged to represent. In that conversation, he asked me to put together a follow up meeting with some community leaders in many of the neighborhoods that I represent, which I told him I would do with setting that in motion, should occur within the next few weeks. And then once that meeting takes place, along with some other conversations that he's having with members of the congressional delegation, and then I'll make a decision thereafter.

[B]

I was a Republican up till two minutes ago and I'm a capitalist and I'd Zoran on. And I went at him on a variety of issues we disagree on, but, like, it's not really a close call, is it? I mean, you have a corrupt mayor that is doing deals with Donald Trump. You had a guy that had to resign in disgrace that already lost a Democratic primary. I don't like. It's not a close call. Right. Why not just. Why not just endorse him and then work with him?

[A]

Well, I think what I can say is that he's the only one I'm scheduled to talk to.

[B]

Okay, let's just get it over with. You're prolonging the pain leader. Why not just endorse Zoran? It's not that hard.

[A]

Listen, listen, I understand, but it's not like things aren't happening. I was just in Chicago. I was in Texas, I was in California. We're in the middle of an unprecedented redistricting war.

[B]

Literally, you're doing it and then just do it. Get it out the way. I'm anti, anti Zo run. I'm not even really. I don't even really like, you know, we have a lot of disagreements, but I mean, come on. Anyway. All right, well, that'd be my. My advice would just be to rip the band aid off. Would have been nice to do it right here, but. But that's just some unpaid for advice. I'm not. I'm out of the consultant business now. I had other New York stuff, but really quick. Is it true that Trump has never said your name? Is that true? I was, I was googling this this morning because that's what I had heard and I couldn't find it, but I can't say that I did a full search. He's never. And he doesn't.

[A]

Yeah, it's kind of an extraordinary thing. As far as we can tell, in the 10 years that Donald Trump has been in the public domain, he has never once uttered my name. Now people are gonna have to ponder who are close to him and maybe ask the question. I don't know. He definitely regularly attacks other people.

[B]

You don't have a theory on that? Has he invited you to the White House?

[A]

Have you come the other day he did. When asked the question, does he plan to meet with Leader Schumer and myself in advance of the pending government shutdown deadline? He said he guesses that he will. He doesn't think anything's gonna come on the conversation, but, you know, he assumes that he will listen. My view is that we'll have a conversation And I'll lay out very clearly what I think needs to happen for the American people for us to arrive at a bipartisan agreement that actually meets the needs of everyday Americans in terms of their health, their safety, their national security and most importantly, their economic well being. What I will say is, and people can try to figure out the answer to this on their own, but Alyssa Slotkin, very talented member of the Senate. She delivered the Democratic response to Donald Trump's joint address to Congress. As far as I could tell, Donald Trump had nothing to say about Alyssa Slatkin. Not a single word, didn't live truth, social, which is what you would think under normal circumstances he might do. Not a single word of criticism of Alissa Slotkin, presumably because he didn't want to elevate Alyssa Slotkin. Cory Booker is on the Senate floor for a record 25 hours. Shatters Strom Thurmond's filibuster record, says nothing of praise about Donald Trump. Correctly characterizes the moment. Historic speech. As far as I can tell, not a word from Donald Trump about Cory booker during those 25 hours or in the aftermath of that speech. Cory Booker and I, then later on in April, we conduct a sit in in the spirit of John Lewis for 12 and a half hours had never happened on the House Capitol steps criticizing the health care cuts that were getting ready to be debated in the one big ugly bill. More than 100 million people actually viewed it in different forms within 24 to 48 hours. Presumably Donald Trump was aware of what was taking place on the Senate, on the House Capitol steps, nothing from him. Mikey Sherrill wins the primary. And Mikey's incredible, right?

[B]

Yeah, she's great.

[A]

She wins the primary. A week or two before we had a primary in New York. Nobody's talking about Mikey Sherrill, perhaps because Donald Trump has no interest, even though she won a primary, is on her way to being the governor. Helicopter pilot, war veteran, former federal prosecutor, super mom. Right. He doesn't want to elevate Mikey Sherrill. Not a word. So it's, it's, you know, it's interesting in terms of he's good at picking.

[B]

His foes, I guess that.

[A]

Right. I mean, so, you know, the reality is, listen, we're going to continue to do what we do regardless of what he does. But it's clear that he's not interested in painting a picture of the Democratic Party that is broadly inclusive of folks who have consistently been able to drive issues of importance to everyday Americans around the economy or around healthcare, around cleaning up Corruption.

[B]

How are you feeling about the next new coach this new year, NBA Finals, do you think?

[A]

Listen, I think so. It's been a long time since we've won a championship, of course, going all the way back to the Willis Reed days, Walt Frazier days.

[B]

Dave DeBusscher was.94 was the last time you were there.

[A]

Yeah, well, you know what? We went in 99. If you remember, there was a series against the Spurs. It was an unexpected run to the Finals. And that was sort of the last run of Patrick Ewing, though he was injured in the Finals as Marcus Camby, Latrell Sprewell, Alan Houston. So that was a surprise. We haven't been to the finals since then, meaning it's been over 25 years, which is extraordinary. But this is a Nick team to love.

[B]

Yeah, it is.

[A]

And you know, Jalen Brunson, I think, has captured the imagination of the city. He's great. Cat is doing his thing. OG Is a defensive stalwart. I mean, this is a great team. Jason Hart, the Villanova Knicks, that crew. So I'm excited about what's to come. I'm excited about the runs that we've had. Disappointed in the end, but looking forward to the season.

[B]

Yeah, Nova. Nick's Josh Hart. He was there with my brother at Nova. Do you have a Mount Rushmore of Knicks celebrity fans? The courtside vibes, like, who's your. You know, I'm trying to get you invited to seats. So who's your. Who's. Who's your Mount Rushmore of the courtside fans?

[A]

Unquestionably at the top of that list is Spike Lee.

[B]

Oh, yeah, right.

[A]

I mean, Spike is synonymous.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And he's been rocking with the Knicks for a long period of time. Since the glory days as far as I can remember, in the 90s, all the way through. Has never abandoned his post. I think another favorite of mine is Fat Joe.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Just because, you know, it's Fat Joe. It's the boogie Down Bronx. He's just a good guy, thoughtful guy, authentic guy, and a real guy in terms of his life experiences growing up in the boogie down Bronx and his love for the Knicks. You know, Busta Rhymes I have a lot of respect for as well. I guess he's dropped a couple of bars in terms of theme music for the Knicks moving forward in this version of the Knicks. Busta Rhymes originally is from Brooklyn, then he moved out to Long Island. But it's a long list of folks that I got love for.

[B]

Okay. With that fourth slot, you got Tracy Morgan, you got Ben Stiller, Timothy Chalamet. You know, you can touch a new generation.

[A]

Yeah, well, listen, I mean, I think. I think Ben Stiller, I've got love for. Tracy Morgan is threw up on the court. Amazing.

[B]

Pretty good.

[A]

Yeah. Yeah. So listen, a lot. A lot of options there for that fourth slot.

[B]

I'm just praying for a Knicks Nuggets final so we can go. We'll do. If that happens, we'll do the next podcast. Next. What would it be next June up there in Denver? Msg.

[A]

I look forward to that.

[B]

We take people out with a. With a musical number. Do you want to educate anybody on some 90s New York hip hop? Do you want to pick a song for us for the outro?

[A]

Yeah, I think for the outro, we can go. Notorious B.I.G. sky's the limit.

[B]

Okay, that's pretty good. Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries. I appreciate the time for you coming on the pod, and I hope we can do it again soon, man.

[A]

Thanks, man. Look forward to it.

[B]

All right, everybody else will be back here Monday for another edition of the Bulwark Podcast. See y' all then. Peace.

[C]

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. How's everybody doing tonight? All right, I'd like to welcome to the stage the lyrically acclaimed. I like this young man because when he came out, he came out with the phrase he went from ashy to classic. All right, I like that. All right, so everybody in the house, give a warm round of applause for the Notorious B I, G. The Notorious Bic, ladies and gentlemen. Give it up for him, y'.

[B]

All.

[C]

Oh, A never been as broke as me. I like that when I was young I had to pay a leave? Besides that, the pinstripes and the gray the one I wore on Mondays and Wednesdays While niggas flirt, I'm so with tigers on my shirt and alligators? You wanna see the inside? I see you later. Here come the drama. Oh, that's that nigga with the fake.

[B]

Wow.

[C]

Why you punch me in my face? Stay in your place, play your position. They call my intuition, go in this pocket, rob him while his friends watching and hoes clocking, Here comes respect his crew, who's your crew? Or they might be next? Look at they man eye big man, they never try so we roll with them, stole with them? I mean loyalty bought me milks at lunch the milks with chocolate, the Cookies, Butter Crunch, 88 Oscars and Blue and white duck. I was ashamed my crew was lame I had enough heart for most of them Long as I got stuff for most of them Soft Even when I was wrong I got my point across. They depicted me the boss of course my orange box color make the world go round Plus I'm ain't my homegirls now start stacking, dabbled in crack, gunpacking nickname Medina made the cena so from gym class to in glass passed off a global the only with a mobile can't you see like total getting larger in wasting taste Ain't no telling where the spelling is heading Just in case, keep a shell at the tip of your melon, clear the space your brain was a terrible thing to waste. 88 on gate snatch an issue name plate smoking splits with niggas real life begin to kill us praying God forgive.

[B]

Us for being sinners. The board podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.