Inside the “No Kings” Protests — and What Comes Next

Summary

---

The Chris Cuomo Project

Episode: Inside the “No Kings” Protests — and What Comes Next
Date: October 23, 2025
Host: Chris Cuomo
Guest: Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen

---

Overview

This episode dives deep into the origins, execution, and future of the historic “No Kings” protests—a nationwide, nonviolent mobilization of millions standing up against rising authoritarianism, unchecked money in politics, and “fringe” control by both political extremes. Chris Cuomo hosts Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen and a principal organizer behind the “No Kings” movement. Together, they explore why the protests became the largest in American history, what they signify about American democracy, and what comes next for the movement and U.S. politics at large.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. The “No Kings” Movement: Bigger Than Party Lines

• Cuomo frames the protests not as anti-Trump, nor as a leftist or minority-driven uprising, but as a broad, majoritarian pushback—overwhelmingly consisting of older, white, middle-aged Americans (35-60)—against a system where “the money of the few trumps the interests of the many.”
  • "No Kings is not just anti Trump. It's... I care about America so much that I'm willing to put it on the line and fight... That the majority is finally starting to come together to mobilize against mere party advantage. The money. It's never been about red and blue. It's always been about green." (A, 01:20)

2. Organizing the Largest Protest in History—Nonviolent by Design

• Weissman details the planning:
  • Coalition of over 300 organizations (environmental, faith, labor, democracy, housing, etc.)
  • 2,700 events nationwide—urban, rural, and suburban
  • Focus on nonviolence, security, and de-escalation; every event host vetted and trained
  • Success built on pent-up outrage and desire for pro-democracy action, not just progressive activism
  • "You hit a certain level of energy around this and kind of break through culturally, this thing starts feeding on itself." (B, 07:36)

3. Media Coverage and the ‘Violence Bias’

• Cuomo and Weissman critique media focus:
  • The protests were largely ignored because they stayed peaceful
  • Both agree nonviolent action should get more attention
  • "Do I suck that bad that if there's violence I jump all over it and if there isn't, I ignore it?" (A, 13:38)
  • Weissman bluntly replies: "Cuomo sucks that bad." (B, 13:47)

4. Myths About Political Coalitions

• Right & Left are both fractured internally:
  • Trump’s personality cult temporarily unified the right; the left now intentionally unites against authoritarianism
  • The “herding cats” problem of progressives is overstated
  • "I think it's a myth in the first place... They’re fighting like everybody else.” (B, 09:58)
• No Kings as a pro-democracy, anti-authoritarian movement; not a leftist project

5. Threats to Democracy: Authoritarian Ambitions and Big Money

• The real threat isn’t just Trump:
  • Trump himself is less ideological, more about power and personal gain (“dominance”)
  • "He believes in dominance. So he's got the instinct of an authoritarian." (B, 19:55)
• Systemic issues: Citizens United, unchecked SuperPACs, and the "oligarchy"
  • Just 100 individuals fund 70% of super PAC money, leading to distorted policy
  • “The only division… is do we need fundamental reform or do we need to change the system altogether?” (B, 24:25)
  • Crypto and corporate money buying influence highlighted as current crises

6. Changing Political Discourse

• Demonization and Distraction:
  • Both lament the reduction of protestors to socialist radicals
  • Labeling No Kings as “Antifa” or “left-wing” is a ploy to justify repression
  • "They have an executive order that says antifa equals domestic terrorists. Now you're labeling like us like that. You're saying we've got the right to come at you with military force...” (B, 41:18)
  • Tactics to discredit legitimate opposition are a real threat to civil society

7. What Comes Next For “No Kings”

• Post-protest action:
  • Future: Rallies around Veterans Day, policy-focused advocacy, increased campus activism
  • More focus on concrete outcomes—healthcare, university freedom, hunger, etc.
  • Intent is to keep pressure bottom-up on politicians, not to become merely adjunct to the Democratic Party
  • “It is an expression of a movement. I do think it's making the Democratic politicians be better…That's the ground up way.” (B, 54:01)

8. Is This the Birth of a New Populist, Majoritarian Movement?

• Cuomo posits No Kings could break the two-party lock:
  • He urges Weissman to see No Kings as more than an oppositional force, but an organizing principle for a new American majority
  • “This could be it, Robert. This could be… a pure new populist movement. We're not Democrats who are mobilizing for them to resist Trump. We're a lot more than that...” (A, 56:44)
• Weissman’s position:
  • Emphasizes Public Citizen’s non-partisanship but agrees: majoritarian economic populist agenda is broadly popular and transcends parties
  • “The reason that agenda doesn't get realized... is not Democrat, Republican. It's because of the power of big money. So if we can cut through that with a populist, an economic populist agenda. Yeah, I think that's the winning ticket, and that's transparty.” (B, 59:30)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Cuomo, on the essence and power of the movement:

  • "No Kings is not just anti-Trump... it’s that the majority is finally starting to come together to mobilize against mere party advantage. The money. It’s never been about red and blue. It’s always been about green." (01:20)

• Weissman, on organizing scale and unity:

  • "We had 7 million people by our estimate, on the streets in every state, almost every congressional district..." (04:46)
  • “We’re nonpartisan, but we do define ourselves as progressive...but I don’t think this is particularly left, the No Kings. It's really pro democracy and anti authoritarianism.” (06:44)

• Humorous exchange about media priorities:

  • Cuomo: "Do I suck that bad that if there's violence I jump all over it and if there isn't, I ignore it?" (13:38)
  • Weissman: "Cuomo sucks that bad." (13:47)

• Weissman, on the dangers of being labeled “antifa”:

  • “There’s no organization in this country called, that identifies as itself as antifa...But when they say antifa, they have an executive order that says antifa equals domestic terrorists...” (41:18)

• Cuomo, on why the discourse is broken:

  • “Because it's antagonistic, it reduces you, it cheapens you, it otherizes you. And that's where our politics is.” (40:03)

• A hopeful vision:

  • Weissman: “If we can cut through [big money] with a populist, an economic populist agenda...that’s transparty.” (59:30)

---

Key Timestamps

• 00:00-03:49 — Cuomo on the meaning and makeup of No Kings
• 04:46-08:40 — Weissman describes the mechanics of organizing the protests
• 09:58-11:38 — Myths of coalition building; right and left both fractured
• 13:39-15:30 — The media and the bias for covering violence
• 19:52-21:26 — Trump’s motivations: dominance and authoritarian tendencies
• 23:51-26:19 — The real problem: money’s dominance in politics
• 31:20-32:10 — Trump’s love of the Gilded Age; symbolism and myth
• 35:21-39:49 — The ICE debate—legality, tactics, and the “how” of law enforcement
• 41:18-45:28 — The danger of using “antifa” as a blanket justification for crackdown
• 54:01-56:44 — What’s next: Small and large actions, focus areas, expanding the coalition
• 56:44-61:03 — Can No Kings become a true new-party movement?
• 61:03-end — Summing up: The pursuit of hope, not just being “against,” but building “for”

---

Conclusion

Chris Cuomo and Robert Weissman present the No Kings movement as an inflection point in American civic life—bigger than Trump, bigger than the left-right binary. The historic, peaceful protests, ignored in part because they defied violence-centric media narratives, symbolize a broad, cross-demographic demand for majoritarian, pro-democracy, anti-authoritarian reform. The battle, both agree, is not just against demagogues, but against the systems of money and influence that have hollowed out true representation. Both point to future actions that arc beyond oppositional politics and toward a positive, populist, majoritarian agenda—one that could redefine what it means to be American and politically engaged.

---

For more detailed discussions, memorable exchanges, and ongoing No Kings developments, follow The Chris Cuomo Project and Public Citizen’s updates.

Transcript

[A]

There is hope. There is something happening that is not being discussed. There is more than resistance. There is a new insistence on the majority in this country finally balancing out the money of the few against the interests of the many. What is it? You know? But no one's talking about it. So let's get after it. Chris Cuomo here. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. The no Kings protests were the most protests in the history of the country. How do we know? 10 different metrics? And even getting into how we know is a distraction from what we do know. Which is what? This is the best hope of not being limited by the fringe on the right and the fringe on the left. Did you know that the no Kings participants were overwhelmingly older, meaning not young, like 35 to 55 or 60. Okay. Prime of life. White people. Now, why do I tell you that? Because what it is is not fringe, radical lefties and all those scary minorities. That's not what it was. It's MAGA reaction formation. Why? Because they don't own what the majority of this country is. The majority has been held hostage by the few. And that is a lot more than a protest. No Kings is not just anti Trump. No Kings is certainly not. I hate America. It's not what it is. It's. I care about America so much that I'm willing to put it on the line and fight. Not a rebellion, Not a revolution, not buy a rifle and wait for ice. None of that stupid shit that just feed outrage. But not fixing this is the best hope for better that I have seen in years. That the majority is finally starting to come together to mobilize against mere party advantage. The money. It's never been about red and blue. It's always been about green. And since Citizens United, it's never been worse. The legal money is killing us. That's what drives Trump. That's what drives all of the changes to society that are against working families. It is not about socialism. It's about how we do capitalism. It is not about the few. It is about the many. And the most important man in our politics today, in my opinion, is someone you have never talked about, and he's on the show right now. Public Citizen was started by Ralph Nader back in the 70s. It is now run by a man named Robert Weissman who is fundamental to the organizing and the ambitions of no Kings. How did he pull off the biggest single day of protest in American history? Why is nobody talking about it? Because it wasn't violent. Because that's all the media cares about, is what Drives the outrage. That sucks. What doesn't suck is what can come next. Here is a conversation that I could not have been more excited to have. Robert Weissman, probably in my estimation, one of the most important men in politics today. How does that hit you when I describe you that way?

[B]

It doesn't really register for me, but thank you. I think public, you know, if I am that, it's because of my role of public citizen. And I think we're doing really important work At a pretty desperate moment in American history.

[A]

Public citizen has never been more necessary than it is right now. Ralph Nader's original dream, while he was an anti hero for guys like me coming up and understanding politics and political science and history to fight against where the money is, has never been more relevant. But you're not even known for that. You're known as the no Kings guy right now. What was the idea, the origination behind no Kings and did you have any expectation that you would have had a set of protests? Protests, not riots, not violent by design or by execution, like what we just saw in America by the millions?

[B]

Yeah, well, I mean, we have some history on this. We have history from the, the first term of mobilizing against Trump. And then now, I think with the authoritarianism orders of magnitude more severe. There's really been this pent up energy. I mean, I actually think our coalition was a little slow to get going. You know, we, the first big thing in the spring, it's called hands off. And the larger one, the first no Kings in June, which was probably 5 million people, even bigger than the, the earlier April one had been. And you know, when Trump came in and Musk was driving things and there was just, especially here in Washington D.C. such intense fear and confusion and people being isolated and wanting to do something. So it was this kind of pent up energy and we've seen, I think it unfurl and unleash in these big moments. People are really upset, correctly. And really outraged. Correctly. And wanting to do stuff together. So we did have what probably was the biggest single day of protest in American history this past Saturday with no kings too. 7 million people by our estimate, on the streets in every state, almost every congressional district, rural, urban, suburban. And did I see it coming? Yeah, we did see it coming. We knew what we had done with the first no Kings and we knew that the, the authoritarianism is getting worse, but we also knew that the outrage and the desire to speak back is growing larger.

[A]

Let's talk about the how and then we'll talk about the why? How do you organize something like this, especially on the left, even though it shouldn't just be the left, I think that this has got to be about the majority versus the minority. Because the powerful, the brokers, the players, the pundits, the pod brothers, they're all the minority. The majority is the one that wants reasonable, rational, hands off types of policies where government respects the norms and. But how do you get to them?

[B]

You know, we public citizen, we're nonpartisan, but we do define ourselves as progressive. And I don't shy away from what my personal ideology is. But I don't think this is particularly left, the no kings. It's really pro democracy and anti authoritarianism and that's. I'd rather be talking about other things to tell you the truth. But in the moment we're in, this is the most urgent thing. And so I think it's very broad. So how do we pull together a huge coalition of organizations? More than 300 organizations come together to support this. The gamut from environmental groups to housing organizations, democracy organizations, faith based organizations, labor unions. So that's sort of the breadth of it. And then we've got organizations that have a lot of reach, have membership, chapter, have chapters and membership that becomes sort of the base for pulling it together. And we have some experience with this and built up expertise and putting on these kind of large events. It's 2700 events, so there's individuals or groups who are hosting and sort of shepherding each one of those. Obviously if it's you know, in D.C. or New York, Chicago, these large events, that's a big coalition. But in some places where, you know, you got a thousand people turning out, in a town of 2,000, it's one or two people who are taking responsibility. So they volunteer themselves. Through our various networks, every one of those host is both vetted to make sure they're legitimate, they're serious, they're going to follow our principles of non violence and they're going to prepare properly and they're also given tons of support along the way. And then the thing builds and you know, when you hit a certain level of energy around this and kind of break through culturally, this thing starts feeding on itself. People know this is happening, they want to jump in. You don't have to do such hard recruitment because people are throwing themselves and saying, you know, what is this event? Where is it? When, how do I get connected? And it took off now.

[A]

It was, it's interesting to hear you say this isn't even what I want to be talking about, because you do have bigger systemic issues. And I happen to agree with you. I think that we both agree. If we could wave a magic wand and make one change to what is law or policy in America right now, would have to begin with Citizens United. Because it's the legal money in our politics that's just killing us. And it's why, frankly, the Mag 7 from the S&P 500, the media, social media guys like Elon Musk are beyond regulation, beyond reach, because of their money and their influence with money on social media. But we are where we are. And to be very clear, the no Kings movement seems to be what they said progressives could not do, which is herd cats and bring together a coalition to match maga. Right. The narrative is the right is better at coming together, fingers into a fist than the progressives are, that they would rather fight amongst themselves and tear each other down than come together to build anything. Do you believe that is changing, and if so, on what basis?

[B]

Yeah, well, first, I think it's a myth in the first place. I mean, I think actually what has happened is Trump has brought the right together. All these disparate functions around his singular personality and his cult. If you actually read what the right wing says about each other, they say they're fighting all the time, they can't get along. Why can't they be more like the left, who's so consolidated and so unified? It's constant in all their chatter. Trump has kind of changed that a little bit, but I just think sometimes we give them too much kind of magical organizational umph. They're fighting like everybody else. That said, I think on the progressive side, there's a very intentional effort now to deal with a common problem. So there's lots of issues. And this stuff, as you know, Trump is getting manifested in every area. No matter what thing you work on or what you care about, something pretty seriously bad is going on where you're worried about the climate crisis or housing. We had a lawsuit. They tried to shut down the national hunger hotline. Why? So it's everywhere, but it's all united around this problem of this authoritarian push. And so people are recognizing that they're working on their own thing, but they're joining together around this common problem of an authoritarian and how we preserve and defend our democracy. And so I think there's, like, there's the theme of it, and there's the recognition of the seriousness of the moment. And then I think there's a lot of work that's been going on to Try to get people to collaborate and, you know, we're in a pretty good space at least. This is sort of outside, by the way, outside the Democratic Party. Inside the party is a different question.

[A]

Thank you for that nonpartisan work. Thank you for that, Mr. Weissman. Because my constant criticism, which is completely misunderstood or taken out of context, and that's okay, especially when people are angry. I get it. But having grown up with one of the OG progressives, right. Of Mario Cuomo, my criticism is, and I know why you draw this distinction between the movement and the party. The party is not his party anymore. It has been flailing. It has been trying to find itself in fringy ways. And I don't believe it's particularly working. And I think the results are Trump. Trump would not have beaten the OG Democrats. I don't even think he would have beaten Jesse Jackson with all the problems that Jesse had to face. Culturally and systemically, however, you are where you are. And my hope had been that the change would be bottom up. That's very hard. Top down is easy. Cult of personality is easy. Trump coming in as a, as a magnified, you know, almost a monster of political force is the easy way. Not easy to do. But it is much more simple, let's say, than it is what you're doing. And yet I think the no Kings is being attacked by the right, falsely criticized for having been angry. No, that was George Floyd. That was blm. That's antifa. That is not what we saw in these protests. I don't think it's gotten enough attention that there was no real violence anywhere with millions and millions of people. Are you surprised by that? I know you wanted it, but did you expect it this way? And why do you think it doesn't get more attention or in the media? Do I suck that bad that if there's violence I jump all over it and if there isn't, I ignore it?

[B]

Well, if you. I are the media. Yes, you, you do suck that bad.

[A]

But there's the viral clip. Go ahead.

[B]

Cuomo sucks that bad. I think a few things. First of all, you know, we were asked about this endlessly in the lead up. What about the violence? What about the threat of us? What about not you? Okay, you're committed to non violence, but what about the other people who are going to force you in the violence? Be said, you guys are hyping this thing up. It's not an accident. I mean, this is. It was the biggest thing obviously I've ever been part of because I think it's the biggest thing that's happened one single day protest in American history. But I've done a lot of protests but there's never been anything I've been connected to with as much care on security, nonviolent training, de escalation, the massive effort on a preemptive side imagining unlikely but possible scenarios and really planning for them. And then there was a very overt. I think I said to you in our earlier conversation in advance of the day. It wasn't just that I'm predicting it's going to be peaceful and then we're all saying we want peaceful events. Nonviolence is a core principle of what we're doing. And you know this, that's not just saying, that's an ideology, nonviolence. It's not just sort of saying we don't want to be violent. There's a theory of how we work in the world and a commitment to principle and that's animating this loose coalition. But it's, but it's core to what we're all, to all the things we're doing and core to this entire anti authoritarian movement. So no, I wasn't surprised that it worked out the way it is. Impressive. It's, you know our estimate is 7 million people. You got 80,000 people in a football stadium. The odds are pretty good there's some scuffles are going to break out now we don't have as much liquor as they might have there but still pretty impressive debt.

[A]

So how did you. One more on the how antifa. The Guy Fawkes guys, the white guys with the skateboards, you know, having been in a lot of protests that have turned riot, I believe it's opportunism. I don't believe that the main coalitions who are worried about policing, for example, what we, you know, the old flashpoint issue which was abuse of force in policing in communities. Now we have abuse of force at the executive level that you are coming after and we'll discuss that. But it was always these outside guys. I was in these riots multiple times and once you see that Guy Fawkes mask and once you see the organizers who are wearing the masks and they're using the walkie talkies in their phones and they're here they come outside agitators that want to make chaos of the moment. How did you deal with that?

[B]

You know, we had such big numbers and such levels of organization. This wasn't that event. Like I don't think there's that many of those people who are sort of well, intentioned you know, actually think as a matter of ideology, this is the way to move forward for progress. If you are one of those people, this wasn't your place. This just wasn't your place.

[A]

Right. But I'm saying you. We also know that these other guys, just to be straight about it, they want to create the moment. Hopefully it flames up, they get the video and they put it online to get their clicks.

[B]

Yeah, there's some, I mean, yeah, there's some people who are total provocateurs, like independent provocateurs. Right. And you know, my belief is, and I think this is historically true and it's hard to track in real time of that very small number of people. I think there's a significant number of people who are part of local police forces or, or the federal police. And not just sort of they are undercover, but sometimes they're undercover and stoking what happens because they actually want the confrontation. But anyway, if that's what your deal was, this wasn't your event because it was. It was too big, it was too clear what it was. The people weren't your people. Was daylight. And I didn't really think it was a risk all but again, we didn't dismiss it. It was really heavily planned for.

[A]

Support comes from Seoul. But I don't feel supported enough and I'll tell you why. I've been asking for more of this product for a while. I don't know if Greg has taken it or what's going on or they're all sold out because I wouldn't be surprised by any of those options. SOL is good stuff if you want to relax and booze doesn't work for you anymore. Sole is a wellness brand to look into, okay? They specialize in hemp derived THC and CBD products. Now what is that? Hemp is a different plant related to but different from marijuana. That the distinction has a meaningful difference to me. Why? Weed, gummies, weed drinks, weed, anything to me means a potential paranoid trip, which I don't need. I'm paranoid enough already. I don't have that experience with hemp, okay? It also takes away all the regulatory issues because it's not legally an issue the way marijuana is. When I take a hemp derived THC CBD product, I get the buzz without any of the psychobabble. Bring on the good vibes. Treat yourself to soul today and right now, Seoul is offering my audience 30% off their entire order. That is groovy. Just go to getsoul.com okay? And use the code Cuomo. Getsoul.com, the promo code is Cuomo. You'll get 30% off. Please tell them I sent you and tell them to send me my stuff. No kings. Now we go to the why Donald Trump is a man of strategy and tactics and ambitions to remove the norms and the institutions and be a king. Do you believe that, that it is a high minded move by a man and the people around him or is it a net effect of him just not caring how he gets things done?

[B]

No, no, no. I think, I don't think Trump has much ideology.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Besides self promotion. Right. He, he believes in dominance. Yes. So he's got the instinct of an authoritarian. Not necessarily the plant, but certainly the instinct. And he validates it around them.

[A]

Well said.

[B]

I think someone like Russ Vogt, he has an authoritarian plan and he says so he's not very private about it. You know, they can dress it up in fancy legal terms or constitutional terms. Was a so called unitary executive, which is, as you know, that's just a concept that says that all power to the President. All power to the President. That's an authoritarian model. So they've embraced it. And I think someone like Russ, someone like Steve Miller, they have serious operational plans and there's kind of a cultural universe around them who either, because they believe, you know, it's not like they believe in it generically, they believe in it for Trump, they want Trump to be the authoritarian. You know, Jon Stewart pulled together a hysterical set of clips saying, well, we're kind of understating it when we say he wants to be king. And he showed all these clips of where they're talking about Trump as a deity, you know, as a Jesus figure. Jesus like figure or kind of a reincarnation of Jesus. And there's a lot of that. So there's no limit to what a lot of the people around Trump want for him. And he himself wants all the power. And then obviously not the most important, but not unimportant either. Culturally, the trappings of royalty, that's what he wants. That's why he's remade the White House with all this obnoxious gold.

[A]

Well, he's always done that. I mean, it is no coincidence to me. And I got over the man. If anybody else said this, it would have been a death sentence. If anybody else did this, it would have been a political death sentence. I got over that years ago. And again, that is a point of frustration for a lot of new entrants into the political dynamic is they're like, how are you not pissed off by what he says? First of all, I'm not not pissed off. I'm exhausted by it because I know what gets traction and what doesn't. I don't mean traction on social media. That's a whole other boogeyman. But you're not gonna do anything about it. You had an election, it was all weighed and measured, and the guy won anyway. So you are where you are, and you gotta work within that moment and what your options are. That's why I love what no Kings did. That's why I love what Public Citizen is about, is that you're playing the game that's in front of you, not how you wish it were, but how it actually is. For example, here we are, whatever, 15 minutes in or, or whatever, and I'm loving the conversation. But Trump, I'm worried about the money. I'm worried about the money that he's making, and I'm worried about the money that's behind him, and I'm worried that. About the money that's being allowed, and I'm worried that I'm watching in every political campaign, I'm having the same conversations with people now at every level, which is someone saying to me, well, yeah, I mean, look, you know, that's really the pack, and the PAC is dealing with that, and that's what the PAC is doing. And the money is really. That's going to the pack. And then finally you're like, wait, so who runs the pack? And then you find the guy. They don't even know who's giving them the money. They'll take money from anyone in any amounts. And you wonder why Elon had the leverage he had. You wonder why the social media platforms get to live under a law from 1996 with section 230. You wonder why we see all these corporations benefiting from illegal immigration and not a single case against any of the employers. You know, that's what worries me is that we seem to have forgotten about the people who are really benefiting from all of the miss and malfeasance in our society. And this is exactly what Public Citizen has always been about for us. It's all Trump. And I feel like that's trumping what's really eating up our democracy.

[B]

Yeah, well, it's both things. I mean, there's an urgency around this authoritarian push from Trump that you can't not focus on.

[A]

But what can you do about that? What do you do about the authoritarian part, Robert? Like, what do you do? Sue, Right? Get Congress to do things and take back its power that it abdicated to the president, pass legislation, make things happen. I mean, we basically asked for Trump by having a Congress that worked its way into an inertia of one side opposing the other and doing nothing. Is the new doing something.

[B]

Yeah, that's right. But, you know, but the underlying point is exactly right. And it's. It's is, I think people generally, like, if you ask people about money in politics, like, there's something close to unanimous agreement. We got to completely change the system. In fact, it was a New York Times poll. This is a few years dated. Like, the only division among people over what to do about money and politics is do we need fundamental reform or do we need to change the system altogether? It's like you don't even know which is the most extreme thing everybody wants to do the most. But even still, it's also worse than people realize. So, as you're describing, all this money is going to Super PACs, and the Super PACs are what's driving the election process. There's 100 people who are responsible. 100 people. 70% of all the money goes into Super PACs. And that's true year over year. So that's an oligarchy, and you buy your way in. Or we saw the spending by the cryptocurrency industry in the last election cycle directly from the companies. So not just rich people, but the companies themselves who've got unlimited money. They took out Sherrod Brown in Ohio. They claimed only some truth to have changed the outcome of the primary and the Senate race in California. But they spent these extraordinary amounts, and they've completely changed the terrain. So the Democrats are now who were pretty pro regulation of crypto, which I think is a disaster. Now we're split, and it's directly because of the money. Like legal criminal prosecutions are now being pardoned away. They just bought their way out of it. And that's like this little trivial industry. But it's demonstrating for everybody the power of political money. And it's the exact cycle you talked about. Like, the people who have all the money can spend some small part of it in politics, and they guarantee that they get rules that make sure they make even more money.

[A]

I mean, crypto again, I know. I get the frustration. If anybody else did this, you went after Hunter Biden because he was using his daddy's name and getting some deals, which certainly has happened in politics for a long time. I'm not saying and it's right, but I'm saying it's not unusual, that's all. And this is why people hate politics. And we have standards, or a lack of standards for our politics that don't exist anywhere else in your life, whether it's with your partner, your kids, your business school, you know, friendships. There are no other dynamics in our society that we allow to be like our politics, which is where I know you're lying to me. I know this isn't gonna happen, and I'm going to help you anyway. You know, it's, it's very, very rare. And. And yet this is where we are and fighting for it. And the question is, what can be done about it? So I see this manifesting itself in money. Nobody cares. Trump, his son starts a crypto thing, makes a gazillion dollars while his father is president and figuring out crypto. And one of the main things on the table is using it as a shadow currency repository or depository for the United States government. And his son is now one of the major players with backing from Qatar, which is just everything that, like, if you and I were sitting down, be like, hey, let's design something where I'm going to do this and it's going to fucking blow me up politically. I want to go out in epic fashion of how stupid what I just tried to do was. And here we are. And nobody gives a shit, apparently. So first give me that. Does nobody give a shit, or is no kings proof that they do give a shit and what can actually be done?

[B]

Yeah, well, it is another way to think about the crypto thing, which is a little bit complicated. It's kind of like the script of a movie script for, you know, what does a crazy supervillain do? Oh, here's the most preposterous way. I'm just going to take payments from people, basically that we're not going to call bribes because we're going to run it through some kind of weirdo comps business that people are pretending is a real business. And so the family's made estimates vary between one and $4 billion the first nine, ten months of the administration on this. That's a lot of money. Do people care? Well, I think on the one hand, and maybe this is just human nature, people become a little bit anesthetized to Trump's corruption. So we say that the Trump corruption is at least two orders of magnitude worse than it was the first time, like a hundred times. And not just how I feel about it. You can just measure it in dollars. So the first term we were talking about the hotel business, especially in Washington D.C. and the worst example was the Saudis were taking up holding conferences they didn't need to hold in the hotel. That would be like three or four hundred thousand dollars. Right. But now it's a billion and the coverage is way less, which I can tell you from personal experience. We were called all the time in the first term about the corruption and we get calls now. But it's not so much about the corruption because there's just. People got used to it. I think it was also the case that the crypto business is so weird, to put it charitably, that people don't quite understand what it is. And so it's, it's not the same as like the hotel is very concrete. You can understand what that is. Somebody, someone took out a room they didn't need. Crypto is like, what are they doing? Again, I don't know. But it's a problem for sure. It is part of this authoritarianism. Do I think people don't care? I think people care, you know, but like when, when you got the plane, the $400 million plane gift from Qatar, people reacted to that because it was tangible and you could understand it. So I think we kind of need that. So they do care a lot. But they don't care as much about his personal grift, I think, as they do about the systemic things, which are more important. How does the deal, you know, that's going to cut off people from health insurance or raise our premiums? They care about that. And we just got to do a better job of clarifying through all the noise what's actually happening in our lives. Because of what Trump is doing, people's gas prices are going up a lot, electric prices are going up, electric bills are going up. But he's also racing us to a climate catastrophe. It's not like a maybe, it's a certainty. We're facing this civilization threatening crisis and he's not only not doing enough fast enough, he's got some weird thing where he wants to attack renewable energy, not just promote the dangerous fuels. He wants to take offline wind and solar, which is like civilization suicide stuff. And we're not talking about that.

[A]

Well, but it gets a pass because it's tomorrow. And he wants to do it because he's old. The man believes America was at its best in the Gilded Age, and that's not because it was golden. And that's why he has gold everywhere. And the reason he has gold everywhere, as his mother told my mother, is rich people have gold and that's as simple as the explanation needs to be. And anybody who's ever been at a Trump property is overwhelmed by that. Until Ivanka took over recently. And now you see less of it. Cuz she grew up with money, so she's less gaudy.

[B]

I've never heard you say that before. That's true.

[A]

It's 100% true. Our mothers went to the same beauty parlor.

[B]

I didn't know that.

[A]

Okay? So I've known this fucking. I've known this fucking family my whole life. Okay, he's older than I am. But the idea, you know, how frustrating it is to hear, well, you know, Trump's a New York tough guy. You know, he's from Queens. Hold on a second. I'm from Queens. No one sounds like him where I grew up. No one. If you talked like that, you would get this shit beat at of you at a bus stop and it would have never happened again. So it all bothers me so much that the idea that I'm ever there's ever a suggestion that Cuomo's a little maga now Cuomo seems to feel different about Trump. Listen, no one has taken more of a beating in the media from this guy than I have. And nobody wants the fight more than I do. But you gotta figure out how you can win the fucking thing. And that's my frustration. So I get what he is. The Gilded Age was one of the weakest points in modern American history. It wasn't the golden age that came after it. Gilded means fake, gold plated. That's what he thought is when we were great with the fucking robber barons and all the labor problems and all the exploitation. You know, if people just did their homework, they would see all this. But homework is boring and tedious and hard and outrage is easy. So we can't deal with tomorrow, we gotta deal with today. And today is ice. And here's my problem with ice, okay? My problem is, and this is where Mr. Weissman needs to put on his double Harvard hat and help me understand the difference between what is right legally, what you have the right to do under color of authority, and whether you're doing it the right way. So I come in and say, you're not here legally, that happens to be true. You are not here legally. That is a crime. First time it's just a misdemeanor. Second time it's a low felony, but it's a crime. I can remove you for it, Period. Sanctuary city laws, I think, are one of the spaces of an unconstitutional division between state and federal but that will be dealt with whenever it's dealt with. So I can come in, I can arrest you. That's just how it is. So they are right on the law that they can arrest people. Now, how they do it is what I think matters. And I think that distinction is lost for people when they say, I hate what ICE is doing. They're an illegal police force. They're a gestapo. They're taking the wrong people. We don't know that they're taking the wrong people because it's mostly anecdotal, and they won't release the data. So I can't tell you that. You're right. And I'm afraid of relying on one or two examples, uh, especially if someone provokes it, comes up, messes with an ICE agent, won't give their ID, and turns out they're a citizen. Were they wrongfully arrested? No. Under color of authority, you were asked to present identification. You didn't, and they arrested you on probable cause. It may wind up being a bad arrest, but that's how it went down. How do you distinguish, when you look at ice, between what the law says they can do and how they're choosing to do it? Which I believe is where all the poison is.

[B]

Yeah, well, I'm not an expert in immigration law. I'm not sure that all the law allows all this stuff. So, for one thing, people have a right to due process, and they're not being given.

[A]

Yes, that's the how. That's the how. I'm with you. I think we got to focus on the how.

[B]

Most of these people are people here under asylum. Like, they're seeking asylum and they're entitled to hearings, and they're not getting them or they're not getting fair ones. That said, I mean, I think there's multiple parts to it. You know, the sort of. The cutting edge part about what's wrong with the how is the viciousness, the viciousness of the effort to spread fear and, you know, the idea of masked agents, unidentified masked agents, pulling people off the street. There's a lot of things about Trump that don't surprise me, because I don't think I had any illusions about who he was and what he would do. But that does. That does.

[A]

You know how they got to this, by the way? You want to hear some more inside scoop?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

The doxing is real. They have very low recruitment standards because word spread quickly. This is not a job you want to do. They're coming for you Now, I got to tell you, I don't like that message. I don't like the look of what ICE is doing. I say it all the time. I don't blame them for wearing the masks. I think it's a bad look. I wouldn't do it even if I might get doxxed, which I have been, and a lot of other things. But they are having a hard time getting people to do the job. Not because people don't believe in removing people who are here illegally. There are a lot of bad people who come in illegally. I just believe there are a lot more that aren't bad, that came in the wrong way, but do everything right once get here. But you know, that's a political argument. They are getting doxxed. They are getting abused in a way and attacked and targeted in a way we've never seen with law enforcement before. So I get it. I just. They're right about what's wrong. I just don't like their fix. What they should do is they should have obvious color of authority in their badges or whatever it is. And if they want to hide their faces a little bit or the names because of what's happening to them, I think there's a middle ground in that. That Trump got convinced to allow it to be this way because it him off that they were having a hard time recruiting and that these guys were getting targeted. When he was told that he bought into it and that's why it is where it is. It's not that he likes a gestapo look. It's that he feels that it's not his people doing the wrong thing. That happens to all be true. I'm not saying you may like it or not.

[B]

Like, yeah, I think both things can be true. I mean, maybe. I mean, like you're saying. You're saying, like when I'm saying, you know, you want to see the data, you don't go by anecdote. I don't doubt there's some doc saying how serious and that is a horror in our country.

[A]

No, I'm saying I want to see the data on the arrest.

[B]

How prevalent is that? I don't know. But say it is.

[A]

I want to say I still think.

[B]

Also they very much like the intimidating element of it.

[A]

100 he's a bully, you know, one of the worst. The only thing you can call me that hurts my feelings. That is about me personally. You say something about my kids, you're gonna get what you want from me in that confrontation. But I hate bullies. I was bullied. I've rubbed a lot of knuckles on bullies. And I hate them in our society, I hate them where I see them. Corporate bullies, institutional bullies, factional bul. I hate them. And Trump is a bully. Oh, so you hate Trump? No, I hate how he does what he does. I. Unlike a lot of people in both of our worlds, I don't allow you to have that power over me. You are not going to get me to hate you. You are not going to own my head and my heart that way. You are not going to possess me that way. It's never going to happen. You're going to have your little space. I'm going to deal with you the way I have to, but you're not going to inhabit me. There are too many people who are allowing fear and justifiable outrage to dominate recourse. And anybody who's ever had any kind of training, when I'm sitting across from Weissman, as soon as I can get you to be angry at me when you and I are sparring, I'm at a huge advantage. Because you are not going to spar, Chris.

[B]

I'm not doing it.

[A]

You'll spar intellectually.

[B]

There's no chance. Don't worry about it. It's not going to happen.

[A]

You're going to spar intellectually and you do the same thing.

[B]

I do that. I'll do that. And you will not get me angry.

[A]

You will smack me around. But that's why. What are the tactics?

[B]

But I'm not putting on the gloves at you.

[A]

But what people say is in our discourse. You're not gonna run. You're not gonna run. You're too smart.

[B]

You come at me with the gloves, I'm outta here.

[A]

What do we see that is the functional equivalent? Oh, public citizen. I mean, that's a commie group. Go. What? It's not a commie group. What are you talking about? Oh, yeah, yeah. No, they're commies. No, kings. The left. You're all socialists now. You don't want capitalism anymore. You guys are against capitalism. You're socialists now. Is that true? No. I also don't think socialism should be the boogeyman that it is. If you wanna run for office in Ohio or anywhere else, I'm saying to you, Robert, you cannot say capitalism is the problem. You cannot say socialism is the answer. You cannot say free, free, free. You may get through a primary, but there no way that people who pay taxes are gonna vote for you at any kind of scale. But that's what we do. Because it's antagonistic, it reduces you, it cheapens you, it otherizes you. And that's where our politics is. And that's how no Kings, I can't tell you how many people in the administration and in MAGA and on the right dismiss it that way. Oh, those are the socialists. Those are the democratic socialists. I said I didn't hear a single socialistic message from any of the protests. It was all about how you guys are weaponizing our democracy.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, whatever, you're right. But it is evidence of the discourse degrading. I mean, you had them saying, because they're very clear, like they're not talking about the far left. Like they, they, they, they, they mix it. Right? Like, oh, it's the far left. Which by the way, is all of the Democratic Party. All of the Democratic Party. Joe Manchin is the far left as far as they're concerned. All right, well, that's not a serious conversation. The only thing. And so it's fine. I don't like that it gets in the way because I agree with you 100%. You know, one of the things that was good for us about no Kings, I got, you know, did Fox a few times. Like, I want to be on Fox. I want to have the conversation. And it's harder to have people listen if you're being labeled in ways that are sort of a turn off to them. So I don't like that. But that's part of the game. The thing I'm. That worries me, the only thing that worries me is, and this came from Mike Johnson and others when they start using antifa as a label because now the president, which by the way, I know who you're talking about when you're saying the people in the goggles and stuff. There's no organization in this country called, that identifies as itself as antifa. It's nothing. It's just a complete right. It's just nothing. But when they say antifa, they have an executive order that says antifa equals domestic terrorists. Now you're labeling like us like that. You're saying we've got the right to come at you with military force and that, you know, it's not personal. But for us as a, you know, a movement or even a democracy, that, that worries me.

[A]

And it's been completely ignored. I did a piece, it happened so.

[B]

Fast and was so casual.

[A]

I did a piece on that memo. I was just talking to my producer. I have more cousins than I have views on that piece. That memorandum is one of the scariest things I have seen for our political discourse in 2020 okay. When they wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, which is like, absolutely not about fairness, I was less concerned than when I read that memo. And I was like, wait a minute, this guy is redefining for all the operative agencies, national security. And looked at through the lens of domestic terror, which is a real and growing thing. As America fumbles its way into fundamentalism has all left. It's all left. And they got this boogeyman antifa, which by the way, is what we were in World War II. Anti fascist. And now. And you say that I've gotten beaten up for that before. Did you just say that BLM is like the greatest generation of World War. No, I didn't. I said that fighting fascists is what America is about, not these rogue agents trying to destroy pollution.

[B]

Yeah. It wasn't viewed as like a particularly position.

[A]

Right. So I do the memorandum, I was like, this is it. This is the worst thing Trump has ever done. This is it right here. Because this is a real issue.

[B]

They haven't, they haven't operationalized it yet really, but. So folks who don't know this like it was a few weeks ago now, Presidential memorandum against antifa skid this imaginary force in society which they designate a domestic terrorist organization. Also legally, in imaginary terms, there is no such thing as a domestic terror in law, domestic terrorist organization. But it's the premise for what they say is an all government attack, including against going nonprofits like the IRS should investigate nonprofits because they're somehow adjacent to antifa. Street protests can be clamped down upon because they're allegedly antifa, which again, doesn't even exist. It's a pretty dangerous thing. And if you read what is antifa, it's things that are attacking Christianity, critical of capitalism. It's the most basic stuff. And what are the, what are the predicate crimes? Well, one of the predicate crimes for this domestic terrorist threat is trespass. Yes, Trespassing makes you, in their eyes, you know, a domestic terrorist. So it's, we got to be very, we're trying to, you know, be as organized as possible around that because that's, that's a real effort to clamp down on civil society. Has nothing to do at the imaginary threat and everything to do with the trashing and discrediting and then even militarizing against their legitimate opposition.

[A]

Support comes from Shopify. Let me tell you, we all know if you're an entrepreneur that when you're building a business, you need help. And you learn that the success of businesses often has to do with the business behind the business. Like what? Well, when I was starting this podcast and I decided to start doing the free agent stuff, the question becomes, well, how? How do I sell this stuff? How do I get people to see it? How do I make it efficient? How do I make it where if they come and look, there's a better chance that they'll follow through with the purchase. Shopify answers all these questions. They're the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the U.S. i mean, think about that. From household names like Mattel and Gymshark to startups. So you should get started with your own design studio. If you want to sell things. You have hundreds of ready to use templates that Shopify will use to help you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand's style. Turn your big business idea into a Ka Ching. With Shopify on your side, you sign up for your $1 a month trial and you'll start selling today. Just go to shopify.com Chris C. Shopify.com Chris C. Okay. Shopify.com Chris C. And tell them I sent you. You know, a lot of this I believe is tactical. And I don't like how the left and I usually. I never used to use the left and right. I only used that with Europe, you know, for like the first 15 years of my career. Now our own politics I describe in terms of left and right because the party structures have absorbed into these fringe fights where the many are subjugated by the few. So now I use left and right and look at the spectrum the way I used to when I was analyzing Bulgaria. So when I look at it, great.

[B]

About it, I think we have a partisan right, but we don't have a partisan left in my view. But just go ahead. I don't want to silently agree with you on that one.

[A]

Well, you don't have to silently agree with me about anything. But look, I see problems on the left. I don't believe that. AOC and Bernie Sanders, charismatic. I like Bernie. I was one of the early adopters of his that got him into the national conversation at cnn. People could just go back and Google it. He never ran for president or seriously considered it before. We had him on all the time as a legitimate populist aspect to our political spectrum. It was the right thing to do. It was true. Maybe even more true than I knew at the time. I don't regret it. I don't like how he's evolved or not evolved and how he has not acted on it, but says the same things. That's just a personal opinion, but I don't believe that that's a good look for the Democratic Party and attaching to the majority of this country to have people who seem to be antagonistic to capitalistic norms and who are more into fomenting outrage than they are into fixing it. I'm a fixer. Not personally, I'm a beautiful mess. But. But when my leaders. I want fixers. I want less flamboyance, more fixing. That's what I want. I want an operative Congress. I want people rewarded for what they get done. I want them judged by what they get done. Immigration for me is a layup. The Democrats fucked up by not securing the southern border. They made it easy for Trump to get a win. The real issue is legal immigration. You are right about asylees. The problem is our asylum laws. Our asylum laws do not fit with America's mentality about entry and what is distressed entry into America. Congress won't change the laws. You get a man or woman who works for cbp. I've been down there a dozen times and they are beautiful people doing a really hard job. And a lot of them come from that immigrant experience of how to get into the country. And they all ask for the same fucking thing. Now it's please don't villainize me. I'm not a bad person. I'm not trying to do bad things. I don't want to hurt people. I use my own time, my own money. I give clothes away. You know, we do all kinds of shit that can get us fired because we believe in the humanity of what we're doing. That's the first thing. Move it to the side. What's the first policy thing they ask for? Rule changes. Every single one of them. Rule changes. You have to decide what a legitimate basis for asylum is because over 95% of the people who apply don't get it once they come for it. So you've got to change those processing rules. Congress won't do it. Why? Two reasons. One, they prefer the problem. Why? Works well. Works well. Makes your base angry. Great. Second problem, why dreamers? Everybody agrees you should take care of the dreamers. They are being held hostage by this inaction. But. But the right wants too much in exchange for the dreamers through the lens of how Democrats feel about it. So nothing gets done. That's my frustration with immigration. We never get to it because of the distraction of ice. What should people be doing about what they're seeing with ice other than demanding the data, which is what I'm saying, show me who you are arresting and let me decide whether they are the bad hombres that you promised.

[B]

I don't have any great answer. I think what people are doing to support families and their communities is the best thing possible.

[A]

You think they should be rushing after ICE and boxing them in and making it hard for them to do their job when often they're acting under color of authority.

[B]

I don't want to say yes. I don't want to say no either, though, on that, because Harvard, I think those are kind of.

[A]

Harvard equivocation. Harvard. Harvard equivocation.

[B]

I'm not a big scenario that I work on. I think. I think what they're doing is just horrible and often wrong and illegal. But I think. But to answer the question, I think, you know, if you can support families who, you know, people are scared and not going to jobs, need food, need access, you know, need transportation, I think that's what people can do. And I'm, you know, again, this is not really our area of focus. I don't claim expertise, but what I do know is it's going to get worse. The reconciliation bill gave $170 billion to ICE and have to hire a lot more people and build a lot more detention centers, invest a lot more in surveillance. The other piece of it, I guess, besides sort of the individual. I think it's heroic when people are trying to help identifiable people. But these are policy problems. So we can push back on some of the policy, including on some of these surveillance issues. The data, like the way they're trying to track people. We've got a lawsuit. This is why I'm familiar with it for Homeland Security, trying to get information from the IRS that is not supposed to leave the IRS on undocumented people. People get these tax numbers, these tax ID numbers. If they're undocumented. There's a way to pay taxes, recognizing that they're undocumented. But paying taxes is part of the system. And the deal was, yeah, we're willing to pay taxes, but of course we can't give you our information if you're going to share it out. That was always the understanding. It's what the law says, and they're trying to obliterate that right now. So people can work on, you know, support organizations that are working on or working on that directly. I think that's another piece of it. Besides what you can do in the community.

[A]

What do you think the next is for? No kings, I believe what you're building or have built, you know, put it at any stage you prefer is the real bottom up populist, majoritarian movement. I know that's not how people are describing it right now. They see it as the radical left, the socialists, the anti Americans. Like you're gonna hear on my show at News Nation, they're gonna have people come on from the right saying, yeah, these are the people who hate America. I don't agree. There's some people all over the place that hate this country but decide to stay here. Okay, but you go out into the streets, you fight against what your government is doing. You let it occupy your head and your heart. You love your country. You love your country. That's why you're doing it. So what do you think is next for no kings? Because I believe you guys are the best hope for what the majority in the country wants, whatever that is. I don't know. That's what I'm asking you is how do you think this develops?

[B]

Well, there are a few strands of it. I think there's going to be. We had 180,000 people on the call yesterday, like, fine, what do we do next? And I think there's going to be a series of things that are some small, some big, not, not the size of no kings, but there's going to be a series of like veterans actions on Veterans Day around the country. People talking about vets issues and what's how they're being impacted by Trump. There could be efforts to help keep the Democrats strong in the shutdown fight so they don't give in without winning some, some at least partial solution to the healthcare crisis that Trump, the Republicans are causing. There are going to be efforts to deal on campus, to sort of build up energy on campuses to push back against Trump's effort to impose this really conservative agenda in the university space. And efforts along those lines, including providing support to people who are going hungry because all these cuts that are going on. And then there will come a time when the next mobilization happens at large scale. Well, there's no date set for that. Like I probably wouldn't tell you if I had it, but I can tell you honestly, we don't have it agreed on right now. So we're going to sort of see the feel of things for that. But beyond sort of like that's sort of specifically how we come out of it. I think you're right that it's, it's not just what are these specific things, it's like there's this, it is an expression of a movement. I do think it's making the Democratic politicians be better. I think that's the ground up way. It's not that some people in the coalition do do partisan work, either supporting Democrats or pushing Democrats. Others of us don't, we don't. But the whole demonstration that people want firm rejection of authoritarian agenda, they want people to be aggressively pro democracy. I think that's making the Democrats be better. And to me that's one of the most important parts that come out of it going forward. And hopefully we keep growing like it was. It's the biggest day of protest in American history. And there's also like the crowd is what the crowd is. You know, it's not all for sure, but it's disproportionately older white. So we got a lot of sectors of society to sort of grow and build. And I 100% agree with you. There's a lot of people. You cannot say we're fringe. And it's this idea of hate America is nonsense. People are only doing it because they care about the country and expressing our best values. But this is a representation of a significant majority of the country. And I think we keep demonstrating like this and growing people are going to understand that. And hopefully it has the electoral outcomes that it ultimately does.

[A]

Last point, Weissman, Public citizen thinking too small. Why do I say it? Here's why. I think that you are not, I say, playing with, with all due respect, you are operating within the space, let's say, of the best hope for our electoral future. There is MAGA reaction formation. That's why you have older whites that are coming out. Nobody wants to admit that yet that this is MAGA reaction formation unless they wanna say, yeah, these are the crazy young lefties with the blue hair that's the stereotype who don't know whether to sit, stand when they pee. Which is not accurate. It's not what came out. It's MAGA reaction formation because the idea that white males, females 35 to 65 are all one way politically has always been a lie. But I believe that this is the antidote to the two party lockjaw that we have. Yes, there's going to be. You are an oppositional dynamic. So who's in power? The right. Okay, so then Democrats are the easy reach. But I think that the move is not to help Democrats but to make Democrats leave being a Democrat and join this. And what is it, what is it called? Is it a party? It could be. It could be a ballot movement where this is what people have been waiting for. The reason that the fastest growing part of the electorate is, I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican. The reason why it's a plurality. The reason why people waste their time saying I'm not on a team. When you have to be on a team almost everywhere to be relevant. And why would they do that? To disadvantage themselves? No, because they're desperate for something else. This could be it, Robert. This could be. This is it you want to run, you're running as you're with us. And this is our agenda. And here's where you're going to fit within it. And you are. We are not Democrats. We are not Republicans. We are not maga. We are something else that is a pure new populist movement. And this is what it is. And this is what our agenda is. And if you're with it it, then that's what you are. We're not Democrats who are mobilizing for them to resist Trump. We're a lot more than that. We're a whole entity in and of ourselves of an agenda within ambitions and policies and desires. And if you're with that, then that's what you are.

[B]

Well, like I said, we are nonpartisan, so that's. I can't go in that. But I will say this, which is somewhat different, but same kind of line of thinking. As you say, we're trying to deal with the situation we have now. So the opposition party is the opposition party, but we public citizen, we're not part of the Democratic Party and we're not fronting for the Democratic Party. But they are the opposition on any opposition. I do think that the way forward, irrespective of the party formation, is the populist agenda you're talking about. And when you talk about where the majority of people think, when you get to that agenda, it is overwhelming across issues like, do you want to deal with CEO pay? Way higher, 70%. Do you want to deal with excess drug pricing? Over 90%. Do you think we should actually take on environmental problems even if a fake choice of losing jobs? Yeah. More than 60%. Should we deal with antitrust and breaking up big companies? Yeah, well, over 70%. Downline. Should tax the rich, 80%. So, like, these are gigantic numbers. And to come back to where we were talking before, the reason that agenda doesn't get realized in Washington, D.C. is not Democrat, Republican. It's because of the power of big money. So if we can cut through that with a populist, an economic populist agenda. Yeah, I think that's the winning ticket, and that's transparty. It's going to go through, filter through parties one way or another. But that's what we're about, is pushing forward that agenda. Like I said, you can see my energy. That's what I want to talk about. But instead we gotta deal with the Trump thing right now. But we're do that too.

[A]

But I think that the sweet spot is you will not be limited by what you are against. You will be defined by what you are for. Because you are not about why he's worse. This is why I'm such a fan of yours and a public citizen, and I have been for a very long time. I guess I started tracking you somewhere around 2012. You'd been there a few years already, and I was watching Public Citizen and I was always like, man, this should be the shit. This movement, this entity, this is all we really need outside of the electoral process is to kind of keep the ambitions straight. And I am very hopeful now. That said, I'm about to do a piece where I say that things are about to get worse. Why? Because we're stuck. We're stuck in this comparison of what is worse. And yet two things could be true at the same time. I know what gets us out of this, and you're one of the leaders of of it right now, and I believe in it. And not because you support the people who shot Trump. Bullshit. If I had been there that day and I could have killed that guy who wanted to kill Trump, I would have done it. Why? Because that's what's right for this country. And if you don't think that, look at what happened, even on a junior level with Charlie Kirk. He's not an elected official, you know, he wasn't anything while he was alive. That he has become in his death. And that's very regrettable for his family and I hated to watch it, but we are being driven by our worst instincts right now. That's not what no Kings is about. That's not what Public Citizen is about. And you are obsessed with better. You have been your whole career, despite the inferior academic institutions you went to, you have been obsessed with how do we get out from under the yoke of the few and to give more to the many. I'm here for it it at News Nation on the podcast. I will not let you be demonized. I will not let it happen. It is untrue and it's unfair and we need the hope. And I think you're driving that. And I'm very anxious to see what is next protest is amazing. The weekends that you put together was historic and phenomenal, if underreported, oddly. But there's a lot more that you guys can do in manifesting yourselves on election days.

[B]

So a lot to come. Thank you very much.

[A]

Let's be in touch. And I'll see you early and often.

[B]

Oh, thanks, man. Talk to you soon.

[A]

So what is the leavening agent of the ambitions of the hope of the next of the why? Well, it's the what is and where is the smart money on what's happening right now in politics and what that reflects about where people are in terms of what they want and what's likely to happen. That's why I partnered with Kalshee. Kalshee is at the top of the game of betting on politics. And I know there's something that you can find a little unsavory about that, but you gotta get over it, just like I did. Why? Because when people have to put money where their mouth is, they take it a little bit more seriously. Okay. I think this is guy. I think he's gonna win. I think he's gonna pull it out. Oh, yeah? You wanna bet 20 bucks? Well, I'm not saying that that is an important distinction. And that's why I like looking at Kalshee, because I want to see where the smart money is, where people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Very interesting first one, which I think is a good bellwether race. Graham Platner. Okay. Is he going to drop out of this Maine Senate race? Maine Senate, who cares? You should care. Here's why. As Maine goes, so may the Senate. Why the numbers are so close. Why? Because we're all about division. Division is an inherently mitigating strategy. What does that mean? It is a reductive strategy. What does that mean times two? What it means is when I go negative, when I go about how to make people angry in demagoguery, what I'm doing is I'm winnowing down because the outraged is a far smaller number than the hopeful, than the reasonable. Okay? So when you're going for the rabid instead of the reasonable, you're going to have fewer people. And that's what we've allowed our party politics to be about. You know how, like, when you cook something down, it gets more. It get more intense, it gets more enriched. Right. Why? Because you're distilling it to its basic things. That's what we've allowed our politics to come. So this main race is kind of a look at which way do you want to go? Do you want to go towards reasonable or you just want to stick with rabid? Graham Platner is kind of a leavening agent there. He's kind of a canary in a coal mine. And if he stays in that race, he can complicate it and he can make it less likely that you get change there. So he's interesting to watch. And if you look at the money, it looks like they believe he's going to stay in. Why? Because there's nobody strong enough to push him out. So what's driving the money has been the controversy around Platner, what his funky tattoos and what people think that means about him and where his real interests lie. And he hasn't handled it well. So doubt creates what variability and outcome that maybe he's gonna have to get out. But it's still only a 25%. Why? Because no one really cares enough about Graham Platner. Kind of like they are playing with in that Attorney General race down there in Virginia. And until the media really focuses on you and is trying to get you out, we don't really see that with Graham Platner. And you know what reflects that? The money. Although I'll tell you what I would do. I know that we're dealing with a very compressed timeframe before the election. I would put money on them chasing him out of the race. Why? It's a cheap bet right now, and I think that it'll gain some traction between now and then. And you can always sell before the date of the election. Right, because you have two value propositions on Kelsey. What is the value of your bet right now? And then how does it pay off? Or not on election day or whenever the triggering date is for whatever the wager was in the first place. So right now they're saying, no, he's going to stay in. I get why this should have killed him. But in the politics of outrage, the tattoos are just like one more thing that make you shake your head about where we are. I get it. I get it. But I think that there's more value in that one than they're suggesting. And I like playing with this. Why? Because I'm terrible at it. I don't see it that way. I have a romantical notion because I'm a hopeless optimist about our politics and us getting to a better place. And often that jades where I should be. So let's look at it through the lens of two different metrics. One is, so what does that mean for the Democratic primary in that Senate race? And what does it mean for the overall outcome in the. In the race? Kelsey's got both. Now, you definitely see this when you look at Janet Mills in terms of her winning that Democratic side, right? Which is kind of netting Graham to neutral. And Jordan Wood is. You know, he's been a hash mark from the beginning. But remember, spoilers are a thing, okay? And you don't have to have much to decide the fate of the many. Meaning what? That you determine the outcome because the margin's so small. So that's why would kind of matters. Platner, you see, again, is losing some energy, and Mills is going up. Why? Because of the controversy. So she is a prohibitive favorite in that. I think that stays that way. I'm surprised it's only at 65%. Again, I would buy in there and look for a tick up in it and then sell. Why? Because you probably won't get as much money on election day unless you go really heavy with the bet. And you may get an incremental pop that's actually more of a value proposition in terms of the value of that bet. Now, look, a lot of this may not resonate with you because you're not betting and you're like, what the heck is he even talking about? The value in the analysis is still the same about what I think is going to happen in that race. Whether or not you're wagering on it is somewhat irrelevant in terms of what's going to affect. Affect and wind up mattering most in that race. So, overall Senate, what do we think the. The Democrat is gonna win? Uh, yeah. Why? Because the Republican side is so injured with Collins. Why? Collins is actually what you guys accuse me of on a regular basis. Which is what? She's lost her soul. She doesn't know what she's about anymore. I was a fan of Susan Collins. I haven't changed my opinion of her personally. Why? Because I don't know her well enough for me to have had any really deep feelings personally. Uh, I always felt she had a folksy charm to her, but I felt she was a fair broker and knew what she was about and had an intelligence and an insistence on principles beyond party. I don't think that anymore. Why? Too much with the judges with reproductive rights? Too much that she should have stood on principle over practicality or pragmatism and didn't. And that's why she's in the dumps right now and trending the wrong way. And absent a horrible turnout occasion for the Democrats on that day. She should lose that race. So I believe that the trending is. Trend is your friend, as they say on Wall Street. I think the trend is your friend here on this one as well. So I like looking at politics because look, let's be honest, let's be honest, okay? We've made it a sport. It being binary, it being all about which side is worse, it being so reductive and no longer about change and not really about ideas, but just about animus. We've made it cheap and a sport. It should be bet on because it is working off metrics that are disgusting to me. And that's where we are. And I think one of the most intelligent ways to appraise this toxic environment, this thunderdome that we're all stuck in right now, is through where people will put money on their mouth. And Kalshee is at the head of that game. And they are, are a fair broker in a really unfair political reality. So that's why I'm happy to partner with them, to see where people are in terms of putting their money, where their mouths are and what that means about the outcomes in our politics. It's a good way to look at it and that's why we're doing it here. But I'm really happy that I got to talk to somebody that I believe may be the unspoken hero in getting America to a better place of a political reality that reflects the interests of the majority. No, Kings is not a fringe movement. That was not a bunch of blue haired kids out there. And by the way, I would be great with a bunch of blue haired kids being out there. Why? Because the more young people care about their future, the better their future will be. And the more we have a coalition of the willing who want to see America get to a better place, we have to be able to do better than this. Feel about me any way you want. I don't give a fuck. But I do care how you feel about our collective fate and what you're willing to do about it. Not to make it worse, but to make it better. Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for joining me for subscribing and following here at the Chris Cuomo Project and checking me out at News Nation every weekday night at 8p and 11p Eastern. The problems are real, but there is a collective fate where things get better. So let's get after it.