← The Jim Acosta Show
The Jim Acosta Show
Pete Buttigieg and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries call for firings in response to "Signalgate."
01:08:41
Loading summary
Transcript104 lines
- [00:00]
Jim Acosta
Welcome, everybody, to the Jim Acosta show, or should I call this the Jim Acosta chat group? Those seem to be very popular in Washington right now, as you can see. Joining me on today's show is Pete Buttigieg, the former secretary of transportation during Joe Biden's administration and also a Democratic presidential candidate at one point. Do we call you Mayor Pete anymore? Just Pete. What do we call you now? Secretary Pete?
- [00:24]
Pete Buttigieg
Yeah, let's go with Pete.
- [00:25]
Jim Acosta
We'll go with Pete. Hey, Pete, thank you so much for doing. That's what the folks who are chiming in with their chats are saying right now. Really appreciate it. You know, let's. There are lots of places where we can start. One is, you know, welcome to this new media revolution that's taking place right now in independent media. That's what Substack is all about. And so it's good to see you here. And I've noticed you've already picked up quite the following.
- [00:49]
Pete Buttigieg
Yeah, I'm really excited about Substack and planning to spend more time using this platform. I think probably like a lot of people who are a little familiar with it, I had assumed it was something kind of along the lines of some of the other blog sites. You see there are good for publishing longer essays, which I did recently explaining my decision making about running for office, but didn't really understand how you can do everything from a short comment to something like this. So this is me, I guess, dipping my toe into the waters of video on Substack, but excited to be in touch with your audience and with mine in a new way.
- [01:26]
Jim Acosta
Absolutely. Yeah. No, I mean, just a couple of months ago, I thought Substack was a place where you would write articles and that sort of thing. Didn't realize I had this live feature. So it's very fun. It's intimate. Subscribers get to weigh in and give their comments. And perhaps we'll take a look at some of those comments. But I have to ask you about the news of the day. It is day three of Signal Gate here in Washington as the White House and top administration officials are engaging in basically all outlying. Let's just be honest about this. To cover up the divulging of classified war planning information to reporter Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic in a chat group text thread on the encrypted messaging app Signal, you're here as well. We're going to have Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader, later on in the program. I should note. Note that. But I'm just curious. The Senate Intelligence Committee was looking at this yesterday. The House Intelligence Committee was looking at all of this today, asking big questions. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a Republican, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, has called for an investigation. Where does it go from here, do you think?
- [02:25]
Pete Buttigieg
Well, what we've seen so far is that it was bill bad from the jump, and the administration and the White House keep making it worse. You know, in my experience, when something bad happens, when there's a big mistake, you deal with it, you own it, and you move on. Especially if you want people to believe that you care about accountability. The really shocking thing for me is, you know, this is a president whose entire Persona was about firing people. Right. The whole shtick of his show was firing people kind of for fun. He was play acting at firing people. But still, that was his whole thing. Now, in my experience, including as mayor of a city, you know, I hated firing people. But there were times when you had to hold somebody accountable for their performance and they had to go. We're seeing no indication of that here. On the contrary, we are seeing what is at best stonewalling, at worst, lying to Congress. Somewhere on that spectrum. That's exactly what's been happening these last couple days. Congress has questions, really basic questions, like, were you using your personal phone? How could somebody have gotten onto this chat who wasn't authorized? Why were you discussing highly sensitive classified information on an unclassified channel? If you're claiming for some reason this somehow wasn't classified, what's up with that? Because it definitely should have been and a whole bunch of other questions. And they won't even answer the basic factual questions. And when they do, they don't seem to be telling the truth. So where do we go from here? I think this is a moment of truth for Congress because this should not be a Democrat, Republican thing. I mean, if this happened in a Democratic administration, I would be just as horrified. And I think Americans would be just as upset. And I can tell you, I think Congress, Democrat or Republican, would have been all over us if any of these proportions had ever happened during the time that I was involved in administration. To say nothing of what happened. You know, part of me thinks of this as a former cabinet member.
- [04:19]
Hakeem Jeffries
Yeah.
- [04:19]
Pete Buttigieg
Part of me thinks of this as a former intelligence officer.
- [04:22]
Jim Acosta
Right.
- [04:23]
Pete Buttigieg
Anything even close to this had happened when I was a lieutenant, I mean, they would have had your ass so quickly, I can't even begin to tell you how much trouble you would have been in and how fast. So this is a mode of Congress we're going To a moment of truth. We're going to see if Congress is serious. Now, you mentioned that Senator Wicker, I know him well because he was before he was chairing Armed Services, he was chairing the committee that oversaw my department, the US dot. He is very conservative, very Republican, but I have also seen him show a lot of integrity over the years. Be very interesting to see what he does next.
- [04:55]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And I mean, let's talk about another Pete, Pete Hexath, the Secretary of Defense, because during his confirmation hearings, he was all about, you know, you should be merit based. He was very anti dei. He suggested that anybody who, who got a position at the Pentagon who was not a white Christian was basically there because of dei and it wasn't merit based. And, you know, all along a lot of the critics were saying, well, what about you, Secretary Hegseth? You didn't exactly become this nominee for Secretary of defense just on merit. I mean, it was mainly because Donald Trump liked watching you on Fox. I mean, this is what he texted in this group chat. I'm just gonna read some of this for our viewers who are just catching up on this time now. 11:44 Eastern Time, weather is favorable. Just confirmed with CENTCOM. We are a go for Ms. Launch 12:15 Eastern Time. F18's launch goes on and on, Pete. And the astounding thing to me is the way the administration is trying to say, oh, well, this isn't classified information or this isn't war planning information. It's clearly, if you go through these texts, it's very detailed attack planning for these airstrikes. And it just strikes me as amateur hour over there at the Pentagon and among several of these folks who were on this group chat, well, they would.
- [06:09]
Pete Buttigieg
Be a lot more credible if they said, yeah, this was a huge screw up and here's how it happened. We're getting to the bottom of it. Instead, they're trying to minimize it. I mean, trying to quibble over the difference between a war plan and a battle plan or an attack plan and a strike plan. The point is that sensitive information about an impending military attack involving physical movements of US Troops in a kinetic environment was sent on an unclassified channel and sent to the wrong guy.
- [06:39]
Jim Acosta
Right.
- [06:39]
Pete Buttigieg
And it's a good thing it wasn't the wrong, wrong guy because it could have gone to the Russian ambassador. Who knows who could have gotten this? And just as importantly, if we know about this this one time, and we're only, what, a few weeks into this administration, how many other times might this have happened? That we don't know about because the person who found out about it at best kept it to themselves and at worst used it in some nefarious way.
- [07:04]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, that's true. And Senator Adam Schiff is requesting information on the travels of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and the US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. And one of the reasons why is because Wyckoff apparently was in Russia at the time, meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Pete, I remember during my days covering the White House, during the Trump White House, we went to Beijing for a potish trip to see Xi Jinping. They took, you know, we had to give up our phones, we had to give up our laptops. You couldn't bring comms equipment into Beijing because you had the assumption that everything was going to be hacked into. You have to have the assumption that Wyckoff knew that or the people around him knew that his devices were going to be hacked into by the Russians or surveilled by the Russians. I mean, that is a scary proposition there, that perhaps his devices were being surveilled as he was involved in this group chat.
- [07:58]
Pete Buttigieg
Absolutely. Look, we don't know whether he, what he, if anything, he would have been doing with his personal device in Russia, but that's exactly one of the questions that needs to be very quickly answered. You know, when I went to Ukraine, I left my phone with somebody on the other side of the border, just knowing how much Russian surveillance could be in there. And so the idea that somebody, again, it almost defies imagination writing about it, basically a text thread with the Vice President of the United States SecDef and a whole bunch of others on somebody's phone while they were in Russia. We need some answers on that. We know the kinds of things that they do by way of phone hacking, by the way. This is exactly why we have classified systems for discussing this kind of thing. And it's not like it's impossible for these guys to get onto a classified system. Some of them, like the Secretary of Defense and the vp, literally have an airplane going with them, not just for convenience, but specifically to carry the kind of hardened communication systems that are not susceptible to that kind of interference or espionage. So that you can, I don't know, do things like talk about a military attack before it happens without wondering if it was going to get into the wrong hands.
- [09:09]
Jim Acosta
Right. I mean, everybody has access to a SCIF at this level inside an administration. They have the Situation Room over at the White House. Presumably, you know, they could have had access to some kind of Skiff, wherever they were, so they could join this kind of conversation or have a classified satellite phone or cell phone or something along those lines. And I mean, Jeffrey Goldberg picked up on this because he was getting a text, I think he said, in the parking lot of a Safeway in the D.C. area, which is incredible. Hakeem Jeffries, who's going to be on in the program in a little bit, has called for Pete Hegseth to be fired. Do you think head should roll? We should see somebody fired over this?
- [09:49]
Pete Buttigieg
Yeah, no question. Even more so because he has refused to take responsibility. If you screw up this badly, the very least you could do to save your job would be to man up, explain yourself, and make clear why it wouldn't happen again. I don't think that would have been good enough, but it would have been better than just blurting out insults at the reporter who was involved and not answering any of the actual questions when he was asked about this after having, you know, I think some time during his plane ride to think up a better answer. But the other thing that he needs to explain, and this is a question Congress I know is asking, and it would be the first question I would be asking if I were the President and knew this happened, is how did the information move from a classified system to an unclassified system? I mean, again, the amount of trouble you could get in as a sergeant in the army, unbelievable. If you took a sheet of paper that was printed off a top secret printer and left it in a folder that could have gone into a non top secret room is enormous. There are whole different computer systems. So this information was on a classified system and then it wasn't. Somebody moved it. And that somebody, it would appear, would be Secretary Hegseth. He needs to explain how he did that and why.
- [11:07]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, there's no question about it. And it's not gonna be. I mean, you have to have hearings, it seems to me, with these individuals testifying, or else it's just a cover up and they're trying to sweep it under the rug. And I suppose, you know, Trump appears to be in the middle of that right now. He's trying to change the subject, wag the dog a little bit. Apparently he's announcing tariffs on the auto industry at this hour. I do wanna switch to other topics because I know you did think about running for the Senate for governor in Michigan. That's a state that has been aff by tariffs put in place by the Trump administration, by Donald Trump. What do you think about the way he has handled These tariffs. Do you like tariffs? What are your views on tariffs?
- [11:48]
Pete Buttigieg
Well, I think there is a real risk of destroying American jobs and hurting American workers, and I think that's what's going to happen. Let me be clear. There are some times cases and places where it makes sense to use tariffs. Last administration, we would use tariffs sometimes to protect American industry. But the kind of stuff they're talking about, in order to work, it's got to be targeted. It's got to be predictable. It's got to be part of a strategy. What we're seeing here is this incredibly chaotic on again, off again. I've talked to small business owners as well as people in industry who are kind of paralyzed because they don't know how to respond to this, given that it keeps changing from week to week. We know this is going to make cars more expensive. Our whole policy when I was in Washington was try to make cars less expensive. They seem to be deliberately making cars more expensive at a time when, you know, the biggest problem in our economy is still affordability and things costing too much. And what we're seeing here is an incredibly reckless approach. Now, we'll see exactly what is going to be announced today. But given their track record so far, it's not very encouraging, especially when you see the chaos that it's already brought to the auto industry. And look, the auto industry is at the heart of why I'm in public life. I grew up in a city that was a company town for Studebaker. They made cars until 1963, when the last Studebaker rolled off the line.
- [13:12]
Jim Acosta
And congrats to up for knowing what a Studebaker is. But anyway, go ahead.
- [13:16]
Pete Buttigieg
Oh, yeah. I mean, where I'm from, that's a huge deal. South Bend, Indiana, much bigger employer than Notre Dame ever was at the time was Studebaker.
- [13:24]
Jim Acosta
Wow.
- [13:25]
Pete Buttigieg
And when I became mayor 50 years later, we as a city were still licking our wounds from losing that, that kind of manufacturing. So much so that the whole kind of project of the time I was in office was to move on from that economically. And then I got into politics, running against an ideologue who was the state treasurer of Indiana, who tried to block the Obama Biden administration when they were saving Chrysler. Because I knew what letting Chrysler grow out of business would do, and I wanted to take a stand for them. I didn't win that race, but that was the first race I ever ran.
- [13:59]
Jim Acosta
Wow.
- [14:00]
Pete Buttigieg
I really care about this stuff. And having grown up in a former auto town, living now in America's biggest Auto, state of Michigan. You know, they're playing with people's lives. Whether you work directly in the auto industry and your jobs could be on the line or whether you're just like most of us and you're hoping to be able to afford your next car and not wanting to see the prices go through the roof.
- [14:22]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, I mean, and, you know, sure, the Democrats lost in 2024 race, but the economy was trending in the right direction. I mean, I think just about any, if you turn on cnbc, just about anybody who comment comments on CNBC would agree that the economy was heading in the right direction. Stock market was looking good. The jobs picture was looking good. Inflation was trending in the right direction. And now there's a huge amount of economic uncertainty in the air. Wall street does not know what to make of the tariffs that are being put in place. They don't know what the effect is going to be on inflation. Excuse me. Over at the Fed. They just don't seem to know what to do about interest rates at this point because of what's taking place with these tariffs. And I'm just curious what your thoughts are on how to perhaps add a little more certainty to the economy right now. I mean, should Trump just reverse course on these tariffs? I mean, what's, what's the Buddha, judge, you know. Yeah, I mean, I know we're a long way off from 2028, but what are your thoughts?
- [15:24]
Pete Buttigieg
Yeah, I'm not here to say everything was fine a year ago and we should make it just like it was. Here's the way I would put it. The economy that was handed to the Trump administration had a lot of things going well and a lot of things that were not going well. So let's break this down a little bit. What was going well? Actually, one of the things that was going best was investments in factories. The most factory building in my lifetime happened last year. You know, the jobs numbers were looking good. The stock market was, was high. But what was the thing that was not going well? That was prices, affordability.
- [15:59]
Jim Acosta
Right.
- [15:59]
Pete Buttigieg
Now, here's the really weird thing. What they're doing now is upside down. The problems that you would theoretically solve with tariffs was if nobody was building factories, but like I just said, factories here, manufacturing here was rising.
- [16:12]
Jim Acosta
It was moving. Yes, exactly.
- [16:13]
Pete Buttigieg
Meanwhile, the thing that tariffs definitely make worse is prices. So you're making the thing that was worst in our economy, which is prices, you're making it even worse in order to theoretically do something about jobs and manufacturing. But those were some of the things in our economy that were headed in the right direction. So it's perfectly upside down.
- [16:31]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And I mean, the other thing that has gotten people pretty fired up these days is what Elon Musk is doing with Doge. I mean, you know, to me, it's kind of staggering that you would see, you know, the richest man in the world be given the keys to, you know, basically every federal agency. And, you know, and in cases where they don't have the keys, they're trying to barge their way in and take over these agencies. And in some cases, you have these young staffers at dosh trying to get access to people's personal, private information. They're hoovering up data at various agencies and so on. I guess, first of all, your thoughts on what Elon Musk has been doing as he's been, you know, been given a very big role in this administration. And then also the impact of places like the Social Security Administration. One thing that's been coming out in the last couple of days, there are all these job and staff cuts over at Social Security, and it's leading to long lines and a great deal of stress from people wondering, am I going to be able to get my Social Security check?
- [17:32]
Pete Buttigieg
Look, to me, the whole point of government is to deliver services that make people better off and to help make people free to protect people so that you're more free in your everyday life. And what we're seeing here, look, in theory, what they claim they're doing is something that, if they were actually doing it, I would love to see, which is finding cases where something is broken or wasteful in the government and fixing it. If that was really the mission, I'd be all on board. Because I can tell you, both as an American and as somebody who's been in the middle of a big federal agency, there's all kinds of things I would like to change. We changed what we could when I was in there. There's more to do to make things less bureaucratic, simpler, more straightforward, more transparent. If Doge was about that, I would be cheering them on. But instead, what we're seeing is they're just breaking stuff right and left. And the most important thing is results. You mentioned Social Security, and this is a huge deal, and you can't fake this. If you're watching this and you're on Social Security and you have gotten on the phone trying to get something done, you're probably aware that the wait times have doubled on the phone lines since these guys came in. They've taken some things you can't even do them over the phone anymore. You've got a. They're telling people to go online, they're telling seniors, they're telling people in their 80s and 90s to just do it online.
- [18:55]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, and there was some guy out in Seattle who was told this was reported in the Seattle newspaper, that they think he was dead and that he couldn't collect any more Social Security payments, so he had to go down to his local Social Security office. And he tried to jump the line is what he told the local press out in Seattle so he can get to the bottom of what was going on. I mean, it just seems that people are freaked out right now about Social Security. And then just the other day, the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, who was a billionaire, he's one of several billionaires in this administration, said his mother in law would not complain if she didn't receive her Social Security check. I mean, I just thought that was the epitome of being tone deaf. What in the world are they thinking over there making those kinds of comments?
- [19:37]
Pete Buttigieg
Look, I don't think they're terribly worried about Social Security. These are very rich men. More than that. I mean, a lot of them ideologically would rather not have Social Security, which is why Project 2025 contains a lot of evidence of their agenda. It's one more part of this very ideological agenda. You know, I got a piece of mail right here in my mailbox in Michigan during the campaign from the Trump campaign, swearing up and down that Donald Trump had nothing to do with Project 2025. Yeah, but now we're seeing that agenda play out in a lot of different ways. And one of them is the Republicans have been trying to dismantle or privatize Social Security for decades, and now they feel like they have their chance. Now they know that if they just passed a bill to get rid of Social Security, you know, the American people wouldn't stand for it. So instead they're kind of screwing it up from the inside. They're making it kind of a self fulfilling prophecy as they break the system. But, you know, we got to get out of this idea that these are quote, unquote, entitlements. This is something you pay for.
- [20:34]
Jim Acosta
Right.
- [20:34]
Pete Buttigieg
You and I and every American worker on our paycheck, we pay into this system. It's an insurance system, not a gift. And they're screwing it up from the inside.
- [20:44]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, I mean, and I've heard you describe yourself as an elder millennial. I'm a. I consider myself a youthful Gen Xer and if somebody takes my Social Security way before I turn whatever it is, 62, 65, 67, whatever it is, I'm going to be pretty pissed off. I mean, I'll just be really honest with you. I just, you know, and I probably don't need Social Security to retire. I will admit that having worked in the news business for a long time, I should be okay. But hell if I'm not going to get that money that I paid into the system, you know, And I think a lot of other people feel the same. I think about my dad, my parents who work blue collar jobs, raising me. I mean, you can't monkey around with that system.
- [21:25]
Pete Buttigieg
That's right, because people really do count on it. And look, I think there's actually a through line here between the news of the day on Signal Gate or whatever we're going to call it and this stuff with Social Security, which is they're incredibly reckless because they're not that worried about it. Most of the folks playing these games fast and loose with classified information or sensitive information that could get American troops killed, they're not very close to the front lines here. It's not their personal problem. And same thing on the economy. They're playing all these games. And if they screw up, if stocks keep going down like they've been doing overall since Trump came in, if Social Security checks don't go out, if more people lose their jobs, if prices keep going up, that's just not their problem. You know, they'll be worried about it as politicians, but they're not that worried about it as people.
- [22:18]
Jim Acosta
Can I ask you some political questions? I mean, we have been talking politics, but when Trump talks about invading Greenland and Canada, being the 51st state and taking over the Panama, do you buy any of that stuff? Do you think he's just throwing this horse crap out there to sort of distract people? Do you think he's serious about it? Do you think he's nuts? I mean, is it a combination of all three?
- [22:41]
Pete Buttigieg
I actually think there's more cohesion to this than he gets credit for. And what I mean by that is he does have a certain foreign policy worldview. And the best way to explain it is that it's spheres of influence. So you notice all the places you just mentioned are in North America or in the Americas. Right. They're the places physically close to the United States. And his attitude is they're kind of around, we should control them or run them or in some way exert our power over them. And if you think about it, that way that helps to explain his attitude toward Russia. And there might be some other stuff going on with him and Putin, I don't know. But one thing that you see is, you know, there's this idea, all right, Russia can be the throw their weight around in their backyard, and America can throw our weight around in our yard. And it's a completely different idea from the idea that values and rules should matter. And one area where this could come to a head is when it comes to China, because even though there's a lot of belligerent rhetoric around China, for a guy like Donald Trump who thinks that if you have enough power, you should be able to do what you want in your backyard, if push came to shove in Taiwan, do you really think Donald Trump's going to be a credible defender of Taiwanese autonomy, or do you think he's going to try to cut the deal of the century?
- [24:00]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, and you've got me thinking about Ukraine when you make that comment, because the way he dressed down Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, the way just at every turn, it seems he caters to Vladimir Putin. It worries me as an American that if Trump were to let Vladimir Putin get away with taking over Ukraine, to me, that would just blow a hole in NATO. NATO would basically not exist anymore. Because obviously the lesson Putin is going to take away from that. Okay, let's. After Estonia, let's go. After Moldova, let's go. What are your thoughts on that?
- [24:33]
Pete Buttigieg
Yeah, Putin's not the kind of guy who's going to get what he wants on one thing and be like, okay, I guess I'm done now. I'll go home. Right. Like, obviously, he will continue pushing the boundaries as far as he can. I mean, you would have thought that attacking the integrity of our elections a decade ago was a red line. But he crossed that, got away with it, kept seeing what else he could do. And now you've got, you know, obviously he's playing for Ukraine. There's so many other areas where, whether it's an outright invasion or some other way that he asserts influence, of course he's going to keep going.
- [25:08]
Jim Acosta
Of course. Okay, I got to ask you this. How's it going being a dad? You said you didn't want to run in Michigan. I assume that's because, you know, and I worked at the White House for seven and a half years covering Obama and Trump. I knew I needed a break after that was done. I'm sure you needed a break after you're done being the Secretary of Transportation, which is a much bigger job. How's it going being a dad? Are you resting up for 20, 28? I turned that into a political question. So there you go.
- [25:33]
Pete Buttigieg
Well, look, on 28, it's just too soon to know what the world's going to look like and what my life is going to look like. But what I will say is I'm really enjoying being a dad, being more invested in that. Obviously, I did my best while I was serving as secretary to be there for my kids and be there for Chas and my husband, who was doing so much of the lifting. But you got a job like that and you're on the road, you know, at least half the time. And even when you're there, you're not exactly there. Phone calls in the middle night. Matter of fact, as we speak, you know, this is the one year mark since the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse.
- [26:08]
Jim Acosta
That's right.
- [26:09]
Pete Buttigieg
One of many of those great moments where you get a call in the middle of the night and then it's just 247 for a while. So being able to. Being able to turn the ringer of my phone off, be the one dropping off the kids most days at school, being able to just read to them and, you know, do my part. Getting lunch and dinner ready has been great. I mean, it's work. Parenting is work. It's the hardest thing I think Chasten or I have ever done, but it's also the best. And it's just every day there's something new or something funny about him. You know, it's funny. The other day I was putting them to bed, and a lot of times the last thing they ask me before I try to get them to sleep is to tell them about my work. I don't know how this started, but they started doing this. Now. It's part of the routine. And I actually got to where I could explain my work as secretary because they understood transportation, right? They know what trucks and bridges and planes are. And I tried to explain it that way. So now I was thinking about how to answer the question. And one thing that I am doing by way of employment one day a week, I teach at the University of Chicago. And so I explained to our daughter, I said, well, you know, right now I'm working as a. As a teacher for grownups. And she said, you're not a teacher? Like, yeah, yeah, I'm sort of a teacher for grownups. And then she looked really sad and she said, but I thought you were my papa. I said, well, yeah, no, totally, definitely, definitely. That, but, you know, also. Also have this work.
- [27:41]
Jim Acosta
She doesn't want dad to go back to work.
- [27:43]
Pete Buttigieg
Yeah. And then she says it's hard to be both. I was like, yeah, boy, you have put your finger on something. And it's. As a three year old, it is hard to do. Luckily, my Chicago gig is not nearly as demanding as public service was. But anyway, bottom line, they're doing great. They're doing all the things three year olds do. It's chaotic and beautiful and I'm really thankful to have this time with them.
- [28:06]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. Let me ask, because you mentioned the campaign a little earlier. You said, well, not everything was perfect going into the election. If there was one thing you could go back and change and you weren't on the ticket, but if there was one thing you could go back and change, one thing that the Democrats should have talked about more. Have you been able to put your finger on that?
- [28:27]
Pete Buttigieg
Yeah, there's plenty of things. Look, for two or three years running, our party should have been clearer about the border being a real problem, about immigration policy and what we were doing about it and conveyed the difference that it made. When there was the executive action, though that came in the fourth year, I think if that had come in the second year instead, things might have been very different. I think that we, you know, rightly felt it was our job to point out the things that were going well in the economy, but really struggled to make it clear that we understood what was going wrong in the economy. And I think we got painted into a corner because we care so deeply and rightly so about making sure that vulnerable groups don't get discriminated against. We allowed Republicans to make it sound like we only cared about certain groups when our whole guiding light is to make sure that everybody can thrive in this country.
- [29:32]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And will you kill me if I ask this? Did President Biden wait too long to get out? That's the one that's been on my mind. And I'm just wondering what you think.
- [29:45]
Pete Buttigieg
I don't know what would have happened if he'd made his decision earlier. It's easy to imagine, to speculate. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. The reality is we don't know. I mean, one thing we do know is that the incumbent government, the incumbent party, pretty much any developed country in the last couple years, struggled. And I think we saw that play, that dynamic play out. But of course you do ask yourself if, you know, if the VP had had a year or if we had a whole open primary process, what would things have been like, and just by definition, all we can do about that is speculate.
- [30:20]
Jim Acosta
And that's true. I mean, I had so many Democrats say to me during the campaign, I just don't know that much about her. I wish I knew more about. And the clock was ticking, time was running out. What do you. Last question here. Jumping all over the place here at the end. Then I'll let you go, I promise. Your thoughts on these rallies that are just coming out of nowhere? Because for a while there, it seemed like Democrats were in the fetal position. They were, they were a little despondent, let's just to be diplomatic after the election was over. But there's some real fieriness that we're seeing out on the campaign trail now. And these top people are. People are pissed. They're pissed the f off. They're angry. They're angry at Elon Musk, they're really angry at Donald Trump. What are you seeing out there when you, when you're seeing these rallies?
- [31:05]
Pete Buttigieg
Yeah, I think it's really powerful and really important to see what's going on. And I think it's happening for a couple of reasons. One, you know, you got a lot of folks who maybe went along with, with this or they even voted for, for this administration, but they didn't vote for this. They didn't vote for this kind of sloppy recklessness on national security. They didn't vote for Doge. They didn't vote for their social messed with or Medicaid to be cut or all these services people count on to be put on the chopping block. They definitely didn't vote for Project 2025, or trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich. So they see this and say, wait a minute, you told me that if I voted for you, maybe you'd make my life better. And at the very least, prices would start going down. And instead the opposite's happening and people are pissed. The other thing that I think is happening is there is a moment of kind of moving on from just being just kind of transfixed or stupefied by this kind of barrage of news. And I think that did have Democrats kind of almost frozen for a while. But I think right now what we're seeing is that people do expect someone to stand up and fight for them. And this idea that we can just sit back and let them screw it up and then they'll get blamed for it, I think is first of all the wrong answer for the country. And also, I don't think it's smart politics, because while this group that's in charge right now is obviously not fantastic at responsible government. They are very, very talented at shifting blame. So let's, let's speak up before and not after they screw everything up, but just as importantly, talk about what we do differently. And that's the other thing I think people are really craving. Not just a strong opposition, not just a powerful critique, not just the zinger explaining why what they're doing is so bad. Show what we'd be doing. That's a lot better.
- [32:51]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. Pete Buttigieg, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it. We could go on and on and we'll just do that another time if it's okay. I love both you again in the future and best of luck on Substack. You're already blowing up. So I'm seeing this in my rear view mirror. It's images may be faster or closer than they appear, whatever that thing is that you see on the side. Viewer, Pete Buttigieg's great to talk to you. Have fun with the kids. Thanks a lot. Really appreciate the time.
- [33:14]
Pete Buttigieg
Same here. Thanks a lot.
- [33:15]
Jim Acosta
All right. Take care. Take care. All right. That was Pete Buttigieg. All right. As I mentioned, this is a big day on the Jim Acosta Show. You know, we're doing our damnedest every day to bring you news, opinion leaders, leaders in Congress. And you don't get higher in Congress or much higher in Congress than my next guest. That is Hakeem Jeffries. He is the Democratic leader in the House. And I'm just so excited to talk to him because he and I have done some interviews in the past. It's been a little while. And so anxious to get him on and talk about really some of these issues that I've been talking about with Pete Buttigieg. My thanks to the former transportation secretary. That was just a terrific interview, really, I think dove into a lot of different subjects. And now hoping to bring on the line Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader. We've got a heck of a twofer today. But as we were talking about at the top of this program, we're going to continue to talk about this with Hakeem Jeffries. The fallout from Signal Gate continues. Administration officials were up on Capitol Hill earlier today. If you're just tuning in, I just spoke with Pete Buttigieg about this. But top administrations were up on administration officials were up on Capitol Hill earlier today before the House Intelligence Committee answering some pretty tough questions from Democrats about what went wrong. And a lot did go wrong when people like The Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, when folks like the national Security Advisor, Michael Waltz brought in Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic into that group text thread. And I'm being told by my producer that Hakeem is not seeing the notification yet. He should be seeing it at any moment. I am. I have. I have pressed Hakeem. I have done that. Now, for folks who are wondering how all of this works in the substack machine, you know, sometimes it takes a few tries to get somebody on. All right, let's try this one more time. We'll try it many times. As a matter of fact, as I've said, often on this program, you can't always let the correspondent handle the equipment, can't let the anchor handle the equipment. But he should see my invitation coming into his phone, and he should see that at any moment. So hopefully he'll be joining us in just a second. But I mean, one of the things that we heard earlier today, you heard the director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, you saw the CIA director both testifying. You saw the FBI director testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, and they were giving some pretty evasive answers. And there he is right now, the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries. Mr. Leader, great to see you on the program. Thanks for doing this.
- [36:10]
Hakeem Jeffries
Jim, great to see you. Thanks for having me on.
- [36:12]
Jim Acosta
The eagle has landed. As I sometimes say, this is a new toy that we're playing with these days, the substack machine, as I call it. And I understand this is your first time doing a live show on substack, so welcome.
- [36:26]
Hakeem Jeffries
This is my maiden voyage on substack, and I can't think of a better person, better captain to be on the ship with than you.
- [36:34]
Jim Acosta
Well, I'll try to keep us away from any icebergs here, but thank you so much for doing this. I appreciate it. And, you know, one of the things I was talking about with Pete Buttigieg just a little while ago, I'll ask you the same thing. It seems as though Democrats have said, you know, it's important to get on some of these other platforms, important to talk to independent media. There are lots of other folks out there that aren't watching traditional news media, aren't watching corporate media anymore, and they're getting their news, getting their information from places like this.
- [37:02]
Hakeem Jeffries
That's absolutely correct. I think one of the lessons that emerged from the 2024 campaign is that we have legacy media and that still has a role to play, certainly for us in Congress, where we represent individual Districts across the country. We have local media, local radio, local print, local tv. That continues to be incredibly important for all of our members across the country. But then we have this new media landscape where so many Americans get their news and their information about politics, about lifestyle, about culture, about music, about sports. And we've got to be present in every single corner of the new media landscape.
- [37:45]
Jim Acosta
Yeah. And Leader Jeffries, it's great to see on Substack. I'm sure folks are going to be following you. They're going to want you to start doing your shows. You're going to get so hooked on this that your staffers are going to say, leader Jeffries, we have a vote to get to. Come on, sir. You know, and you're gonna have so much fun here. But in all seriousness, let's get to some news. Cause I have to ask you about what's happening with Signalgate. I know you called for the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, to resign. You sent a letter to Donald Trump demanding that that take place. Have you heard back from the White House?
- [38:15]
Hakeem Jeffries
We have not heard back directly from President Trump. The White House spokesperson issued what effectively was a milquetoast non answer. They clearly are running scared. And this is not something that's going to go away. First of all, Pete Hegseth should have never been confirmed as the secretary of the Department of Defense. He's the most unqualified Defense secretary ever. Mitch McConnell knew it, which is why he voted against Hegseth. Susan Collins knew it. That's why she voted against Hegseth. Lisa Murkowski knew it. And every single Democrat in the Senate. And we've been very clear in the House. And now the chickens have come home to roost because we see this combination of both arrogance and incompetence, and it's a toxic combination. And American lives were jeopardized as a result.
- [39:13]
Jim Acosta
And members of your caucus were asking some very tough questions, led by the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes. You know, basically asking the question, how in the hell can you let something like this happen? And it just speaks of kind of amateur hour over there at the White House. But at the same time, you have to wonder whether laws were broken. I mean, people have been prosecuted for less than this. I used to cover the Trump campaign back in 2016 when they would say, lock her up about Hillary Clinton's emails. This goes way beyond emails.
- [39:46]
Hakeem Jeffries
That's correct. Several laws are likely to have been broken, including the Espionage act is something that Congressional Democrats are looking into led by Jim Himes and others like Jamie Raskin, and we'll continue that pursuit. We're going to follow the facts. We're going to apply the law, be guided by the Constitution, and make sure that there are some consequences here and that people are held accountable. Yesterday, several Democrats gathered to talk to the nation, led by our military veterans, people like Jason Crow, who you know is just a phenomenal patriot, Mikey Sherrill and many, many others. Pat Ryan from New York. And they were all very clear that if any service member, man or woman in uniform were to have done this, they would be court martialed or not, simply put in jail, buried underneath the jail. This is how serious an offense this was. And you've got the White House disinformation machine trying to sweep it under the rug. It's all very extraordinary. These were the nation's top national security professionals.
- [41:02]
Jim Acosta
Yeah.
- [41:02]
Hakeem Jeffries
And it was a malignant clown show. Malignant because it was very dangerous to the safety and security of our servicemen and women and the American people. Yeah.
- [41:13]
Jim Acosta
I mean, one of the astounding details is Steve Witkoff, the US Special envoy apparently was in Russia meeting with Putin when some of these details were going back in this text thread. And I was talking to Pete Buttigieg about this. I remember when I went to China, they took our phones and our laptops away and gave us burner phones and laptops because they were so worried about the, the Chinese getting into our devices. One has to think that the Russians at least attempted to get into their devices. And it makes you wonder what was going. I suppose you need an investigation into that to get to the bottom of that.
- [41:43]
Hakeem Jeffries
That's correct. When we enter into the airspace of an adversary, or in some cases even a friendlier competitor, where you know that these foreign entities have significant intelligence and surveillance capacities, we don't even travel abroad without with our phones, physical phones or personal phones in particular. And so it is quite extraordinary that Witkoff apparently was in Russia and I think Tulsi Gabbard was somewhere in Southeast Asia, where you can be almost certain that China was watching and listening to try to figure out what was going on in terms of her activity. And so the security breach was significant. As many of my colleagues have said, heads have to roll. But in my view, it's got to start with the Secretary of Defense. He's got to resign or he should be fired by President Trump. And that's why I sent him that letter yesterday.
- [42:52]
Jim Acosta
I mean, I can only think, Leader Jeffries, if you had done that, I know sometimes you're brought into sensitive intelligence matters, what they would try to do with Hakeem Jeffries.
- [43:02]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, that's absolutely correct. I can only imagine Fox News would be in a feeding frenzy right now.
- [43:08]
Jim Acosta
Yes, they would.
- [43:09]
Hakeem Jeffries
So would the right wing media disinformation ecosystem. But facts don't matter often for many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, hypocrisy is not a constraint to their behavior. They'll say one thing and do another. And they actually believe, Jim, that shamelessness is a superpower and we see it on full display. But we're not going to let them get away with this situation right now. We can't because this is a matter of urgent national security. One thing I'd mention, Jim, because when I transitioned from House Democratic Caucus chair to House Democratic leader, I became a part of what, you know, to be the Gang of Eight, the four legislative leaders in the House and in the Senate and the four leaders of the Intelligence Committee. And we actually have the opportunity to hear directly from our national security professionals with respect to a lot of highly classified and sensitive information. Always in a secure location.
- [44:14]
Jim Acosta
Right.
- [44:15]
Hakeem Jeffries
Never are we allowed to even bring our phones in to that secure location, let alone have conversations outside of that secure location on our phones using non military grade encryption chat platforms like Signal.
- [44:38]
Jim Acosta
Right, Exactly. And I do want to ask you about some other things because, you know, you mentioned your status in the Gang of Eight. That brings up, you know, the question about how Democrats are just in the minority by a couple of votes. You have this election coming up next week for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, that open seat there. It's been reported that that race could determine who controls Congress because of redistricting battles and so on that happen in these various states. Apparently they've had this take place in Wisconsin, too. Elon Musk has dumped $17 million into that race for that open seat. How important is that election and could it possibly make you the speaker?
- [45:13]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, it's an extraordinarily important election just on the merits because a billionaire puppet master like Elon Musk, who's unelected, unaccountable, unpopular and unhinged, should not be able to buy our democracy. And he clearly is trying to do just that in this particular instance. Just dumping $17 million, it appears, into the Wisconsin State Supreme Court race likely will be more once we get to Tuesday of next week. And here's the thing. Republicans have continued to use the redistricting process and extreme partisan gerrymandering to artificially give them a political advantage. As you Mentioned, Jim. We are just three seats short, three seats of a majority here in the Congress. Three seats short when we're at full strength. And so at full strength, the Republicans are at 220. At full strength, we're at 215. 218, of course is a majority when some of these vacancies are filled. In North Carolina, they did an extraordinary thing in the last Congress, mid decade redistricting. Redistricting had already been done and it resulted in a delegation of seven Democrats and seven Republicans in North Carolina. That makes sense because it's a 5050 state Democratic governor for the last several years, including the one recently elected. Donald Trump won the state of North Carolina. It's a 5050 state. It had a 5050 congressional delegation until Republicans engaged in mid decade extreme partisan gerrymandering. They took three seats away from Democrats that were competitive seats that we held. They made them safe Republican seats. And now the congressional delegation in North Carolina is 10 Republicans, four Democrats.
- [47:11]
Jim Acosta
Wow.
- [47:11]
Hakeem Jeffries
That right there makes up the difference in terms of who is in the majority and who's not. And so the lesson that they've learned from that is that the American people didn't even put them in the majority. North Carolina extreme partisan gerrymandering by the legislature did. Interesting. That's why these races are going to continue to be important. Because what we want are fair lines all across the country. And in order to ensure that we get fair lines, we have to have an enlightened state supreme court.
- [47:43]
Jim Acosta
And I have to ask you, we brought up Elon Musk. I mean, one of the things that's been taking place obviously since Donald Trump came into office is the way he and his team have just gone through various agencies and departments of the federal government like a bull in a china shop. They are laying off workers, they're laying off veterans, they're cutting staff at the Social Security Administration. And that administration has been getting a lot of attention, as you know, over the last week or so with office closures, cutbacks of new phone service rules, new rules requiring in person visits. And Doge is making some of these charges and these changes without consulting or notifying some members of Congress, including members of the Republican Party. I mean, isn't that something that Congress should have a say in before Elon Musk goes and closes down parts of the Social Security Administration? There are so many seniors counting on those checks.
- [48:40]
Hakeem Jeffries
Yes, that's absolutely the case. And it's extraordinary that these extreme MAGA Republicans are going after our parents and our grandparents who rely upon Social Security. In order to live, pay their rent, put food on the table, and enjoy these golden years with the grace and dignity that they deserve. And by trying to decimate the Social Security Administration without authorization, which is why Donald Trump and Elon Musk and this Doge effort, they are being sued over and over and over again. And they're losing in court over and over and over again. But they're doing damage in real time until they get stopped either in the Congress or in the courts. And the problem that you've highlighted, Jim, is that many Republicans are burying their heads in the sand and they are yielding our authority as a separate and co equal branch of government. We're supposed to be a check and balance on an out of control executive branch. We don't work for Donald Trump. There are no kings, there are no dictators, there are no monarchs in America. We work for the American people. But the Republicans have abdicated that responsibility in the House and in the Senate. And it's a shame. It's one of the reasons why we believe the American people are gonna punish them and we will take back control of the House of Representatives next year. But until that point in time, we've gotta do everything possible to stop the damage that's being done.
- [50:12]
Jim Acosta
Yeah, I mean, you know, one of the things, I mean, you mentioned, we don't have monarchs, we do seem to have oligarchs. And Elon Musk was able to help Donald Trump win that election, pumping in $290 million, apparently. He said the other day he wants to put in another $100 billion. He's dumping 17 million into that Wisconsin Supreme Court race. I mean, a lot of people are wondering who's in charge here. It sounds like rich guys like Elon Musk are in charge.
- [50:41]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, that's correct. I mean, part of the issue that we see in real time here on Capitol Hill is that House Republicans are arguing with Senate Republicans, Senate Republicans are arguing with House Republicans, and then they both are trying to figure out that they work for Donald Trump or Elon Musk. And it's chaos, it's confusion, it's corruption, all of which is unfolding in real time. Elon Musk should have no role, no involvement, no engagement with the government. But he's been unleashed on the American people by Donald Trump and the Republicans. And they may be afraid of him, afraid of his money. We're not afraid of him, we're not afraid of his money. And we're going to make his effort to buy our democracy an issue in all of these races. Moving forward.
- [51:30]
Jim Acosta
And what do you think about these rallies that we're starting to see around the country? I mean, I was talking about this with Buttigieg. You know, Democrats were in a little bit of a daze there between the election and the inauguration and a little depressed and so on, a little despondent and then sort of out of nowhere. And maybe you have some thanks to offer to Elon Musk and Donald Trump and the people at Doge, because Democrats sort of came out of this slumber and started going to these rallies. They're showing up at protests. People are pissed off. And they're making that pretty darn clear to the point where you have the speaker, Mike Johnson, saying to his conference, don't have any town halls. I mean, what are you seeing from the grassroots, at the grassroots level right now?
- [52:14]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, there's a lot of energy all across the country. And you're correct in the aftermath of the general election, and I understand it, there was a lot of disappointment all across the country. Kamala Harris did the best job that she could over 107 day period, ran the strongest race that she could, and fell just short. We lost the Senate and of course, fell a little short in the House of Representatives. So, you know, people were disappointed all across the country. And then came the inauguration and then the flood of extremism that occurred immediately thereafter. And Donald Trump blew any opportunity to have a honeymoon with the American people and have some degree of a normal presidency. Because though they lied about Project 2025 throughout the campaign trail, all that we're seeing is Donald Trump Unleashing Project 2025 and its extremism on the American people while at the same time doing nothing to lower the high cost of living in the United States of America. In fact, costs aren't going down, they're going up because Republicans aren't focused on actually making life better for everyday Americans. We as Democrats, we want to build an economy that works for working class Americans and brings the American dream to life for everyone. The American people aren't seeing that from Republicans. They're seeing them dismantle the American way of life in real time. They don't like it, which is why you're seeing a high degree of energy and righteous indignation all across America.
- [53:53]
Jim Acosta
And I've been kind of calling it a live and let live sort of mentality in the Democratic Party right now. I noticed you were very tolerant of your members during that speech to a joint session of Congress by Donald Trump. You had some members who didn't do any protesting you had Congressman Green with his cane. You had other members with the paddles. And Congresswoman Stansberry had her little note behind Donald Trump saying this is not normal. There are lots of different perspectives as to how to go about this. And I don't envy your position because you've got a lot of different takes on all of this. What's your take on how the party should fight back?
- [54:34]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, I think we have to be unified at the congressional level, as we've been as House Democrats in pushing back aggressively against their efforts to take a chainsaw to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and jam this extreme Republican budget down the throats of the American people. Every single House Democrat voted against the House Republican budget resolution at the end of February. We were entirely united because we're trying to defend the health care of the American people. Republicans are trying to visit upon us the largest Medicaid cut in American history, which will be devastating for children and women and families and seniors and people with disabilities. And then you saw House Democrats strongly opposed to the House Republican reckless spending bill that cut health care, cut veterans benefits, and cut nutritional assistance for children and families. Literally, they are ripping food off the table of the American people.
- [55:34]
Jim Acosta
And voters want to know what Democrats want to know. What more can they do? And you're right. When you bring up the GOP budget, a lot of concern about what might happen to Medicaid as Trump tries to pay for extending his Trump tax cuts that he got passed the first time around. You've cut Medicaid by $800 billion or whatever they're talking about. That could just blow a hole in rural hospitals all around the country. I know you represent a district in New York, but I mean, you know, you can have hospitals all across the country affected by this, I suppose urban hospitals, too.
- [56:09]
Hakeem Jeffries
That's right. A cut of the magnitude that has been proposed up to $880 billion is going to result in hospitals closing in rural America, in urban America, in small town America, and in the heartland of America. And it's going to result in nursing homes closing. Now, tens of millions of people rely on Medicaid to get their health care, but everybody relies on their local hospital or nursing home for care for their parents or grandparents. And so everybody has got skin in this game, which is why I think you're seeing explosive energy at Democratic events, town halls, days of action, rallies. And Republicans are running scared, as you pointed out, Jim. They've been directed not to hold town hall meetings. So we're showing up. Yeah, they're not.
- [56:59]
Jim Acosta
And what do you think? Apparently, Congressman Chris DiLuzio, this was in the New York Times said that the party needs a rebranding, a number. This is what the Times said. A number of frustrated House Democrats who said their party had a weak and undefined brand announced that they were seeking to form a new group to dig out of what they call a crisis informally referred to as the New Economic Patriots. Does the Democratic Party, in your view, need a rebranding, needs a tougher image, a little more grab by the shirt collar type of image? What are your thoughts on that?
- [57:31]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, I think as we kind of emerge from the last four years and a disappointing presidential election, that it is going to be important for us moving forward to articulate our vision to make life better for the American people and to regain the narrative on the economy, make it clear that we want to secure our borders, but are also going to defend dreamers, farm workers and families, and that we want to keep communities safe. And so those are areas where there were clear vulnerabilities in terms of our national brand. Now, Democrats at the local level, which is why so many House Democrats over performed and were able to win in districts that Trump was winning at the same period of time. We actually grew our numbers from five members who represented districts that Donald Trump won in 2020 to now 13 members who represent districts that Donald Trump won in 2024. So at the congressional level, our incumbents are strong and our candidates are strong and we're well positioned for success next year. But nationally, there's a lot of work to do and it's all hands on deck. And so Chris and others, we're going to continue to partner together and we're going to get this situation turned around.
- [58:44]
Jim Acosta
I'm probably going to get myself in a little trouble. This is why I saved it to the end there. But you saw a lot of comments that folks were not happy with. Your friend over in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, have you had a conversation with them to say what were your thoughts expressed to him when you saw what he was going through over there? I have to assume that you didn't approve of a lot of those calls for him to step aside. What were your thoughts on that?
- [59:11]
Hakeem Jeffries
Yeah, he and I had an opportunity to meet the Sunday after the vote in Brooklyn. And, you know, we had an open and honest and a candid conversation. And I've also made clear publicly that we're going to work together with Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats moving forward. And we've got to be on the same page. We will be on the same page, particularly as it relates to stopping this reckless Republican budget. And Leader Schumer and I, of course, disagreed on the approach as it related to the government spending showdown. But we agree on the overwhelming majority of things moving forward, and we look forward to our work with Senate Democrats because it is all hands on deck, and we've got to fight them in the Congress, we've got to stop them in the courts, as we've been doing, and we've got to win the hearts and minds of the American people and communities all across the country.
- [60:02]
Jim Acosta
All right, and one last tough question here for you. Who you got in March Madness?
- [60:07]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, you know, I'm a St. John's fan.
- [60:09]
Jim Acosta
I know I felt bad for those guys.
- [60:13]
Hakeem Jeffries
It was rough, and, you know, it was. It was a magical season, and we're already looking forward to next year. But it was. It was heartbreaking, and it was disappointing. And there's no Big east team, of course, left in the Sweet 16. Under normal circumstances, I would be rooting for UConn or Van Villanova or the remaining Big east team. So we're challenged there. You know, I actually, I think I'm rooting for Houston and Kelvin Sampson. Duke's got a great team. You can never count out Tom Izzo and Michigan State.
- [60:46]
Jim Acosta
Very interesting. All right. Well, I. I knew I had to ask you about that, and you're. I. I did want to see Pitino bring St. John's back into at least the Elite Eight or the Final Four. That would have been cool to watch. We'll see what happens next year. But, Leader Jeffries, thank you so much for doing this. I really appreciate it. I could. I had about 20 more questions to ask, but I did as best as I could to get as many in there. Thank you so much for making time for this, and thanks for jumping into the deep end of the pool of the independent media revolution that's happening in this country right now. I thought it was really great that you guys decided to do this. Really appreciate the time.
- [61:21]
Hakeem Jeffries
Well, thank you. I won't be a stranger. And thanks for all that you do to get the information to the American people.
- [61:26]
Jim Acosta
All right. Thanks, Leader Jeffries. Really appreciate the time. Thanks very much. All right, that was Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. Gave us a lot of time there. You know, 30 minutes roughly for Hakeem Jeffries, 30 minutes roughly for Pete Buttigieg. It was a big day on the Jim Acosta show, and. And Duke has made an appearance right at the last second here. Duke, what are you doing here? Here. Duke's got his ball. Go ahead. Go get the ball. He's bringing me the ball. We have to play fetch here. At the end of the, at the end of the show. What do you want? You want this? What do you want this? You got it. Go get it. And I, you know, I have to make one last comment here because maybe a couple of comments we're going over in our schedule here. I feel like Ted Koppel informing the affiliates that Nightline will be going past this one hour. I'm dating myself making that kind of reference. But anyway, one is, yeah, somebody just said 14,000 people here, 14,000 live viewers right now. We're going to get way more than a hundred thousand views. On top of that, after this goes into record mode, don't forget, you can always, if you tuned in late, you can watch the full episode on Substack. If you care to watch it on YouTube, you can do it there. You can listen to it on Apple podcasts or Spotify. And I know that there are some of you folks out there who are sending me your questions. And I was kind of watching them in real time and trying to make mental notes of them as I was conducting the interviews. Buttigieg and Hakeem Jeffries. And so your comments did make a difference, I have to say. My producer, Matt, was sending me some of those questions there at the end of the program that I was able to get to Hakeem Jeffries. And so we're democratizing the process. We're bringing the people into the process. Power to the people. That's what this show is all about. And so my thanks to everybody for tuning in on such a big day. This is a big day for this show. The Little engine that Could Mediaite referred to it as a no frills broadcast or no frills program. We had a couple of frills today. And Pete Buttigieg and Hakeem Jeffries, those are pretty, pretty good bookings. The last thing I want to say, and I hate to end on a negative note, but I'm going to end by saying this to the White House. You're in trouble. You are in trouble right now. You have a scandal on your hands. Signal Gate is a real scandal. And one has to assume if they were on a text thread on Signal talking about attack plans for bombing the Houthi rebels, that they've done other chats where they've talked about other things on on Signal and the White House has a real problem on its hands. Donald Trump, you have a real problem on your hands. Part of this is, of course, self inflicted when you put somebody like Pete Hegseth in charge as Secretary of Defense over at the Pentagon, somebody who was clearly not qualified to be the Secretary of Defense. That was made clear during the confirmation process. His nomination should have been abandoned at that time. But when you have a team of people like the team that he's put together, why didn't anybody on this text thread chime in and say, guys, we shouldn't be doing this on a text thread? Why didn't the Vice President say, guys, we shouldn't be doing this on a text thread? Why didn't the Secretary of State or the DNI or the CIA Director say, guys, we shouldn't be doing this on a text thread? What does that tell you about the team that Donald Trump has put together? And I have to say this because I've talked about her before. I'm going to talk about her again. The White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, carrying on the White House press secretary tradition of just lying to the American people. She posted this on X. The Atlantic has conceded these were not war plans. She said on X. This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump hater who is well known for his sensationalist spin. One thing I want to say about the White House press secret is because it's such an important job and I saw Sean Spicer do this to himself. I saw Sarah Huckabee Sanders do this to herself. These individuals shattered their own credibilities as White House press secretary. And perhaps you could say, well, maybe they didn't care about that in the first place. You should care about that. I do worry, and maybe this makes me an old softy. A little bit about somebody like a Caroline Levitt, who is so young and so early on into her career just going out there and torching her credibility by calling this a hoax written by a Trump hater. Those are lies to the American people out there. Those are lies. And it's incumbent upon the reporters who cover her at the White House to say when she's saying these things that she is lying to the American people when she calls the story a hoax. When Jeffrey Goldberg, a respected reporter over at the Atlantic, is producing the actual texts that show that Pete Hegseth was disclosing the details of this mission. That right there says, this is not a hoax. This is a legitimate story. And so to call it a hoax is a joke. It's a joke. And it says more about Jeffrey Goldberg. It says, I should say less about Jeffrey Goldberg than it does about the credibility of the White House press secretary who is running the risk, and perhaps she already has, of shattering her credibility in the same way that Sean Spicer did, in the same way that Sarah Huckabee saying Sanders did. I mean, Donald Trump doesn't have any credibility when it comes to telling the truth, but there is the ability on the part of some administration officials. I mean, I've talked to people like Olivia Troy over the years, people who have credibility after leaving an administration. Caroline Levitt, don't do this to yourself. What are you doing to yourself calling this story a hoax when it's not a hoax? You are shattering your credibility in the way that Sean Spicer did when he said that Donald Trump had the biggest inauguration crowd size in its history. We can use our own eyes. I mean, I may need these reading glasses now, but we can read the texts. What is she talking about? What in the world are you talking about? Your credibility. You're going to need it after you leave this administration, or at least you're going to want to have it back after it's gone. My thanks once again to Pete Buttigieg, the former secretary of transportation under Joe Biden, former presidential candidate, and Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, two terrific guests. Great show today. Thanks, everybody for all of your comments. Thanks to Duke for coming in at the very last second there. He was pretty good for most of the show, but in the meantime, still reporting from Washington, I'm Jim Acosta. Have a great evening, everybody. Thanks for tuning in.
- [68:37]
Pete Buttigieg
Bye.