3573 - Epstein Survivors vs White House; RFK, Jr vs Public Health w/ Jonathan Cohn

Summary

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 3573 — Epstein Survivors vs White House; RFK, Jr vs Public Health w/ Jonathan Cohn
Date: September 3, 2025
Guest: Jonathan Cohn, Senior National Correspondent at The Bulwark

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Majority Report with Sam Seder covers two major topics:

1. Capitol Hill Press Action: Epstein Survivors vs. White House

   • Dueling press conferences as Epstein survivors demand Congress and the White House release all files connected to Jeffrey Epstein; the White House and Republican leadership are reportedly lobbying hard to suppress disclosure.

2. Interview: The RFK Jr. Era and the Assault on Public Health (with Jonathan Cohn)

   • An in-depth look at Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s handling of federal health agencies, particularly the CDC, his approach to public health, the vaccine liability system, and the emergence of a fragmented, state-centered vaccine policy.

---

Key Segments & Highlights

---

Epstein Survivors Demand Transparency on Capitol Hill

[00:00 - 17:27]

Main Points:

• Dueling Press Conferences:
  Sam Seder covers ongoing, simultaneous press events: Epstein survivors urge for openness, while Speaker Mike Johnson holds a competing press conference, seemingly to distract from the witness testimonies.
• Discharge Petition Explained:
  The effort is centered on a discharge petition to force a floor vote on releasing all Epstein files, requiring a majority of House signatures. Near success with 217 Democrats and several Republicans, with the White House lobbying GOP members to block it.
• Republican Excuses and Survivors' Response:
  Some Republicans, like Rep. Tim Burchett, cite "victim privacy" for hesitancy, though self-advocating survivors themselves are publicly demanding the files' release.
• Victim Testimonies:
  Survivors Lisa Phillips and Marina Lacerda deliver powerful statements demanding transparency and access to their own records.

Memorable Quotes:

• Rep. Thomas Massie:
  “There are real survivors … the perpetrators are being protected because they’re rich and powerful and political donors to the establishment here in Washington, D.C.”
  (07:57)

• Lisa Phillips, Epstein survivor:
  “Congress must choose. Will you continue to protect predators or will you finally protect survivors? Transparency is justice. … No one, no billionaires, no politicians, not world leaders, is above the law.”
  (08:25)

• Marina Lacerda, Epstein survivor:
  “The government is still in possession right now of the documents and information about the con that could help me remember and get over all of this … They have documents with my name on them that were confiscated from Jeffrey Epstein’s house… If the government is going to release these documents to the public … the least they can do is give me my documents that they have about me.”
  (10:57, 11:49)

Analysis & Tone:

• Sam and panelists express deep admiration for victims’ courage and frustration at both parties’ leadership, especially highlighting the White House’s active efforts to block transparency.
• The discussion notes the chilling effect of government secrecy and calls listeners to pressure their representatives, stressing, “this is not a partisan issue.”

---

The “National Guard Standoff” in Illinois & The Politics of Federal Power

[28:48 - 35:19]

Main Points:

• Escalating Tensions:
  Reports surface that the Texas National Guard may move into Illinois, escalating standoffs over immigration enforcement. Illinois Governor Pritzker voices alarm and pledges resistance, urging citizens to avoid escalating provocations that could be used by the Trump administration to justify force.
• Calls for Awareness:
  Pritzker encourages residents to film ICE activity and report to media, advocating for community vigilance.

Notable Quotes:

• Gov. JB Pritzker:
  “Trump and his team will be looking for any excuse to put active duty military on our streets, supposedly to protect ICE … If someone flings a sandwich at an ICE agent, Trump will try and go on TV and declare an emergency in Chicago. I’m imploring everyone, if and when that happens, do not take the bait.”
  (29:39)

• “Authoritarians, thrive on your silence. Be loud for America.”
  (33:38)

Analysis & Tone:

• The segment underscores fears of constitutional crisis and “militia-like” confrontations between state and federal forces—Sam’s co-host even calls it “almost more like a coup.”
• The team applauds grassroots efforts to monitor ICE activity, tying the issue back to broader erosions of democratic norms.

---

The State of Antitrust: Google “Remedy” Deemed Weak

[35:12 - 40:18]

Brief coverage of a recent antitrust ruling against Google, highlighting that the remedy delivered by Judge Amit Mehta is underwhelming and perceived as a "slap on the wrist." The judge declined structural remedies and allowed Google to maintain key default arrangements, disappointing advocates for serious monopoly regulation.

---

Interview: Jonathan Cohn on RFK Jr., Public Health, and Democratic Erosion

[40:18 - 77:26]

Major Topics:

---

1. The Collapse at the CDC and HHS under RFK Jr.

• Unprecedented Dysfunction:
  Kennedy, as head of Health and Human Services, has not consulted with CDC experts on any major issues in nearly nine months.
• Mass Exodus:
  Multiple resignations, layoffs, and chaos within CDC; career staff, including lifelong public servants and scientists, are being sidelined or quitting.
• Philosophy of Distrust:
  Kennedy sees the CDC as “deep state,” reflecting broader Trump-era distrust of government expertise.

“The way it’s being treated … Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—the most important health official in our country—has basically not consulted career staff, the experts there, on such a wide variety of issues … It’s shocking. This is another universe from anything we’ve seen before.”
– Jonathan Cohn (41:11)

2. Public Health vs. Libertarianism

• Public vs. Individual Health:
  Cohn and Sam distinguish between policies aimed at community-level prevention versus individual medical choices, framing public health as a collective responsibility—one now under direct attack.
• RFK Jr.’s Ideological Shift:
  Kennedy’s approach is increasingly libertarian, skeptical of “communal” health measures and public vaccination.

3. The Vaccine Liability System: History, Function, and Threats

• From Scarcity to Security:
  Describes the 1980s transition to the “no-fault” vaccine court to ensure a reliable vaccine supply and compensation for rare adverse events, a compromise to keep manufacturers in the business.
• Kennedy’s Challenge:
  Kennedy is reportedly considering dismantling this system, raising the risk of vaccine shortages similar to crises of past decades.

“If Secretary Kennedy came in and said, ‘I want to fix the vaccine court so it’s more responsive and it pays out sums that are more appropriate,’ there would be people, longtime vaccine enthusiasts, who would say, ‘Yes, that’s great.’ But that does not seem to be … what he has in mind.”
– Jonathan Cohn (63:07)

• Danger of State Fragmentation:
  States like California, Oregon, and Washington seek to set their own vaccination guidance amid federal abdication. Florida moves to scrap all mandates, risking vulnerable populations.

4. The “Herd Immunity” Debate & Eugenicist Overtones

• Kennedy’s Focus on “Natural Immunity”:
  Disputes from Cohn and Seder, who call out not only the scientific inaccuracy but also the Darwinist, even eugenicist undertones of “let infections burn through and the strong survive.”

“You get the feeling, listening to Kennedy, that … if we lose a few people along the way, you know, [it’s] in order … so we just let these infections burn through.”
– Jonathan Cohn (73:22)

• National Indifference to Mass Death:
  Sam laments America’s disturbing tolerance for massive, preventable casualties—a lesson painfully learned during the COVID-19 pandemic.

---

Memorable Quotations

• Jonathan Cohn:
  “Once upon a time, you knew … the CDC’s process was a kind of considered judgment by people who actually knew their field … That’s just not true anymore.” (44:08)

• Sam Seder:
  “The whole point of a society is to protect [the vulnerable]. And it seems like we’re going to take a break from that theory for God knows how long.” (74:43)

---

Key Timestamps

• Epstein Survivors and Press Conferences – [00:00 - 14:40]
• Survivor Statements and Personal Accounts – [08:25 - 13:27]
• ICE, National Guard, and Pritzker’s Response – [28:48 - 35:19]
• Antitrust Ruling on Google Analysis – [35:12 - 40:18]
• Interview: CDC Chaos under RFK Jr. – [40:18 - 47:50]
• Vaccine Policy & the Public Health Ethos – [50:36 - 64:10]
• Fragmented State Vaccine Regimes & National Security – [64:10 - 69:00]
• Nihilism and COVID Death Toll – [69:00 - 73:12]
• RFK Jr., Darwinism, and Societal Obligation – [73:12 - 77:26]

---

Overall Tone and Language

• Tone:
  Candid, urgent, at times frustrated and incredulous; frequently laced with wry, dark humor (particularly in the asides and banter).
• Language:
  Direct, colloquial, and passionate. Cohn and Seder communicate policy and history accessibly without watering down the gravity of current public health threats.

---

Takeaways for Listeners

• The fight for Epstein file transparency is bipartisan and ongoing; direct constituent pressure may tip the scales.
• The Biden and Trump administrations have both worked to keep key information about sexual abuse, ICE, and big tech monopolies under wraps.
• Under RFK Jr., the U.S. is facing the most profound crisis in federal public health governance in living memory, threatening both immediate disease response and long-term population health, especially for the vulnerable.
• The vaccine compensation framework is under existential threat—a change that could bring back shortages, higher costs, and more suffering.
• The conversation lays bare the dangers of libertarian, “each-to-their-own” approaches to public health, especially in a hyper-connected modern society.
• There is deep concern about Americans’ willingness to ignore even mass preventable suffering and death.

---

For further resources, support The Majority Report at majority.fm or join The Bulwark to read more of Jonathan Cohn’s reporting.

Transcript

[A]

You are listening to a free version of Majority Report with Sam Steater. To support the show and get another 15 minutes of daily program, go to Majority FM please. The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Wednesday, September 3, 20, 2025. My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Jonathan Cohn, writer at the Bulwark on Robert Kennedy's assault on our health care. Also on the program today, Capitol Hill Epstein victims call on the White House and Congress to actually release all the files. Meanwhile, one of the most conservative federal courts in the country, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, rejects Trump's use of the Alien Enemies act to deport immigrants. Trump prepping Texas National Guard to invade Illinois. This amid calls for Pritzker to use the Illinois Guard to stop them. Judge issues remedy in the Google case and it is barely a slap on the wrist. Jeffries and Schumer tee up next, capitulation on budget negotiations. Federal court reinstates the FTC commissioner illegally fired by Donald Trump. And the U.S. blows up a boat in the Caribbean killing 11 people by claiming it was full of drug dealers. U.S. appeals court allows Trump to cancel $16 billion in EPA grants to NGOs fighting climate change issued under Biden's inflation reduction act. Lastly, Israel calls up reservists as it preps its next slaughter. This of Gaza City. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome ladies and gentlemen. It is hump day. Emma Bigland out today, so I get to say it. Thanks for joining us. We got a lot to get to today. Right now as we speak on Capitol Hill, there are dueling press conferences. Mike Johnson, so desperate, you remember he recessed Congress early about six weeks ago to avoid a an attempt by Congressman Massie and Khanna to use a discharge petition to bring to the floor a vote on whether to release all of the Epstein files. A discharge position requires only a it basically is a way of going around leadership and going around the controlling party by getting a majority of Congress people to sign it. Now he has all the Democrats off the top of my head. It's like 217. And he has three Republicans at this point, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and one other, including himself. I guess that's four. And he needs, I think three other Republicans to get that discharge petition. But the White House is desperately lobbying, desperately, desperately lobbying Republicans to vote no on bringing this to the Floor. And that's why, as you have multiple Epstein victims on Capitol Hill giving a press conference, literally as we speak, Mike Johnson's attempting to distract from it by having his own press conference. I don't know what he's talking about that he thinks would distract from this. Maybe. Maybe he's showing people the stuff that his son keeps him from viewing on his phone or something. I'm not sure. Here is a clip. And we'll have more of this tomorrow because, like I say, it's ongoing. But here is Massie yesterday making the point that the White House and the Republican leadership is desperately trying to whip votes against a discharge petition. Well, the question is, why are they doing a pressure.

[B]

Why are they.

[A]

Why do they.

[B]

Because they don't want the files released.

[A]

Look, if my legislation were redundant, why.

[B]

Would the White House be trying to stop it?

[A]

It's not redund things that the White.

[B]

House doesn't want out there that my.

[A]

Legislation would cause to be released and.

[B]

That even the White House doesn't believe.

[A]

That the Oversight Committee has released everything. That's the point. They've. Yesterday, they did this big document dump. But it turns out, you know, so far, people are like, there's nothing new here. This is all just sort of like extraneous. This is a classic document dump. 60,000 documents, very little information in it. And it's a way of distracting people. Here is Massie today on the Hill as they start to introduce the different victims. And remember, now you've got Republicans out there. What's that guy? The one who got shoved by McCarthy? I can't remember.

[B]

Tim Burchett.

[A]

Tim Burchett is out there going like, well, I don't know if we should do this because it could. Could ruin the privacy of the Epstein victims. And of course, you've got. I don't know how many are up there, but at least maybe close to half a dozen, maybe more, who are literally publicly speaking. Release these files. Here is Massie introducing this. And I guess Ro Khanna is speaking right now, but here is Massie from earlier. I think it's shameful that this has been called a hoax. Hopefully today we can clear that up. This is not a hoax. This is real. There are real survivors. There are real victims to this criminal enterprise. And the perpetrators are being protected because they're rich and powerful and political donors to the establishment here in Washington, D.C. hard to argue. Hard to argue at that point. Ro Khanna is speaking, I think right now, probably making a similar argument and also raising the fact that Republicans are Desperately being lobbied by the White House to keep this stuff under wraps, which seems a little bit suspicious at one point. You just want to move on. Here is this first Epstein survivor. Her name is Lisa Phillips. This was her speech this morning.

[C]

Congress must choose. Will you continue to protect predators or will you finally protect survivors? Transparency is justice. Release the files and the secrecy and stand with us in declaring that no one, no billionaires, no politicians, not world leaders, is above the law. And let me announce now, several of us Epstein survivors have been discussing creating our own list of names. We know the names. Many of us were abused by them. Now, together as survivors, we will confidentially compile the names we all know were regularly in the Epstein world, and it will be done by survivors and for survivors, no one else is involved. Stay tuned for more details on that because history is watching and so are the women who will come after us.

[A]

I imagine there's people probably within, I don't know, several miles of those speakers who are a little nervous about that. Meters. Yeah, meters. Very well, possibly. Here is Marina Lacerda, also an Epstein survivor, and asking one of the biggest questions. And apparently Acosta is going to be testifying behind closed doors in about two weeks to the Government Oversight Committee as to his involvement. He was formerly Trump's labor secretary, and before that he was the U.S. attorney who gave Epstein a sweetheart deal and claims it was because the CIA told him he was an asset.

[D]

He belonged to intelligence.

[A]

That's what he was told. Or that's what he's told. Wait, that's what he's told us.

[D]

That's what he was told by somebody. And who he was told that by is still unclear.

[A]

Unclear. But here's Marina Lacerda.

[E]

Worst part is that the government is still in possession right now of the documents and information about the con that could help me remember and get over all of this, maybe, and help me heal. They have documents with my name on them that were confiscated from Jeffrey Epstein's house and could help me put the pieces of my own life back together. But I don't have any of it. And I know the same is true for many of these women. We are here to support this bill today, not only for transparency, but for the American people.

[A]

But.

[E]

If the government is going to release these documents to the public describing the crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein and others, the least that they can do is give me my documents that they have about me. The other survivors deserve the same respect from our government. While identifying information must be redacted to the public, it is equally important to Provide the victims themselves with unredacted information. I will never forget when the FBI agent showed up in my door in 2008. Jeffrey Epstein hired a lawyer to represent me, or more like, to represent him. I like to say I couldn't ask any questions and I had no idea what was going on. I was terrified. Until today, I think most of us are still terrified. I thought somebody was going to kill me. I thought something was going to happen to my sister and my mother. It went further out to even maybe thinking something would happen in Brazil with my family. And then one day the lawyer said that everything was just gonna go away like nothing happened. I didn't need to testify. When I asked him why, he gave no explanation. That was it. So why. Why was I never called to testify then? We could have saved so many women. We could have saved so many lives from being abused. Why did he get away with it in 2008? Why was he able to go on in the abuse with hundreds of girls?

[A]

After the Florida investigation, the amount of courage it takes for these women to come out here is. I don't think really most people can understand or appreciate. I mean, I think. I feel like, you know, I can only appreciate how much I don't appreciate, Don't. Don't understand how much bravery it takes to do this type of thing.

[D]

Insanely chilling.

[A]

And it really is. I mean, the. I don't. We. All we know at this point is that the White House is desperate to keep this stuff under wraps. And they've been having J.D.

[D]

Vance call comedians and podcasters on this issue.

[A]

They literally contacted Joe Rogan and asked him not to talk about. I don't know what he's been doing. I haven't been following his show, Aliens and stuff. Has he not been talking about it?

[D]

I mean, he's. He's sort of moving away from it and avoiding the subject, I think.

[A]

Well, that's because he's such an iconoclast. Nobody bosses him around. So we'll have more clips on this tomorrow. And obviously, you know, the more scrutiny on the Republicans. There are three right now. It's Nancy Mace, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Lauren Boebert who have signed on with Massey. And I think they need two more Republican lawmakers to sign on to it. And then the bill gets to the floor. And if the bill gets to the floor, presumably those people who voted to get it to the floor are going to vote for it, which would require the release of all these documents. But definitely worth. If you have a Republican congressperson calling them As a Republican. I mean, look, as a constituent, this is not a partisan issue. You. You tell them, how could you vote against this? We're watching you. Mike Johnson's hoping that people are watching him on his, and I have a feeling they're not. All right, couple words from our sponsor, and we'll get to some of what's happening with the National Guard. According to Pritzker, Texas National Guard is essentially staging at a federal building. Where is it? Outside of Illinois or something? And there's a real question as to will Pritzker get the Illinois National Guard? If the National Guard has not been federalized, it has no right. A state National Guard has no right to go into a state uninvited by the governor of that state. It's, for lack of a better term, an invasion. And Pritzker could activate the Illinois National Guard to stop the Texas National Guard. Theoretically, Trump could nationalize the Illinois National Guard, and it remains to be seen what that National Guard would do. But we will get to that in a moment. Felonious Monk. I think that's called the Civil War.

[B]

I mean.

[A]

It sounds almost more like a coup, because it's not. It really is just different militias at that point that are fighting. But we'll talk about that more in a bit. One of our sponsors today, I've been using their product for about 10 years, largely because I didn't want my information to be public, and they've done a very good job of it, frankly. Delete me. It makes it quick and easy and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. And, of course, the idea of doxing. As always in the news, it is super easy to find personal information about people online. You Google it, it takes you to a data broker site. They have bought all up all this data. They then sell it. I don't know, eight bucks and you get the search or whatever it is, or two bucks. You can look up people's phone number, you can look up people's emails, you can look up their social media, you can look up their family members, their addresses, their past addresses, on and on. And having all this information on the Internet can have actual consequences in the real world. Makes everybody vulnerable. Not only, obviously, are you vulnerable to whack jobs trying to dox you or find you, but also hackers will buy information on the dark web. Then they'll combine it with information they find from data broker sites, and they use it for email phishing scams. They'll Use it for scams to send you packages with fake QR codes on the outside with coupons, all that stuff. With Delete Me, you can protect your personal privacy or the privacy of your business from doxing attacks before the sensitive information can be exploited. New York Times Wirecutter Name Delete Me their top pick for data removal services. Thanks to Delete Me for sponsoring the Majority report. You could take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me Now. Special discount for our listeners. 20% off your delete Me plan when you go to join deleteme.com/majority use the promo code Majority at checkout. Only way to get 20% off join delete me.com joinedeleteme.com Majority Enter the code majority at checkout. That's joinedeleteme.com Majority Use the code Majority. We'll put the information in the podcast and YouTube descriptions. Also another product I've been using for at least a decade Fast Growing Trees Falls Planting Season did you know that a lot of people think it's only spring, but fall is a great time to plant many plants and trees actually do better when they are planted at this time of the year. They get their roots in the ground before they go dormant. All the energy is in the roots. Right now we're headed there Fast growing trees is your one stop shopping. Doesn't matter if you live in the sunny south or if the air is getting a little chilly where you are. The their plant experts can help you find the perfect fit for your space. They have all the needs you could possibly imagine for your yard. They got fruit trees, they got privacy trees. They got flowering trees, they got shrubs, they got grasses, they got creeping time. Whatever you want. Fast growing trees has you covered. You can find the perfect fit for your climate and your space. Order online, get your plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without ever having a leaving home. Leaving leaving home. They have an alive and thrive guarantee. Ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy. That means no lugging stuff in the back of your Subaru and getting dirt all over the place breaking the plants on the way home. Sounds specific. Yeah, been there. No going to a big box store and being like, wait, all you have is Red Delicious apples? Do you not have any actual apple varieties? One type of peach? What is this? And the thing is with fast growing trees, I don't know that their trees necessarily grow faster, but they can ship like six foot trees to you. They pack them really well. They keep very well. Again, they have that alive and thrive guarantee. And if you have if you want to get into gardening or planting, you have no experience. Their website has all the information you need. Every plant comes with instructions and tips to care for it. You can talk to a plant expert about your soil type, your landscape design, how to take care of your plants. No green thumb required. Don't know your growing zone. They will tell you. They also have a resource center. It's full of tips and advice. You can find out your you can use their zone finder there to find out what zone you're in. And there's sub zones. It's not just 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Anymore. There's like 5A 5B this fall they have the best deals for your yard. Up to half off select plants and deals other deals Listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase using the code majority at checkout. That's 15% off fast growing trees.com using the code Majority at checkout. Now is the perfect time to plant use majority to save Today offer valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. Check out the link the show notes and support the show. And lastly, today's episode is sponsored by Blue Land. We've gone completely Blue Land here. Now we have same office and my house. Now we have the Blueland dish soap which is actually like a powder. You pour it on there, you wash it. We have in my house I got the Blueland tablets for dishwash for my dishwasher I've got the refillable spray bottles for windows and bathroom. And just like the all purpose Blue Land is basically on a mission to get rid of single use plastics and they have helped me do it. I no longer carry big jugs of laundry detergent or dish soap or dishwashing liquid. None of that stuff all gone. And their refills are really reasonable. I mean sort of on the cheap side frankly relative to the other products you buy. All their cleaning stuff works great. The dishwasher stuff works great. The laundry stuff works great. They got a toilet ball, toilet bowl bomb that you drop in and use that instead of like the the liquid. It's all terrific. I've made the switch to Blue Land across all the cleaning products around my house. Their products meet the highest standards of clean. They're effective yet gentle on my family, my kitty cat, my doggie, my my planet. Blueland was named an EPA Safer Choice Partner of the Year from cleaning sprays and toilet bowl cleaner, dishwasher, laundry detergent tablets. Blueland formulas are 100% microplastic free made with certified clean ingredients, free from chlorine, bleach and harsh chemicals that are safe to use around the house. I love not having to choose between the safe option and what actually gets my house clean. Check it out. Blue Land is a special offer for our listeners. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com majority. You don't want to miss this. Blueland.com majority 15% off. That's blueland.com majority to get 15% off. All right. In a moment, we'll be talking in about 10 minutes, we're going to be talking to Jonathan Cohn on who's been doing some reporting both on what's happening at the CDC and Bobby Kennedy's plans to essentially destroy our vaccine system in this country. We will talk to him about it. And also, you know, there is a he's written an interesting piece to give you a sense of the liability issues associated with vaccines, how we've handled it, how it could be reformed if there was actually a genuine desire to reform it, as opposed to some wackadoodle notions that Bill Gates is put in 3G and all of our our earlobes from a vaccine. But we'll get to that in a moment. Meanwhile, you have Mayor Bowser of Washington, D.C. saying now that she will collaborate with the troops that Trump and the feds that Trump has stationed in D.C. the and Brian and I were talking about this earlier. The she has no federal representation. There is no congressperson that she can go to. There is no senator that she can go to. She is in a very, very weak position in terms of what can be done and how she can push back. And while I would like her, at least from a rhetorical standpoint, to say this is no good, politicians hate to be on the losing side of things, particularly when it's guaranteed. And she is not in a position to have any say as to what goes on in that city. However, JB Pritzker is a different story. And he is also running for president in 2028 or very likely. And Gavin Newsom has provided him a floor as to how much pushback he's going to give. And he is, at least rhetorically, at this point, significantly above that floor. Here's Donald Trump just yesterday tweeting out or truthing out whatever it is. Chicago is the murder capital of the world, which fact check, yeah, not true.

[D]

Not the murder capital of this country.

[A]

And there's no special title like where you can be the myrtle capital of the world and not be The Myrtle capital of the country. That doesn't work that way. Here is Pritzker. This is Pritzker yesterday saying that he has heard that the Trump has become staging the textual Texas National Guard for deployment in Illinois. Now, he doesn't say how he knows this, but I imagine he would not be saying it if he didn't have it on fairly good authority.

[F]

Third, as lawful citizens exercise their First Amendment rights, Trump and his team will be looking for any excuse to put active duty military on our streets, supposedly to protect ice. We have reason to believe that the Trump administration has already begun staging the Texas National Guard for deployment in Illinois. I want to be very clear on this one point, and I want to speak directly to the press right now. We know before anything has happened here that the Trump plan is to use any excuse to deploy armed military personnel to Chicago. If someone flings a sandwich at an ICE agent, Trump will try and go on TV and declare an emergency in Chicago. I'm imploring everyone, if and when that happens, do not take the bait.

[A]

So it sounds like they realize there's a certain inevitability that there's going to be federal authorities, that ICE is going to come in and you can't really prevent them. Now, what Brandon Johnson has done is said at the very least, they're not going to cooperate beyond their statutory requirements. Hopefully, the police end up doing that. Chicago police don't necessarily have the greatest record of both listening to the mayor or really abiding by the law in some instances. They literally found black sites there just a couple years ago. But what Pritzker is basically saying is that this is the two step, right? They send in ice. There are protests where someone throws a sandwich, someone calls an ICE agent duty head, and then Trump says, we need to bring in the National Guard. And I think what Pritzker is doing, I don't know that he expects that he's going to be able to keep everybody from protesting, but at the very least, he, he is exposing what the playbook is. And this is important because then you start to watch it play out. Here is, this is number. What was that? Number two? This is number three.

[F]

I refuse to play a reality game show with Donald Trump again. What I want are the federal dollars that have been crying Illinois and Chicago for violence prevention programs that have proven to work. That is money that Illinois taxpayers send to the federal government. And it's an insult to any and every citizen to suggest that any governor should have to beg the president of any political party for resources owed Their people. I'd like to ask a question of my. And it's one the press should be asking as well. When did we become a country where it's okay for the US President to insist on national television that a state should call him to beg for anything, especially something we don't want? Have we truly lost all sense of sanity in this nation, that we treat this as normal?

[A]

Yeah. The answer would be yes, that. That is the answer. Very conveniently, here is Pritzker reminding Chicagoans to know their rights and advocating that people film record what ICE is doing and give it to the media.

[F]

To Chicagoans. What you can do is look out for your communities and your neighbors, know your rights, film things that you see happening in your neighborhoods and your streets and share them with the news media. Authoritarians, thrive on your silence. Be loud for America.

[A]

Appealing to some patriotism there. But I like the idea of him telling people to engage in their communities. This is just the beginning of this, folks.

[D]

And the ICE watching stuff, the surveillance on ICE by volunteers, is a very brave and inspiring development.

[A]

There was a piece, I think it was in the Washington Post, I don't know where it was today, about both the app makers, one who had a local, one on the east coast and one on the West Coast. But activists in California have been basically surveilling ice. They leave from federal buildings. They are then either followed at a distance or just kept track of. And people are warned that they're in a specific neighborhood. So this is encouraging.

[D]

And ICE now has a budget greater than the FBI for this year, so.

[A]

And it's only going to get larger. All right, we're going to take a quick break, and in a moment we will have Jonathan Cohn. Hi. Sorry, we've just been having a little bit of technical difficulties. We're going to have Jonathan Cohen in just a word in Word in a moment. In the meantime, I just wanted to update you on this. You'll recall last year Google was found to have violated antitrust laws. The judge, Amit Metta. No relationship, I would assume. It's me. H T A found that Google violated law saying that Google was a monopolist. It has acted as one to maintain its monopoly. It has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Meta also found that the Supreme Court mandated what he called the remedial objective in monopolization cases to terminate the illegal monopoly. However, after, I guess it was like six, eight months, almost a year, Mehta came back with the remedy part of his ruling and found that remedies designed to Eliminate the defendant's monopoly. That is structural remedies are inappropriate in this case. The DOJ was had asked to remove defaults that place Google as the search choice for most browsers. When you go and try and search something in Chrome, obviously it defers to Google. They pay Apple $20 billion a year to be the default search. The judge in this case rejected both a Chrome spinoff severing the ties between Google search and Chrome and regulation of Android. He also did not find that Google had to stop paying Apple $20 billion a year because it would somehow hurt Apple's business. They need money to develop their phones. They have something like a trillion dollars in cash. That may be a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. He went on to limit default payment agreements to just one year terms. I'm not sure what the idea is behind that. It just sounds like he got afraid. It is possible that the some of the plaintiffs state attorney generals will appeal this case. We'll have somebody on next week to talk about the monopolies. We're going to take a very quick break and when we come back we're going to be talking to Jonathan Cohn. We'll be right back after this. We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Emma Viglin out today. Jonathan, it's a pleasure to welcome back to the program Jonathan Cohn, senior national correspondent now at the Bulwark, author of Sick and the Ten Year War. That one about gosh about the Affordable Care act. That seems like a million years ago. Jonathan, welcome back to the program.

[B]

It's nice to be here. Sam.

[A]

Over the past week we have seen the agency director of the CDC sort of get fired and then resign. And then four of top officials at the CDC also resign. Just I think today 1,000 workers at the CDC wrote a letter imploring the administration fire Robert Kennedy Jr. Let's talk about like one of the things that came out over the past week was that over the course of the past nine months approximately that Kennedy has been head of Health and Human Services. They've never, he's never consulted with the CDC about anything.

[B]

Yeah, I mean it's insane. It is I think like before. Yeah, I think actually a good place to start. Just as a general description of what is happening right now at the CDC and frankly not just the cdc, other agencies, but cdc, you know, which is such an important, it's our command and control center for protecting our health. The way it's being treated, the way it is not being treated. The extent to which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The most important health official in our country, has basically not consulting career staff, the experts there on such a wide variety of issues is shocking. And the chaos we're now seeing there between the layoffs and the reorganization and the resignations and the firings, shocking. I mean, this is just, this is another universe from anything we've seen before. I mean, I've been doing this for a while. I'm a little gray in the beard here. I've covered Republican presidencies, I've covered Democratic presidencies, I covered the first Trump presidency. Nothing like this. This is completely dysfunctional government. And we have almost feels like a rogue HHS secretary running around making policy because he thinks it's right. Surrounding himself with, yes, people who will go along with it and everybody with expertise, everybody who has background in this left and right. And when we're talking to the civil service, most of these people are not political. They're just career civil servants trying to serve their country and keep it healthy, being shit out of the process.

[A]

I was so shocked about this, and I will say that, full disclosure, and people know this, I hope, but I had worked with Kennedy on a radio program 10 years ago.

[B]

Right, that's right.

[A]

I forgot about that. I am. There are people who are more disillusioned about him than I, but I know those people. So I mean, that, you know, some of that universe. And it is, it is one thing to say that he has these conspiracy theories in his head and preconceived notions of who's at the CDC and what their secret nefarious agendas are, but the idea that he didn't even bother to go and spend half an hour over the course of nine months, an hour, even a couple of days, to make that assessment in person, just completely ignore this entire agency as if it doesn't exist is mind boggling. And this is an agency that is the product of over 100 years of essentially US health policy.

[B]

Yeah. Again, I've never seen anything like this. And, you know, he has come in and he has this idea that the CDC is part of this deep state health bureaucracy, which of course is, you know, it's similar and of a piece of the broader attitudes of the Trump administration that people who are career officers in government are. They're at best not doing a lot of good. At worst, they're actively undermining whatever the sort of, you know, best policy is. And his attitude has been to just sideline them and ignore them and get rid of them. And, you know, look, I've said from day one. I mean, I think there's a. You know, every agency in government could work better. And if you want to talk about the CDC in particular, we can go back, relitigate what happened in Covid. And there's lots of room for criticism, lots of room for improvement. I don't think anybody would begrudge an HHS secretary from either party coming in and trying to shake things up a little bit. And certainly when you win an election and you get to. That's part of what you get to do, is you get to redefine an agency. But what I think is just so telling is there's a way you do that responsibly. I mean, and the first part of that is exactly like you just said, which is you get a feel for what's really going on. Something you can't get from the outside. You get into office, you meet with people, you study the problem, and then you put in place changes, even if they're radical changes. You do it in a way so that you're not destroying all the institutional knowledge, all the capabilities. And that's what he has done. And we are at this shocking place right now. I know we keep using the word shocking, but I don't know what. What other word to use for it where you can't trust the material coming out of cdc because once upon a time, you knew that it might be right or it might be wrong, like any judgment might be. But it was the process of a kind of considered judgment by people who actually knew their field, who had. Were respected for their knowledge, their expertise. And that's just not true anymore. And, you know, it's just we've never been in a world like this and.

[A]

We'Re talking about career people, which is contrary to, you know, Kennedy's whole thing was that there is a revolving door and there's this relationship between industry and the agencies that are unhealthy. And I would agree with that. I think that's. We see that in a lot of, like, sort of regulatory agencies, but it's generally the political appointees who are the biggest problem or people who are leaving, not people who have been there for their entire careers and are continuing to do that. And so. All right, so what, like, who's doing what the CDC does? I mean, it seems like they're not allowed to sort of keep track of what's going on. They weren't consulted about measles outbreak that was taking place. They could still be. You know, apparently in Texas, it is sort of burnt Out. But we don't know what's happening in. In contiguous states. We don't know because none of this stuff is now being. To the extent that it's being recorded by the cdc. They're not allowed to publicly report, it is my understanding. What else is. What else has he supplanted? Like, and then I want to get to the vaccine, specifically in terms of vaccines. But what, like, what other functions are superseding, I guess, the CDC at this point?

[B]

So, I mean, it's. Honestly, it's hard to know, which is crazy to say. I mean, this is not how, again, this is not how government normally works. We usually have some sense of how an agency works. You know, we might not know at the detailed level who's doing what, but there are offices, and this is what they're doing. It's quite hard to know right now. This is not, you know, this administration, again, not just hhs, not just cdc, the entire Trump administration. They don't put out memos saying this is the, you know, they don't put out the reorganizational memos. They don't tell you what they're doing. What I know, first of all, is that we have a bunch of departments that have been eliminated or downsized dramatically, and then that is, as a result of that, even the parts of CDC that are kind of, you would think, on autopilot. So these are the things maybe Kennedy doesn't care as much about, like helping cities and states with lead abatement, for example. These offices are so understaffed now, they can't respond quickly. And that's actually one of the most important roles that CDC plays is as an advisor and kind of a big sibling to state public health agencies. State public health agencies, they're the ones on the ground frequently dealing with outbreaks when they first happen, or environmental toxins. You go down the list. They need expertise, they need manpower. Sometimes they need someone to just pick up the phone and sort of call on behalf of the federal government to make the wheels of bureaucracy or the private sector respond. And cdc, that's a really important role of cdc. Well, you can't get any of that done if there aren't people to pick up the phone or answer the emails. And that's what's happening at CDC right now because they've been so decimated that they are just not responding. We saw this, actually, in the measles crisis. Early on, there was a story that I'm one of stories that I thought would have gotten more attention. It was in, I think I Want to say KFF Health News about how the people in Texas during the outbreak were saying it was really hard to get responses out of CDC when they needed help, when they needed expertise, when they needed advice, when they needed the federal government to kind of be the heavy and make something happen. They just weren't getting calls back. And it seems like it was a combination of A, there weren't enough people because they've been downsized so much and B, there was this hesitation because it touched on measles, because it touched on vaccines, because there were these orders telling CDC people not to communicate certain things in public. There was hesitation. What can we do? What can we not do? What will be allowed? And it's just mind boggling. I mean, this is, you know, this isn't a political, this shouldn't be a left right issue. It shouldn't be a Democratic Republican issue. It's public health. It's keeping people from getting sick and dying. I mean there's nothing political about that.

[A]

Well, I want to turn to the story you did about the vaccine industry about a week or so ago because it seems to me that Kennedy has taken a very libertarian turn over the past 10 years. And just the concept of public health is. He has an issue with the concept of public health. It feels like, I mean just, and I mean broadly speaking. Will you just sort of, I guess walk us through that notion of what public health is relative to when I go see the doctor? Right. Because there's a different sort of calculus that's going on with public health than there is with, in an individual's health.

[B]

Yeah. So I mean, when I think of public health, there's a lot of different ways to describe it. But you know, when I think of public health, I think of threats that are out there that are threats to whole communities or threats to the country as a whole, to the public as a whole, where we can address them best through policies. They may be policies that get at the underlying causes of disease or conditions or biological threats. We can be working together on being vigilant, watching, detecting them so we know when something is happening in the aggregate. And then of course, if something happens, if there's an outbreak, if there's a condition we see happening at a large scale affecting large numbers of people, then we can start to respond to. And that is a, that is, you know, it is obviously requires medical knowledge. That's an important piece of that. You know, what your doctor has. Right. That's part of it. But there's a whole other. There's a Whole other, there's a whole other kind of knowledge, a whole other skill set that is specifically involved in understanding how to watch, monitor reaction to these sort of health care threats at a larger scale. And that is what CDC does and always has done. And what the people at CDC do, they're trained to do. That's a special kind of training you get. It's a special kind of experience you accumulate. And frankly, that's what's going out the door right now.

[A]

And there's a different, there's also like, it seems to be a different sort of calculus. Right. Like, I mean, we have this in public policy all the time. What should the speed limit be? We could, we could bring traffic deaths down to, you know, virtually none if our speed limit for all our cars was five miles an hour. But obviously, society needs to function. People need to get places. And we find some type of balance between the need for us to, to, to have transportation for food and for products and for individuals and the potential that, you know, tens of thousands of people are going to die on the highways because of the speed that people travel. There's a similar calculation in the context of public health. Right. Like, you know, we can say that, that it's, it is inefficient to have free, you know, colonoscopies at age for everybody who's age 30. But at one age, it does start to make sense that, yes, it's going to cost money up front to have everybody get colonoscopies, but it's going to save money down the road. I mean, these are all the calculations. There are going to be some people who are still, had they gotten that colonoscopy at age 30, because it was mandated, would have saved their lives. But it's, as a society, we make the determination that, that we can't function as a society saving that. And this calculus is what really is at the heart of the vaccination issues, it seems to me, is that when we vaccinate a broad population, there are always going to people who are going to have adverse reactions, just like people who take Tylenol. There's no medical procedure or medicine where you won't have people taking an adverse reaction. But the question is, as a public, does it promote health? That is more people being healthy than not, even if the actual requirement of a vaccination ends up making people sick who wouldn't otherwise be sick. Yeah. This is the dynamic that we're talking about with vaccines.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

So tell us the story of how we got to where we are. Like where we are, in terms of liability with vaccines and why. And we should talk about potential reforms, but Kenny's talking about basically blowing it all up, it seems like.

[B]

Right, right, right. So, I mean, yes, vaccines, the vaccines that we have that have been approved, they're enormously beneficial. They have saved literally millions of lives. I think sometimes it's, you know, it's been so long since we've seen people sitting in an iron lung or large numbers of kids dying from measles or whooping cough or, you know, you sort of go down the list. We sort of take those things for granted. You know, those. Those diseases used to kill and disable large numbers of Americans. It was. It was hard to get a childhood. Once upon a time. When those vaccines came along, people were elated because they remembered how awful that was. Now, like you said, every vaccine is going to have some people who are going to have side effects or bad reactions, just like every medical. As you said, every medical intervention has some risk and some downsides. Decision you're always making is, when is it worth it, when is it not? What do we recommend, what do we not recommend? And with these vaccines, the calculus, frankly, is just not tough. Even a vaccine like, say, the COVID vaccine, which doesn't, you know, at this point, because of the way the virus has mutated and what we now know about it is, you know, there's still a good chance that if you are vaccinated against Covid, you can still get Covid, but there's a big difference. You're much less likely to end up in the hospital. You're much less likely to end up with long Covid. You're much less likely to end up dead. That's a pretty big deal. Now, do some people have reactions to Covid, this Covid shot? Yes. Will there be the rare serious side effect? Yes. And true for other vaccines, this has always been the case. And we've sort of dealt with this problem before. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a lot more focus on these side effects. And in particular for the pertussis vaccine, again, that's whooping cough.

[A]

There was a.

[B]

Lot of attention being given to the side effects, including the ones that would go away in a day or two or in some time. And then there were reports of more serious side effects, never entirely clear how much they were really linked to the shot. Later research suggested maybe probably not, but there were these cases, and people who had sort of serious conditions after getting the shot would go to court and sue and get these very large liability judgments. And the vaccine makers at that point were like, well, wait a minute. You know, vaccines aren't necessarily the most profitable line of business for a drug company. And drug companies were like, you know, if we're gonna have to face these lawsuits and this is draining our revenue, maybe we just won't make the vaccines. And a bunch of them got out of the business of making the pertussis vaccine. When that happened, we had shortages of pertussis vaccines. There weren't enough shots to go around because there weren't enough companies producing them. So the government stepped in, in a bipartisan measure and said, look, we're going to. And they said, look, we want to compensate people. If you're injured, we want to make sure you can get compensation for it. We want to make it quick. You shouldn't have to go through years and years of litigation. You shouldn't have to roll the dice on whether you found a good lawyer or not. If you're the vaccine maker, you should know that we understand there will be the very occasional rare side effect. You're not going to be sort of facing this huge, massive judgment because those tend to be sympathetic cases. And even if you did nothing wrong, you're gonna have to pay this big judgment. So we're gonna protect you from that. And doing this will then produce a steady supply of vaccines, which is what all the pediatricians want, what the public health experts want. So they created basically a no fault system where you basically, if you have gotten a vaccine and then you have a certain, that's covered by this program and you have a certain, you know, certain kind of injury, you can demonstrate that happened afterwards, you get a payment and you don't have to go to court. And whatever you can, you can still sue for negligence, but it's hard to win that case.

[A]

Yeah, and this is sort of almost like a separate vaccine judiciary essentially. Right. Where it's more like an administrative judge. And you go and you make your case through this process. It is not within the standard civil legal system. It's almost like in a parallel legal system where you go in and you can get awards, but it doesn't function in the same way and you can't take down a manufacturer. And again, like you say, it's really the only way unless, and frankly, I would certainly be open to this. We started having the government create a capacity to, to develop vaccines. Now that's what Bobby Kennedy would do if his like belief, his supposed sort of like conspiracy theories were accurate, that it's too corrupt within the context of capitalism. To allow for vaccines, that all the motivations are a function of money. You would say, let's nationalize it. Let's expend government money and resources on developing. We already spend the money on developing it, and we have ownership of it. And you can contract out to, you know, facilities like, in companies that. That have the capacity to make this stuff. You contract hire them, you pay them a lot of money, and it's government owned. They're not even contemplating anything like that. And so what are. What has happened to that regime over the years that. That. That came in, in what, like the 80s, early 80s or.

[B]

Yeah, it was created in the 80s. It was created in the 1980s. And you know, over the years, on the one hand, it has kept a steady vaccine supply, so it's met that goal, and it's kept a fairly. You know, it's kept the vaccine makers in the market, so it's met that goal. It has not always done a great job of compensating people. There's a couple of reasons for that. It hasn't really been updated legally since Congress passed it, so the awards are not as big as they should be. In addition, it's been slow. At some point, the Justice Department decided that it should be contesting these cases more because it saw, you know, it sort of saw its job to protect the federal treasury, and it didn't want to make sure people weren't going to the system and draining it unfairly to kind of make a quick buck. That is not how the program was intended to work. Exactly. If you talk to the people who were there, there's been a concern they pushed back too much so that it is actually harder to get an award. And then, in addition, they just haven't increased the staff enough to deal with the load as we've added more shots and more conditions. All fixing all of those makes a lot of sense. It is a cause that would get bipartisan support. You know, if Secretary Kennedy came in and said, look, I want to fix the vaccine court. I want the court system. It's not really called a vaccine court, but, you know, we can call it a vaccine court, you know, if we're going to fix this system so it's more responsive and it pays out sums that are more appropriate for today. You know, I think there would be people, longtime vaccine enthusiasts, who would say, yes, that's great. In fact, it's closer to what the program was supposed to be when it was founded. But that does not seem to be. I think it's fair to suspect that it is not what he has in mind. I say suspect because as with so many other things he's done, he hasn't been particularly clear, but he has hinted strongly. And people I know who have heard about some of these discussions and all the scuttlebutt that's being reported is that he is looking more at changes that would really just blow up the system and we sort of revert back to the pre 1980 system, at least for some of the vaccines, or that he would create a system where it would run out of money very quickly. But one way or another, the guarantee to the companies that they could continue to produce without facing these huge liability threats that had once scared so many off, well, that would be back to that system and we'd be back to shortages again. And that is the concern. And I think there's good reason to be concerned.

[A]

What's that? We should say that just, I guess an hour ago, Florida essentially said that the state's gonna eliminate all vaccine mandates.

[B]

Yeah, I saw that like 10 minutes ago.

[A]

Yeah. Yes. And earlier today, I think it was California, Oregon and Washington state. States said they're going to form some type of consortium to, I guess, secure vaccines or create their own guidance because they're not getting any from the federal government in terms of like, who is advised to get the COVID shot and then I guess presumably any sort of future viruses or maybe even the flu for that matter. What. What do we do if, like, I mean, I want a vaccine booster. I'm. I'm not 65 yet, couple years shy, but I want my vaccine booster. I want my. My Covid booster. I don't want to get Covid. I want my kid to be able to get a vaccine booster as well. Because, you know, I've seen the impact of long Covid, and I've seen the impact on, you know, kids subsequent from getting Covid. The first time they get it, it's not a big deal. And what do we do? Like, do I got to go to Canada and is there going to be, like, vaccine tourism trips to, like, Canada or.

[B]

I mean, it's, you know, it's. It's hard to know. First of all, a lot is going to depend on things like what insurance companies decide to do, what they decide to cover for people who have private insurance, obviously for people who are on public insurance programs. That's going to depend on what the government says. It is not clear to me to what extent states will be able to manage vaccines within their borders as they want. And there's so many layers of legal complication to that. But so let's assume for the sake of argument that we end up with a system where, okay, the California, Oregon, Washington, they make sure that vaccines are available and they keep in place their vaccine regimes and maybe New England does.

[A]

California is important. Right. Because we're just talking like this is a numbers game. Like at one point a manufacturer will be like, it's just not worth our while to produce this small amount of vaccines.

[B]

Right, right.

[A]

You know, there was a lime, apparently there was a Lyme vaccine, I don't know, developed 20 years ago. And they just decided, like, there's just not enough of a market for it. And so we're just not going to produce it. And, you know, now Lyme has gone completely bonkers up in the Northeast.

[B]

Yeah. So, I mean, let's assume. Let's assume for the sake of our argument. And you're right, having California, having New York, those are big markets. So, you know, that keeps. Let's assume optimistically for the moment, that there's enough states that are sort of really still on board with vaccines that the makers still stay in there. And so New England, the Northeast, west coast, maybe my home state of Michigan, places like that, we still have vaccines and most people are vaccinated. And let's then assume, though, that there are states where you see vaccine levels dipping, like we did in that part of Texas, like we might see in Florida. On the one hand, I mean, this is now the fact of life in so many things. Right. With our social programs, we have Blue America, Red America, and they're very different. Problem is germs don't stop at the border. Right. So, number one, that's a pretty. That's not. It's only gonna do so much good. But I also was thinking, just to give you an example, and when I think of sort of like, who is vulnerable? You know, I think there's a. Tends to be a sort of libertarian. You were saying before, libertarian attitude. It's my decision whether or not to have a vaccine. And at some level, of course it. But it's not like that can affect other people. So I'm just imagining what's in. I grew up in Florida. What's in Florida? Disney World's in Florida. Who likes to go to Florida? Disney World? Florida kids. You know, how many kids want to go to. Well, if you're an immunocompromised child and you're getting cancer treatment, for example, and we have a world where Florida vaccination levels are. You better stay Away from Disney World. You better stay away from the state of Florida because just going to that state is gonna expose you, increase your exposure to something you cannot fight off. And by the way, again, even if you don't go to Florida, you're still gonna be at greater risk because, again, germs don't observe state borders. And there will inevitably be times, you know, in airports and moving around where you'll get exposed to these things. So these things, you know, that's part of. That's kind of the world we might be headed to.

[A]

It's a little bit terrifying. And I must say, coming out of COVID it's become very apparent to me that the tolerance this country has for hundreds of thousands of people dying, like, you know, we've been talking probably since the Iraq War era. We certainly know that there's a tolerance for us to be involved in the killing of people thousands of miles away. But it was a little bit surprising to see the level of tolerance that Americans have for several hundreds of thousands of people to die, you know, that were easily preventable over the course of a year or two. I mean, it feels like there's a. I don't know what that's called. Is it nihilism, I mean, or what? But like, I feel like it's going to take a generation or two of this type of regime for people to respond to it, because it's very hard. It's just so. It's not transparent. It's very difficult, I feel like, for people to see the implications of this when they're looking at a ground level and when you have removed the aggregation function of the CDC that looks at this stuff and says, hey, look, there's 500,000 people who have died over the past 17 months who didn't need to die. When you don't have that, even that function, it feels like people just going to go about their business and like, oh, poor old job, he got whatever the bug and died.

[B]

Yeah, I'm so glad you mentioned that. Yeah. I mean, you remember Covid when there was at one point, Right. Trump said, people may remember, he said, well, if we just stopped counting people wouldn't. You know, we wouldn't. It wouldn't be so bad if we just stopped counting the people.

[A]

I mean, he was sort of right.

[B]

At least in terms of the way.

[A]

That the people perceived it.

[B]

You know, to this day, I'm shocked because, yeah, again, I live in Michigan, so I'm right outside Detroit, which was one of the early cities, that it wasn't as Bad as New York, but it was pretty bad. And I remember every day in headlines, you know, prominent people were, you were reading about, were dying from COVID And of course for everyone you read in the headlines because they were famous, there were 10, 50, 100 also dying. They just, you know, they didn't get a story in the newspaper because of that. And I am shocked still that that has sort of been memory hold. And I wonder sometimes, I guess, as you do, is it that people have forgotten or they've just sort of decided it's okay that, you know, we're gonna live with that, that, you know, that it's okay if large numbers of people die. If, you know. And this does bring us back to Kennedy. Cause you know, when you listen to him talk, he's very big on this idea of often called natural immunity that like. Well, you know, one of the problems with vaccines is that it doesn't provide you with the same kind of protection. If you actually get the infection, you'll have longer lasting protection and might even protect you against some other conditions. Now, number one, that is not a scientifically valid statement. There's, you know, whether you get more protection or longer protection from a disease versus a shot will depend on all kinds of circumstances, including the disease, the shot, who you are. This idea that it protects you better in the future against other conditions is like this speculative theory. There's really nothing out there yet to show that. But let's even assume it were true, that there were some marginal advantage in terms of your future immunity, that you had better immunity, stronger immunity going forward from an infection rather than the shot. Well, the, the flip side of that is you're also a heck of a lot more likely to die from the infection because you got to get the infection. You know, what doesn't make you, what doesn't kill you will make you stronger. Sure. But it might kill you.

[A]

Not. Well, first of all, not always. What doesn't kill you does not always make you stronger. But even if it did, it also could kill you, right, is what you're saying. Yes.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I mean, I think it's, it's. If anything, there's a little bit. I mean, I'm not the first to say this and I don't see inside the man's head, so I don't know what he's really thinking. But you know, people, people have said this feels awfully Darwinist. You know, the strong will survive and we'll lose a couple along the way. Or eugenicists like, you know, this is how we get to a stronger humanity, because the people with strong immune systems will evolve. And, you know, the reality is. The reality is, because we've had all these advances in medical science, including right at the top of the list, vaccination, lots of people are alive today who would otherwise be dead. And there are people who have weakened immune systems or who have some kind of disability or have some kind of underlying medical condition. These are the people who are saved by vaccines and all these medical interventions. Me, I think that's great. I'm really glad all those people are here. You get the feeling, listening to Kennedy, that I'm not saying he wishes they were gone, but the way he talks sometimes, it does sound a little bit like, well, if we lose a few people along the way, you know, everyone's gonna, you know, in order. So we just let these infections burn through these communities. If we lose one or two kids here and there and a couple people die here in the facts, we'll be better off. Yeah, yeah.

[A]

I mean, it's reminiscent of both what, like Ron Paul said, I think it was during the 2008 Republican debate, about somebody who doesn't have health insurance, that they die on the street. They, you know, they've made their own. Own choices. This has a more sort of biological foundation for it. And, you know, like, I have spent probably an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what has gone into. At least there has been. It's not a radical transformation in terms of Kennedy because he's always flirted with this, with the anti vax stuff. And to be fair, you know, in 2003, 2004, there was enough of a question about the Marisol that it was removed from the vaccines. And then it turned out, no, this doesn't impact autism rates or anything. And. But I do think that part of it is he comes from essentially, you know, aside from all the sort of, like, maybe psychological things that are involved in his childhood and in growing up, I mean, he. There's a certain amount of trauma associated with that. There's also, like, an aristocratic air about the Kennedys. And you see it in the context of how many of them died doing things that they probably shouldn't have been doing. You don't fly an airplane at night if you don't have enough hours of training. You don't go glading through ski resorts if you're not that good of a skier. I mean, a lot of people in there, in their family, have died doing things. You know, there were times where I was Waiting on Kennedy to record something remotely. And it's, you know, he was diving to disentangle a sea turtle from. From a net, you know, like. Or he's picking up a roadkill, you know, or bear or whatever it is. I think there is a sense of like, you know, survival of the fittest and sometimes, sometimes it doesn't work out. And that's being imposed on the entire society. And it's also ignoring that certain people get born into circumstances not just that are biological, but are also environmental, that impact their health. That we, the whole point of a society is to protect them. And it seems like we're going to take a break from that theory for God knows how long. Jonathan Cohn, always a pleasure. Thanks so much for your time today. Really appreciate it.

[B]

Yeah, thanks for having me. On important topic.

[A]

All right, folks, we're going to take a quick break, head into the fun half of the program. And that's it. What's. What's going on over there? Oh, there. We're gonna, we're gonna take some phone calls. I'm gonna take a quick break. Just a reminder. It just occurred to me that I was supposed to do that entire interview in the Bobby Kennedy voice. I forgot about that. Was it the technical problems. And I forgot that I was gonna just give a shit talking about. You jackass.

[D]

You could have heard Sam speaking in an John Grady and impossible to listen to voice for 20 minutes. You missed out on it.

[A]

And I wouldn't have said anything. I would just Adam, come on and be like, John, it's real pleasure to have you here talk about this very important topic. How long he like, like it would just a look on his face. Older than Sam. There has not been a Transformation of Bobby RFK Jr. Has always been a piece of. Even he was part of Riverkeepers. I'm not talking as a, as a. As a person. I am talking about ideologically. And it's maybe the case that he was paying lip service to a different ideology, but he was at least paying lip service to a different ideology.

[D]

The shift specifically regards to like capitalism and environmentalism and the free market libertarian stuff.

[A]

Totally.

[D]

You can find very contradictory things from him like 10 years ago, definitely just.

[A]

The notion of the commons in and of itself. I mean, when we talk about public health policy, what we're talking about one element of the commons, right. The idea that we can. That public health is a common good. But that concept he jettisoned, I don't know if it was 10 years ago or 15 years ago or when just a Reminder, it's your support that makes the show possible. You can become a [e-mail] when you do, you not only support the free show, but you also get the fun half and you allow the show to survive and thrive. Our members are a very important part. Listen, I cannot tell you how many times I've applied for a chorus grant and we just. They keep. I don't even know. Bounces back nowhere. Was there an email address? Can someone tell me where the email address the chorus.

[D]

You can apply on their website.

[A]

Is that true? Yeah, we should apply.

[D]

I paged through it.

[B]

We should apply.

[D]

We applied on the. Well, we paid. I don't know if we actually clicked send, but we did that on the left Reckoning page.

[A]

Oh, you did?

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

You can donate too.

[A]

Double dip. There's nothing wrong with that. We can also donate to chorus.

[D]

The donate is a little bit more prominent than the.

[A]

Than the apply application thing, it looks like. I mean, I'd apply. I bet you the chances of us getting it now would be pretty high. We've actually got to do that.

[D]

I mean, I'm still a bit salty that I didn't get any Cares act money from the. What was that called? The bailout money from COVID The Cares Act.

[A]

Cares Act.

[D]

We didn't take advantage of that. Every right wing podcast that's libertarian took advantage of that.

[A]

Well, I mean, we could still apply.

[D]

Maybe we'll have a disclosure to make next week.

[A]

There we go.

[D]

The $8,000 incubation tier.

[A]

Also just coffee, co op, fair trade coffee, tea or chocolate. No fair trade coffee and hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. Matt left Reckoning. What are you guys incubating over there?

[D]

Last night we had Brian Vokey on the program. This guy sitting right next to me, some guy talking about his experience in the Austin comedy scene and the mothership. We talked about. Talked about Jimmy Dore and also talked about a billionaire. Not a billionaire.

[A]

I don't know if he's a billionaire.

[D]

A CEO stealing memorabilia from a child and then saying, well, if you were faster, you would.

[A]

Oh, is that that Polish guy with the hat? I saw that video.

[D]

It's so fun. Do you see his response to it?

[A]

No.

[D]

He's like, look, you guys are all getting bent out of shape. If you were faster. If he were faster, you wouldn't have the hat.

[A]

He said that to the 8 year old kid, to the media, and then he threatened to sue anybody who makes fun of him.

[D]

So normal stuff going on in their business community. So, yeah, check that out. Patreon.com left reckoning. Also some news out of Canada, where the labor movement is standing up for Palestine.

[A]

See you in the fnaf. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're gonna look back and go like, wow. What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a second. Emma, welcome to the program. What is up, everyone? Fun pack. No, M. You did it. Fun hat. Let's go, Brandon.

[B]

Let's go, Brandon.

[A]

Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today.

[B]

Fundamentally false.

[A]

No, I'm sorry.

[B]

Women.

[A]

Stop talking for a second and let me finish. Where is this coming from? Dude? But.

[F]

Dude, you want to smoke this?

[A]

7A. Yes. Hi.

[B]

Is it safe?

[A]

Yes. Is this me? Is it me? It is you. Is this me?

[B]

Hello?

[A]

Is this me? I think it is you. Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

[F]

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism.

[A]

I'm gonna go snow white. Libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says, of course.

[B]

Gobbledygook.

[A]

We nailed him. So what's 79 plus 21? Challenge man.

[B]

Positively quivering.

[A]

I believe 96.

[B]

I want to say.

[A]

8 5, 7, 2, 1 0. 355-011-SH. 3, 8, 9, 11. For instance, 3, $400. $1900. 5, 4, $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game, actually.

[B]

You're making me think less.

[A]

But let me say this. You call it satire.

[F]

Sam goes satire.

[B]

On top of it all. My favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like, everything you do.

[A]

Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We seen you. All right, folks, folks, folks. It's just the week being weeded out. Obviously. Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I. I don't know, but you should know, people just don't like to entertain ideas anymore. I have a question. Who cares?

[D]

Our chat is enabled.

[A]

Folks. I love it. I do love that. Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump. I'm losing it, bro. Two o', clock, we're already late and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag.

[B]

Outrageous.

[A]

Like. What is wrong with you? Love you. Bye. Love you. Bye. Bye.