B (3:42)

Oh, my goodness. She was the gift that kept giving. It began with someone saying, hey, you ought to pay attention. Something's not quite right with this candidate. And so from the very beginning, we. You know, I started with some of the images that she was posting on social media. She was very much of a. A MAGA candidate, and yet she was posting these photos of these very diverse group, groups of people, and saying, these are my supporters. And no one seemed to recognize anyone who was in the photos. And, in fact, the thing that got me started was someone said, I recognize that room where these women are posing. That's in Chicago. That is not in Tennessee. And so I used an AI image search program and was able to track down, in one weekend, several of the women in the photo. And they were like Gabrielle, who. They did not know her, did not remember her. And so she was lifting this image to claim a diverse group of supporters. And it just snowballed from there. There were questions about whether she and her husband really lived in Tennessee or really lived in Chicago. She was very much anti lgbtq. And yet we were able to surface a photo of her husband in a pride parade in Chicago wearing nothing but a American flag, Speedo. And then from there, she had claimed to have told police that she had a premonition about the Covenant School shooting that occurred in Nashville in March of this year. I got the body cam video from her interaction with a police officer. It never came up. And then at one candidates forum, she showed up with a group of white supremacists. And I had investigated these characters before. In fact, you know, 20 plus years ago, one of them had threatened to kill me. And so I just walked up, and it was like homecoming week with a guy who threatened to kill me and asked him what he was up to, and he told me, and. And she refused to disavow this white supremacist neo Nazi group. And so it was just one unbelievable twist after another. At the end of the campaign, there were certain hints of Christian nationalism. And so this is a scandal that was almost not uncovered because of not enough media eyeballs on this political race.

A (6:37)

Yeah, they sure do cover it a lot nationally. I mean, we heard a lot about Donald Trump fabricating supporters by photoshopping extra people into his rallies or saying that his inauguration was the biggest. We see that quite a bit. He also failed to disavow white supremacists. When asked about the proud boys, he told everybody to stand back and stand by. Why do you think it is these MAGA candidates? I mean, I think I know the answer, but they seem to have to fabricate support, perhaps because it doesn't exist in real life.

B (7:13)

Yeah, it was interesting because this was a race for mayor in an affluent community just south of Nashville, and this is typically a low voter turnout race. And so she actually had, probably before this scandal occurred, had a pretty good chance of being elected mayor. And I think because there was not a lot of natural energy behind the campaign, that there was this need to create energy that wasn't there. And so I think in this case, that's why she did it. You know, I don't know if it's an exclusive province of MAGA candidates, but certainly it is a technique that we have seen plenty of times.

A (8:08)

Yeah, we sure have. Let's talk a little bit about a candidate who actually made it through election. But now you've got your. You've dialed your sites in. I think I remember tweeting, oh, Andy Ogles. Phil Williams is on the case. You know, buckle your seatbelt. Talk to us a little bit about Andy Ogles, because he kind of reminds me of a George Santos type figure who's gotten much, obviously national attention, has been indicted now on 23 felony counts, been expelled from Congress. And what's going on with Andy Ogles? He slipped in. Yeah.

B (8:42)

And my interest in him came because of George Santos, because there was so much attention being paid to George Santos. And so I thought, well, let me look at our congressional delegation here in Tennessee and see if there was a George Santos that slipped through. And as I was going through various forums, it just jumped out at me that this guy sounds too good to be true. Because over and over, he would claim that he was a trained economist, he would claim that he is a trained law enforcement officer, he would claim that he was an expert in international sex crimes. And, and, and, and he just bragged over and over about a range of knowledge and skills that just was. Was not natural. You know, there was not a natural fit for the, the various skills he claimed. And so then I started digging. Okay, let's, let's find out about this economist stuff. Well, it turned out he had posted on previous websites that he had degrees political science. And. But then I started digging into his claims to be a trained law enforce enforcement officer. Turned out he was, was never a full time police officer. He was a volunteer reserve deputy. But as part of that, he had submitted a resume that did not show any hints of being an economist. And then that led me to another place where he had applied for a job and actually as part of that job application, had submitted his college transcript. And that revealed that he had only taken one economics course in his entire college experience that was a community college introduction to economics and he got a C in it. So that was really not a whole lot of credentials to be a trained economist. And so we just started unraveling his resume, just one claim after another.

A (10:57)

Reminds me of Sean Eckhart, the, the co conspirator in the Nancy Kerrigan. I'm expert in counterterrorism, international counterintelligence. No, no, you're not.

B (11:12)

In this case. You know, his claim to be an expert in international sex crimes, he had volunteered with a human trafficking organization, was briefly a paid staffer, and his, his total payments for his work in international sex crimes was $4,000.

A (11:32)

Okay, so big time. Yeah, big time. Well, I appreciate you looking into that and I hope you keep pulling the threads. I'm sure you will. Something else I've noticed that, you know, something that's going on in Missouri, here in California, multiple states across the country, particularly with local school boards is this school vouch programs and basically the privatization of the Department of Education. And that's something that you're focusing on right now. What brought that about?

B (12:02)

Well, that is an ongoing issue here in Tennessee. And over the past year I have had a number of sources who have given me access to documents from inside these groups. And the agenda that some of these groups portray is not exactly the reality. For example, there are groups that claim to just support charter schools in Tennessee. And yet these documents I obtained indicates that they are working for full out privatization of schools in the state. Vouchers, just vouchers for homeschooling. And so it's a classic example of what draws my attention as an investigative reporter is where an interest group will claim one set of interests and they actually have ulterior motives. And so this is a recurring theme. I'm working on additional stories for the near future that will kind of fine tune that point. But there is a well financed effort financed by billionaires and millionaires to undermine traditional public education and to privatize education in Tennessee across the country. And one of the arguments that they have always made is, well, this is about improving educational outcomes. Well, it turns out the latest voucher proposal here in Tennessee would provide money for private schools for homeschooling without any regard for educational outcomes. And so suddenly, you know, that they're concerned about educational outcomes when they were trying to undermine traditional public schools. That's gone by the wayside. And now it's full on, quote, unquote, parents choice.

A (14:05)

That's interesting. That seems like a templated argument for privatization of basically anything. You know, I worked at the Department of Veterans affairs for over a decade and trying to push back on the privatization there under the guise of patients choice, veterans choice. We even have the Veterans Choice act, which opened up veterans to go out and seek private care again for better outcomes, better health outcomes. But we are now seeing from the studies that that is not exactly, in fact, not at all what happens. The wait times are longer, the outcomes are worse. The privatization of everything by the billionaires, the attempts to do so, I feel it's, they seem to take the same tack with the privatization of any public entity.

B (14:54)

And I recently posted on my social media where one of the leading school choice proponents in the country has also written a paper calling for what he calls police choice. And basically you can take your money that goes into your local police force and say, I'm going to use it to hire a private security company to patrol in my neighborhood. And so that is a pretty good example of how it may begin with VA privatization. It may be school privatization, prison, prison privatization, and now even talking about police privatization.

A (15:37)

That's unbelievable. I hadn't heard about that. I'm going to look into that Phil Williams tweet as well. All right, I have to take a quick break, but I want to talk to you a little bit more about the power of local media and independent journalism and investigative journalism. But I, like I said, I need to take a quick break. So everybody stick around.

C (15:54)

We'll be right back after these messages.

A (15:56)

We'll be right back, Everybody. Welcome back. We are talking with investigative journalist Phil Williams from News Channel 5 in Nashville. And before the break, I hinted at the power of local media. I, I want you to tell me a little bit about, because, you know, like I said, I wish we had a Phil Williams in every town, in every city doing this work, shining light on facts, you know, because as Jay Rosen says it's the stakes, not the odds. Right. And Christiane Amanpour, I believe, said we have to be truthful, not neutral. And that's really important, a really important concept, I think, for the free press. So talk a little bit about the power of local media and what you do. Why are we in the position where we are, where we just don't have as many local investigative journalists doing this kind of work and, you know, ending in things like George Santos happening?

B (16:54)

It really is the collapse of the business model for traditional journalism. For example, in the community, the county where Gabrielle Hansen was running for mayor of Franklin in its heyday, I would. My best estimate is there were 10 to 15 full time reporters covering this community of 250, 55,000 people. Today, being generous, there are five. And some of those reporters are covering other communities as well. And so there are just not enough eyeballs on these communities. And for example, I think there's a good chance, as I mentioned, that Gabriel Hanson could have been elected had someone not called and said, hey, put this on your radar. And in the case of Congressman Ogles, there were some people who said, who called me and said, hey, you need to check out this guy. And I just did not have the bandwidth at the time. I think that democracy has been challenged at the state and local level for many, many years. It just hasn't received the attention that the challenges to democracy at the national level have received over the years. For example, Congress has become a place where essentially nothing gets done. Partly that is by design to push those issues down to the state level, where special interests have more influence. And so that there has been a greater focus by special interests to set the agenda at the State House level, not necessarily at the congressional level. At the same time, the number of journalists covering state houses has collapsed. And so the challenge to democracy, from my perspective, has been occurring at the State House level for many, many years. And it just has not received the attention that it deserves.

A (19:06)

Do you think the collapse is attributable to, like, the consolidation of legacy media? We see local papers going away, we see the funding going away. How do you attribute the stretched resources that we have locally?

B (19:20)

Yes, to all of the above. But I mean, the journalism community is strained financially. A number of years ago at an award ceremony, I talked about what I called riptide thinking. And I think it actually made its way into a scholarly paper after that. But many years ago, when I was much younger, I was caught in a riptide. And what they say is that your instincts tell you to swim to the shore. And that's the last thing you need to do. You have to swim out of the riptide before you can save yourself. And I think that's happened with legacy media that facing financial challenges, rather than investing more into serious journalism, they have cut back, which has only accelerated the decline. And so my thinking is that legacy news organizations have tried to cut their way to success and it has only increased the decline of local media.

A (20:32)

But boy, right wing media certainly has their ish together, if you will. We see what 77% of people think, crime rates are going up when they are actually weighed down. We see this huge disparity between the feeling about the economy and the actual economy. I think maybe a lot of that is attributable to that right wing machine that is very well funded. And you know, there was, I guess a somebody who worked for the Trump administration. His name is Miles Taylor. He wrote a book called Blowback. And he brought in this economics analogy about kind of dissent or speaking truth to power. It's such a simple analogy that even Andy Ogles with his one C plus class in econ would understand. And he says, you know, the price of dissent is very high right now. People are subject to threats and you know, people like the Magas coming after them. So how do we lower the price of dissent? We increase the supply. And I kind of feel the same way about media, but we seem to be going in the opposite direction. We're decreasing the supply of investigative journalists like yourself, which makes the price of that kind of work higher.

B (21:46)

Yeah, and one of the things that my wife and I frequently talk about is the fact that I feel this enormous personal obligation to, to be out there fighting the battles to, you know, you know, exposing the truth in the face of this just storm of disinformation. And, and, and I do wish there were more people doing what I do because it's exhausting. There are attacks that come with this. You know, the right wing media. I post on my Twitter bio and other social media bios that I speak truth to power and the angry mob. And increasingly my job involves speaking truth to the angry mob because people read something about my reporting from far right media and suddenly they're on the attack coming after me of not telling the truth. And in fact, I am the truth teller in this situation. But they have been duped into believing that I'm, I'm telling a lie. It happened with the Gabrielle Hansen race in Franklin. It's happened with Andy Ogles. He, he will not talk to Me, but he'll go to right wing media to respond to my stories. And it's happened recently with some of the writings that have been leaked to one right wing podcaster regarding the Covenant School shooting to claim that the Covenant School shooting was an anti white, anti Christian hate crime. There's just not enough evidence to support that. But because I have said you cannot draw conclusions based on one page from a shooter's journal, suddenly I'm getting calls telling me that I am an enemy of the people. So, yeah, it would help if there were a lot more of us doing this type of reporting because it would at least mean, you know, more than one voice crying in the wind wouldn't.

A (23:54)

Be such a lightning rod for, for these attacks. How do you deal with these attacks? You know, you, I think you told the Daily Beast, you, you get quite a few of these attacks and threats. What, do you ignore them? How do you, how do you deal with them?

B (24:05)

Yeah, but by and large, I, I do try to ignore them. I mean, it's, it's, it's annoying as, as you can imagine.

A (24:13)

But yes, I can imagine.

B (24:18)

More than imagining, but it is annoying. And I just have to take periods and, and that I just tune it all out, put down the phone on the weekends and just the thing I think I realized after the Gabrielle Hansen story in Franklin, Tennessee, there was such an outpouring of gratitude for my reporting. I participated in the Franklin Christmas Parade. The people calling out to me, thanking me, was so fulfilling. And I think we forget sometimes that the loudest voices don't necessarily represent the true thinking of the people. And so at times when there's a lot of hate coming my way, I just remind myself that these are people trying to get attention. They don't necessarily represent what people are thinking.

C (25:22)

Thinking.

A (25:23)

Yeah. And it's, it don't give it to them. Right. That's the whole Streisand effect. They, they are dying for you to engage with them. And, and the best thing, the thing I found that upsets them the most is when you don't. And you just let your work. I, you know, I've, I've been following you for a while now. You let your work speak for itself and it's, and people are truly grateful for it. And I think that you always come out on the right side that way. Yeah.

B (25:49)

And you know, in the case of the, one of the white supremacist groups that one of the few times I responded is that they posted something about my late wife and that got some traction in traditional Media. I was married to someone who was an alcoholic who, unfortunately, you know, that disease cost her her life. And I felt it was important in that case to say, listen, you may be trying to take a shot at me based on her struggle with her disease, but that is no reflection on me. And you can take all of those kind of shots you want, but I'm going to keep on doing what I do. And you can be as nasty as you want, but I'm not going to stop.

A (26:38)

Yeah, that. And I think telling those kinds of stories takes away their power to gaslight people about those things. So sometimes it is important to speak out in your own defense or in the defense of others from. From a personal point of view, because I think those lived experiences help other people feel like they're not alone, and therefore they can't be attacked or gaslit for the same reasons.

B (27:00)

And I think those who engage in such tactics are trying to run those of us who are truth tellers off of the field. Yes, 100% and out of play. And the best message that I can send is I'm not going anywhere.

A (27:19)

Absolutely. Wonderful. And speaking of not going anywhere, I read something about, I think a reporter had asked you about when we're retiring. Right. You've been at it for 25, 35 years, if you account everything. But you said, it's hard to unplug from journalism. And this really resonated with me because this is, you know, what I would be doing if I were retired. So talk about, like, the thought of unplugging from journalism. Have you had that thought and what goes through your mind when you think like, no, I can't. I can't do that.

B (27:54)

Yeah, absolutely. But, you know, part of my backstory is I almost went into the ministry before I decided to become a journalist. And so that there is some sense, general sense, that, you know, that this is my calling. I mean, this is. That this is from, you know, my years as a teenager when, you know, being exposed to Watergate. This is what I. I felt I could best do to make a difference in the world. And so if you think of it as your calling, if you realize that you are, you know, fairly unique, I'm certainly not the only one, but there are not enough of us out there doing this type of work, then it becomes difficult to think about walking away. Now, I mean, there will come a time when I maybe use my talents in another way, but I don't think that I will ever completely walk away from the field that we are engaged in.

A (28:54)

Journalism Professor I can see it. I can see it.

B (28:56)

Oh, no, no. I have to be more hands on than that.

A (29:01)

I understand. I completely understand. And I appreciate the work that you do. And I think perhaps that is the call to action. Right. We need more voices. We need more investigative journalists. We need more money in local and state journalism. And know, I think that's the call to action. Everybody grab a microphone.

B (29:21)

Start at it, you know, and support local journalists. And I think the J School professors need to spend a lot of their energy talking about how we can bring in reinforcements to local media and not just focus exclusively on national media.

A (29:41)

Yeah. And I think that that will push the national media to do better because, you know, everybody knows the first thing to go in a dictatorship is the free press. And so we got to keep marching on. Phil, I really appreciate your time today. I encourage everybody to follow you and find you and watch your investigative reporting, watch your interviews that you've done with some of these folks. There's a lot that can be learned from your interview style. The way you ask questions, your calm nature. You're just getting at the truth. Can you tell everybody where to find and follow you, please, please.

B (30:15)

Twitter and pretty much Every social media. NC5, Bill Williams is. Is what you need to search for.

A (30:22)

I appreciate that. Everybody stick around. We'll be right back after these messages.

C (30:28)

We'll be right back.

A (30:32)

Hey, everybody. I am honored today to be joined by retired lieutenant colonel from the Marine Corps. Please welcome Amy McGrath.

C (30:40)

Hey, it's great to be with you.

A (30:42)

It is so great to have you here today. I'm really, really excited to talk to you because I've had a kind of a string of folks on lately who are talking about how we need to put our differences aside and work together with independents and moderate Republicans to help save this republic. And that is kind of what the. Actually, it's exactly what Operation Saving Democracy is about. You're a co founder with Admiral Mike Smith. Can you talk a little bit about developing this when this organization came into being and why?

C (31:13)

Sure. Well, we launched in September and it's basically we're a super PAC in order to highlight the national security concern of a second Trump presidency. We are pro democracy. And the reason behind this is a lot of Americans, they won't necessarily listen to political people, but they will listen to people who have been at the highest levels of national security. Retired admirals, generals, ambassadors, that sort of thing, who really come from both sides of the aisle. Many of these folks have worked in Republican administrations and have come together and said, look, Normally, we don't wade into politics. We don't really want to wade into politics, but this is bigger than politics, and we have to defend our democracy right now, and we have to stand up and talk about the threat to democracy that Trump and Trumpism pose. And so what I did was I came to them and said, let's do this together. Let's call it Operation Saving Democracy. Let's get people involved and at the end, make sure that voters in swing states know the threat to our democracy. And here, you know, who you're going after are those people that care about our defense, care about our country. They're not necessarily super partisan. They may lean to the right, but you know what? The Republican Party has been is discrediting itself pretty much on a weekly basis on national security. Between Tuberville's antics to the calls for bombing Mexico, to the fact that Donald Trump tried to overthrow a free and fair election and allowed our capital to be invaded for the first time since the War of 1812. These types of things we need to remind voters about. And using trusted messengers. That's the point of Operation Saving Democracy to do that.

A (33:19)

Yeah, it's the trusted messengers part. Right. I remember when I got together with the Vote Vets organization to come to Washington to lobby to fund Ukraine, which is, I think, another giant part of how we need to save our democracy here. We have to protect democracy abroad to preserve it here at home, and vice versa. And a lot of folks that listen to this podcast have asked me, how do we get the message out of what an authoritarian regime would look like in the United States? And I think that your PACs are doing a lot of work toward that messaging. Like. Like kind of how it would. How it would appear. You know, I recently talked to Miles Taylor about what Trump was planning to do to the Department of Veterans affairs if he had a second term. And the only way he was talked out of it was when they said, you're not going to get elected again if you run on this. So maybe don't. Maybe don't do that, and maybe then you can gut it in your second term. I think a lot of people don't realize what it would look like in a second Trump term or. Or under someone who practices Trumpism, for example.

C (34:25)

Yeah. And it's really important to show the concrete things that could happen, not only the things that he's already said could happen, but the things that they are actively planning for in things like Project 2025. Let's just take one piece of that. The military okay, our military is apolitical. We have, by the way, one of the most non corrupt militaries in the world. That's one of the reasons we are so good. China has a huge problem with corruption. Russia has a huge problem at the high ranks with corruption. We are not corrupt. And you know, we have. This military that has been subservient to the commander in chief has been apolitical for 200 some years. Now. You have Donald Trump who has said that he, he would should execute the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did what he followed the Constitution. I mean, that's. Trump wants complete loyalty. So imagine a military where he just won't promote any general or admiral who isn't a sycophant. And what does that do? It allows these sycophant leaders to then lead an entire military where in the military people are going to follow orders. We want to follow the Constitution and we teach that. But at the end of the day, what is that second lieutenant going to do who is a pilot of a Black Hawk helicopter when Trump says, hey, I want you to use those helicopters to go down and scare the protesters at the Women's march, I want you to go fly over there and shoot American civilians who happen to be protesting. Maybe Black Lives Matter, let's just go shoot them. You know, Defense former Defense Secretary Esper said that Donald Trump wanted to do that and was talked out of it. In a second Trump presidency, he will not be surrounded with the Espers or the Mattises anymore. No more Kelly's, no more General Kelly's. He will have only sycophants and he will make those orders. And that's the kind of real thing that moves us into this breaking of this amazing tradition that we have between the trust of the American people and their own military. And that is just one example of what Trump would do.

A (37:00)

Just one. Yeah, I mean, the list is long and he's outlined it. He's behind Project 2025, which you've brought up, which we've cover extensively on this show. So listeners are familiar with that. Let's talk a little bit about the mission of Operation Saving Democracy. We've got Defend America's Democracy, strengthen the US As a democratic nation, defeat Trumpism at the ballot box, and amplify the voices of respected national security leaders. Let's talk a little bit about your work specifically to defeat Trumpism at the ballot box. There's been extensive work on that front and very successful work.

C (37:34)

Well, you know, there's lots of ways to do it. And we, you know, there's lots of organizations that tackle different angles of this, right? There's organizations out there that want to go out and get out to vote, to get more people out to vote and thereby thinking that, you know, more Democratic votes will be out there and we can defeat them that way. There is not one right answer to this. One piece in my mind, in the minds of many of these national security leaders and others, is that there's an opening right now to communicate to voters who have historically been Republican due to the Republican Party's traditional role as the party of national security, the party of veterans, the party of a strong defense. And these voters are not your normal Democratic Party voters. But you can have an independent expenditure set up to communicate to these voters in swing states, one run by this community of veterans, and know how to speak to people that care about national security in this way. You know, national security and pro democracy is never the number one issue on people's minds when they do polling on president, but it's up there. It's up there and there is a group of people where they really care about this stuff, and that's the target group. If you think about states like, like Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, we're talking tweaking by a win here with like less than 1 or 2%. So if you look at 1 or 2% of voters who can be swayed by this issue, that's enough. And so you gotta, you gotta go after every single angle. And what am I talking about? I'm talking about that gentleman who, you know, they interviewed on tv, on CNN or whatever a couple of months ago, who's a senior citizen, he has a navy cap on, and he's up there at the Republican talking to the Republican primary candidates in New Hampshire. He's a Republican. And he said to the candidate Scott, at that time, Scott, of course, Tim Scott has dropped out since then. But he said to him, you know, if you can't stand up to Donald Trump, how are you going to stand up to Vladimir Putin? That's the kind of guy we want because he's a guy who is a Republican. He thinks of himself as a Republican his whole life, but he cares about a strong defense, he cares about a strong America. He fought the Cold War and won it. And we have to remind him the current Republican Party under Maga, under Trump, is not the party of national security anymore, the one that you used to vote for under Ronald Reagan. And so that is a strong message. It's not targeted to every voter, but it's targeted to them and it's important.

A (40:20)

Yeah. And I think some of these issues are, you know, not just preserving democracy, but like you said, the war in Ukraine, funding Ukraine to, to basically beat back autocracy, but also some autocracy homegrown here in Texas with Kate Cox not being able to seek an abortion. That is what it will look like nationally under autocratic rule. They want to have a national abortion ban. They want to control women and their bodies. And I think that maybe amplifying these actual pockets of autocracy that are popping up in our own country and on the front lines of the war against autocracy in Ukraine, I think that we really can speak to and reach out, out to those kind of voters. I want to talk more about this, but I am, I need to take a quick break. So everybody stick around.

C (41:09)

We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back.

A (41:16)

Hey, everybody, welcome back. We're talking with Amy McGrath. Amy, before the break, we were talking about reaching a certain kind of voter. Can you talk a little bit about how to reach that kind of voter? Because things are pretty scary right now.

C (41:31)

Yeah, it's really scary what's happening right now. And when you think about voter suppression, you talk about the mega folks who claim they're for rule of law. And when you point out all the ways that they're not for rule of law, this affects people and we have to keep talking about it. People have busy lives and they're out there doing lots of different things. And so if you don't continue to talk about it, it kind of goes into the back of their mind. You know, my belief about how the Republicans right now, what are they doing on these things like impeachment and what are they doing with things like, you know, trying to say that Hunter Biden's car loan back to his dad is somehow corruption, somehow the same as all of Donald Trump's corruption. There's a reason why the Republicans do this. Those of us like you and I and probably your listeners know that that is just completely, not even in the same ballpark, but the low information voter who only watches politics when they go into the barber and only sees the ticker line on Fox News. That's a way to get them to not believe in any party, to not believe in their institutions. I can't tell you I ran for Congress and ran for US Senate here in Kentucky. I can't tell you how many times people have come up to me and have said, you know, I don't really follow politics that much. And then when we would talk about folks like Trump and corruption and lies, you know what they would say to me? Well, Joe Biden does it, too. They all do it.

A (43:13)

Look at.

C (43:14)

He's being impeached, too. Look at he. He's corrupt, too. Look at Hunter. They don't know anything other than the top line. And that is the tactic that the Republicans are going to use. And it's going right to the trust of the voter. And that's where you have to, as somebody that's trying to counter that, continue to show the truth.

A (43:35)

And I think that's the importance of journalism and advocacy. I saw an interview with Matta when she was on MSNBC being interviewed about her Ultra podcast, about when autocracy was afoot on our shores back World War II times. And she said, look, there's no magic bullet here, right? Our democracy, our guardrails need to be firing on all cylinders. Journalism, advocacy, like you're talking about the courts, the ballot politics, all of it has to be working together in conjunction. And I often think of when you spread out pressure over a larger area, you get less pressure. And I think that that's what these guardrails are. And so I really appreciate your work, especially in the advocacy, policy and journalism aspects of this, because getting the truth out there and shining a light on these things is, I think, the best thing we can do for these types of voters that you're talking about and how we can all work together. Even though, like they said, after this, we can go back to our corners and have our policy debates, but the corners disappear if we don't do this.

C (44:48)

Now we're in the fight of our lives for our democracy, and we don't want to wake up and say, wow, I wish I would have donated a hundred bucks to something like Operation Saving Democracy or to some other organization that helps get out the vote or something like that. Because this is our country. And it's not only our country, it's the country I want to give to my children, to my two sons and my daughter. And I am so. I've always been patriotic. I'm somebody that loves American history. I have so much respect for the greatest generation. But you know what? The greatest generation fought and died for the world order that we enjoy, for this country today, that we enjoy, that is not perfect, but could have been taken over by Nazis, by communism during the Cold War. And they stood firm and created this world and fought for it. And here we are on the verge of losing it because the Republican Party wants to play politics right now because they don't want Joe Biden to win something. So they don't want to give Ukraine the pennies that they need. And it is pennies to defend themselves. And that is basically on the verge of that whole world order collapsing because we can't get off our rear ends and pay the pennies that we need to pay for Ukraine to defend itself. And I'm really worried about that as an American.

A (46:30)

Yeah, blew my mind. I mean, it's less than, what, 4% of our defense budget? And I'm sorry, I'll spend half the defense budget if we don't have to put boots on the ground. Like, why are we even having this discussion? It makes no sense to me. That's what we were advocating for when we went a couple of months ago. And here we are in the same position again, and perhaps at the precipice because of Republicans at abandoning our allies, which, going back to your national security argument, really pulls the rug out from under the United States as a reliable partner and a reliable ally. And it's shameful that we would do that, especially in light of what our previous generations have gone through to protect and preserve. So. So, everybody, if you want to get into this fight, you need to go to operationsavingdemocracy.org you need to follow Amy on all the socials because she's always posting about this fight, what we can do, and it's not just saying what the problems are. There are concrete actions that we can all take and participate in to help save democracy. Are there any final thoughts that you have, Amy, before we get out of here today?

C (47:40)

Yeah, I would just say on Ukraine, you know, we're on the verge of potentially losing this strategically, and the Ukrainians have won. Tactically, they are winning. Remember, they weren't supposed to last three days.

A (47:54)

Have they taken out 90% of Russia's forces?

C (47:57)

They're doing tremendous. They're winning. If we stop aid to them right now, it would be just the most heinously terrible thing to do. Not only the shame, but also they're winning. They simply need more ammunition to continue to win. More weapons, you know, more rockets, more HIMARs, more ATAC, all that stuff. And it's not that expensive. As you mentioned, it's less than 4% of our budget. It's basically, I did the Math. It's about 75 bucks per American. That's it. I mean, that's not much to hold up the world order that the greatest generation fought and died for, for us. And I feel like this is such an important issue. If you think about strategically what the Republicans are doing right now, if we pull away, that's exactly what Vladimir Putin wants.

A (48:54)

Vladimir Putin and the Republican, he's cheering this right now. He's cheering it?

C (48:58)

Yeah, he's cheering it. And the Republican Party right now and Vladimir Putin are aligned because they both want Biden to have a political loss. The Republican Party right now cares more about their own interest as a party and having Biden lose something than they do about the world order that the greatest generation fought and died for. That's where we're at. And so I feel like anybody that's listening to this really has to really understand that, absorbing it, talk about it, contribute to organizations that are pushing Congress. And we can't let this go right now. We can't just say Ukraine didn't get their weapons because it's so important. If we lose credibility in the world, China's watching, Iran's watching. The whole world is watching. And if we pull out aid to Ukraine, this is a country that. That gave up their nuclear weapons because we asked them to. And we said, give up your nuclear weapons and we'll take care of you. We'll protect your territorial integrity. And if we pull away from that, South Korea is going to get nuclear weapons. Japan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the list goes on. We will not be credible anymore. We will have lost all credibility as a world power. And what the greatest generation built will be.

A (50:24)

Well, thank you so much. It's really been an honor to speak with you and meet you. I've been. I've been wanting to meet you now for so long since. Since you popped up on our radar and we started raising money for your. For your race there in Kentucky. And we hope you run again. And we'll be there for you. Everybody. Check out operationsavingdemocracy.org thank you so much. We'll be back in your ears tomorrow with Neera Tanden and Victor Shi. Until then, please take care of yourselves. Take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health. Health. Take care of your family. Vote blue over Q and bring someone with you. I've been ag. And them's the beans.

B (50:56)

Refried bean.

A (50:57)

I like refried beans.