Raging Moderates: Can Democrats Criticize Trump’s Invasion Without Defending Maduro?

Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Jessica Tarlov. It's 2026. It's been wild so far. Scott isn't here, but Ben Mysalas, co-founder of the Midas Touch Network, the largest pro-democracy network out there. I'm sure all of you who are listening are subscribers and have certainly consumed his content over the past few years. Know him. Ben, welcome to the show. Happy New Year. Great to be here, Jessica. Yeah. It's always fun. Like, I love Scott, obviously. But when I'm thinking about who would be a fun co-host to have when he is out partying for longer than everyone else gets. His vacations are supercharged. Like, he takes all of August off. I don't know if you know that about him. But anyway, I thought I was like, oh, is this the time when Ben and I can hang? And so I'm thrilled that you came to hang. Well, you and I have wanted to do this for a very long time, and I really respect and love the work that you do. And Scott will be missed on this episode, but I'm sure he can enjoy his vacation. As I used to say when I was a litigator, you never get in the way of somebody's vacation. So enjoy. No, Scott wouldn't let you get in the way of it anyway. So thrilled to be doing this. A lot to cover. We're going to talk about Nicolas Maduro in court. He's here in New York City with me, which is so bizarre. and the Democratic response to what's been going on, the scandal that took down Tim Walls, and the backlash over a new billionaire tax proposal in California, where you are not a billionaire yet, but you probably have some views about taxing the rich. Let's dive right in. Like I said, Maduro no longer ruling Venezuela. He's in a holding cell in Brooklyn. He was in a U.S. courtroom on Monday where he pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism charges and claimed that he was, quote, kidnapped, which actually I don't think is completely off base. The Trump administration says this wasn't a war regime change, but a law enforcement operation. They're just helping out Pam Bondi. Democrats, of course, agree that Maduro is a brutal dictator. You would look like an idiot if you didn't. But they're furious about how this went down. No advance briefing, no authorization from Congress. And now talk from Trump about the U.S., quote, running Venezuela. Political risk for Democrats is very clear. Look like you're defending the Constitution without looking like you're defending Maduro or rooting against a clear villain being held accountable. So we've got questions about what's next in Venezuela. Also, what's next at home? What's next for our party? I want to start with kind of your overview of what you think of the operation and kind of the current state of play, because actually, I haven't heard you yet on it. So give me your fresh take. Well, you know, we went live right away as soon as the- I wasn't. I was watching. I had no child care. I wasn't. No, I know. We put out a lot of content, though, also. But like but the point that I was I want to make is that when we went live with it right away, we immediately didn't hesitate in calling it an unlawful invasion because I saw the images. I saw what was happening. I saw the Chinook helicopters and I looked at it and I observed it and said, this is an invasion. And then I said, was there congressional authorization for it, yes or no? There was not. Does our Constitution require that there be congressional authorization when I see Chinooks and our soldiers in a foreign country? You absolutely require congressional authorization. Therefore, it's an invasion that is unlawful. And so I think sometimes in the gamified political landscape of where do I stand on an issue, it gets filtered through a lens of politics versus a lens of basic values and principles? What's the point of having a constitution if it ultimately means nothing? And I think a problem with the Democratic Party or with any political party at that is when you view it in terms of, is this going to help me politically or not politically? People, the general public, see you're behaving that way. And I think sometimes they view that as, are you staking out a position that is politically advantageous, or do you feel a certain way? Leaders need to lead, not ultimately come up with a position that they think is going to be palatable. And then you, as a leader, should bring people along on your position. And your position as the leader should be grounded in values and principles. So for me, when I run the network, that's how we cover everything. So the initial values and principles call was exactly what I said. And then I wanted to ask the question. So who is in charge? What is happening? And are we getting any answers that are satisfactory? And right now, as far as we know, somebody else from the Maduro regime by the name of Delcy Rodriguez, who was his vice president, is running the show. Trump claims that he is running it and that he's got a team of people who are basically puppeteering Delcy Rodriguez. Delcy Rodriguez is saying things that indicate both support of Maduro and a resistance to the invasion, but it seems tailored to a domestic audience of kind of virtue signaling while making whatever this deal may have been with the CIA and Trump. But also, if you looked at her swearing in on Monday, she sure looked chummy with the ambassadors of Iran and Russia, and they were there at her swearing in and hugging her, and she looked happy with them. And I didn't see an American ambassador there. So I then ask, huh, so what's really happening? Then we go to Donald Trump's justification, which is oil, that I briefed the oil companies before Congress got authorization. You then have to ask yourself common sense questions about the oil companies who are already right now with the price of oil struggling to make a problem. I mean, Obviously, oil companies are very profitable, but the question for them is their CapEx, their expenditures. Are they going to invest $100 billion in Venezuela? And the answer is no, because it seems that Trump rolled out that the American taxpayers are going to need to subsidize the oil companies in Venezuela. Then we just ask, is this a good thing or a bad thing? And what the heck is going on? So that's the framework with which I try to analyze it. I like it. And there are a bunch of things that you brought up that I want to tap on. I'm going first to Delcey's swearing in, though, because I've been, I don't want to say disturbed, but kind of confused by the amount of coverage of what happened that hasn't looked at the role of China, Russia and Iran in what's going on in Venezuela. And Marco Rubio said it straight out on the Sunday shows, right? He said, like, our biggest adversaries are operating in our backyard about 1,200 miles from us. You have China control of Venezuelan mining sites. Iran has drone manufacturing facilities. They use the Russian radar array systems. And I don't know if you've noticed this, but there are a lot of smart people who are not pointing to that. Like, we've been fed a ton of lies, right? We heard that it was about drugs. And that's why they're taking out little drug trafficking boats that are actually taking cocaine to Suriname, not even coming here. That was the one with the lethal double tap strike. Then we hear that it's about oil, but the state of the oil industry there is in complete disrepair, right? It's going to take, you give $100 billion, I've heard, between $60 and $100 billion to rejuvenate it up to a decade to get that to be profitable in any way. And Donald Trump said, I talked to the oil companies, but Reuters disputed that. They, I guess, spoke to the oil companies themselves and said that they weren't given the heads up. So basically, this was like a go-it-alone mission to a large degree on behalf of the administration. no Congress or even business influence. So what do you make of the fact that people seem to not be emphasizing the impact of Russia, China and Iran on our actions? And does that in some way, I'm not saying making it justifiable, but I can certainly understand why it is not a good thing for those actors to be operating in our hemisphere and this close to us, you know, as a rationale for doing something. Right. And if that rationale is expressed rationally. You're asking a lot. If the rationale is expressed rationally to the American people and through our elected representatives, with all that data, we decide, you know what? This is a real danger. Russia, China, Iran operating pretty close in Venezuela. Should we go and do an operation? Should we go and do a war with the accurate data? I still vote no on that, and I vote no emphatically. I want to make sure we fix what's going on in the United States before we go have more wars abroad. But at least let's get the accurate information and understand, does this pose an imminent national security threat? Does it not pose an imminent national security threat? And then ultimately what we did, though, if it was to decapitate a presence of Iran and China and Russia in Venezuela, then my question is, why were those ambassadors there at our swearing in? Looking pretty happy. And they seem pretty happy. And what broader geopolitical discussions are taking place when the Russians are in Miami and they're meeting with Witkoff and Jared Kushner. And right around that time, Donald Trump rejuvenates the conversations about taking over Greenland. I don't think it was a coincidence. The timing of the conversation. Yes, Trump's been talking about taking over Greenland for a long time. But this idea we need a special envoy, the Louisiana governor, was right around when Whitcoff was speaking with the Russians, with Dmitriev and Yushikov and others, you know, in Miami. And are there broader, I mean, this is what Rubio has said, that he sees the world as spheres of influence. Yeah. That he sees the united, he said this back. The Don Roe doctrine, as we call it now. And they said this back in last January when Rubio was giving speeches on this. Rubio said spheres of influence. America is not the leader of the world. That's what Rubio said. He said America controls the West. Russia controls its territory. Rubio didn't say Europe, but the implication was Russia controls Russia and Europe and China controls Asia. And then the United States, China and Russia divvy up resources around the world and trade with each other over the resources that they extract. So is there this broader implementation of that vision? Because how does Europe respond to that? You know, how do other sovereign nations respond to that? Well, we're definitely seeing that at play. And the idea of choosing to be a regional superpower when you could be a global superpower seems silly to me. But we are seeing the reaction from European nations. Just this morning, there was a joint European statement in defense of Greenland and Denmark as a NATO ally. And the Danish prime minister spoke out yesterday and basically saying that NATO will end if Donald Trump does this, if he pushes forward and tries to take over Greenland. He's also listed Colombia, Mexico and Cuba on the list of hotspots or hotspots as far as he thinks, places to use this same kind of policy where you could say that you were carrying out some sort of law enforcement operation versus doing regime change, calling it just leadership change, which is, you know, what it is. It just happens to be the same leadership. And there's been a lot of coverage of, you know, Venezuelans here in America and at home in Venezuela who are rejoicing to see Maduro gone. But it was particularly interesting to me, the Venezuelans in Florida, for instance, they were asked, I think it was on CNN, you know, are you going to go visit now? Do you want to go home? And they said, no, we can't go home. I mean, Delce Rodriguez is, they didn't say Maduro in a skirt, but, you know, it's the same administration. It's the same military, the same actors. And I found it really interesting kind of watching the relationship with Maria Machado, the opposition leader who just won the Nobel Prize, which Donald Trump was very jealous of, you know, fracturing. And we didn't know exactly why that had happened. And the journal, Wall Street Journal in particular, has done really good reporting on this. But over the course of months, basically, the U.S. administration and Rick Grinnell in particular, who was the envoy, were in conversations with her about, like, what's the plan? Right. So if you are in charge, how are you going to corral all of the key stakeholders? Is the military going to report to you? Key business leaders, politicians. And then apparently she didn't have a good enough answer. So it looked like Delcy Rodriguez was the only option if they wanted to take Maduro out. Right Well isn that also a failure though of American leadership I mean right now we know that Machado through Edmundo Gonzalez who was the proxy candidate because she was banned in the July 2024 election They won the election By all accounts they won the election by A lot, like 77% or something. 70% of the vote or 65% of the vote. So they clearly have the support of the people, but the Chavistas and all of the people who run that government in Venezuela are not giving up the power. It's an authoritarian regime. It's a dictator. Maduro is a bad guy. Delcy Rodriguez is a bad gal. You have that Dio De Sato guy who's the enforcer, and the whole regime is also bolstered by paramilitary operations that we actually see right now on the streets of Venezuela. So to me, the issue, though, is Trump and is this American regime, though, are they at least going to set a framework for democracy. So, okay, we did this, but will there be an election soon? Or if you look at what the European leaders are saying right now, they're saying we support a transition to democracy and elections and all of these things. And you're not hearing any of that from Donald Trump or Rubio or anybody because they don't want a democracy there. I mean, it seems pretty clear that ultimately what Trump wants is not to have a democratically elected leader of Venezuela, because where you have a democratically elected popular leader, that leader may do deals on fair terms with Europe, which Donald Trump doesn't want to happen. They may do deals with the world that's in the benefit of Venezuela. Trump, in his own mind, believes that Delcy is his puppet. Whether she is or isn't will be left to be seen. And he just wants his own proxy there and his own authoritarian. I think that's one of the bigger problems. What can you say to an exiled leader who had to sneak out of her country? If she goes back, she'll be killed. And what she was doing, though, and I think which made her look even weaker, and we saw her on a news program saying this, is, I'll give you my Nobel Peace Prize back. And it just frankly looked pathetic. And so even if she were to go back, it's like, how could you even be a leader when you're doing that? I've never seen weakness. And It was such a pathetic display. Yeah, it was on Monday evening with Hannity. He said, did you at any point offer to give him the Nobel Peace Prize about Trump? And she said, it hasn't happened yet. We want to give it to him. Share it with him. It's ridiculous. Well, it's a totally ridiculous thing, but we're dealing with a totally ridiculous character. I mean, by all accounts, you could say that this ended up happening when it happened because Donald Trump was pissed off that Maduro was dancing and that Machado hadn't refused the peace prize and said, no, you should be giving it to him, even though she gave him a ton of credit for it. And, you know, the way that he debases people, even, you know, world leaders, someone, you know, of her stature who has rightfully earned that peace prize is horrifying to me every time. I won't say that I'm shocked, but that she has to, you know, from a safe house wherever she is, that she has to grovel essentially to be allowed back into her country and maybe to take power or have an election that she could stand in. And now, by the way, we see the same Republican Congress members in those districts that represent the Venezuelans and Cubans, Diaz-Balart and Salazar and Jimenez, you know, and they held that press conference where they were asked. So I guess you all don't support Machado because you support Trump's plan. And Trump says and they like screamed at the report. It was a fair question for the reporter. Don't you dare put words in my mouth is what Diaz-Balart said. Don't you dare. And then Salazar did the thing which she does with the Dignity Act, which she goes, Donald Trump says he loves the Dignity Act. The Dignity Act is going to make sure that we don't go after an immigration operations, people who are not criminals. Just give it a few more months. He promised me in a few more months. And they like ask Donald Trump. So do you support the Dignity Act? He's like, what's that? I don't even know. What is that law? I mean, and then Salazar goes up there and she goes, I promise you. She does like the whole like emoting. I promise you. He would be so good to us. And I'm like, you're just sold out all of your constituents. And, you know, we need to honestly, with shows like this and shows like we do, we need to really break through that propaganda bubble and just align people's. The politics is a distraction and an obstruction, as you and I started this episode talking about from like, is this helping you as a person? Like, is this ultimately is this whole conversation is what we did in Venezuela. is this a net plus in your life or a net negative in your life? And I think we have to assess it through that lens and ask basic, simple questions. Yeah, I mean, there's been some recent polling on this. Is Venezuela a major threat to U.S. security? 13 percent said yes. Not a lot. 76 percent say no explanation from the administration on what Trump is doing has been given. And that's a big divergence from how things like this have happened in the past. And I should note, again, it was a leadership change versus a full scale regime change thus far. But administrations in the past, like the Bush administration, sold us the war in Iraq. It was based on bad information, but there was a pitch that was made. Right. And like they talked to Americans and they had polling that backed it up. None of that here. And then by a ratio of two to one, Americans oppose Trump's actions in Venezuela and interest in the story has absolutely plummeted. You know, we're still fascinated by it, but the average American is has to get on with it and go to the grocery store and go back to work because break is over. The holidays are done. I wanted to go back to what you were talking about at the top where you said my first question is the legality of this. And, you know, that's going to be debated. But in reality, it happened. Right. And we know that Donald Trump has no respect for congressional oversight on anything that he does in a foreign policy sphere or even domestically. And we'll see what the Supreme Court does with the tariffs. But we know he doesn't care. Oversight is not a thing to him. He'll tell a few Republicans about something, you know, if he particularly likes them. But there's no chance that a Democrat is getting within, you know, 50 feet of it. And Dick Durbin and Chuck Grassley issued a joint statement about, you know, how they can't be ignored in these kinds of matters and there needs to be oversight. But he just doesn't give an F, right, about it. And I'm curious, you know, the point about you have to just stand up for what's right. And that's the case that you have to make. And then you have to sell it to the American people, right, thinking about what Democratic leaders should do. And I liked the statements from Governor Polis, for instance, Senator Kaine, that all acknowledged how terrible Maduro is and then just said, like, you didn't ask anybody for their opinion on this or at least show us what you're doing and also what comes next. And, you know, today is the anniversary of January 6th. And, you know, that's a whole show unto itself. But something that has bothered me, I guess, for the past five years, not just what happened, but the fact that the implications of January 6th and that we have a president who now has been reelected that has absolutely no respect for the rule of law or our constitutional right to vote completely trampled on it. right, that people basically just said, I don't care about it, right? Like, talking about January 6th is not winning you any elections. Talking about grocery prices and health care costs are the way to do that. And so how do you think about kind of putting more of a politics, like trying to win elections cap on? How do you think about that in context with what's going on now? Because I know my colleagues on The Five will say to me, oh, you know, keep talking about Kilmarra Brigo Garcia keep talking about drug traffickers and the rights that they have when we were blowing up all the boats in the Caribbean. And I did keep talking about them. And it ended up the public opinion did sway on immigration, certainly. And I think Kilmarra Brigo Garcia's case was a big part of that. And then what happened in Seacott more generally. Sorry, this is like a 90 minute question, but you get what I'm saying. I get what you're saying. But I think, you know, look, Democrats or people in general can't avoid their core principles to call out injustices where they see it. and whether there is an insurrection, whether there's bullying of marginalized communities, whether there's what you believe to be hate and evil and harm being done onto others, you call it out, whether you believe it's a winning issue or not a winning issue, because I think that's what you do as leaders and what you do as good people. And I don't think, you know, you go, well, it looks like Donald Trump's ads that were attacking the transgender community were effective. Maybe I need to, you know, not be supportive of this community or that community. You know, I just think you have to be a human being and say, I'm here for you. I care for you. And ultimately, you know, we're going to lead with empathy, with love, with respect. And I don't think those are bad things. I think that the right wing tries to act like, you know, toxic empathy is this horrific source and it's the scourge of Western civilization. But I think that still with all of that, we can recognize the existential issues that people face. And it's clear right now as we're in 2026. And frankly, it was clear in 2024, but it was missed by the Democrats. But frankly, this was an international situation taking place. And but for Trump winning in Canada, you would have had a right wing Maple MAGA type election. In Australia, you would have had the same thing that happened in the U.S. And you and I can talk about this because I think if you view things through international lenses versus myopic, just what's happening in the U.S., you see waves of these same types of movements happening that we often don't analyze here in the United States. But I think that the key issue, you know, right now, obviously, whether you saw with the election of Mamdani, when you see in this past year, Bernie Sanders and AOC drawing massive crowds in off-election years in red states, whether they were in Utah or West Virginia, packing huge stadiums. I saw they were drawing crowds of 30,000 people. I mean, far bigger crowds than Trump rallies. You have to then listen to, well, what are the people saying at these rallies? What's a consistent theme that you hear from people who, by the way, cross over as Trump voters to being an AOC? What can we learn from this? And the people say over and over again that they feel to the extent they can get a paycheck, that they are being psychologically tortured, living paycheck to paycheck, and having to make a decision. Can I afford my health care this year, or am I able to buy my child the pencils that they need for school? Can I afford rent this year, or am I going to have to give up on health care? And that psychological torture is a feeling that millions, perhaps over hundreds of millions of Americans wake up with with a sense of dread. Now, in that dread, in that confusion, and then you layer on top of it this mass information environment where there's so much information out there that there's so much bad information out there, someone with this feeling of dread and panic is looking for an answer. There are easy answers that are often given to them by Trumps and MAGAs, which is the immigrants did this to you. They did this to you. And we're going to get rid of them. And then everything's going to be great. But we know that and people I think are seeing, wow, you sold me on this, but now I'm still not great. And I also don't like what I'm seeing with people being, you know, seized and kidnapped. The same way we kidnap a Maduro, people are being kidnapped from restaurants and farms and they're being, you know, by people who are dressed up in military gear. I don't like that in my committee. That's not what I thought. These aren't criminals. So, you know, so I'll answer your 90 minute question with a 90 minute answer, which is we could do all of the above. And, you know, I think sometimes the problem in a media environment, whether it's on a network like CNN or Fox or whatever, is, you know, it's two minutes. There's a lot of back and forth. And are people fully left informed about what's going on in my life? I just heard a debate and this person was good. And that person had counterpoints. I just think we have to let people know, like, this is what we do on Midas all the time. Like, I'm listening to you. I hear you. Let me know what you're going through. and how can we try to just find solutions to these problems? And, you know, I know I got a little bit philosophical there, but like, I think that that is a framework actually that defeats the easy answer. When you just let people know, like, we care about you and we're listening to you and this isn't going to be easy, but we're going to work together and we're going to get this done. Yeah I like that also because it doesn have any specific ideology Like there are people from across the spectrum that satisfy that thirst that people have to be seen and to be heard Because, you know, you mentioned AOC and Bernie Sanders and Mom Donnie, but Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger were also talking that same way to people, right? And talking about costs and that they had a plan to fix it. So I think that was a great 90-minute answer to my 90-minute question. We're going to take a quick break. Stay with us. All right. Welcome back. There's a big political shakeup out of Minnesota. Just announced yesterday that Governor Tim Walz says he's dropping his bid for a historic third term as a massive welfare fraud scandal continues to escalate. Walz insists he's not accused of wrongdoing. He doesn't just insist that he is not accused of wrongdoing. But the fallout from federal indictments to a viral conservative video to an upcoming House oversight hearing has turned a state-level investigation into a national flashpoint. So what actually happened here, what responsibility does leadership bear, and how does this reshape Minnesota politics heading into the midterms? Ben, were you surprised that Walls announced he wasn't going to run? Nothing surprises me anymore when I wake up. Nothing surprises me. Um, you know, it seemed to be with all of the data points and we'll see if Klobuchar steps into the race, which is expected or we'll see what happens next. But like, you know, it seemed for him and where he was at just running for another term. he's the kind of guy who would step out in the right time if he thought that he was now becoming a distraction, you know, to the party. And I think his statement was great where he said, look, I think that the way this has been characterized is false and unfair and not accurate. And a real serious situation fraud, which we care about prosecuting and we're going after has been, you know, weaponized in a way to attack an entire immigrant population versus the individuals who are engaged in it. By the way, the ringleader was a white lady, you know, and most of the prosecutions happened under the Biden administration. And there were convictions in 2025 of that lady, you know, and more cases that are still, you know, that are still coming. But he said, to the extent I'm a distraction and I'm holding down the ticket, you know, I don't want to be a distraction, you know, anymore. You know, and also, I mean, I think, I don't know how much this played into it, but, you know, the assassination of Melissa Hortman and Trump continuing to defame the children now, basically, by saying that, or defaming Walls, but the whole situation and saying that Walls ordered the assassination, you know, he was posting videos saying Walls was involved in the assassination. I couldn't even follow, I tried to understand most of the conspiracy theory is just because, you know, they come up. Right. But that one I could not even figure out. Yeah. Well, I guess the theory conspiracy theory is that she was, you know, trying to introduce legislation to stop the fraud and she was going to identify it. And so the hit was announced on her in order because Walls wanted to cover up the wrong. I mean, that's the deranged conspiracy where Hortman's children said, can you please like it's hard enough for us that our mom and our dad were murdered by a guy who was actually a MAGA-leaning guy. Could you stop defaming us with our parents being killed? But I just think all of that, you know, was a lot for Governor Walz to handle. And, you know, ultimately, I think it puts the Democrats there in a good position. But I think there's a lot of lessons that should be learned, again, just about how powerful this right-wing information or disinformation machine is. I mean, what's interesting is if you look at that Nick Shirley video, the one that went viral on YouTube, I don't know what it's at now, but when it hit about 160 million views on X, I looked on YouTube at that time and it did about 1.7 million views. And I just found it interesting. It's still a lot of views on YouTube, don't get me wrong, but it was being covered everywhere as though it was the, you know, the Super Bowl of news stories. So what was interesting to me is to see 160 million views, which are really impressions on Twitter, 1.8 million views. And I just found it interesting because I go back to the videos I did yesterday on the Midas Touch YouTube channel. And in the first three morning videos I did, each of those videos got 1 million to 2 million views on three in a row morning videos. And his, after four days, did $2 million. But the attention that was given to his, because on Twitter, Elon Musk reposted, J.D. Vance reposted, and then it gets automatically— So the algorithm there is it likes what it likes or it likes what its masters like. And, you know, they're talking about, you know, that he's Pulitzer deserving. And, you know, we talked about it on The Five. And I said I know there's been back and forth about that particular daycare center that he was at. And, you know, why would a daycare center also be letting someone in, a man with a camera to go look at children? It seemed like a violation of the rules of a daycare center. But there was no question, of course, that there was fraud in the system feeding our future. The organization that you're talking about where the woman in charge of it, not Somali, a white woman, you know, and rightfully convicted for her crimes there. But I did feel as the story kind of unfolded that Walls was in a terrible spot and that at a certain point you just like the buck stops with you, even if he wasn't involved in the fraud directly, which the right is alleging. But there seems to be no proof of that. And Tim Walz doesn't. I don't know him personally, but he does not seem like a guy who would be cool with fraud and just would turn a blind eye to something like that, especially where he's so prideful about how well run Minnesota is as a state. I think it's sixth best in the country for business. But think about this, Jessica, before I lose this thread, the PPP program that Trump rolled out with very little safeguards, whatever the number is of missing funds, 500 billion to 2 trillion, you know, there's all different numbers. Oh, yeah. It could be in the trillions. And if you directly want to trace a program that was sculpted by somebody without the safeguards. I mean, you're talking about like literally it could be a trillion dollars in missing money that nobody knows where it is. But no, they don't care about that fraud. They don't care about that. No, it's crazy. And also I brought this up when we were talking about it. I said, what about this guy, Philip S. form. You know, the nursing home mogul who defrauded people out of $1.3 billion. Trump commuted his sentence, David Gentile, $1.6 billion. Like, we can't hold them to any sort of normal human standard or any sort of normal hypocrisy standard. Think about this, Jessica, and I have a question for you. This is why what you do is so incredibly important, because if you aren't doing it, who else is doing it? But, you know, you're having to debate issues that, you know, are being thrown in these directions as almost like traps. And they're traps as Trump tries to distract from the Epstein files, as Trump tries to distract from the fact that his economy is not helping the American people. And it's a hard thing because you're arguing with a group of people who already have framed an argument in a way before it even starts with an outcome to bring you on a direction that you're like, but shouldn't we be talking about this, this and that? So that's the thing, though, that you always have to contend with every day that I admire when you have to pivot it back to say, OK, but what about what the American people are going through? Yeah, no, I appreciate that. And I definitely feel like I'm always starting from a bit of a disadvantage. It is why I like going last, though. Like batting cleanup is a lot easier because I'm always taking notes. I'm like, I want to say this about this and this about that. But also I have to spend time thinking about these facets of a story that I wouldn't normally because, you know, Hunter Biden is always my favorite example that people who think that Joe Biden was running like a crime boss family are talking about like diamonds coming from Mexico and whatever's going on with oligarchs from Belarus and like all this stuff. And you need to know what's going on in order to talk about it. And the fraud scandal wasn't quite on that level, but definitely had to know what the perspective of, you know, the Nick Shirley supporters or acolytes or whatever you want to call them are. And it's obviously hugely important that the administration threw their weight behind this. And that factored into Tim Walz's decision because it was going to be a hellscape, right, like battling through this primary and then a general election like this. And there's been reporting that the Republican Party in Minnesota coordinated with Nick Shirley when it came to that viral video. I love Amy Klobuchar. I hope that she is getting in on this gubernatorial race. I think that she will wipe the floor with them and they kind of would wish actually that they were running against Tim Walz. But I want to circle back to what you said about the media environment, because I think that this relates directly to what you guys are doing at Midas. So I've seen a lot of people, you know, posting online about the asymmetry in our media chambers like the left versus the right. So you wouldn't have a Republican resigning for any perceived scandal anyway. But this really speaks to the fact that Democrats don't have a good media strategy to protect Democrats and to fight back against bad information. And that's not to say, again, that the fraud scandal isn't real. It is absolutely real. And some of it is absolutely appalling. But what do you make of that from, you know, the lens of someone who has built this enormous left wing media network? You know, as I've built it out, you know, at first when I started this, first time, I never liked politics in general. I mean, I interned on the Hill, but then I became a civil rights lawyer. Yeah, Colin Kaepernick's lawyer. I was Kaepernick's lawyer in the NFL case, but I never really liked politics. Then COVID happens, and I was really scared, so I just wanted to speak about what was going on. And then I thought I was speaking in a political voice, so then I started saying, I guess what I am is I'm political, and this is where I fit on a political spectrum, so here's what I am. And then what I've learned kind of over the year period before the January 6th insurrection is actually that, and my wife will disagree with me when I say, I actually still don't like politics in the sense of the gamified nature of a political fight. And she goes, yes, you love politics. All you do is talk about politics. And I said, no, what I really care about most about the network is the people. And there's a reason that our message on Midas not only resonates with people in the United States, but as we build out and built out Midas Canada, you know, what I'll hear is in a small mining town in northern Ontario, there'll be people who this message resonates with who would otherwise be voting for a Pierre Poliev or a conservative party. And the same messaging is working in Australia. And so the question is, is why is that happening? And I've been thinking about this, and I actually think it's because the core values and principles that we talk about are relatable on an international human level to combat a lot of the forces happening on the right wing. And I guess it's a decent time to talk about that now. I alluded to this earlier. I think Trump's a vessel of a broader right wing talking point regime that's found a good vessel in him. And in America, everything is bigger and louder and more obnoxious sometimes. And they found it, you know, in this Trump orange monster, whatever you want to say that he is. But the talking points there are very similar to the special operation, this and that, you know, and the immigration rhetoric. It's very similar to how Orban sounds in Hungary. It's the language that Putin uses. It's the language that Pierre Poliev in Canada was using, you know, before Carney really stepped in the race and neutralized that. It's the same language they're utilizing in Austria. You know, so it's all part of this broader framework. And I think that that needs to be understood by the Democratic Party or anybody, that there's a broader force at play that's tested, not just in laboratories of autocracy in states, but laboratories of autocracies internationally. And Democrats I think the only way to combat a lot of what you see on the right wing is by being human and not being robotic and not being so laboratory tested and emoting and showing people that you care about them truthfully And so when we talk about Democrats building a media environment I truly believe, and it's not to end this on a corny note of like, love will beat hate, but to some extent, you have to deal with these broader forces of what galvanizes and energizes and excites people. And that actually is kind of bringing people together and reminding people that there's a way to be happy together and there's a way to help and live in a world that isn't filled with toxicity and hate every day. You know, when Obama ran on hope, right? I was going to say hope and change, which is the last time we really had a galvanizing force or political message, I think, on the left that resonated and even resonated over to some moderate Republicans. Right. Right. So I just think that's the biggest reason for the success of the network. And I think when when Democrats go up there and speak, whether it's on our network or any other network, they have to recognize who they're speaking to. And they're speaking to someone who's scared, who feels alone, who feels that they're not being defended, who feels, you know, very confused. And I've rarely seen a politician like look into the camera and say, I care about you. And I hear, like, you don't hear that. You know, I care about you. I hear you. I'm listening to you. Tell me how you feel. And that combined with the right media ecosystem, I think is the right way to grow something special and different. Well, you would be the guy who would know about what can be done and how to build a successful network. So invaluable tips on that. And I like it because I'm a softie that way. I want someone to look into the camera and tell me that they care about me. So hopefully we'll be seeing more of that in the midterms. We're going to take one more quick break. Make sure you guys stay with us. Welcome back. Last story of the day. I want to talk about this billionaire tax proposal. So Silicon Valley is having a very public family fight aimed straight at its own congressman, Rep. Ro Khanna, friend of the show, who's backing a proposed one-time billionaire wealth tax in California. Some of the richest constituents are furious. I think he has the wealthiest district in the country. Right, Roe? Right. Furious enough to talk about funding a primary challenger, which no one likes to hear if you're a sitting congressperson. This is ground zero for the next phase of the inequality debate. What happens when the AI boom mints more billionaires, squeezes middle class jobs, and politicians start testing how far voters and donors are willing to go. What's your take overall on a billionaire wealth tax? I think that there should be one. I think that first you start off with billionaires paying their fair share, which they're not doing right now, even as it is. In an income tax, not like a straight wealth tax, just like raising the income tax level, closing loopholes or in a kind of. Both. I mean, I think I think first you have to start off with saying why in our tax code are there, why is there basically subsidies for billionaires and a welfare program for billionaires built into our tax code in either tax shelters or deductions or why do they get to, you don't want to pay taxes on a huge chunk of your change. You can go and buy private jets and then depreciate the value of your, I mean, so there's stuff like that that I think to the average American should just piss you off. You know, and then when there's a broader question of should there be a billionaire tax, you know, ultimately, I think the amount of money that billionaires, and I think Mamdani made this argument on a podcast, the amount of money you spent to fight me was less than what the tax would have been that could actually, you know, help the people. So you're spending more annually to attack me than you are to be taxed, which tells you that on the opposite side of that equation, they're making far much more money in the aggregate than what the tax would ultimately be. And so my view is that they should be taxed more. I'm fine with a billionaire tax. I think it needs to be sculpted the right way. Ultimately, some of the arguments that I hear made seem to be kind of these red herring arguments of, well, what happens to the founder who's making $150,000 a year, but his paper wealth is actually a billion dollars because they haven't been able to go liquid yet. So now you're saying that that person who's technically has a net worth of a billion dollars needs to pay. And then I think Ro Khanna's response to some of the tech bro attack on that was, of course, we have to deal with those situations differently. But the question is, is where there is this liquid billions and billions of dollars that are that are, you know, in income. And ultimately, ultimately, I think it's in the interest of the billionaire to want to do that in order to have a better society and to have a better, you know, how many jets do you need? How many yachts do you need? How many mansions do you need? I mean, you need 15 mansions and 10 private jets. I think that's going to be a tough sell to some of these guys. I can't wait to see you go out there and say, you guys, this will make you happier if I take 5% of your assets. I just want to quickly give some background, though, for our listeners. So this is a proposed ballot initiative. It's being shopped around by the SEIU, the union. It would be a one-time 5% tax on the estimated 255 billionaires in California. It wouldn't tax income. It would just tax assets. The idea or where they came up with this is to try to claw back some of the money for health care that's stripped away in the big, beautiful bill, which will come fully into effect this year. About 90 cents of every dollar raised by the tax would be spent on health care, while the remaining 10 cents would be earmarked for food assistance or education as per the proposal. What's interesting about Kana backing it is Gavin Newsom is not. So he's against a wealth tax. He has been consistently. He's on the record for several years. and wealth taxes have been tried all over the world. France, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Finland, Iceland, they all discarded their wealth taxes and said to your point about the specific cases, well, we have to make sure that in this case, we don't do this. It was basically too hard to administer and it was bringing in not enough money to make it worthwhile, which I didn't know and thought was interesting for the amount of folks that are prominent, especially on the left that talk like this, like the Bernie Sanderses and the Elizabeth Warrens of the world. A lot of countries that they think are run better than we are have scrapped their wealth taxes. Yeah. You know, that's where, though, a clear articulation of the issues need to happen. I mean, I think where the American people feel is that what we've seen take place since the 60s and the 70s, once upon a time, everybody can have this American dream. You could work a job, can buy a home, you can afford college, you can go on a vacation. And that was your life. And you could raise kids and you were comfortable. Your kids could have a better life than you or a similar life than you. And you can call that an American dream. But then as private equity started buying up the homes and everything became commoditized And the CEO salary ended up being 2000 or three times the salary of the average worker or all of these tax loopholes where the richest people are now paying not just less of a tax rate, but sometimes just underlying less taxes than like a teacher makes. I mean, when you looked at Donald Trump's taxes that were produced, there were a number of years where he literally paid like zero dollars or the filing fee of seven hundred and fifty dollars. So I think the broader frustration of people is seeing this unaccountable class of billionaires that is getting a form of welfare, but for billionaires and they get bailed out of everything. The first talk about subsidies that are acceptable to Donald Trump, bringing this episode full circle, are subsidies for oil companies to go into Venezuela. But we're not extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies to allow the American people to afford their health care. So the broader issue is framed around this massive wealth inequality that gets more massive by the day. And how do we approach it? And I think Kana has an approach. I think Gavin has an approach. And I think ultimately the right solution is probably somewhere, you know, in the middle between those two approaches, but is to figure out how do we get back to a system where billionaires are paying their fair share. And the first thing we do in a tax code is not to rush to help them, but we rush to help people who are hanging on a thread about their existence and their survival. So healthcare over private jets seems like a pretty easy sell to basically everyone that votes except a few of the private jet owners. I just quickly before we go, I'm curious, what are you thinking about for 2028? Are there any candidates or potential candidates in particular that you're interested in? And do you think I should have asked you this in the Minnesota section? I mean, Tim Walz is now not going to be thinking about 2028, obviously, that he's not running. Do you agree with that? Yeah, I agree. Yeah, OK. I agree. I'm just making sure. I think the way I think about it is less, you know, who do I like or not like? And it's more, what are the paths that exist? I think the path is going to be someone who strongly stands up to Trump during these difficult times. And I think that there are different ways about doing it. And I think that there's a governor's path. Yeah. Strong governor stands up. And I think when you see Governor Newsom, what he did with Prop 50, I think the benefits of that will also be seen again in the midterms and he'll be able to claim a victory then. I think that there's a path there. So if you look at governors, you know, I think Newsom has the leading edge of a governor's path. I think there is like a senator's path where, you know, you have a lot of people, whether it's Murphy or Gallego or Kelly or people who are going to be asserting themselves more now and perhaps that next year if the Democrats take control of the House or the Senate as being real leaders and launching investigations of Trump. So there's that accountability path. And then the third path, you know, is a Mamdani-style path, a democratic socialist path, someone who kind of comes out of nowhere, who's not even polling at 1% right now, but who galvanizes. Obviously, it can't be a mom, Donnie. Let's be clear about it. But who is that third, you know, that third rail and who's positioning themselves? Who is the right candidate there who is unapologetically kind of democratic socialist and who goes out there and says, here's what we're doing. I don't make any apologies about this. And then the question becomes is, well, how does somebody like a Newsom or the governor's path or a senator, you know, member path, how do they deal with that? To me, that I see it more in terms of the paths than who specifically, you know, intrigues me. And I think right now the favorite would be a Governor Newsom if we were to look at just who, you know, where the position is. The polymarket of it. But ultimately, for me, we're going to, you know, at the Midas Touch Network, as the race develops, you know, we're not going to pick a person or say this or that. You know, ultimately, for us, it's going to be everybody can, you know, say their piece. And on one day, we'll have this interview with someone who's, quote unquote, more moderate and then someone who's, quote unquote, more left. They'll all have a place to share their views to the people and let the people decide. Well, for someone who doesn't like politics, you're also very good at being political. I love that answer. I see it similarly. I'm also excited by the prospect that maybe the candidate will be someone we're just not thinking about at all. You said not even polling 1%. Maybe it's just like no one's even considering the possibility of this person. I hope it gets a little bit wild and fun and that we hear some great exchanges of ideas. And also, I'd like to do well in the midterms in the interim. Ben, this was such a pleasure. Thank you for joining me. I'm glad we did this. Always, Scott, we'll be going on more vacations. Feel free to go on more vacations. He's an unstoppable vacation machine. So you're going to be seeing a lot of me. Amazing. Great to be with you. And thanks for having me on the show. Yeah. And thanks for all that you guys do. Everybody subscribe to Midas Touch, everybody. My brother, Jordi, will be upset if I don't plug it. Subscribe to Midas Touch if you're not already subscribed. Yes. That is implied through the whole thing. Subscribe to Midas Touch. And Raging Moderates, obviously. Yeah. Bye.