Loading summary
Transcript41 lines
- [00:03]
A
Welcome to another episode of Truth in the Devil's cut. I'm Amy McGrath. Today I'm joined by Zach Dembo, a former Navy JAG officer, former federal prosecutor. Zach and I have a lot in common, but the most important one is that we've both taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not a president, not a political party. The Constitution. And then along the way, we both decided to make sure we continued to live that oath. Zach is now the 2026 Democratic nominee for Kentucky's 6th congressional district, which is an open seat this year. Zach, thanks so much for joining me.
- [00:44]
B
Great. Amy, thanks so much for having me on. It's really a pleasure. Longtime listener, first time caller.
- [00:51]
A
Awesome. Well, it's great for you to be a guest. I can't wait for everyone to get to hear from you. There's a lot to talk. Bob, I want to start with something that you and I have in common, which is that we both took an oath to the Constitution. You took it in a couple of different ways in the military and also in your role at the Department of Justice. And the oath is something that most Americans may have heard about, but, like, relatively few people have actually took that oath. What does that mean to you? To swear an oath to defend the Constitution?
- [01:29]
B
Yeah, you know, it's such an important moment, and I'm sure you swore it more times than I did, because at least for me, I don't know how they did it in the Corps, but, you know, they would have us do it anytime we got promoted, too. And so I ended up doing twice in the military, and then once when I became a prosecutor at the Civil Rights Division, and then once as a prosecutor, federal prosecutor here in Lexington. It's enormously meaningful, you know, every time I thought about the words and thought about, you know, bearing true faith and allegiance to the same. And you know that it's a choice, right? As you know, part of the oath is that I take this oath freely, without reservation or purpose of evasion. Like it is a choice that you make. And so it's amazing to me how many people take that oath despite knowing they have the choice and yet think they can disregard it. And unfortunately, as we know, that's the case with too many people who are professing to be public servants right now.
- [02:28]
A
Yeah, right now. And I actually think about the oath quite a bit because I've often thought, is it just something that you take and you wear the uniform? And it applies for when you wear the uniform or when you're in the job. And it's actually for me, and it may be not true for everybody, but for me, it was like, lifelong. This is something that I'm going to do my entire life.
- [02:50]
B
Sure, yeah. No, I totally agree. And I think you and I know a lot of folks from the military, from the civilian side, who feel that way, too. I would say the vast majority of public servants feel that way. They're just not the ones who are usually out on social media or in Congress.
- [03:09]
A
Well, you had a very successful career in the Justice Department, but you chose to run for office. Why? Why is this the right moment? Why? Why was it the right time to do that?
- [03:23]
B
It wasn't an easy decision. And I'll be honest, I hate politics. I hate kind of the partisan system. I'm sure, like you, I've sat there and saw as Congress can't get anything passed, they have partisan squabbling every other day. And so it wasn't something that was definitely on my radar. But when this administration came in and changed the mission of the department from fighting for you and me and working Kentuckians to fighting for the corrupt, for the rich and powerful, and basically being the president's personal law firm, as you know, that oath we swore never said anything about loyalty to any one president. And whether it was a Democrat or a Republican, I wasn't about to be part of a department that was you serving a president's political interest. So I made the difficult choice of resigning, walking away from 11 years of federal service. And then the question was, how do I keep fighting for folks? How do I keep honoring that oath, as you said, even if I'm not a part of the federal government anymore? And ultimately, I kind of figured, well, you can't knock it till you try it. If I hate politics so much, maybe I should try doing a different approach and seeing if it's something that appeals to folks here in Kentucky and can get some good done for people.
- [04:41]
A
We have a lot in common. Because I sort of looked at it the same way in the sense that, look, this is hard. Politics is not a place that I always envisioned that I would ever go. But if we are people that love this country, we have to get in the trenches and try to fight for it. And I do want to talk about the Justice Department a little bit, though, because the military you've been in, both the institutions of the military and the Justice Department, both of those institutions are very highly regarded, or used to be very highly regarded, not only from in the United States, but around the world. The Justice Department was kind of the gold standard for justice. I mean, I remember being in Afghanistan and the Afghans were trying to develop their Justice Department, and night and day, the corruption and everything that you were seeing, that we just didn't have that culture here in the United States. We had a really good culture. And the United States was a place where the rule of law was supposed to be above politics.
- [05:52]
B
Look, it's unprecedented and obviously I feel for my fellow public servants, but I don't think any of them would necessarily want our sympathy. And me resigning, I'm not doing that to seek sympathy. It's a concern about the mission. Right? We all joined because we wanted to be part of this mission. And you and I both know that there are only so many people. We think of the federal government as this vast amorphous entity, but ultimately it's made up of people. And so when folks are resigning or when they are being reassigned from important things like public integrity, like child sexual abuse, like fighting the cartels to say this out of control immigration policy, or to prosecuting the president's political enemies, the thing I always like to tell folks is, you know, who's not resigning, who's not being reassigned? Cartel criminals. Right. You know, who's not resigning or being reassigned? Corrupt local politicians that normally would be pursued, you know, so there's just an enormous opportunity for criminals against whom we were already having enough difficulty to be able to prosper because the federal government has unfortunately politicized law enforcement to the extent that everything we thought it stood for, which is let's follow the law and let's pursue justice in a nonpartisan manner. Unfortunately, the leadership has taken it away. Now, again, to be clear, there are lots of people that I'm sure you and I both know who are line career prosecutors and FBI agents who are doing amazing work under difficult circumstances. And so I'm always careful to say I don't think that this is throughout the entire institution. And I know of people who are still persevering, but when I think of my colleagues at the Civil Rights Division, which is basically unrecognizable now, they have lost more than 75% of their talent. And this is an institution that was created under a Republican administration to enforce constitutional rights. I don't know what's more American than that, but, you know, they have explicitly targeted folks who wanted to fulfill that mission. And now it's a shell of its former self. And so even the best career civil servants aren't able to prevail over that because ultimately as we know, it's a hierarchical, top down institution and the top is, I'm sad to say, corrupt.
- [08:13]
A
The Department of Justice's priorities are also way different. I mean, you talked about some of the shifting going to immigration. We now see a fifth of the FBI, I guess, is doing immigration enforcement. Now we have the Department of Justice doing things like ramping up their efforts, going after healthcare fraud, but only in Democratic led states like Minnesota or California, we're seeing the Department of Justice suing states for access to their voter rolls. I mean, it's not just the Department of Justice is like, like DHS is doing all kinds of weird stuff that they were never supposed to be doing, but it's so out of whack. What are your thoughts on actually fixing things here? I mean, especially, you know, when you get into Congress. How do we fix this? Is this just gonna snap back after Trump is gone?
- [09:08]
B
Yeah, well, look, I think that there are a lot of systemic problems, problems that have been revealed by this, and one of them is how much we relied on unenforceable norms. They're not in the law, but there's internal Justice Department memoranda, for example, or a manual that the Justice Department is free to just disregard anytime it likes. And so one of the things I'm interested in is making sure that no administration, Democratic or Republican, can just disregard these norms. And the assumption was always, well, if any president does that, the political blowback will be so serious he or she would never risk it. But of course, I don't think the founders or anyone else ever anticipated you'd have an entire branch of government, the Congress, subsuming their power and giving it up to the executive. And so I think the first thing we gotta do, obviously, is flip the House and shed a light on it. But then I think we need to think about, do we need to be putting some of these norms that can be so easily disregarded into law in a way where they can't be just cast aside willy nilly by any administration who comes in. But you're exactly right. I don't think it goes away immediately when Trump is no longer in office. Trump is, in my view, a symptom and not a cause of a lot of problems that we had in our government and our political institutions. And if we don't learn those lessons when we flip the House, I think that's political malfeasance. I think there's a lot of things that we can learn from this to end up making things better. If we make it through to the other side and rebuild in a way that doesn't lead to folks voting a felon into office in 2024. Because obviously if things were going great, that wouldn't have been the option they would have chosen.
- [10:59]
A
Yeah, well, we have to. But I mean, it's interesting that you outline it that way. The step one is sort of highlight what's going on. We do that with a flipped Congress in this year and then probably the best that we can hope for is for the courts to stand firm for the next two years maybe. And hopefully. And then we're going to have to fix what we now have seen is a broken system. But here's what I worry about. We have a new Democratic maybe administration comes in, hopefully in 2029 with the 2028 election. Hopefully that will happen. And they sort of get rid of all of the complicit leaders, you might call them corrupt within the DOJ at the highest ranks. And I would too, but certainly complicit. We get rid of them and a lot of people think that's politically motivated and that kind of cycle keeps happening. And then when you have professionals who care about the rule of law, they may not want to sign up because you see this flip every time we have a different administration. I worry about that. You know, I worry about that in the military too, at the higher ranks. Am I wrong? Is that sort of overblown?
- [12:23]
B
No, no, I think you're exactly right. And you know, kind of like what we did after Watergate. Right. I think there needs to be a lot of thought as to what the correct reckoning is that has accountability, that absolutely doesn't shy away from holding folks accountable, but at the same time recognizing that, as you said, there is some irreparable damage that's done that maybe we couldn't address in the way that would have been normal pre2024. And so I think you're exactly right. I'm worried about that in the military too. You know, I mean, I'm sure you saw this too. But when the administration came in and fired all the three star Jags, the judge advocates, general, the head lawyers in each branch, that was unprecedented and you know, was just the beginning of all sort of politicization of admirals and generals and selections and all that. And I do worry that, you know, that sort of reputational damage, that sort of psychic damage to these institutions and the trust that the American people puts in them, it's going to be take far more than an election to restore those. So I think you're Absolutely right. That it's something to be concerned about. I'm glad. I've talked to some of my former DOJ colleagues who are already trying to think about how do we restore faith and make sure everyone knows that they're shooting down the middle and following the law and evidence and that this isn't just some part of a cycle of. Of retribution. But I totally agree with your point. And I'd be curious to hear what you think about from the military side, how we restore some of the faith here, because I also, you know, I had all sorts of misconceptions before I went into the Navy about what people would be like in it and what politics would be like and everything. And it was so refreshing that none of those things were accurate at all. And it was just an amazing cross section of the American public. And no one cared what anyone's political beliefs were or their background was. They just wanted to accomplish the mission. And I know there are a lot of amazing active duty and reserve side members doing that right now, but I worry about it. Like you.
- [14:38]
A
Well, and I think it's interesting that you talked about, hey, we're going to have to codify some of these things that we all thought were norms that people were just gonna follow. We're gonna have to. And that is a big task, is a task that you as a member of Congress are gonna have to take on is very, very important. I think right now, not only from the Justice Department, but you asked me, what about the military? We need to look at that too. We have these nonpartisan boards for promotions, and they've been very good, they're very thorough. And then just now we have this one guy, this Fox News Weekend co host that goes in and I don't like women, I don't like minorities and just plucks who. I don't like anybody that had diversity anywhere in a tweet in the past, I'm gonna take them out now. We have New York Times reported that the current chief of Naval operations got there because he around, you know, and did some. Some possibly unethical things in the confirmation hearings that Hegseth went through. And also that he was not on the list of, you know, people that were sort of vetted by the service or that job qualified. You saw that with the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Maybe some of that stuff needs to get codified.
- [16:17]
B
Right? No, I mean, I agree. And you know, as, you know, those, those boards, the systems they've created for those boards to take out bias, to take out any Sort of possible concern. You know, I just. Especially when it comes to the flag level. Those were the folks who had done the service, whose peers, and a very, very carefully crafted system selected. And so, if anything, you know, the Defense Secretary's claim is that, oh, this is taking into account things like race or sex. And in fact, I'm quite sure that they created this system and they were picked because they were the best qualified. Ironically, it's him, of course, who's taking into account race and sex and considering that as some sort of factor. So it's hard because, as in so many kind of messed up political systems, they are doing what they're accusing others of, whether it's lawfare, whether it's politicizing the promotion process. And look, it's ingenious because as you said, it makes it very difficult for us to correct that without appearing to make it seem like, well, this is just politics as usual, even though at no point during the military's history has this ever happened.
- [17:31]
A
Let's talk very briefly about Todd Blanche, Mr. Trump's personal lawyer. Why should people care about whether he gets confirmed as Attorney General or not? Like, why. Why do my. Why would my neighbors care? Why should they care?
- [17:48]
B
Yeah, well, when it comes to the hardest calls about law enforcement, so whether a warrant is going to be issued to search someone's home, whether a subpoena is going to be issued for a reporter, whether someone is going to be charged with a federal crime, I mean, those are some of the most serious things a government can do. Because either if they choose not to, let's say, for example, in the Eric Adams case, which was one of the early alarm bells for me, where the Democratic mayor of New York had a very serious public corruption case against him, and they decided, you know what? We're gonna dismiss this so we have leverage over this Democratic mayor. And as you, just like you didn't matter to me that this guy was a Democrat. What mattered is the case against him was compelling, and it appeared he'd abused the public trust, and they were trying to dismiss it. So in some cases, someone who committed serious crimes might go free. And in other cases, when you look at folks like James Comey or others that are being prosecuted based on virtually no evidence, innocent people can be prosecuted. And so Todd Blanche is going to be the person making that decision.
- [18:55]
A
The attorney general is the government's lawyer, not the president's lawyer. And at the end of the day, you shouldn't have Mr. Trump's personal lawyer in that position and totally agree with you on that, but it's sometimes hard to connect the dots for people on why that's important. One thing I've always believed is that when Congress makes decisions about sending Americans into harm's way, I've always thought we need more people in Congress who have been there, done that to weigh in on those decisions. And now I've been completely disgusted by the lack of responsibility Congress has failed to take in this current conflict that Trump started with Iran. But I've always felt like it's important to have people who are veterans at the table who've actually served, because the perspective doesn't guarantee that everybody agrees, but it changes sort of how you approach decision making, particularly decision making when it comes to our men and women who are serving and the use of force around the world. And maybe I'm idealistic, but I kind of think that if we had more veterans in Congress right now, we would not be running away. Congress would not be running away from an up and down vote on this war. But I kind of want to get your take. Do you think veterans bring a unique perspective to Congress?
- [20:32]
B
Absolutely. And yeah, you highlight something that's bothered me for a while, which is now some of this is thanks to the draft, but in the 1970s, the number of military veterans in Congress was nearly three quarters, 75%. That number is now below, I think, 18%. Right. And as you say, that's some of the most fundamental questions that Congress can face. Do we send men and women into harm's way? I think we're seeing the problem with not having veterans because they feel scared, I think to be labeled anti defense or somehow unpatriotic for not just going along with the President, even though this is clearly a not thought out, not justifiable use of force that has resulted in none of the strategic objectives the President has laid out and has been on again, off again so many times. And you know, we've had to, we've borne a lot of the cost. Even in Kentucky, you know, two of the service members who died were from Kentucky, and that's obviously the most serious. But all of us obviously have also been paying the price at the gas pump and farmers buying diesel. And it's all complete, completely foreseeable and it's all completely preventable. And I just wish that Congress had done its job from the beginning and said, wait a second, you're sending these folks, you're sending these airstrikes in. You don't have an exit strategy, you have constantly shifting objectives. You're stating some of which are completely implausible. Then later on they reveal this deal. And I was glad that they were attempting to go to diplomacy, but the deal was even worse than what the situation was before we got in. And now the deal's off again and we're back to this. But I would like to think, and maybe, like you, maybe that's idealistic, but I would like to think if you had more veterans at that table, veterans who are used to working for the mission and not for any party, that they could get together and say, listen, this doesn't make sense. And I'm hoping that few Republicans who've started breaking rank will be the beginning of more being willing to stand up for their country and not just being worried about their party or who the president is.
- [22:49]
A
Yeah. I mean, if there's one thing we should have Learned from the 20 years of wars, you know, for myself, for three combat tours, Afghanistan, Iraq, there's one thing we should have learned as a country, at Congress in particular, is that we have to continue to look at why we are there, what are we doing? And Congress has to have a say. The American people have to have a say, or it just keeps going on and on and on, and we just keep sending money and people, and it's not well thought through. You know, look, if it's. If it's important, vote on it. We need to go to war. I've always said we need to go
- [23:27]
B
to where there's times.
- [23:27]
A
We need to go to war.
- [23:28]
B
Sure.
- [23:28]
A
Vote on it.
- [23:29]
B
Right.
- [23:30]
A
Put it to a vote. You know, that's our democracy. But, you know, that's just my opinion. We've talked a lot about you, but tell us what's most important for Kentucky's 6 congressional district right now?
- [23:45]
B
Look, you know, as I said earlier, obviously there are all sorts of things coming out of D.C. that are incredibly upsetting that I think are a betrayal of a lot of folks in Kentucky. Some of that is the corruption in this administration and the unprecedented way that this administration has benefited the president personally, him earning $2.2 billion while in office and corporations and his family that are aligned with him. But I think the other point to be made is DC Wasn't working great beforehand either. And I know you made a lot of these same arguments that I found to be very compelling when you ran. When people are more devoted to parties and reelections than they are to their constituents, it leads to a pretty broken system. And so it's insane to me that in 2026 members of Congress can trade individual stocks. It's crazy to me that there's only a certain period of time where you can't lobby, but members of Congress are still allowed to lobby at some point after they leave. And, you know, we see the upside of that, which is, you know, I mean, not the upside, the outcome of that, which is we see members of Congress coming in and getting rich while they're there from stocks, and we see them going on and lobbying on behalf of interests that they took votes on behalf of. This seems like pernicious corruption to me. And so I think the thing that Kentucky needs is someone who's going to be an independent voice, someone who's not a politician, who's not looking at this as yet another rung in the ladder or some part of some grand scheme, you know, someone who wants to change things. And as a former corruption prosecutor, this is personal to me. This was my mission and would have continued my mission if the administration hadn't done what it did to the Department of Justice. And Kentuckians are facing a stark choice between myself, a public servant, and a career politician, Ralph Alvarado, who was Matt Bevin's running mate. And I think that's why it's important to Kentuckians. I know a lot of folks, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, all expressed to me their frustration with the administration, but also the Democratic Party and D.C. generally. The first way we change that is by getting new and different people into office. Yeah.
- [26:06]
A
Well, people need to know, first of all, this is an open seat for Kentucky's 6th congressional district. Your opponent was the running mate for the former governor of Kentucky, Matt Bevin, who was probably the worst governor in the entire nation. Okay. Was defeated by Andy Beshear, who's now our current governor, which is awesome. But it's a red state, and you did not win reelection as a Republican, you're really, really, really bad. So there's a real opportunity here if folks are interested in learning more about you and your campaign. How can they find you?
- [26:51]
B
Yeah, so we've got a website, ZachDembo.com and we're also on all the major social media platforms, Facebook, Instagram. Our excellent college interns just started our TikTok, so we're all over there, so please follow. And you know, the thing you bring up, Amy, is exactly what I'd want your listeners to know, which is we have such an amazing opportunity here to flip this seat. We've got two polls showing us basically tide or within spitting distance of Alvarado, which in a district that's been written off as red, is remarkable. But what it shows is every door knocked, every dollar given, every phone call made, every discussion with a neighbor, family member, anyone. It's really going to make the difference here. And so this is one of the rare instances in which not only can we do it, but every single marginal effort is going to be what gets us across the finish line. So I would just ask for anyone interested to get involved because like you, I didn't do this because I wanted to promote myself or get my name on a billboard. I did it because I wanted to achieve the mission and have a great team. And I'm only going to be as good as the team that we have. Thanks to a great team, we won a competitive primary. Now we've got a huge chance in the general and it's going to be dependent on the good citizens of Kentucky and those outside of the district to get involved, as you would hope, in a functioning democracy.
- [28:22]
A
Yeah, I mean, it's true. And the other side is going to have a ton of corporate, multi, billionaire money. You're going to be facing that. But we have a real opportunity. You're a fantastic candidate, really fits the district of Central Kentucky and a real opportunity here. And our country needs you. So I would just have everybody listening. Don't forget about Zach Dembo. Central Kentucky. Kentucky six. Now to Bourbon though.
- [28:50]
B
Okay.
- [28:50]
A
It's very, very important. This called Truth in the Barrel. This is the Devil's Cut edition, which is really kind of in the weeds here. There's lots of distilleries in central Kentucky. So for one I've chosen for today is the Hartfield and Company. This is in Bourbon County. I'm sure you've been there. This is their weeded bourbon here. It's a great to go to their distillery. I've been there several times. Do you have a favorite? Because there's a lot where there are
- [29:23]
B
a lot and you know, a lot of the biggest distilleries as you know, are outside the sixth, but we have some amazing ones in the sixth. And you also know that a lot of the raw materials, whether it's corn or wheat or rye or some of the cooperages are still going to be in the district. And so it's a huge driver. I'm a huge bourbon fan. It's no coincidence that Woodford Reserve is behind me. That's typically the go to just if I'm out and I don't know what they have. And it is also conveniently within the district. But I love especially as we've been celebrating the nation's 250th anniversary. I mean, bourbon is such an American drink and it's so associated with Kentucky, and so I am a huge fan of exploring it. I've not tried the Heartfield we did. I'd love to give it a try at some point, but, yeah, I'd say I'm learning every day about new distilleries and new experiments with different mashes that are fascinating to me.
- [30:31]
A
That's awesome. Yeah. I mean, you have a ton. You have Barrel House and Lexington Castle and Key is awesome too, of course, Woodford and this one out here in Bourbon County. So I like them all. It was always hard for me to answer that question of what's your favorite? But they're all very good. As you look ahead, what gives you hope about the future? And what do you want people to know or take away from our conversation today?
- [31:01]
B
That's a great question. And so often we see with the news media or social media a very, very bleak picture. And I don't want to sugarcoat it, there's a lot of stuff going on that's incredibly troubling. But. And I'm sure you experience this too, being on the campaign trail and meeting real people who aren't the ones going crazy on social media is so affirming and it gives you so much hope. I meet so many people who maybe don't agree with me on everything, but like, what I stand for. And I even meet other people who aren't going to support me, but still are kind and generous folks who aren't rude or some of the things that you'd expect from these keyboard warriors. And so I just always like to tell folks that, you know, the national media would make you think that a Democrat in Flemingsburg has more in common with a Democrat in Manhattan or San Francisco than they do with their neighbor, or that a Republican in stamping ground has more in common with a Texan or a Nebraskan just because they're Republican. I can tell you. And you know, that's not the case in the 6th district. There is far more that unites us than divides us here.
- [32:14]
A
And.
- [32:15]
B
And Kentucky is such a special place, and this is such a special group of people. And while there are lots of things I don't love about campaigning, being able to meet people and have that faith in humanity restored is amazing. And so it's wonderful. And it's also just really fun because obviously I'm a proud Democrat and I've always been a registered Democrat, but I'm not especially partisan. I don't really like parties generally. I don't like how they sort people. And so it's also just really fun meeting people where the first thing they ask isn't what your party? They want to know, where are you from? What does your family do? What are your values? Those are the most important things to me, too. And so it's just really nice to meet people who share those values, who aren't going to be the loudest voices, but in the end, hopefully, they'll be the most important voices in November.
- [33:04]
A
Yeah. That's America. And that's Kentucky. Zach, thanks so much for joining us today. I mean, I really appreciate the conversation and thank you for running, for putting your hat in the arena. It's so important, and I certainly appreciate you. And I hope that people go and check out your campaign, be a part of it, support it if you can, because you are doing the hard work that our country needs right now.
- [33:30]
B
Thank you, Amy. Thanks for having me. Thank you for continuing to put your hat in the ring and also thank you for continuing to be present in this space, because I know a lot of people after they run the first time, sometimes you never hear from them again. And I think that's such a, such a sad thing because there's so much good people can still do. So I'm very grateful you're still in this fight with us, and it's an honor to be here.
- [33:56]
A
Well, cheers to you. It's always good to have candidates on because I get to enjoy good bourbon, and that's really fun. So cheers to you. Okay. And thank you to everyone listening to Truth in the Barrel. I hope you enjoyed today's episode. We're going to be highlighting some other candidates, but this one's a really, really important one. I start with Kentucky, and Zach has a great shot in the 6th congressional district. But be sure to subscribe to Truth in the Barrel. Leave a review. We'll see you next time.