0:00

Hey Prime members, have Have you heard?

0:02

You can listen to your favorite

0:04

podcast Good news! With Amazon Music,

0:06

you have access to the

0:08

largest catalog of ad -free ad-free top

0:10

with your included To start listening,

0:12

download the Amazon Music App for

0:15

free or go to amazon.com

0:17

slash Act for free or That's amazon.com slash

0:19

ad -free podcast to catch up

0:21

on the latest the latest the

0:23

ads. ads. Today

0:25

we're to talk about the prospect of

0:27

Biden issuing of Biden pardons and how the

0:29

media is missing the mark with its

0:31

coverage. mark with I've got two interviews. I'm

0:34

joined by I'm joined by Zetaio's to discuss the

0:36

state of independent media, the impact that

0:38

Israel that played in the election, the and

0:40

why Harris was punished when Trump was

0:42

already assembling a cabinet of pro -Israel pro-Israel hawks.

0:44

And I sit down with with Congressman to

0:46

discuss where Democrats should spend their political

0:48

should spend their Trump, why he supports Trump's he

0:50

commission with Doge Commission with Elon Musk and and his

0:52

thoughts on the DNC thoughts on the DNC chair race.

0:54

I'm and you're listening to... you're listening to

0:56

No Lie. So

0:59

we're in the aftermath of Joe Biden

1:01

granting his son Hunter a pardon, a yet

1:03

now there's talk about Biden issuing Biden issuing

1:05

for people who are possible targets for

1:07

Trump's retribution campaign. People like retribution Liz

1:09

Cheney, Anthony Fauci. Schiff, Liz Cheney, the deal,

1:11

and this applies to this applies to the same

1:13

exact way it applies to way it applies to

1:15

and Fauci. and Fauci. If you are more

1:17

upset with Joe Joe Biden being forced

1:20

to consider the extraordinary step of of

1:22

pardoning his own officials, own officials, are

1:24

about Donald Trump appointing someone

1:26

who has promised to use the

1:28

federal government to exact personal

1:30

retribution for him, then you are

1:32

simply not paying attention. These attention.

1:34

These Biden as some lawless thug

1:36

for Hunter. Hunter Act as if

1:38

it's happening in a vacuum. It's

1:40

not. It It is happening expressly. the guy

1:42

guy who Trump tapped for FBI has a

1:44

a literal of list of people that he

1:46

would try to prosecute. You You

1:48

can't have fainting spells about the prospect

1:50

of pardons without also acknowledging why those

1:52

pardons are being considered in the first

1:54

place. first place. is not to say, by

1:57

the way, that Biden having come

1:59

out beforehand and promising not. pardon hunter wasn't a

2:01

bad move because it was. Like I'm

2:03

not going to defend him lying, he

2:05

lied. And he should have known better

2:07

than to make some sweeping claim about

2:10

how he would wield the pardon power,

2:12

given that Trump was probably going to

2:14

staff his own cabinet with people who

2:16

would carry out his vengeance tour. So

2:18

no, that's not acceptable. But, with all

2:21

of that said, let's not fall into

2:23

the same both sides' bullshit trap that

2:25

legacy media falls into. Yes, Biden lied,

2:27

but no, him pardoning Hunter for lying

2:29

on a gun application form is not

2:31

the same as Trump's promises to pardon

2:34

the January 6th insurrectionists for storming the

2:36

capital and looking to kill Nancy Pelosi.

2:38

No, him pardoning someone like Adam's shift

2:40

preemptively for the crime of shift presiding

2:42

over Trump's impeachment trial is not the

2:45

same. As Trump having pardoned Michael Flynn

2:47

and Roger Stone and Paul Manafort and

2:49

Charles Kushner and Steve Bannon and George

2:51

Papadopoulos, Rod Blagojevich, Joe Arpio, Elliot Broidey,

2:53

Denise Sousa, if you are acting in

2:55

anything even resembling good faith, you will

2:58

recognize that the two sides here are

3:00

not the same. Granted, that won't stop

3:02

these right-wing operatives from coming out and

3:04

saying, oh well, Biden pardoning hunter now

3:06

establishes the precedent that Trump will be

3:09

able to use to pardon everybody. Right,

3:11

because Trump needed a precedent. Because Trump

3:13

wouldn't possibly have done anything corrupt unless

3:15

he was absolutely sure that his actions

3:17

were firmly rooted in precedent. I mean,

3:19

honestly, the only thing worse than Trump's

3:22

overt corruption are the people in the

3:24

media who pretend that somehow that corruption

3:26

wouldn't exist if not for the precedent

3:28

established by the left. Again, the real

3:30

story amid all of this is not

3:33

that Biden pardoned his kid, which yes,

3:35

he lied about, and it was a

3:37

shitty thing to do, but let's be

3:39

honest, all of us would have done

3:41

if we were in his shoes, left,

3:43

right, and center. Or that he's considering

3:46

preemptorily pardoning other Trump enemies, it's that

3:48

he has to, because Trump's presidency will

3:50

be predicated on his willingness to seek

3:52

revenge on those people. That is the

3:54

story here. That's the part the media

3:57

is missing by refusing to look at

3:59

the bigger picture. That's where the both sides

4:01

narrative drives me nuts. That's the part that

4:03

lets me know the the media won't learn

4:05

its lesson heading into another Trump term. term.

4:07

If you can't say that Joe Biden lying

4:10

about pardoning Hunter was bad, but that

4:12

him being forced to pardon Hunter and

4:14

consider pardoning a raft of other people

4:16

because they will very likely be the

4:18

victims of political persecutions by Trump and

4:20

his by Trump objectively and exponentially worse, then

4:22

it's clear that you are just not

4:24

able to meet the moment that we're

4:26

in right now. now. Next

4:30

up my interviews with with Medi

4:32

Hasan Rokana. No lies brought to you by brought

4:34

to you by pre-alcohol. We're heading toward the We're

4:37

heading toward the holidays means more means

4:39

more drinking, which makes it especially tough

4:41

to wake up feeling fresh. I use

4:43

For that, So I use the deal. Zebiotics the

4:45

deal. Z -biotics, pre -alcohol, is the world's is

4:47

the world's first genetically engineered probiotic.

4:49

It was invented by PhD scientists to

4:51

tackle rough mornings after drinking. drinking. Here's how

4:53

it works. When you drink, alcohol gets

4:55

converted into a toxic a toxic in the gut.

4:57

in It's this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to

4:59

blame for your rough next day. day. -alcohol

5:02

produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down.

5:04

down. Just Just remember to make pre -alcohol your

5:06

first drink of the night, the drink responsibly,

5:08

and you'll feel your best tomorrow. best I was

5:10

a skeptic, was on the fence about pre

5:12

-alcohol at first, but I first tried it

5:14

in it in DC this past summer, and I actually

5:16

felt completely fine the next day, day. which didn't

5:18

didn't think I was capable of anymore. look, So

5:20

look, again, holiday seasons upon us. We're going

5:22

to be consuming a bit more alcohol than

5:25

usual. than usual. you stay on track and not let

5:27

the season throw you off course. the Go

5:29

to throw you off.com zebiotics.com/ learn more and

5:31

get 15 % off your first order

5:33

when you use BTC at at checkout.

5:35

is backed is backed with a 100

5:37

% money back guarantee, so if

5:39

you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll

5:41

refund your money no asked. Remember to

5:44

head to head to.com/BTC and use the use

5:46

the code at checkout for 15% for 15 %

5:48

off. of Zateo News, Medi Now we've got

5:50

the founder of for coming back on. Thanks for Thanks for coming back

5:52

on. So I do for having me, get So I do a

5:54

to get into a broader conversation about the media,

5:56

about the election results, where we go from here. But

5:58

first, I I want to get you you to

6:00

the allegations against Pete Hegg Seth and whether

6:03

the pressure that he's feeling right now and

6:05

that Trump is clearly feeling right now might

6:07

suggest that perhaps Republicans aren't as immune to

6:09

the whole Teflon Don of it all as

6:12

this moment might suggest. It's such a good

6:14

question because I've thought long and hard about

6:16

the Trump era and what Trump gets away

6:18

with and one of the only silver linings

6:21

of all the dark clouds of this era

6:23

is that he is sui generous Trump. There

6:25

doesn't seem to be anyone else like him.

6:27

No one else even in his close orbit

6:29

can get away with the kind of crap

6:32

that he gets away with. So we have

6:34

this whole issue of Matt Gates accused of

6:36

child sex trafficking or whatever it is which

6:38

he denies. You have Peter Hexes accused of

6:41

rape, but hold on. The guy appointing them

6:43

was found liable for sexual abuse, what a

6:45

judge said could be called rape, by a

6:47

jury of his peers in New York. So

6:50

the whole thing is absurd, right? If you

6:52

think about it, who is Trump to sit

6:54

as any kind of judge-jury executioner of his

6:56

cabinet? But that's the world we're in. Trump

6:58

gets a pass. He's been elected, the public

7:01

don't care. But they do seem to care

7:03

about cabinet officials, the media who seem to

7:05

care. It's been a feeding frenzy. his old

7:07

channel this morning. I love the idea that

7:10

we're going to be strong in the world

7:12

and have this strong defense secretary who's going

7:14

to go up against China and Russia, but

7:16

he didn't want me to come help him

7:19

on TV. The same mother, who, by the

7:21

way, wrote an email to him saying, you

7:23

know, he, you know, demanding accountability on both

7:25

of all women. He said, many women, she

7:27

said, who he had abused in some shape

7:30

or form. She's now taken that back, surprise,

7:32

surprise. But not just that. There's the allegations

7:34

of rape. There's the stuff about his own

7:36

views. My colleague, PremTaker Aziteo, just published a

7:39

piece last night going through four of his

7:41

books. And some of the stuff he said

7:43

about women in the military, abortion rights, Muslims,

7:45

immigrants. You just go down the list, Israel,

7:48

America's role in the world, he's a real

7:50

hawk, pretending now to be this kind of

7:52

peace-nake anti-war guy like Trump. a a

7:54

hardcore neocon. So look, there's a lot

7:56

going a lot going

7:59

on. I think you

8:01

put your finger on

8:03

it by saying can the others

8:05

get the others get away with what Trump

8:07

gets away We're now hearing for the Wall

8:09

Street Journal that he might swap in for

8:12

swap him which is hilarious. which is hilarious because Trump

8:14

suggested Ron DeSantis young girls. And it was

8:16

also Trump himself who branded Ron DeSantis Tiny-D. So

8:18

you brand this guy this guy Tiny D

8:20

and now you wanna put him in

8:22

charge of the Pentagon and 1 .3

8:24

million active duty troops? mean, talk

8:26

about undermining your own case. But,

8:29

own more broadly, does this suggest

8:31

that maybe that maybe in a post- Trump

8:33

Republican party that we might revert we might revert back

8:35

to the mean here, and it might not

8:37

feel like the same Trump that they can't

8:39

that they can't get away with all

8:41

the shit that Donald Trump gets away with.

8:43

away with? I I think half halfway I

8:45

I agree with that. I'll I'll tell you

8:48

the 50% I agree with with is yes, they will

8:50

realize that they can't get away with what

8:52

Trump gets away with. Only Trump can

8:54

get away with what Trump's gotten away with

8:56

in terms of personal morality or lack terms

8:58

of all of the other stuff. or Having

9:00

said that, one thing I do worry about

9:02

is Having because of his personal I do worry about

9:04

is Gates went because of his personal personal shit.

9:06

what about the others don't don't have personal shit,

9:08

but are actually scarier, more dangerous in many

9:11

their politics. It's not their politics, it's not Cash Patel being a classic

9:13

it's their of, we Patel know a classic example,

9:15

we don't know what Cash Patel's private life

9:17

is like, I don't really want to know

9:19

what Cash Patel's private life life is. But we

9:21

do know what he on the record. We

9:23

do know that he that go after the media.

9:25

go We do know that We he said he's

9:27

gonna do to the FBI. We do know

9:30

what he said he's gonna do to his

9:32

political opponents, right? We do know he's a

9:34

he's a sycophan and a bag carrier who will allow

9:36

Trump to use the Federal Bureau

9:38

of Investigation as a political weapon. weapon.

9:40

That's all there. Cash Patel probably has

9:42

the vote unless kind of of Collins,

9:45

Collins McConnell stop him. So So that's

9:47

what I'm worried about. Yes, I

9:49

get the personal stuff still

9:51

clearly does, you know, derail nominations,

9:53

even in 2024. But what But

9:55

what about the non -personals by

9:57

the way. the way, There's one

9:59

character, RFK Jr. got the personal stuff

10:01

and the policy stuff, both of which are

10:03

equally crazy bad. Maybe I want to talk

10:05

a little bit about the media right now.

10:08

So you run an independent media company. What

10:10

do you think is the state of independent

10:12

media on the left right now? I

10:15

mean, we're doing well, but as a big

10:17

picture, it's not great compared to the right.

10:19

One of the reasons, Brian, and you know

10:21

this because you and I talked earlier in

10:23

the year, one of the reasons I set

10:25

up Ziteo back in February, March, April, was

10:27

because I left MSMBC and I saw there

10:29

was this gap in the market, but people

10:31

on the right, you know, whether it's your

10:33

Tucker, whether it's your Barry Weiss, Ben Shapiro

10:35

and the Daily hero in the Daily Wire,

10:38

are monetizing, paying audiences online with subscription business

10:40

models. And I was looking around on the

10:42

left, I think no one's really doing it

10:44

on left. You've had huge success on YouTube.

10:46

You cross three million subscribers. Congratulations. But you're

10:48

not running a subscription business. And it hasn't,

10:50

you know, and we know that Cheng and

10:52

the young Turks have been on YouTube for

10:54

a while, and there's been attempts to do

10:56

things on the left. And just narrowing down

10:58

to the subscription model, no one had really

11:01

tried to do a subscription model. We've tried

11:03

to do it. I think we're doing a

11:05

good job. We just crossed 300,000 subscribers globally

11:07

in eight months. We're very pleased with that.

11:09

We're making some good money off subscriptions. We

11:11

have over 40,000 paid subscribers. I saw that

11:13

gap in the market from a purely commercial

11:15

business point, but also. from an ideological point

11:17

of view, why aren't more people doing this

11:19

on the left? Given the left in the

11:21

mainstream media, it's kind of non-existing. MSBC, where

11:23

I used to work, is not left wing.

11:26

People get annoyed when I point to that.

11:28

It's not, right? It's kind of at best

11:30

center left. It's kind of at best centrist

11:32

liberal. It's not supporting the kind of causes

11:34

that the left cares about. And that's a

11:36

problem. And the same with the New York

11:38

Times, the same with the same with the

11:40

same with the Washington. The same with the

11:42

Washington. The conservatives are so successfully branded as

11:44

so successfully branded as so successfully branded as

11:46

so successfully branded, that actually there hasn't been

11:49

a real space for actual liberals and lefties

11:51

to go, well, these are our offerings in

11:53

an enterprise. Because they're so afraid of being

11:55

branded as liberal that they have to overcome.

11:57

and say to prove that in fact they're

11:59

not. Yes. And that then follows through into

12:01

independent media, because then you're like, well, why

12:03

do we need all this independent media? You

12:05

already have the New York Times and MSMBC.

12:07

No, they're not. Like my politics, the table

12:09

is very different to New York Times and

12:12

MSMBC. So, I think, look, to answer your

12:14

question, it's not in a great shape, because

12:16

financially the support hasn't been there, either from

12:18

ordinary people, or whoever else does. also from

12:20

the big investors, the big donors, the big

12:22

money folks, I mean, it's a truism, but

12:24

we got to point this out, like right

12:26

wing media is catering to wealthy people. So

12:28

it's easy for them to raise money off

12:30

of wealthy people. Right. Lefty media is saying,

12:32

hey, let's have some more regulation, a bit

12:34

bigger government, higher taxes on the wealthy. that

12:37

doesn't naturally attract a lot of people outside

12:39

of the sorrows of this world. So it

12:41

is an issue when it comes to funding,

12:43

when it comes, I mean we've been very

12:45

lucky, I raised I raised four million dollars

12:47

from kind of friends and family around and

12:49

from you know people interested parties, small business

12:51

people who wanted to support the mission, but

12:53

you know I didn't go big big, it's

12:55

much easier on the right. I mean venture

12:57

bureau turns up and says to a fracking

13:00

to a fracking, give me four million to

13:02

launch and that's how daily wire launches. Totally,

13:04

totally. Well, okay, so that's the money perspective

13:06

from the left-wing independent media, but what about

13:08

democratic politicians? Because there is an onus, I

13:10

think the right has been really successful and

13:12

really effective at getting their politicians, their elected

13:14

officials, to lay hands on right-wing media so

13:16

that they can then prop them up and

13:18

allow those people to act as emissaries for

13:20

the right-wing mission. We don't have or we

13:23

haven't had for a very very long time

13:25

anything like that on the left because I

13:27

think the left wrongly to your point for

13:29

exactly the reason that we were talking about

13:31

before views mainstream media as their message distribution

13:33

system. Notwithstanding the fact that mainstream media is

13:35

bending over backwards to prove that it is

13:37

not an arm of the Democratic Party in

13:39

anywhere close to the same way that rightly

13:41

media. an arm of the

13:43

Republican Party, to serve

13:45

as a propaganda arm of

13:48

the GOP. So do you think

13:50

you think that there's

13:52

some acknowledgement now about

13:54

where they went wrong

13:56

toward a world where move toward

13:58

a world where Democratic

14:00

politicians, Democratic elected officials

14:02

to going to embrace

14:04

independent media, recognizing that

14:06

we need them to

14:08

close the gap, the

14:11

asymmetry that exists in

14:13

our media ecosystem? I think

14:15

you answered your own

14:17

question. It's the It's

14:19

the issue. is It's the

14:21

inability of the left

14:23

wing media, which is

14:25

a good thing act

14:27

act as a propaganda arm

14:29

for a party in the way that the in the

14:31

mean, the right has a very specific model, right?

14:33

a It is propaganda right? It is to

14:35

down to down to your independent, you know,

14:38

YouTubers. know, It is very much propaganda. And And

14:40

like like saying this because they think it

14:42

does it both sides, both sides, both, no. I know

14:44

that because I to work there, right? I used I there for

14:46

three years. I have my praise my MSNBC.

14:48

MSM I three years. But one thing that

14:50

annoys me when people go, that the left

14:52

has MSNBC the the right has Fox. They're

14:55

not the same thing, right? They're just

14:57

not. MSNBC does not. They're just not. MSM to sound

14:59

whatever, I know it's going to come across your I know it's going

15:01

to sound but to does not act as a propaganda

15:03

for YouTube I know that because they used to

15:05

work does right? as a propaganda. Hannity called Trump every

15:07

night of his presidency. Rachel - He was on

15:09

on with him him at did not call Joe Biden

15:11

up every night to chat to him and

15:14

act as a de and of staff. de I'm not

15:16

saying they're not pro No Of course they are,

15:18

but it's not the same propaganda. They'll still

15:20

cover the news. they are, but wouldn't even cover Hexeth

15:22

till today. They didn't cover anything to do

15:24

with Peter Hexeth. It's not a news network, so

15:26

we should stop calling today. They But to go

15:28

back to your broader question do with politicians. Exet.

15:31

It's not a news things So we should stop

15:33

calling it. They are to blame partly,

15:35

as you say, for not propping

15:37

up a left -wing space and treating

15:39

the and NBC's, well, that's that's our message

15:41

distribution platform. Big mistake. Big mistake. 100% %

15:43

agree with you on that. And I

15:45

wouldn't And wouldn't just say you know, mainstream

15:47

Democrats, Bernie, as as someone who's criticized the

15:49

mainstream media has not supported has media. Cenk left-way

15:51

a great monologue the other day I saw

15:53

on my social media where he was saying,

15:56

you know, where right to come out and

15:58

say we need a new Bernie's right to come out and say,

16:00

an alternative to the mainstream Democrat, but he's not done anything

16:02

to build it up. Bernie Sanders loves mainstream media. He's always

16:04

on the Sunday shows. Will he do an interview me? Very

16:06

rarely, even though I'm probably the only cable host between 2020

16:08

and 2023, who had endorsed Bernie Sanders, who had a show

16:10

on cable, never came on my show. So that was a

16:12

problem. And I think you've had the same problem with a

16:14

lot of mainstream democratic party leaders who you have a huge

16:16

audience, but they'd much rather go on a Sunday morning show,

16:18

which has way fewer viewers than you do. So I think

16:20

that's one problem, is that they just are not smart enough,

16:23

savvy enough to see the opportunities here. They're very old school,

16:25

very conventional, very cautious. One thing I always say about liberals.

16:27

It's about the mindset of caution that permeates the entire movement.

16:29

And then number two, I think there is something we should

16:31

be proud of, which is one of the reasons they don't

16:33

just want to turn up on left independent media, is because

16:35

we're not propaganda arms, right? Even if you are pro-democratic party,

16:37

as you clearly are, you don't deny that, if Robert Menendez

16:39

came on your show, you would ask him about the gold

16:41

bars. Right, correct. But the equivalent of Robert Menendez turns up

16:43

on Newsmax, they won't. And I think that's the problem, right?

16:45

Fundamentally, is that this comes back to the reality-based universe. At

16:47

the end of the day, no matter what our biases are,

16:49

no matter what MS NBC's politics are, people on the liberal

16:52

left are still going to live in a reality-based universe. Still

16:54

going to try and do the basics of journalism matter what

16:56

our personal opinions are. That's gone on the right. That's not

16:58

my opinion. Many you had said something that really caught my

17:00

mind caught my eye and that was this this idea of

17:02

a mindset of caution among Democrats. This election was in large

17:04

part a referendum on on I think the authenticity and relatability.

17:06

in their politicians. I mean, you have somebody like Trump who

17:08

objectively is not, has much lower threshold for caution than somebody

17:10

like Kamala Harris does. And I think that we're seeing that

17:12

more broadly in the kind of media figures that are promoted.

17:14

right versus the media figures

17:16

that are promoted on the left.

17:18

There is a degree of

17:21

like throwing caution to the wind.

17:23

Of course, that's all on

17:25

a backdrop of, you know, pushing

17:27

back against political correctness. so

17:29

inherently you're going to have more

17:31

of that on the right

17:33

anyway. But do you think that

17:35

this election is going to

17:37

kind of reverse the Democrats embrace

17:39

of caution that we've seen,

17:41

you know, from, you know, the

17:43

days of Hillary Clinton all

17:45

the way to this campaign, which,

17:48

you know, was probably less

17:50

willing to go on certain shows

17:52

because it would pose some

17:54

risks. first of all, I'm glad

17:56

you dated about to Hillary

17:58

Clinton because Barack Obama was actually

18:00

a very cautious president. But

18:02

when he campaigned, he wasn't cautious.

18:04

I've always found the interesting

18:06

dichotomy. When you talk about Obama,

18:08

you have to divide between

18:10

the campaigner, the candidate Obama and

18:12

the president Obama. Obama as

18:14

a president was super cautious, too

18:17

cautious for my liking. But

18:19

as a campaign, if you remember

18:21

2012, he didn't run as

18:23

an incumbent. He ran almost as

18:25

an insurgent and portrayed Mitt

18:27

Romney as the establishment capitalist, Bane

18:29

guy who had to be

18:31

stopped. Democrats haven't run like that

18:33

for a long time, as guy

18:35

Obama ran in 2008 or

18:37

even 12. Hillary didn't run like

18:39

that. And Joe Biden certainly

18:41

this year before he pulled out,

18:43

wasn't running like that. And

18:46

Kamala Harris, with her Uber brother

18:48

in law, didn't run like

18:50

that. And I think why I'm

18:52

pessimistic about whether Democrats are

18:54

going to embrace kind of boldness

18:56

and drop some of their

18:58

caution is twofold. Number one, we've

19:00

seen no evidence of it

19:02

since Election Day. We've seen plus

19:04

and all of the cutter

19:06

and all the team of advisors

19:08

around Harris doing the Pod

19:10

Save America interview, doing the Atlantic

19:13

Ron Brownstein interview and basically

19:15

saying, we got nothing wrong. We

19:17

did nothing wrong. We're not

19:19

contrite. We have no apologies. We

19:21

do it all the same.

19:23

And the worst part of these

19:25

interviews they've been doing these

19:27

post mortems is they keep going,

19:29

well, you have to understand

19:31

we inherited a really bad situation.

19:33

The internal polling was really

19:35

bad. Joe Biden was more unpopular

19:37

than even you knew. And

19:39

why? Yeah, F, did you not

19:42

break with Biden then? As

19:44

some of us said. It actually

19:46

makes it even worse for

19:48

them, not breaking with Biden, but

19:50

them now admitting that they

19:52

knew he was more unpopular than

19:54

the public knew. Because then

19:56

the arguments were, were, oh well, well,

19:58

we can't break with a sitting

20:00

president. You can if your

20:02

internal polling is telling you that

20:04

he is toxic and pulling

20:06

you down. down. So So that's number

20:08

one, I don't see them

20:11

going when even in their in their they're not

20:13

not willing to accept what

20:15

they did wrong. wrong. And number

20:17

two, two, it's a personnel thing, Brian,

20:19

Until you are able to

20:21

change the pundit class, the consultant

20:23

class, and of course the

20:25

actual members of of Congress, you're not

20:27

going to be able to to

20:29

be able to have to take chances. When I

20:31

look at people look at people like... you know,

20:33

someone like a like a Greg Austin. in Austin. I

20:35

like him not just because I share

20:38

his politics and because he's a member

20:40

of the squad. he's a I like the

20:42

not just because she not my politics. Clearly

20:44

my have similar Clearly, we like these kind

20:46

of politicians is Why I like of their approach

20:48

to messaging, of their approach to politics their

20:50

not to take shit from anyone, take

20:53

to go out there, is take risks. take

20:55

risks. test out messages, right? That until you have

20:57

more politicians willing to do that within

20:59

the Democratic Party, Party who just willing

21:01

to turn willing play it up, play keep

21:03

their heads down, down, that's gonna be

21:05

a problem going forward. I Well,

21:07

think one thing from that

21:10

interview, from the the America, America Kamala

21:12

leadership interview that I interview that

21:14

I think did actually that needs to that

21:16

there was something that needs to

21:18

change within the Democratic that there's a lot

21:20

of apologizing happening that there's a lot

21:22

of apologizing happening and tiptoeing around

21:24

certain special interest groups and making

21:26

sure that they don't say anything to

21:28

turn they would then have to,

21:30

you know, turn around five minutes

21:33

later for and apologize the get on

21:35

the phone and explain to these

21:37

people. people. And that does, I think, present itself or

21:39

I think. itself in itself then

21:41

itself in a way a little bit then

21:43

the campaigns are a little bit more

21:45

cautious because Party know a big 10 is

21:47

a but we're But we're also the party

21:49

that's going to stand up and

21:51

protect trans people and is going to protect Special

21:53

interest groups. And so I so I think the

21:55

way that we're we're seeing that now

21:57

is that that has manifested in

21:59

more of a desire to be, or

22:01

a need, to be, to be

22:03

careful. The reason they didn't come

22:05

out more economically popular, this is

22:08

not because of some pressure group.

22:10

It's probably more, I can't prove

22:12

this, but from the reporting, it's

22:14

people like Tony Harris, her brother-in-law,

22:16

from Uber, who were telling it,

22:18

tone down the stuff, stop bashing

22:20

big business, right? And who knows

22:22

what Plough was saying. And the

22:24

problem groups, the activists. Fundamentally though,

22:26

Hillary, Joe, Carmler, they weren't listening

22:28

to those groups as their number

22:30

one, you know, sounding board in

22:32

the morning every day. They were

22:34

listening to donors, they were listening

22:36

to pundits, they were listening to

22:38

consultants. And I think that's where

22:40

the problem lies in the Democratic

22:42

Party right now fundamentally. With that

22:44

said, then, do you think that

22:46

there is going to be a

22:48

higher threshold for dissent within the

22:50

Democratic Party? I know that basically

22:52

we're in a moment right now

22:54

where you have a lot of,

22:56

you know, the more moderate Democrats

22:58

who are saying that that progressives

23:00

was the more moderate Democrats who

23:02

are saying that that progressivism was

23:04

the problem and they can point

23:06

to the fact that Jared Golden

23:08

won his district and ran far

23:11

ahead of Kamla, where she had

23:13

Liz Cheney on the campaign trail

23:15

on the campaign trail. in more

23:17

instances than she did embrace progressivism

23:19

at the end. So what do

23:21

you think that the Democrats do

23:23

moving forward in terms of figuring

23:25

out where they're going to, I

23:27

guess, whether the party tax right

23:29

or whether the party tax left?

23:31

But that's the problem. I don't

23:33

think it's about going right or

23:35

left. I think it's about whether

23:37

you're going to have a fight

23:39

or whether you're not going to

23:41

have a fight. And this is

23:43

what I've said for a while.

23:45

I like Congress members like Eric

23:47

Swalwell, not because he and I

23:49

are on the same page ideologically,

23:51

but he's way to my right.

23:53

But I like Swalwell, because he

23:55

and I are on the same

23:57

page ideologically, he's way to the

23:59

right. authentic, correct? That they

24:01

say right to repair in her case,

24:03

you know, anti-monopoly in his case. This

24:06

is what we need to be talking

24:08

about right now. It's not about whether

24:10

you sign a tick box of I'm

24:12

left, I'm right, I do these policies

24:14

on it. It's about who you're fighting

24:16

for. Do you have a fighting spirit?

24:18

Do people know what you stand for?

24:20

Are you authentic? Or are you just

24:22

a kind of poll tested, focus group

24:24

tested, bland person who no one thinks

24:26

is going to fight for them in

24:28

Washington DC? Right, right. I mean, in

24:30

large part, this was, strangely enough, it

24:32

did feel like a reference. I mean,

24:34

you even hear somebody like, Chank, come

24:36

out and say that this is, this

24:38

election result is the, is the result

24:40

of, of the establishment losing and, and

24:42

more of the anti-establishment forces winning. And

24:44

so, moving forward, I mean, Democrats have,

24:46

have, Democrats, don't generally nominate for their

24:48

party standard bear somebody who is anti-establishment

24:50

because by saying we have to protect

24:52

our institutions we have to protect our

24:54

democracy for so many people out there

24:57

for whom democracy and our institutions isn't

24:59

working that is not the message they

25:01

want to hear that is the message

25:03

that's going to push them away and

25:05

so how do we take that into

25:07

account in our candidates moving forward for

25:09

a party that Look, in one wing,

25:11

wants somebody like Joe Biden, who is

25:13

as establishment as it gets, he's been

25:15

in politics for 50 years, but by

25:17

that same token, we're missing out on

25:19

a broad swath of people for whom

25:21

the establishment and democracy and our institutions

25:23

is actually... the polar opposite of what

25:25

they're looking for and something that they

25:27

won't pull the lever for in the

25:29

ballot box. I think you put your

25:31

finger on it where defending democracy in

25:33

abstract is fine, but when you're defending

25:35

institutions that people hate for good reason

25:37

in many cases, you know, nobody wants

25:39

to go to the map for the

25:41

Senate, right? Like it's just, no. And

25:43

the polling shows the American public are

25:45

not happy with the state of democracy

25:48

in this country, not just in terms

25:50

of Trump undermining democracy, but how democracy

25:52

works itself, the same minority rule, gerrymandering,

25:54

etc., etc. And actually during the campaign

25:56

one of the big mistakes and people

25:58

are laughing me because it sounds so

26:00

niche but I actually think it was

26:02

symbolic. First they buried Tim Walsh who

26:04

I thought was a great addition to

26:06

the team. I prefer him over Shapiro

26:08

but they now it's fashionable to say

26:10

well he cost her votes. They picked

26:12

him and then they silenced him. He

26:14

was doing a great job with the

26:16

weird attacks when they were pulling, when

26:18

they were doing a weird attacks. And

26:20

then when he does come out and

26:22

go, you know what, we should get

26:24

rid of the electoral college, hugely popular

26:26

idea with the American public, across the

26:28

board, Republicans and Democrats, don't like the

26:30

electoral college, the Harris team disowned it,

26:32

slapped him down and said, no, he

26:34

wasn't speaking for us. So there's just

26:36

an example of one way where you

26:39

talk about institutions, nobody likes the electoral

26:41

college. Democrats should not associate themselves with

26:43

the electoral college. In terms of the

26:45

broader point about anti establishment candidates, you're

26:47

right to go back. Yeah, you do

26:49

go back and you see they pick

26:51

establishment people like Hillary Clinton and John

26:53

Kerry and they lose and Al Gore.

26:55

And they pick Bill Clinton and Barack

26:57

Obama, who are Washington outsiders in the

26:59

eyes of many people, and they win,

27:01

right? So I do think that, you

27:03

know, you know, correlation, not causation, but

27:05

I do think there is worth having

27:07

a conversation about who are the right

27:09

candidates going forward, given we failed. That's

27:11

what the Democrats should be asking with.

27:13

We failed with the Hillary's and the

27:15

Biden's and the Harris's and the Kerry's.

27:17

Who can we have, I don't know

27:19

who that person is, by the way.

27:21

as people are doing horse race stuff,

27:23

runners and riders for 2028. I don't

27:25

know who that person is, who has

27:27

that authenticity. Because as much as I

27:30

think Whitmer and Newsom are solid candidates

27:32

and Shapiro, and they're all going to

27:34

be in the mix, I don't think

27:36

any of them could go on Joe

27:38

Rogan. If the Joe Rogan test is

27:40

now the test. And people like, oh,

27:42

Karba Harris should have gone on. I'm

27:44

glad she didn't go on. It would

27:46

have been a disaster. From everything we've

27:48

seen from Harris's performance, she would not

27:50

have been authentic. She would have not

27:52

had answers to basic questions about how

27:54

you're different to Joe Biden. She would

27:56

not have been able to connect with

27:58

his audience. I'm actually. it's a good

28:00

thing, for whatever reason, whoever you blame,

28:02

she didn't go on Rogan. It would

28:04

have been car crash TV. But the

28:06

question is, who can go on a

28:08

Joe Rogan? And I use Jogan more

28:10

broadly. Who can go on shows, speak

28:12

freely, where you talk in an authentic

28:14

manner? Why did people love Bernie during

28:16

the primaries in 16 and 20? Because

28:18

he spoke in authentic fashion. Who is

28:21

the Democratic version of John McCain 2000,

28:23

right? McCain, the maverick image, the bus,

28:25

the talking to reporters freely without, you

28:27

know, being controlled by consultants, making corruption

28:29

an anti-establishment, your actual guiding spirit. And

28:31

I think that could be a model

28:33

as well. Again, it's not about left

28:35

right. I don't agree with John McCain's

28:37

2000 campaign in its substance, but in

28:39

its tone and focus. Yeah, that's the

28:41

kind of campaign Democrats should be running.

28:43

Yeah, and the irony of that is

28:45

that we have spent so much time

28:47

fostering a bench, but a bench that

28:49

is more establishment, is more, does feel

28:51

more political. I mean, look, I get

28:53

it, like I was a big Elizabeth

28:55

Warren supporter, her whole thing was plans.

28:57

This is somebody who is a legislator,

28:59

and for a lot of Democrats, I

29:01

feel like that is what's attractive to

29:03

us. But at the same time, again,

29:05

we're in a moment right now where

29:07

I think people are just so starved

29:09

for authenticity, especially in the political space,

29:12

because, let's be honest, they've gotten fucked

29:14

by politicians for so long. Right. And

29:16

I said this in 2017, well before

29:18

the Warren Bernie Biden primaries in 2020.

29:20

When Trump won in 2016, I said

29:22

to a friend of mine, and I

29:24

don't know if I said this publicly,

29:26

like the next democratic person who runs

29:28

for president shouldn't do Hillary Clinton. Here's

29:30

my 24-page childcare plan, fully costed, fully

29:32

costed proposals. And you remember, Carmel Harris

29:34

got hit a lot, unfairly in my

29:36

view, for not having enough plans, even

29:38

though she had way more than Trump,

29:40

who couldn't even come up with a

29:42

health care plan in two weeks, his

29:44

famous two-week deadline. But I do think

29:46

like, I'm only half joking when I

29:48

say the next Democratic candidate should say,

29:50

I'm going to give you all a

29:52

$30 minimum wage. And when the reporter

29:54

said, well, how are you going to

29:56

do that? Just wait and see. It's

29:58

be to be a mate. Yeah.

30:00

Seriously, I mean, why the fuck mean, why right though.

30:03

I mean, if right can go mean, I'm going to fuck

30:05

off? the You're right. wall, If Trump can go

30:07

best build a beautiful give you build to give

30:09

you the best point, but never give to details.

30:11

fire. I think at some point I got you

30:13

know, another independent left broadcaster. He's been know you know, for a

30:15

another independent establishment, He's been saying that for

30:17

a while, You just It's not about establishment,

30:20

anti who's right, you just need a fighter super

30:22

who's super confident and doesn't give a shit.

30:24

a doesn't give a shit. Right. I mean, mean, the thing of

30:26

the thing that holds us back, I feel we

30:28

is that we feel the media holds Democrats to a the

30:30

way that the media holds Democrats to a

30:32

different standard than Republicans, virtue we validate that

30:34

by virtue of you know, to the them. mean, you

30:37

know, there and it persists. I the asymmetry, the asymmetry

30:39

is there the damage that I don't think you can

30:41

to the damage that was done to Harris

30:43

during that period where, A, she wouldn't do

30:45

an interview where the media got obsessed with

30:47

her not doing it, she probably should have

30:49

done. have done. And B, the whole the whole

30:51

policy thing, right? became like a

30:54

meme, you know, DC talking point from

30:56

are journalists, Where are her her plans? Where

30:58

are her policies? She hasn't laid

31:00

out. She copied and it's like, was

31:02

like, she has is 100 she has is a

31:04

hundred times better than what Donald Trump is

31:06

offering, offering, right? But that did a lot of

31:08

damage. next So the next president to be ready

31:10

for all that Has to to be have a plan for the

31:12

the media didn't Biden didn't have one by avoiding

31:14

press conferences. have Harris didn't have one by

31:16

avoiding interviews. own plan, Trump had his own plan,

31:18

which is I'm gonna avoid everyone and even and

31:20

just do just do podcasts, him. which saying for, I'm

31:23

not saying that's replicable, but be has to

31:25

be some strategy for the media environment. Because

31:27

look, one thing that's really bothering me, and

31:29

you know this because I've told you as

31:31

many times times. people say, say, know, you know, the they

31:33

lost election they lost the was very unpopular president,

31:35

and the economy was was you know, viewed

31:37

negatively. And no one steps back and

31:39

goes, the economy was really because the you know, viewed over four

31:41

years convinced people that the economy was better

31:43

under Trump. It wasn't. They convinced people that we're

31:45

in the middle of a recession. We're not.

31:47

And they convinced people that Joe Biden's the worst

31:49

president ever. And he wasn't, right? They So this

31:51

is the problem. that the have my

31:53

own issues with Joe Biden, know, my They convinced

31:56

people never go away. think that's a stain

31:58

on his record and will define his president. And

32:00

actually from an electoral point of view, also

32:02

screwed the Democrats, but a conversation for another

32:04

day. But my point being, up until let's

32:06

say the summer of 2023, pre-Gaz, a pre-opt,

32:08

February 7, when you're looking at his domestic

32:10

record, it was a very, very strong domestic

32:12

record, but people didn't know about it or

32:14

didn't believe it. And that's what Democrats need

32:16

to be post-mortem around. How did we produce

32:18

such an amazing economy? we got zero credit

32:20

for I don't hear people actually discussing that

32:22

for me that's at the core of this.

32:24

And to kind of bolster that exact point,

32:26

I mean, the minute that Donald Trump was

32:28

elected, we then saw consumer sentiment flip. And

32:30

so, you know, now we're at a point

32:33

where he's also going to get credit for

32:35

it all of these all of these infrastructure

32:37

projects that happen on his watch, all of

32:39

these Medicare pricing deals that happen on his

32:41

watch, he's going to be taking credit for

32:43

it all. And you know, in large part,

32:45

I mean, that is the benefit. That right

32:47

there is the benefit distilled into having a

32:49

right wing media ecosystem that acts as a

32:51

hermetically sealed bubble. And so I guess the

32:53

worry for me is when we move forward

32:55

in a media environment where you can do.

32:57

The American rescue plan the inflation reduction act

32:59

the chips act the pact act the gun

33:01

safety law the the infrastructure law adds 16

33:03

million jobs bring the unemployment rate down to

33:05

a 50 year low The stock market up

33:07

to a record high and and where the

33:09

vast majority of Americans still think that the

33:11

economy is terrible That that right there is

33:13

the benefit of having a right-wing media ecosystem

33:15

that exists to serve the Republican Party and

33:18

and and also is puts on full display

33:20

the need to have something to counter that

33:22

so that we're not in an environment where

33:24

suddenly it doesn't matter what democrats do they're

33:26

always just going to get hit for doing

33:28

the complete opposite. Yeah and the problem is

33:30

of course there was a big debate you

33:32

remember on the left where you and John

33:34

Favre and I had this conversation, what do

33:36

you do as a center left politician running

33:38

for re-election on a record that's good economically

33:40

in the big terms in a country where

33:42

people are still hurting. And do you want

33:44

to, there's a whole debate about, are you

33:46

tone deaf? And remember Hillary was attacked for

33:48

saying, we don't need to make America great

33:50

again. America is great. And people said, well,

33:52

that didn't resonate with people because people are

33:54

suffering. And I think that is a real

33:56

problem because Democrats are like, well, do I

33:58

run on what you just said, amazing, 50

34:01

year, unemployment low, stock market at a high,

34:03

growth at a high, blah, blah, blah, blah,

34:05

blah. But then people are like, well, hold

34:07

on, but I'm struggling paycheck to paycheck, hold

34:09

on, I have a friend, do whatever. Or

34:11

do you go, I hear your pain, I

34:13

hear your pain, we need to do more,

34:15

which is the burning argument, but then you're

34:17

actually not running on your record. It's not,

34:19

there's no easy answer, I just want to

34:21

be fair, I bash Democrats a lot, but

34:23

that's not an easy plan. The Democratic Party

34:25

is not Trump. Trump shamelessly will just run

34:27

on it's the greatest economy in the world.

34:29

I'm the greatest president in the world. We've

34:31

never had growth so good. Democrats aren't going

34:33

to do that. Democrats and the media still

34:35

live in a reality-based universe where they're going

34:37

to say stuff like, well, yes, the economy

34:39

is doing a reality-based universe where they're going

34:41

to say stuff like, well, yes, the economy

34:43

is doing really, the reality-based universe, where they're

34:46

going to say stuff like, well, well, well,

34:48

yes, the economy is doing stuff like, the

34:50

economy is doing stuff like, the economy is

34:52

doing stuff like, like, well, the economy is

34:54

doing stuff like, like, well, the economy is

34:56

doing stuff like, well, the economy is doing

34:58

stuff like, well, the economy is doing stuff

35:00

like, well, well, the economy is doing, the

35:02

economy is doing, well, the economy is doing,

35:04

the economy is doing, like, like, well, the

35:06

economy is doing, like, I'm going to do

35:08

that. And they won't be expected to do

35:10

that because they're graded on a curve. And

35:13

you're right that it's not an easy answer.

35:15

And I think that if we look to

35:17

the Biden administration, I think very much aligns

35:20

with the Obama administration, there is a glaring

35:22

lack of willingness to beat our chest about

35:24

our wins because we don't want to seem

35:26

tone deaf in the face of so many

35:29

Americans out there suffering. But you look at

35:31

what Trump has done to the same point.

35:33

And you know, he can wake up in

35:35

the morning and tie his shoes correctly and

35:38

they'll throw a parade in these rooms. And

35:40

I don't know the answer to this either,

35:42

but I do know that what we're doing

35:44

right now ain't it. Medi, I do want

35:47

to talk about the impact because you had

35:49

brought this up about Israel Gaza and whether

35:51

you think in an election where we did

35:53

see such a pronounced swing to the right,

35:56

but all across. country, to what extent you

35:58

thought that the situation, the war in Gaza

36:00

had an impact on Kamala's loss? And I

36:02

asked this because we saw swings, you know,

36:05

we saw swings in Michigan, but at the

36:07

same time, we saw commensurate swings down in

36:09

Alabama over in Utah. And so, and so

36:11

how do you kind of think about this?

36:14

It's a great question. I've been thinking about

36:16

it. I think there's many layers to this,

36:18

and I'll just keep it very simple. And

36:20

I've actually changed my position a bit on

36:22

this plan. So after on election and after

36:25

election, when I saw those swings, I said

36:27

to a few friends of mine, including Muslim

36:29

friends of mine, I don't think you could

36:31

say Gaza made a difference this way or

36:34

that way. She lost so badly, so across

36:36

every demographic that you can't just say it

36:38

was Arab Americans in, you know, Dearborn Michigan

36:40

or whatever it is that swung it. I've

36:43

actually changed my position a bit for two

36:45

reasons. Number one, I do think Gaza was

36:47

actually bigger than I thought it was. And

36:49

I'll tell you why. Number one, look at

36:52

the narrowness of the Rust Belt states. You

36:54

can talk about national trends. Great. But we

36:56

all know national trends are irrelevant to who

36:58

wins or loses. For Harris to win this

37:01

election, all she had to do was with

37:03

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Trump won those states by

37:05

230, 30,000 votes ballpark. across those three states.

37:07

So if 115 or 116,000 votes had switched

37:10

from Trump to Harris, she would be presidentate.

37:12

She wouldn't want the popular vote. It would

37:14

be a great irony. The Democrats would have

37:16

won the electoral college, but not the popular

37:19

vote. Republicans would be screaming about the electoral

37:21

college. But she would be president-elect right now,

37:23

if 115, it was very, very narrow. Now

37:25

in that kind of narrowness and those kind

37:28

of rust belt states, yeah, I'm going to

37:30

say. in place like Michigan, she clearly could

37:32

have won Michigan when it was that narrow,

37:34

had she given something to the people there,

37:36

some kind of hope, some kind of change

37:39

on an issue that was central to their

37:41

very existence. They were losing family members by

37:43

the day in places like Gaza and Lebanon.

37:45

So I do think it played a big

37:48

role in some of those swing states, clearly

37:50

not national. two, it's it's not

37:52

about the the policy.

37:54

Let's say you're not

37:57

someone who pays attention

37:59

to the Middle East.

38:01

You're not the who cares

38:03

about the fate of

38:06

Israelis or Palestinians. the fate

38:08

of and you live in one of these swing

38:10

states. know what, live in one of these swing states. doesn't

38:12

mean a policy issue. It It

38:14

means a issue. It means change.

38:16

Harris, just by switching on have showed

38:18

would have showed she wasn't Joe Biden. That

38:21

was was one of the many areas

38:23

where people were asking, well, are you going to

38:25

be different to Biden? And she couldn't answer

38:27

the question. In fact, she she down on

38:29

Biden policies on the Middle East. So even

38:31

if you don't care about Gaza as a the

38:33

topic, as a policy area, care just the

38:35

symbolism of her coming out and saying, as going

38:37

to do this differently. I'm going to actually

38:39

criticize Netanyahu out I'm going to suggest that

38:41

I'm going to enforce the law when I'm

38:43

president I'm sales. this. Just that would have had

38:46

an impact on the general tenor of her

38:48

campaign, which was change. I'm change. be the same to be

38:50

general the same as I do think I do think

38:52

a played a big role both directly

38:54

in those swing key with those key

38:56

voters and indirectly in terms of

38:58

a big picture image in a very

39:00

close election, change election. Mandy, we'd about the

39:02

asymmetry in the media the media and Democrats

39:05

being graded on a curve

39:07

while Donald Trump kind of gets

39:09

a pass. Trump had signaled

39:11

in the campaign had his stance

39:13

was on Israel versus Gaza. was

39:15

now that he's in office, And

39:17

he's appointed he's appointed, you know, pro-Israel to

39:20

his cabinet between Marco Rubio, Marco Rubio,

39:22

And so can you explain so

39:24

can you explain like why? a little bit of

39:26

why Kamala Harris took the

39:28

brunt of took blame when it

39:30

comes to when it comes Gaza, but

39:32

Trump, who is either the same

39:34

or worse, or why he gets

39:36

a pass or why so

39:38

many many Arab voters swung toward him.

39:41

him. And I think, well, a a couple

39:43

of things. One is, I hear this all

39:45

the time and I understand why a

39:47

lot of I white liberals a don't follow this

39:49

issue closely are confused. follow get it. are confused.

39:51

I get it. Yeah. And clear. He did

39:53

win clear, he did win in Dearborn, according

39:55

to the according poll, Fox

39:57

exit poll, 65% of Muslim Americans

39:59

vote. Harris, the majority, the Jews and

40:02

Muslims voted Democrat, the only religious group

40:04

that voted majority in every sect, Trump

40:06

was Christians, Christians voted for Trump in

40:08

every type of Christian group, voted Trump,

40:10

super majority, except for Catholics who were

40:12

just a simple majority. So, slightly frustrates

40:14

me when I see people saying, oh,

40:16

Muslims did not vote for Trump. The

40:18

majority of Muslims voted Democratic. Now, did

40:21

he get a swing? Yeah, like he

40:23

did in every demographic. And did in

40:25

places like Dearborn? Clearly they went from

40:27

because of Gaza. Yes. And the simple

40:29

answer is, people don't play counterfactuals. Voters

40:31

don't do that. They base it on

40:33

what's happening in the here and now.

40:35

And in the here and now, Joe

40:37

Biden was president. Carmel Harris's vice president.

40:40

for these people. And I think that

40:42

is fundamental. So when I said to

40:44

people, I said what you said, Brian,

40:46

I went, I spoke to Muslim crowds

40:48

in Philadelphia in swing states. And I

40:50

said, you know, Trump's worse. And they

40:52

very legitimately said, maybe he is, maybe

40:54

he's not. We'll find that out right

40:56

now, today. Biden's the one who's allowing

40:59

our people to be killed. And I

41:01

think that's a problem the Democrats have

41:03

to recognize. And the funny thing is,

41:05

the bar was so low. People here

41:07

who've lost family members were not asking

41:09

for Joe Biden to take Benjamin Netanyahu

41:11

to the international criminal court to be

41:13

punished. They were just saying, number one,

41:15

feel our pain. just have some empathy.

41:18

You're supposed to be the empathy president.

41:20

He didn't mind. Number two, just criticize

41:22

Israel publicly like you would any other

41:24

country. Like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi

41:26

are criticizing Israel. Why couldn't Joe Biden?

41:28

And number three, yeah, on the policy

41:30

front, on the policy front, if you're

41:32

not going to do an alms embargo,

41:34

at least talk about the importance of

41:37

international law, American law. You know, Carmel

41:39

Harris ran as a prosecutor. All she

41:41

had to say was, of course I

41:43

support the law. That's what she had

41:45

to say in force the law because

41:47

our arm sales to Israel are a

41:49

violation of American law. They're a violation

41:51

of the Leahy Act. They're a violation

41:53

of the Foreign Assistance Act. That's what

41:56

she had to say. The bar was

41:58

so low. People were not on. that

42:00

much. They were asking for just the

42:02

bare minimum and that Harris and Biden

42:04

couldn't give them the bare minimum is

42:06

both a moral outrage and electoral insanity.

42:09

Yeah, I think that that's such a good

42:11

answer, such a smart answer in terms of,

42:13

in terms of how voters operate. And I

42:15

think that we saw that, not just with

42:18

Israel Gaza, but, but the, the economy as

42:20

well, people are looking at what's right in

42:22

front of them. They're not looking, they're not

42:24

doing counterfactuals, they're not imagining, okay, based on

42:27

the policy, you know, policies that are laid

42:29

out by another candidate. In large part, this

42:31

election was also a referendum on high prices

42:33

and on inflation. And people are just looking

42:36

at who's in office and looking to punish

42:38

them. And they're not thinking about the past

42:40

and the future. They're looking at the moment

42:42

that they're in right now. It was very

42:45

much a punishment election, both on inflation, on

42:47

what they perceived to be the border failures,

42:49

and of course on Gaza, for a faction

42:51

of people. and people yeah people don't realize

42:54

that sometimes voting you know a lot of

42:56

pundits and you know politicians see voting is

42:58

very rational you know it's very empirical no

43:00

it's just it's it's it's not here it's

43:03

here and a lot of people are just

43:05

voting as you say punishment they just want

43:07

to throw the bastards out like that is

43:09

fundamentally what voting is for a lot of

43:12

people and that's why the incumbency effect is

43:14

so strong although we've never seen it like

43:16

this in our lifetime like this in our

43:19

Yeah, Medi, we have spoken a lot about

43:21

the media. How can watchers and listeners support

43:24

you guys at Zateo News? Well, Zateo is

43:26

right behind me. It's a funny spelling. It's

43:28

an old ancient Greek word which means to

43:30

seek out the truth. zateo.com is where you

43:33

can go to subscribe. We're on Substack there.

43:35

We're on YouTube. We don't have your numbers

43:37

yet on YouTube. Join our 300,000 subscribers. at

43:40

Zetai, prime become a paid subscribers. You can

43:42

support the work that me and Brian and

43:44

other independent journalists do because as I keep

43:46

saying, a free press isn't free. Well, Medi,

43:49

I couldn't give you higher praise for the

43:51

work that you are doing. So thank you

43:53

so much for taking the time. For those

43:55

who are watching right now, I'll put the

43:58

link Tuesday. the post description if you're watching

44:00

on YouTube and in the show notes if

44:02

you're listening on the podcast. Metti, thanks so

44:04

much for taking the time. Thanks, Barbara. No

44:07

lie is brought to you by Lumen. Lumen

44:09

is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's

44:11

a device that measures your metabolism through your

44:13

breath. And on the app, it lets you

44:16

know if you're burning fat or carbs and

44:18

gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition,

44:20

workout, sleep, and even stress management, which these

44:22

days might come in handy. All right, so

44:25

here's how it works. All you have to

44:27

do is breathe into your lumen first thing

44:29

in the morning, and you'll know what's going

44:32

on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly

44:34

fats or carbs. Then lumen gives you a

44:36

personalized nutrition plan for that day based on

44:38

your measurements. You can also breathe into it

44:41

before and after workouts and meals, so you

44:43

know exactly what's going on in your body

44:45

in real time, and lumen will give you

44:47

tips to keep on top of your health

44:50

game. And the reality is that if you're

44:52

looking to make some New Year's resolutions, your

44:54

diet and metabolism is most of the battle,

44:56

which is why it's important that lumen gives

44:59

you recommendations to improve your metabolic health. So

45:01

if you want to stay on track with

45:03

your health this holiday season, go to lumen.me

45:05

slash BTC to get 15% off your purchase.

45:08

Lumen makes a great gift too. Thanks lumen

45:10

for sponsoring this episode. I'm

45:12

joined now by Congressman Rokana. Thanks so much

45:14

for taking the time. Thank you for having

45:17

me. Let's start off with Donald Trump's nominations

45:19

in terms of these nominations to cabinet positions

45:21

and especially in light of Cash Patel's nomination

45:23

to lead the FBI and knowing that Democrats

45:26

have limited political capital to work with here

45:28

given that we're in the minority in both

45:30

houses of Congress and of course the White

45:32

House. Who do you think it's most useful

45:35

to spend our time resisting here? Well,

45:38

we need to ask tough questions of

45:40

at least three of the nominees. First

45:42

is Cash Patel, and what we need

45:44

to make sure is that there's not

45:47

retribution in the FBI. I mean, that

45:49

he commits very clearly the following norms

45:51

and not using the resources of the

45:53

government to go after Trump's enemies. The

45:56

second, in my view, is FK to

45:58

make sure he doesn't start firing in

46:00

mass NIH officials or doing research on

46:02

vaccines and that he doesn't interfere with

46:04

schools, giving vaccines. And the third would

46:07

be Filsi Gavard to make sure that

46:09

we have a clear sense of her

46:11

views on Ukraine and our views on

46:13

Putin. Well, you know, the pushback to

46:16

that would be, let's start with Cash

46:18

Patel, first of all. I mean, he's

46:20

already come out and said what he

46:22

intends to do at the FBI. So

46:24

do you think that it's enough to

46:27

just hope that he, when he needs

46:29

to answer questions for a certain audience,

46:31

just says, oh, yeah, of course, I'll

46:33

defer to protecting the norms. when we

46:36

have quotes from him coming out and

46:38

saying outright, we will go out and

46:40

find the conspirators. Yes, we are going

46:42

to come after the people in the

46:44

media. So this is his promise to

46:47

enact Donald Trump's retribution toward even against

46:49

journalists and lawyers for the crime of

46:51

acknowledging objective reality about the 2020 election.

46:53

So is it enough to just say,

46:56

well, okay, as long as he answers

46:58

to our liking when we ask him

47:00

about norms, then it's then there's not

47:02

going to be a problem? First of

47:04

all, I'm not clear that he'll answer

47:07

to our likeings. Oh, that's fair also.

47:09

Let's have him in there and let's

47:11

confront him with these questions and then

47:13

make a determination. The one thing that

47:16

the one hope that people will follow

47:18

the somewhat the rule of law and

47:20

not just be left out for Donald

47:22

Trump is. there is going to be

47:24

a future administration. They saw the consequences

47:27

for everyone other than Donald Trump for

47:29

many people who engaged in criminal or

47:31

wrongful conduct. And I hope that is

47:33

some check on these people. I want

47:36

to move over to the prospect of

47:38

the next DNC chair. You've come out

47:40

and said that the next DNC chair

47:42

should swear off corporate pack money. So

47:44

what's your rationale for that? Obama did

47:47

it. The American people are sick of

47:49

corporations having the kind of influence they

47:51

have in our politics. Too many corporations

47:53

sold American jobs offshore for the cheap

47:56

prices and low wages. I think they

47:58

want to see a party that is

48:00

ultimately not beholden to large interests. I

48:02

agree, but I want to play devil's

48:04

advocate for a moment and just say,

48:07

is there any worry about unilaterally disarming

48:09

if Democrats don't accept corporate PAC money,

48:11

but Republicans, by contrast, have a blank

48:13

check? I mean, just with Elon Musk

48:16

alone, they basically have carte blanche in

48:18

terms of how much money they would

48:20

need. So isn't being subjected to self-imposed

48:22

purity tests? kind of part of what

48:24

landed us here in the first place,

48:27

isn't winning and having the money to

48:29

be able to get our message out

48:31

more important? Sure, but the question is

48:33

how do you win? We had more

48:36

money than the other side this time.

48:38

No one is saying unilateral disarmament on

48:40

super PACs in a general election. What

48:42

I'm saying is, first of all, no

48:44

super PACs in a democratic primary. That

48:47

doesn't help us win in any way

48:49

to have. super crack money spent in

48:51

an democratic primary, and have the DNC

48:53

focus on grassroots fundraising and building actual

48:56

constituencies and real small dollar donors, as

48:58

Obama did, as Bernie did, instead of

49:00

relying on a small group of people

49:02

to write big checks, which may be

49:04

easier, but is it doing the 50-state

49:07

party-building strategy? I think we'd be a

49:09

stronger party if we're trying to get

49:11

the DNC funded from individuals. Now, in

49:13

a general election, if someone billionaire is

49:16

writing big super PAC checks, then of

49:18

course we need to respond to that

49:20

and we still can do that as

49:22

long as Citizens United isn't overturned. No

49:24

one is saying, and Obama had super

49:27

turned. And Obama had super PACs to

49:29

fight back against Romney, but all I'm

49:31

saying is let's go at least back

49:33

to where Obama was. Remember, he ran

49:36

as a candidate or reform. Bernie was

49:38

a candidate of reform. We want to

49:40

be the party of reform. I would

49:42

tend to agree with everything that you

49:44

like for DNC chair. I

49:46

don't want to come out with a specific

49:49

person because I just want to see where

49:51

they're going to stand or corporate pack money,

49:53

where they're going to stand on getting super

49:55

pack money out of politics, where they're going

49:57

to stand on the main initiative. That was

49:59

a brilliant Larry Lessig and

50:01

I I had Boston in Boston it. They

50:03

basically restrict billionaires from contributing to

50:05

super to should a billionaire be able

50:08

to give 50 million to super

50:10

PAC, but only to a super PAC only $6,600 a

50:12

have the same restrictions that you

50:14

could do even under Citizens United?

50:16

I'd like to see a DNC

50:18

see a take those pledges. pledges and if

50:20

they're forgetting money of of politics, I'll

50:22

be for them. Now there's some

50:24

good some good candidates. Ken Ben Ben who've

50:27

done who done work, and there may be

50:29

others than in March. On the money front, I I

50:31

wanna move over to to the the

50:33

of Government Efficiency. of What do you

50:35

hope that Doge could accomplish and what

50:37

are you worried about when it

50:39

comes to Elon Musk and what he

50:41

might be able to accomplish? to Elon

50:43

all, Democrats shouldn't just reflexively be opposed

50:46

to cutting waste and fraud and

50:48

abuse Democrats shouldn't just talked about that, government. to

50:50

get his New Deal waste mean, he

50:52

literally would talk about we gotta

50:54

make government less wasteful and that's what

50:56

gave him the confidence to do

50:58

the New Deal. new deal. place. is our

51:00

defense budget, which is 56 %

51:02

of spending. got five primes primes that overruns. I

51:04

mean, the F-35 was a mean, the F -35

51:06

was a $1 .7 trillion cost Martin.

51:09

So to Lockheed Martin. go after Elon

51:11

Musk can go after that and get

51:13

more competition and lower the defense

51:15

budget, good for him. I was

51:17

the first person to say that.

51:19

He tweeted back. I got in

51:21

some criticism from the left. Why

51:23

are you engaging Elon? And then

51:25

Bernie said the same thing. mean,

51:28

mean. Look, people on the on the progressive and

51:30

on the Democratic side. I've been talking

51:32

about cutting the bloated the budget for

51:34

years. for years. Let's see if Elon can

51:36

do that. Now, if if Elon is

51:38

talking about cutting the the Consumer

51:40

Financial Protection Bureau, I will

51:42

stand up against that with tooth and yell,

51:44

I will talk to them

51:46

about how that actually has stayed

51:48

billion for Americans as protected

51:50

Americans from obscene credit card

51:53

fees and mortgage fees. fees.

51:55

but we need to be rational

51:57

about our opposition, not just

51:59

blank. in our opposition. Yeah, I think

52:01

that's correct. Is there some sense

52:03

then, you know, moving over to

52:05

the media front of this, is

52:08

there some sense among your Democratic

52:10

colleagues in the House that as

52:12

it relates to the media, conferring

52:14

all of this attention and energy

52:16

and validation onto legacy media is

52:18

actually a losing strategy? Well,

52:21

absolutely, I mean, here's the point. People

52:23

know that you got to get out

52:25

there and talk beyond the legacy media.

52:27

I mean, when I go on MS

52:29

NBC and I like going on, you

52:31

know, 100, 200, 200, maximum 500, people

52:33

are seeing me. And it's often the

52:35

same people. Now, if I want to

52:37

make a good impression of my mom

52:39

and dad or in their 70s, I

52:41

can go on. But if I want

52:43

to reach a... broader audience, I've got

52:45

to go on to places like you,

52:47

Brian, and you were a lead in

52:50

being in the independent media space. And

52:52

also the issues you're talking about are

52:54

different. If I go on MSNBC today,

52:56

which I may, I'm going to get

52:58

asked about cash for tell and honor

53:00

Biden. No one is going to talk

53:02

about money and politics. No one is

53:04

going to talk about doge as much.

53:06

And so you get to have more

53:08

substantive conversations often on podcasts. And

53:11

to your credit, you have been a

53:13

leader in the space of embracing independent

53:15

media. A lot of folks in the

53:17

Democratic Party aren't. And I mean, look,

53:19

I understand for Kamla Harris's campaign, they

53:22

had 107 days. And so it's a

53:24

different kind of campaign where they don't

53:26

necessarily have the freedom to be able

53:28

to confer some legitimacy or validation onto

53:31

independent media because their goal is just

53:33

to reach people. right in front of

53:35

them and every, you know, every day

53:37

matters basically. But is there some sense

53:40

among Democrats more broadly in your opinion

53:42

that it's that they do have to

53:44

broaden their horizons? I mean, you know,

53:46

aside from what what you've been very

53:48

effective at doing, is there some sense

53:51

more broadly among the folks in the

53:53

House that or the Democratic Party that

53:55

it is important to make sure to

53:57

embrace independent media? Yes, there has been.

54:00

when Bernie Sanders went on Joe Rogan

54:03

and the backlash he got, even for

54:05

progressives on our own side. And now

54:07

everyone is trying to get on Joe

54:09

Rogan. And they're trying to get on

54:12

your podcast over on. But I think

54:14

there's been a wake up hope of

54:16

the Democratic Party that. We've got to

54:19

be on these podcasts. We've got to

54:21

engage with independent media. But more than

54:23

that, you've got to be willing to

54:25

mix it up and not be so

54:28

afraid of a gas. You know, the

54:30

reality is if you make a gas,

54:32

and I'm sure if people play everything

54:34

I've said, I'm sure there are things

54:37

I said that I regret saying, but

54:39

the new cycle is so fast, people

54:41

get over it. They understand people misspeak.

54:44

But you've got to be out there

54:46

and being yourself. Well, and the flip

54:48

side of that is that if you

54:50

are so careful not to make a

54:53

gaff, you risk not even sounding human.

54:55

And then that's the whole problem in

54:57

an immediate ecosystem where authenticity, relatability are

55:00

the most important things. That is your

55:02

capital. Then, then making sure that you

55:04

speak in a way that you'll never

55:06

get in trouble is going to have

55:09

the complete opposite effect that you're intending,

55:11

you know, bubbling up. you know, at

55:13

some untold point in the future. You

55:16

said something that I thought was interesting,

55:18

and that was about the backlash that

55:20

Bernie received for going on Joe Rogan.

55:22

Do you think that it's incumbent upon

55:25

Democrats right now to kind of drop

55:27

any supposed purity tests that are being

55:29

imposed and drop some sense of like,

55:32

whoever we spend our time with, whoever

55:34

we validate, has to like, you know,

55:36

meet every threshold that we've imposed has

55:38

to be perfect and we can't talk

55:41

to anybody outside of our bubble of

55:43

people who are just exactly who we

55:45

find are the right messengers. Yes, we

55:48

should drop it, but not just for

55:50

politics, but because it's substantively the correct

55:52

way of bringing and respecting people.

55:54

look Let's look at

55:57

our great leaders.

55:59

course, I was influenced

56:01

by my grandfather,

56:04

who who spent four years

56:06

in jail alongside Gandhi

56:08

as part of India's

56:10

independence Gandhi's entire Satyagra where

56:13

he was dealing with British colonialism,

56:15

was about engaging in trying to

56:17

find the good and everyone and persuading

56:19

them. then, of course, that influences

56:22

King. Dr. King did the same

56:24

thing. King did the John Lewis did

56:26

the same thing. These are people, These

56:28

figures were greater than the entire

56:30

were greater than the together. And

56:32

so, who are we to

56:34

cancel people so who leaders far

56:36

greater than us when do that?

56:38

It is a us didn't do that?

56:41

obtuse approach. It's not just

56:43

a politically deficient approach. It

56:45

is morally deficient. Well,

56:48

I I appreciate your time and I appreciate

56:50

your willingness, your longtime willingness to embrace independent media

56:52

and talk to folks. to folks, you both sides

56:54

of the ecosystem, left and and right, I and I

56:56

know that you've been a leader a leader in

56:58

terms of doing that. So Congressman, I appreciate

57:00

your time today. Brian, thank you. Thank

57:02

you for being a leader yourself. being a leader yourself.

57:04

Thanks again to and Rowe. That's it for this

57:07

episode. Talk to you next week. week. You've

57:10

been listening to No to No with Brian Tyler

57:13

produced by Sam Graber, Sam by Wellesie, and

57:15

interviews edited for YouTube by edited for If

57:17

you want to support the show, please

57:19

subscribe on your preferred podcast app and

57:21

leave a five star rating and a

57:23

review. podcast app always, you can find me

57:26

at rating in a review. of my other channels,

57:28

you or you can go to at Brian.com

57:30

to learn more. other channels, or you can go to Brian Tyler

57:32

cohen.com to learn more.