← The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell
Lawrence: Trump is living in fear tonight of just how bad election night will be for him next year
00:41:35
Tonight on The Last Word: The Supreme Court considers the legality of Donald Trump’s tariffs. Also, California approves of a new state redistricting map. And Democrats look to carry momentum into the 2026 midterms. Professor Laurence Tribe and Rep. Brendan Boyle join Lawrence O’Donnell.
Loading summary
Transcript66 lines
- [00:00]
Maurices Brand Announcer
At Maurices, we're all about great jeans. You know, the ones that fit you just right. The ones that go from work days to weekends and everywhere in between. The ones that simply make you feel good. Because you don't just wear jeans, you live in them. With 25 sizes, five lengths, and six denim brands, you've got options and fit experts in every store. To make jean shopping easier, find great jeans starting at $29.90 in stores and.
- [00:28]
DSW Brand Announcer
At Marisa's.com holiday PSA from DSW. This is your reminder that shoes are a gift, literally. So unwrap something good, like boots that inspire your next big adventure or cozy slippers that give you an excuse to stay in. Or sneakers that feel like pure joy. Because shoes aren't just shoes. They're exactly what you wanted. Let us surprise you so you can surprise them. Find shoes that get you and everyone on your list at prices that get your budget. At DSW stores or DSW.com the Last Word with Lawrence O' Donnell starts right now. Hey, Lawrence.
- [01:04]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Hey, Jen. You know, I think many of us were expecting some sort of interpretation necessary about last night's results. I mean, you know, yet during, say, yesterday afternoon, like, you know, maybe it'd be a win here, a loss there, and it'd be a mixed bag of data to try to figure out what was the real outcome, but, boy, you just couldn't have had a clearer result last night.
- [01:29]
DSW Brand Announcer
You're so right. And I know you were talking about this on set last night, just about how if New Jersey was a loss, Virginia was a win, or how do you explain it? How do you not over interpret, not under interpret it. And it was just an absolute shellacking of Republicans last night and a real referendum on Trump. There's just no question about it.
- [01:50]
Democratic Party Spokesperson
Yeah.
- [01:50]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And of course, Donald Trump denies that, as of course he would.
- [01:53]
DSW Brand Announcer
Of course he would.
- [01:55]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Thanks, Jen.
- [01:56]
DSW Brand Announcer
Thanks, Lauren.
- [01:56]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Thank you. Well, last night, Donald Trump went from being a lame duck to being a humiliated duck when voters from coast to coast turned out to vote against Donald Trump and his candidates and his policies in every place and in every way that they could. Donald Trump's explanation today for the Republican wipeout last night is that Donald Trump was not on the ballot. That's what he says. The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board has written a reply to that under the headline Trump really was on the ballot. The Journal editorial says Mr. Trump was on the ballot, not literally, but nonetheless as the main motivating force behind a dominating Democratic turnout. Winning Democratic candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia linked their opponents to Mr. Trump, driving Democratic voters to the poll and erasing the GOP gains in 2024among Hispanics, Black men, and independents. The result was a much bigger Democratic triumph than polls predicted. The tsunami was big enough that Democrats were able to pick up 13 seats. In the Virginia House of Delegates. They'll have 64 seats out of 100, which could give Democrats the chance to redistrict next year to gain congressional seats. And in California, where not a single name was on the ballot, voters stood in long lines to deliver 63% support for Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's proposal for congressional redistricting. In California, that could add four or five seats for the Democrats to the House of Representatives and win control of the House of Representatives for the Democrats in next year's election. Every one of those California votes for that proposition was a vote against Donald Trump, every one of them. The reason no previous president has ever considered pursuing any of the policies Donald Trump has pursued this year is that those policies are obviously politically suicidal. And now we have the proof of that. And Donald Trump's bright idea today during his politically suicidal government shutdown, is to partially shut down the air traffic control system in this country. With the Thanksgiving travel surge approaching every day, Donald Trump finds a new way to weaken himself and weaken his party politically while making life in this country worse for millions of Americans. And now he wants to make it much worse for the millions of Americans who. Who hope to go home for Thanksgiving this year. With less than a year into his presidency this time, Donald Trump is now the lamest of lame ducks ever to occupy the presidency. And syncing with him is the lamest group of Republican members of the House and Senate that the country has ever seen. The election returns last night indicate that a year from now, Democrats will win back control of the House of Representatives. And Donald Trump's administration and his incompetent cabinet members will be subject to real investigations of their personal profiteering from government, real investigations of possible abuse of their office, real investigations of an FBI director who uses a government plane for date night. Democratic control of the House of Representatives means that most of the Trump madness can be stopped and in its tracks. And Donald Trump knows that. And so Donald Trump is living in fear tonight of just how bad election night is going to be for him next year. And just 12 hours after Donald Trump's electoral humiliation last night in the United States Supreme Court this morning, Donald Trump was humiliated again when the Supreme Court, including the justices who Donald Trump appointed, ripped apart the biggest and stupidest policy lie of the Trump second term. At 11:22am When Neil Katyal rose to address the Supreme Court, the first sentence he spoke contained only 3 tariffs are taxes. And there it was. The pure economic truth and policy truth about tariffs that the founders of this government knew and that every President has known and every member of Congress has known. Until Donald Trump started lying about tariffs. The Trump tariff enforcers were seated in the front row at the Supreme Court today.
- [07:06]
Political Analyst
Why?
- [07:08]
Lawrence O'Donnell
To try to intimidate the Supreme Court. The always goofy Howard Lipnick, the most incompetent Commerce Secretary in history, who is always the loudest laugh at every Trump joke, was there in the front row, bringing into the room a mind smaller than the smallest mind on the Supreme Court. And sitting beside him was the Secretary of the Treasury. In our lifetimes, the Secretary of the treasury has never attended a Supreme Court hearing hearing. The last Secretary of the treasury known to have attended a Supreme Court hearing was the first Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. But that was in 1796. Hamilton attended a Supreme Court hearing only when he was a former Secretary of the treasury, the year that he attended that hearing. And so it is entirely possible that no currently serving Secretary of the treasury has ever attended a Supreme Court hearing. Until the relentlessly ineffectual Scott Besant, who appears to believe that the most important thing about being a Treasury Secretary is dressing the part while being willing to say the most ridiculously false things ever said about tariffs by a Treasury Secretary. Donald Trump himself had been threatening to attend the Supreme Court hearing, presumably as some kind of intimidation tactic, but he chose in the end to send his completely unintimidating court jesters instead. Donald Trump's lawyer, arguing in favor of his illegal and unconstitutional tariffs today had a much more difficult time than the Trump tariff enablers do when they appear in very friendly TV interviews that they submit to the Treasury Secretary and the Commerce Secretary have an open invitation to come on this program and discuss tariffs for the full hour or any, any amount of time that they choose. But they haven't shown up today. They had to sit there silently when Neil Katyal said tariffs are taxes. And they had to sit there silently for all 2 hours and 40 minutes in which Donald Trump's lawyer never said that tariffs are not taxes. He didn't try to make that impossible point. It was simply an accepted fact of the case by all of the tariffs are taxes. Three minutes after Neil Katyal's first sentence saying tariffs are taxes, the Chief justice of the Supreme Court said the tariffs are A tax. End quote. That is how fully accepted that fact was. During this argument, Chief Justice Roberts said, yes, sure, the tariffs are a tax and that's a core power of Congress. Yes, sure. Not a single Supreme Court justice disagreed with the Chief or Neal Katyal about that. Tariffs or taxes is the single shortest sentence that exposes the lie of the Trump tariffs which Donald Trump has claimed are paid by foreign countries. Donald Trump's lawyer, the Solicitor General didn't dare try to tell that lie to the Supreme Court today. Donald Trump's lawyer could not refute one word of Neal Katyal's exquisite opening four sentences in his brilliant argument today.
- [10:51]
Legal Expert/Commentator
Tariffs are taxes. They take dollars from Americans pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone. Yet here the President bypassed Congress and imposed one of the largest tax increases in our lifetimes.
- [11:09]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Dollars from Americans pockets. This is what Donald Trump has done. He has imposed one of the largest tax increases in our lifetimes by stealing a power that the founders explicitly gave to Congress alone. Not one word of that was disputed in any way before the Supreme Court today. Chief Justice Roberts made it very clear who pays the Trump tariffs. In his first questions to Donald Trump's Solicitor General, Chief Justice Roberts said this about the Trump the vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans and that has always been the core power of Congress. The Supreme Court has spoken. Americans pay the Trump tariffs. Justice Sotomayor interrupted Donald Trump's Solicitor General early in his argument with a line a lawyer never wants to hear from a Supreme Court Justice. I just don't understand this argument.
- [12:17]
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
I just don't understand this argument. It's not an article. It's a congressional power, not a presidential power to tax. And you want to say tariffs are not taxes, but that's exactly what they are. They're generating money from American citizens revenue. And you say it's incidental to the regulatory purpose. But I don't see how a quota is equivalent to revenue. Raising a quota sets a limit to what you can import in, but it doesn't generate revenue.
- [12:51]
Lawrence O'Donnell
There were no sharp disagreements among the Justices. Not a single justice disagreed with Justice Sotomayor mayor's statement that tariffs are paid by American citizens. The Solicitor General tried to argue that a federal law that gives the President an emergency authority to regulate some aspects of international trade gives Donald Trump unlimited power to impose tariffs. Justice Sotomayor pointed out that Congress never uses the word regulate to mean tax. And Neal Katyal made this point about the word regulate.
- [13:32]
Legal Expert/Commentator
The word regulate words regulate, importation, the word regulate has never been used. It's been. The Congress uses the term 1499 times. We got about that number of hits when we looked at it and maybe there's some double counting, but it is never used even once to impose taxes or revenue raising.
- [13:51]
Lawrence O'Donnell
The Trump appointed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch showed how a newly invented presidential tariff power could become a nightmare scenario for Republicans.
- [14:06]
Professor Lawrence Tribe
Could the president impose a 50% tariff on gas powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary.
- [14:14]
Congressman Brendan Boyle
Threat from abroad of climate change?
- [14:17]
Democratic Party Spokesperson
It's very likely that that could be done.
- [14:19]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Very likely.
- [14:20]
Professor Lawrence Tribe
I think that has to be the logic of your view.
- [14:22]
Democratic Party Spokesperson
Yeah.
- [14:23]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Yes, that is the logic of his view. That is exactly what the Trump argument is. And in her final comments to the Solicitor Solicitor General of Oregon, who was also arguing against the tariffs today, Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized why the power to raise revenue through tariffs and taxes was deliberately given to Congress by the authors of the Constitution. That's a good point.
- [14:53]
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
I think what we're forgetting here is a very fundamental point, which is the Constitution is structured so that if I'm going to be asked to pay for something as a citizen, that it's through a bill that is generated through Congress and the President has the power to veto it or not. But I'm not going to be taxed unless both houses, the executive and the legislature have made that choice, Correct? That's exactly right.
- [15:23]
Lawrence O'Donnell
That is exactly right. And it was a very bad day for the lame duck Donald Trump. Now the humiliated duck Donald Trump at the United States Supreme Court. Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe will join us next.
- [15:43]
UNHCR Representative
New reports from unhcr, the UN Refugee agency, warn that brutal winter weather and funding cuts are putting refugees at risk. Staff on the ground report devastating conditions as the cold sets in. Families living in flimsy shelters with no heat. Children exposed to freezing winds without warm clothes are at risk of frostbite. Sick and elderly people sleeping on the frozen ground without blankets or protection. Here's the harsh reality. Funding shortages are so severe that the lives of refugees are now at risk at this critical moment. Your support can make a life saving difference and reach a refugee within 72 hours of an emergency. Donate today to help UNHCR deliver winter survival kits, including warm blankets, heating stoves, shelter materials and winter clothes to those facing the harshest conditions. Please don't wait. Donate now at unrefugees.org lastword@maurices we're all about great jeans.
- [16:45]
Maurices Brand Announcer
You know, the ones that fit you just right, the ones that simply make you feel good because you don't just wear jeans, you live in them. Find great jeans starting at $29.90 in stores and at Marisa's.com at Designer Shoe Warehouse.
- [16:59]
Legal Expert/Commentator
We believe that shoes are an important.
- [17:01]
Maurices Brand Announcer
Part of, well, everything from first steps to first dates, from all nighters to.
- [17:07]
DSW Brand Announcer
All time personal bests from building pillow.
- [17:10]
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
Forts to building a life for all.
- [17:13]
Maurices Brand Announcer
The big and small moments that make up your whole world. DSW is there and we've got just the shoes. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love at brag worthy prices at your DSW store or dsw.com.
- [17:31]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Today Neil Katyal told the Supreme Court that it comes down to common sense.
- [17:38]
Legal Expert/Commentator
It comes down to common sense. It's simply implausible that in enacting iaapa, Congress handed the President the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy, in the process allowing him to set and reset tariffs on any and every product from any and every country at any and all times.
- [17:58]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Joining us now is Professor Lawrence Tribe, who has taught Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School for five decades. Professor Tribe, thank you very much for joining us tonight. This sounded like a day where there was more agreement than disagreement among the Justices.
- [18:14]
Professor Lawrence Tribe
It did, and it's for the very simple reason that the principle of no taxation without representation is at the very foundation of our Republic. The only thing that makes this case at all interesting and potentially difficult is that the Administration is claiming not that the power to impose tariffs belongs to the President rather than to Congress. They are claiming simply that the 1977 international economic emergency Powers act gave the power to tax to the President in limited circumstances. Now the language of the law says that the power that is given to the President is the power to regulate importation or exportation. And the question arises, and several of the Justices seem slightly puzzled by it, if, as everyone agrees, the Congress could regulate imports out of existence, it could say no imports from any of the following countries, no imports from anywhere fortress America. If Congress could give that power to the President, the power to ban importation, isn't the power to tax importation a lesser included power? Even some of the liberals seem to wonder about that. But the answer which emerged, though not as clearly as it might have, is that the power to tax is not a lesser power. It is simply a different power. And way back in 2012, when the court had before it the Affordable Care Act, I was predicting that Chief Justice Roberts, who was a student of mine in constitutional law, would make a dramatic distinction between the power to regulate and the power to tax. A lot of people said that's ridiculous. I was arguing that there might not be five Justices on the Supreme Court to uphold the purchase mandate as an exercise of Congress's regulatory power, but I thought that Chief Justice Roberts might provide a fifth vote to uphold that mandate as an exercise of the power to tax. And sure enough, that's what he did. And that was why five Justices upheld Obamacare. Now, in this case, again reflecting some very basic principles of law, the Chief justice made the leading argument that the core power to tax is not simply an ancillary power of the power to regulate. The power to tax is a distinct power. Sure, the statute does allow the President to use licensing as a form of regulation, and there can be license fees to cover the costs of processing and import, but something that has the purpose and effect of raising revenue by taking money out of the pockets of American consumers. And the President has made no bones about it. He says this is a revenue raiser. He says it raises a trillion dollars. Well, he's got his numbers off by maybe a factor of a thousand, maybe some billions of dollars. But you can't deny that this is not simply an incidental feature. This is a massive transfer of money from the pockets of American taxpayers to the United States Treasury. He can't have it both ways. If it is basically a revenue raising measure, and if it is a measure that imposes, as everyone seems to agree, finally, that it does imposes a major tax on American consumers, then all of the principles about taxing power kick in. And unless Congress clearly says that in this statute, for the first time in American history, the power to regulate is used as a catch all to cover everything, including taxation. Unless we have clear evidence of that, then this case is another example of what is called the major questions doctrine. You don't have a question any more major than this. And the principle, and it was applied to strike down President Biden's loan forgiveness program and his Covid mandates. The basic principle is that if Congress gives broad power to the President, power that does not clearly and explicitly include the major power in question, then it is not up to the courts to fill in that power. And once the courts, and here Justices across the spectrum were concerned, once the courts give a new power to the President where Congress has not clearly enacted it, you think the President in the future is ever going to give it back? Congress can't claw it back against a President who will veto the clawback. And so various Justices express the concern, a very broad structural concern, that if it were to uphold Donald Trump's use of this broad statute that does not explicitly confer the power to tax. If it were to use that to give this president that power, then future presidents would have it. And, for example, as Justice Gorsuch made clear, future president who believes that climate change is not a hoax might be able to use this power basically to eliminate the imports of cars or to tax them so heavily that they can't come into the country for all practical purposes. So this became a decision that could have been complicated, but was rendered quite simple by the difficulty that the Solicitor General had getting away from the basic facts. And I must say, just as a matter of watching advocacy, to listen to John Sauer talk at a million miles a minute, as though by talking over the justices faster than anybody, he could avoid common sense and basic principle. That's kind of a lesson in how not to argue a Supreme Court case.
- [26:23]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Yeah, I had the same feeling, but hearing it from you, from an expert confirms it. One of the things that struck me is that there was. There wasn't really any quoting of Donald Trump himself in the argument. All the things Donald Trump has said about how we're going to balance the budget with tariff money. Donald Trump has said so many things about it being specifically to raise revenue. But one thing that Justice Sotomayor did use that was from Donald Trump was when she said the president threatened to impose a 10% tax on Canada for an ad it ran on tariffs during the World Series. So Justice Sotomayor did take note of that particular Trump public moment.
- [27:14]
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
Right.
- [27:14]
Professor Lawrence Tribe
And also she took note of the fact that he plans to, or actually has imposed massive tariffs on Brazil to punish Brazil because its highest court dared to hold its wannabe dictator accountable. So the real world in which Donald Trump basically puts his foot in it quite often was not absent from this argument.
- [27:45]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Also, there's a part where Neil Katyal talked about Switzerland, which is important because the Solicitor General made the argument that this is all about the horrible predatory trade practices of other countries that have created an imbalance of payments. But we actually sell more to Switzerland than we buy from Switzerland. Neil Katyal pointed out that there's a 39% tariff on Switzerland, one of these random tariffs.
- [28:17]
Professor Lawrence Tribe
That's true. But the Solicitor General did come back and say that that was an example of. Of using tariffs for leverage, because imposing attacks or tariff on Switzerland, or in the other case he used as an example on India, was a way of putting pressure indirectly on Putin with respect to the Ukraine. The basic idea was we use tariffs as threats, not always to raise revenue. The idea was you can threatened to impose a tariff and never actually impose it. That idea seemed to appeal a lot to Justice Alito, but they were grasping at straws. The question wasn't could the threat of tariffs ever be used? It was could the entire tariff system be rewritten unilaterally under a statute that, as Justice Barrett pointed out, had never once in its history been used in this way? And it's true that there's always a first time, but here there's a reason why it hadn't been used. The reason it hadn't been used, even though it would have been in many ways a lot easier than all these specialized laws, is that everybody realized that that's not what Congress was doing. It was not giving the president the power to rewrite the tariff laws of the country. It was simply giving him the power to control importation or as a matter of fact, exportation.
- [29:54]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Professor Lawrence Tribe, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
- [29:58]
Professor Lawrence Tribe
Thanks, Lawrence.
- [29:59]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And coming up last night the governor of California said the Democrats are now a year away from being able to quote, these are his words, end Donald Trump's presidency as we know it. That's next.
- [30:15]
Maurices Brand Announcer
At Maurices. We're all about great jeans. You know, the ones that fit you just right, the ones that go from work days to weekends and everywhere in between. The ones that simply make you feel good because you don't just wear jeans, you live in them. With 25 sizes, five lengths and six denim brands, you've got options and fit experts in every store to make Jean shopping easier, find great jeans starting at $29.90 in stores and at Marisa's.com Ah.
- [30:46]
DSW Brand Announcer
DSW Earth, place of the humble brag here. The shoes are so good, no one would ever know how little you paid if you didn't go telling everyone that is. And with never ending options for every style, mood and occasion, all at really great prices, they'll definitely give you something to brag about. So go ahead, stock up on fresh sneakers from your favorite brands or try those boots you always secretly knew you could pull off. Find the shoes that get you at prices that get your budget at DSW stores or@dsw.com Let us surprise you. A Better Help ad this November, Better Help is encouraging people to reach out, grab lunch with an old friend, call your parents or even find support and therapy. BetterHelp makes it easy with its therapist match commitment and over 12 years of online therapy experience, matching members with qualified professionals. And just like that, lunch with an old friend. Once you do reach out, you'll wonder, why didn't I do this sooner? Start now@betterhelp.com for 10% off your first month.
- [31:48]
Democratic Party Spokesperson
What a night for the Democratic Party, a party that is in its ascendancy, a party that's on its toes, no longer on its heels, from coast to coast, sea to shining sea. But it was not just a victory tonight for the Democratic Party. It was a victory for the United States of America, for the people of this country and the principles that our founding fathers lived and died for.
- [32:15]
Lawrence O'Donnell
In a remarkably quick political and governing reaction to Donald Trump's attempt to add Republican members to the House of Representatives in next year's election by redistricting in Texas, California Governor Gavin Newsom led California voters to deliver an overwhelming response by voting for redistricting in the state of California. That could deliver five more Democrats to the House of Representatives in next year's election. Last night, after 64% of California voters said yes to Gavin Newsom's redistricting plan, the governor said it could mean the end of the Trump presidency as we have known it.
- [32:59]
Democratic Party Spokesperson
The sobriety of this moment, what's at stake tonight, as I said, is an extraordinary moment for our party. But again, it's an extraordinary moment affirming those principles. Our founding fathers did not live and die to see the kind of vandalism to this Republican, our democracy that Donald Trump is trying to perpetuate. And so my call tonight, in the spirit of Whitman, we talked about, the powerful play goes on. We all must contribute a verse. And so we need, we need the state of Virginia, we need the state of Maryland, we need our friends in New York, in Illinois and Colorado. We need to see other states with the remarkable leaders that have been doing remarkable things, meet this moment head on as well, to recognize what we're up against in 2026. And let me make this crystal clear. We can de facto end Donald Trump's presidency as we know it the minute Speaker Jeffries gets sworn in as speaker of the House of Representatives. It is all on the line, a bright line.
- [34:22]
Lawrence O'Donnell
In 2026, Governor Newsom suggested the possibility of redistricting in other states could add more Democrats to the House of Representatives. Governor Newsom said that Donald Trump's intimidation tactics are not working.
- [34:38]
Democratic Party Spokesperson
When we kicked off this campaign just 90 or so days ago in Little Tokyo in Southern California and la, at the Democracy Center, Donald Trump sent Greg Bovino. He sent his private police force that increasingly appears to have taken an oath of office to Donald Trump not to the Constitution of the United States. He sent them to our kickoff rally to chill free expression, to chill free speech, to intimidate people from participating. Just today in Los Angeles, Donald Trump called up the Border Patrol, sent them to Dodger Stadium and threw a fastball at free speech right at the head. Free expression to suppress the vote in America's second largest city. Just did that today. People in tactical gears sent out to intimidate a community that is already on edge. But you see, as we speak, people are still in line. People waiting up three hours to cast their vote, to send a message to Donald Trump. No crowns, no thrones, no kings. That's what this victory represents, is a victory for the people of the state of California and the United States of America. Our state of mind was resolute. Our state of mind was resolved to stand firm and to stand tall, to not be intimidated, to not be humiliated, to not fall prey to cynicism, to not fall prey to fear and the anxiety of someone that believes in only one thing. Shock and awe. To intimidate and exhaust us.
- [36:34]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And so what happens to the Trump presidency if or when, a year from tonight, the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives? That's next.
- [36:51]
Political Analyst
Democrats have all of the momentum in the world. Republicans woke up this morning and realized that they are no longer in a 2024 electoral environment. That's over and they're done. They've lost any temporary progress that they've made with working class Americans gone. Any progress that they've made with the Hispanic community, gone. Any progress that they've made with younger Americans, gone. Because the American people have had enough of the extremism, enough of the lies, enough of the broken problem promises.
- [37:40]
Lawrence O'Donnell
The California redistricting plan that passed last night might make Hakeem Jeffries the next speaker of the House.
- [37:49]
Political Analyst
It was an all hands on deck effort to get Prop 50 over the finish line decisively. But Prop 50 didn't involve an individual name on the ballot. It was an idea that we have to stop Trump from stealing the midterm elections and give the American people the ability to decide who should actually represent them in the Congress after the 2026 midterms.
- [38:21]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania. He's the top ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee and a member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Congressman Boyle, as you know, these elections in the first year of a presidency are always used as possible predictors of what happens next year in the congressional elections. What do you see? What do you take away from last night, that could apply to next year.
- [38:51]
Congressman Brendan Boyle
Well, I can tell you, Lawrence, that here in Pennsylvania, I have never seen an election like last night in which Democrats won literally every contested office, no matter the county, whether it was here in Philadelphia or right next door in Bucks county, which is kind of the big swing suburban county of the Philadelphia area, where we won the DA's office for the first time ever, won a sheriff's race by beating a guy who had tied himself by the hip to Donald Trump, won both of those, by the way, by double digits, won every statewide judicial race by double digits, and won the countywide executive contests in Two other very 50, 50 counties in Pennsylvania, Erie and Northampton, also won them by double digits. So it's every office, every county, and the margins we're talking about. Again, if I sound a little astounded, it's because this is Pennsylvania. This is the quintessential battleground state in which every one of our elections always seems to come down to one point. So to have a night like last night, I feel even more confident than ever going into the congressional midterms next year, because as you pointed out, that off year, first election after a presidential year so often in the past has been a harbinger of what would come in the midterm. Bill Clinton saw it in 1993, Barack Obama saw it in 2009. Donald Trump saw it in 2017, and I think once again, Donald Trump saw it in 2025. And we'll see it a year ago or a year exactly from now.
- [40:30]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So tonight we have Donald Trump cutting back on air traffic control at our biggest airports. So in Philadelphia, there'll be a major cutback on air traffic control as the Thanksgiving travel period approaches. With the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, how would this situation be different?
- [40:54]
Congressman Brendan Boyle
But first, I have to say the actions by this administration make absolutely no sense in the context of what Donald Trump himself has admitted. President Trump, both last night on his social media post as well as again this morning with Senate Republicans next to him, flat out said one of the main reasons why they lost this election was because of the shutdown and the American people correctly blaming them. So then today, instead of taking us up on our offer to negotiate a bipartisan compromise that would end this government shutdown, they continue to refuse to even talk to us and instead go about making air traffic in this country actually worse instead of better. Now, the good news is that a year from now, when relief will be on the way and we have a Democratic House, we would be able to effectively block so much of what President Trump has been doing so far. Because of course, he's been able to get away with this because he knows that Mike Johnson and the House Republican leadership is just a rubber stamp for him.
- [42:03]
Lawrence O'Donnell
So as we go forward through the rest of this year and through whatever's left of the government shutdown, how do you expect the dynamics to change now in the government shutdown?
- [42:17]
Congressman Brendan Boyle
Well, up until this point. So for the last year, as I pointed out before, we have seen House Republicans completely roll over, do exactly what Donald Trump orders them to do. Based on the results last night. If you are a congressional Republican in a district that Donald Trump won only by single digits, you have to at least begin to act in your own political self interest and realize that tying yourself to Donald Trump all the way is a losing bet, that you need to actually break away and in some, to some degree differentiate yourself from a deeply unpopular president. So that gives me some hope that there would be some congressional Republicans who would actually be less afraid of Trump than they are afraid of facing a very angry electorate next year, such as was the one that showed up last night.
- [43:12]
Lawrence O'Donnell
Congressman Brendan Boyle, thank you very much for joining us tonight.
- [43:16]
Congressman Brendan Boyle
Thank you.
- [43:17]
Lawrence O'Donnell
And coming up, the lost art of losing graciously. That's next. Andrew Cuomo learned a lot from his father, the three term governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, who died in 2015 at age 82. But Andrew did not learn the lesson of how to lose gracefully, something that Mario Cuomo knew how to do. Andrew Cuomo's concession speech after losing his campaign for mayor of New York last night was a grudging defense of his campaign. His father's final speech in politics 31 years ago was his concession speech on election night in 1994 when Mario Cuomo lost his final reelection campaign for governor of New York. We couldn't find video Today of that 31 year old speech, but a partial transcript of the speech contains Mario Cuomo's final thank you to the people of New York. Quote, my final thank you is to the people of the state of New York, this magnificent place. Long ago, long before our first victory in 1982, this state had already given me and my family more opportunity and reward than we had any right to expect. Then it added three terms as governor of the greatest state in the nation. I don't have the words to describe the deep sense of gratitude and depth that I feel for that immense opportunity. Now, my greatest hope for this state and maybe even for the nation beyond the reason we wanted to run. The reason we thought it was important is that we sensed all across this nation a negativism, a harshness, a divisiveness, a willingness to pit people against one another, even a cynicism that we didn't like. It's not appropriate for this country, and it's certainly not appropriate for this great state. We've been given too much. We have been too fortunate to become bitter and negative. That's a dangerous thing. Mario Cuomo gets tonight's last word.