Trump Blasts "Third Rate Podcasts"

Podsave America is brought to you by Simply Safe. Between the news cycle and daily to-do lists, your brain probably already has too many tabs open. Oh boy. Your home security system shouldn't be one of them. With Simply Safe, you can easily customize the system that's right for your home at simplysafe.com and it ships to your door in a few days. With app-guided setup and no drilling required, you can install and arm your system in under an hour. No need to wait around for a technician appointment. It's not just a camera, it's a comprehensive ecosystem of sensors, cameras for inside and out and 24-7 professional monitoring in the event of a break-in, fire or flood, Simply Safe's agents are ready to take action. There are no long-term contracts or hidden cancellation fees. Simply Safe earns your business by keeping you safe, not by trapping you in a contract. You get 24-7 monitoring for a fraction of what the traditional brands charge. I set up a Simply Safe home security system because it's an incredible piece of mind. You can set up really easily and then the app is great, the customer support is great. And no drilling required for you either? No drilling at all. And so then let's say you're married and you're out on a business trip. You want to know that your family member is safe at home, able to relax, throw on a couple of giant double-D fake boobies and talk to a friend without being afraid of a break-in. There it is. You don't want to be afraid of a break-in when you're throwing around those big fake knockers. You want to make sure the only thing knocking are those tie-ties. Will people remember that story? Oh yeah, they will. Yeah, you for sure. I hope so. For sure. Well, if not, you just brought it back. Okay, we've partnered with Simply Safe to offer an exclusive discount to our listeners. Right now you can get 50% off your new system by visiting simplysafe.com slash cricket. That's half off at simplysafe.com slash cricket. There's no safe like Simply Safe. The world moves fast. You work day? Even faster. Pitching products. Drafting reports. Analyzing data. Microsoft 365 Co-Pilot. Is your AI assistant for work. Built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and other Microsoft 365 apps you use. Helping you quickly write, analyze, create, and summarize. So you can cut through clutter and clear a path to your best work. Learn more at Microsoft.com slash M365 Co-Pilot. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm John Favreau. I'm Dan Fyfer. On today's show, we'll talk about Trump trading genocidal threats for a chaotic ceasefire. It hasn't changed all that much in Iran. Vance heading to Pakistan for negotiations with an eye on his 2028 politics. The prominent MAGA stars calling for Trump's removal. Republican fears that they've already lost the midterms. DNC drama over Israel. And Melania Trump's bizarre attempt to distance herself from Jeffrey Epstein. What a day. Then, Rahm Emanuel stops by the studio to talk with Tommy about Iran, Israel, and his widely rumored presidential ambitions. Quite the show, Dan. Quite the show. Quick reminder for all of you, please consider becoming a Crooked Media subscriber if you haven't already done so. We don't want you to miss out on any of the great content we're putting out for our friends of the pod. Subscribers get our new extra episode of Pod Save America called Pod Save America Only Friends. Tommy and I did it this week. It's great. You should check it out. Become a subscriber. We got other subscriber-only shows like Polar Coaster with the guy right here with me, Dan Fyfer. That's me. Virtually, at least. Access to all of our excellent sub-stack newsletters like Pod Save America OpenTabs. Ad-free episodes of all your favorite Crooked Pods. And you get to feel good about supporting one of the few independent, proudly pro-democracy media outlets left in Trump's America. So head to Crooked.com slash friends and subscribe. All right, let's get to the news. After a week where the president backed off his threat to eradicate an entire civilization based on a last-minute ceasefire agreement with Iran, we are basically back to where we were the last time you and I recorded a week ago. The Iranian regime is still in power, still controls the Strait of Hormuz, and still has its nuclear material. War is still raging in the Middle East between Israel and Lebanon. Oil and gas prices are still high. And Trump is still declaring victory while simultaneously threatening more war. One of his latest posts says that our military is, quote, looking forward, actually, to its next conquest. And in the same post said that if Iran doesn't agree to all his demands, quote, then the shooting starts, for some reason, shooting starts as in quotes, bigger and better and stronger than anyone has ever seen before. And Dan, while you might be mocking Trump's decision to pull us all back, to pull us all back from the brink of catastrophe, like some silly resistance lib, the folks at Fox News know what's up. Democrats are already saying that this is taco. Trump always chickens up. Let me give you another acronym, Nacho. Never avoids confronting hard obstacles. It's a nacho, Dan. It's a nacho. Is it a taco or is it a nacho? No, don't answer that question. How would you assess Donald Trump's diplomatic prowess over the last week? I think the- Would you call it a quesadilla, a chimichanga, an enchilada? Anything from the Taco Bell menu. OK. Supreme Gordita? Yes, a supreme Gordita of diplomacy. I haven't been to Taco Bell in years, so I don't know, but go ahead. Don't brag about it. Tripoli guy. Are you? Anyway, this time, this is here and over there. Just derailing us right at the beginning. Yes, OK. Let's get into the actual questions here. It has not been a stellar 36 hours or so of diplomacy for Donald Trump, I would say. It really hasn't been a very good month. Hasn't been a good decade, but I think the Iran War has brought to bear for the public something that we always knew to be true. I think even some of Trump's supporters suspected to be true, but suppressed that, which is that Donald Trump is an erratic, capricious idiot who is so in so far over his head that he cannot see straight. When you go through what is happening here, one day it is we're winning, the next day we don't need the straight-up formus at all, then we're going to blow up, we're going to send Iran to the Stone Ages, we're going to blow up every bridge and power plant because we need the straight-up formus. He agrees to a ceasefire negotiation. He has no idea what's in it. According to the reporting, he did not even know that he thought Lebanon was in it. It turns out it was, at least Israel thought it was not, or it wasn't originally. Then Bibi Natan Yahoo got on the red phone he has directly into the White House and had it taken out. Makes sense, since Donald Trump probably has no idea where Lebanon is and couldn't point it out. Yeah, he has no... Why would he think of the ceasefire agreement? He has no idea. He's not steeped in the details. He has no core policy ideas. He doesn't understand how the global oil market works. He doesn't understand what the straight-up formus is. He doesn't understand how your enriched uranium matters or where it could be or how it's used. He knows nothing. It's sort of a miracle that Donald Trump has been president for five years now. For most of that time, he's been able to dance through the raindrops of his own incompetence to avoid things like this. We always would say, strictly in Trump's first term, he's going to tweet us into a war, stumble us backwards into a war. Well, he did that. And he has no way of getting out of it. Yes, we can check. We stumbled our way into a once-in-a-generation pandemic. Miss-Manage that. That's the other example. The two times reality came to bear. We're incited a violent riot in the capital. Did that? Check. Yeah, he didn't have lead us into a dumb war yet. So he's... Yeah, it's just for most of the time, pandemic and this war aside, for most of the time, particularly in Trump's first term, his incompetence didn't end up mattering that much, which is he got very lucky. There weren't a lot of crises. He's the ones he got into. He was able to, he stumbled into him, was able to stumble out of them quickly. Now he stumbled into something he cannot get out of. And he is just truly the worst person to try to lead us out of this. And also the Times had a sort of a tick talk of the 36 hours when the ceasefire came together. And it was interesting because, and I think this was reported at the time, but when Donald Trump posted his genocidal threat that a civilization will die tonight, the negotiations had apparently been going somewhat well. And then when he posted that, the Iranians became so enraged that they broke off the negotiations. And the Pakistanis, and then ultimately China, had to try to put it all back together last minute to get a deal, which Donald Trump wanted because Donald Trump was looking for an exit ramp, because he knew the war was unpopular. So what he thought was going to get a deal by making a genocidal threat actually almost tanked the entire thing. I am shocked to find out that a threat of genocide did not improve diplomatic prospects. So in that story, it's also funny that story is 36 hours because, you know, the Times most famous travel feature is 36 hours in Paris, 36 hours in New York. And so when you Google Donald Trump, 36 hours Iran, you get some strange results. But the in there, there is the it's kind of the opening anecdote is Trump is sitting at his desk as the clock is ticking down to his 8 p.m. genocide deadline. And he's looking at pictures and video of Iranian civilians surrounding the bridges and power plants that Trump has promised to bomb. And his basic response seems to be, well, that'll be Iran's fault. Yeah. If I have to bomb them and they die. And he was like, in a bunch of meetings about other topics, just like bragging about how many bridges and power plants he was ready to bomb that night and destroy. There were there were, there had been some reporting to and I couldn't tell if it was like a negotiating tactic or not, may have been, but that said, that of all his advisors, Donald Trump has been the most blood thirsty of any of them. He's been like the biggest warmonger, which is not something that's going to make me sleep well at night, Dan. So there he also did right before we recorded, he was like, I, I hear that Iran might be charging exactly on the straight of Hormuz. They better not be. And it's like, what, that's been reported for, for days now. That was like, again, but part of the agreement was that the IRGC was going to run the street. So what did you think was going to happen? And then someone asked you about it yesterday and you said, we might charge tolls as well. You also talked about in a post how it's a great day for world peace after the ceasefire agreement. And now everyone's going to make money. It's going to be the golden age in the Middle East. Like what he has, he has no idea what the fuck's going on. Clearly. Wait. No, I, yes, you're a correction. He has no idea what the fuck's going on. Wait till he finds out that one of the ways in which the IRGC is accepting payment is in cryptocurrency and one of the acceptable methods is the world liberty financial USD one stablecoin. Wait, is that part true? The second part? I know that that has been reported. That is actually been reported. I cannot verify that to be the case, but I think it has to be in stablecoins and that is a stablecoin. Amazing. Amazing. So there's been a lot of stellar reporting in the last week about what's been happening in the White House during this war since we can't trust the public comments of anyone who works in the White House. Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan had quite a detailed story about the situation, room deliberations that led to war, which apparently included an in-person presentation by BB Netanyahu. What did you make of that piece? Like the diplomacy piece, just a wild expose of incompetence. It seems very clear that Trump was persuaded to go to war by BB Netanyahu. It seems that Trump gave it very little thought as to what would happen next. He took the word of BB Netanyahu according to this report and the Israeli intelligence service. According to BB is in the sit room and they've handed over the keys to the technology of the sit room to the Israelis. And so on the screen is the Israeli military, the Mossad to walk in through it. And Trump apparently seemed dismissive of the concerns raised by General Dan Kahn and others on our side and took what the Israelis had to say as more accurate or more or better, more predictive. And even though if Trump had half a brain, he know that BB has been pushing for this war for decades. And obviously it's not an unbiased presenter of information here. Yeah. What I got from that was, first of all, stunning that you had a head of state in the situation room, even an ally pressing for making the case for war in the situation room. I don't think that that has ever happened. I certainly don't remember it ever happening. That said, I also, the pro-Israel folks will say, well, Donald Trump has agency and he made the decision himself and it wasn't necessarily just BB. And I think the piece bears that out for sure. I think he, BB definitely made the case and definitely influenced him, but I think Donald Trump wanted to hear a pro-war case from BB Netanyahu. And I guess there was four potential objectives for the war. And the piece says, first was decapitation, killing the Ayatollah. Second was crippling Iran's capacity to project power and threaten its neighbors. Third was a popular uprising inside Iran. And fourth was regime change with a secular leader installed to govern the country. And basically the military, Kane tells Trump, he thinks the military does have the capacity. He wasn't even saying he was for it, but he said the military does have the capacity to do one and two, killing the Ayatollah and crippling Iran's capacity to project power. And then basically everyone in the room, except for what this was after BB Netanyahu left and the Israelis left, but all of his staff was like, all the rest of the senior officials in the White House were basically said that three and four, the popular uprising and installing a secular leader were crazy. Ratcliffe, the CIA director called it farcical. And then Rubio interjected, that means it's bullshit. I assume because Trump didn't know. But even as General Kane said, he believes the military could achieve one and two, he also warned about the Strait of Hormuz and how it would be very, very difficult to reopen or and how the Iranians could gain control of it, which has happened. Trump seemed to dismiss that because he thought, oh, the regime will have fallen by then and warned about depleting munitions, that we are going to use a lot of our weapons and defensive weapons, offensive weapons by doing this, and Trump didn't seem to care about that. And then there was even an anecdote in that story, how Tucker Carlson, who had been calling Trump and warning him not to do this and pleading with him not to do this, he basically said he had a call with the president right before Trump said go and Trump said to Carlson, I know you're worried about it, but it's going to be okay. And then Tucker said, well, how do you know? And Trump said, because it always is. I think there's that is a very, very telling anecdote. Me too. Me too. Right. Trump just assumed. Everything's going to go great. Yeah, it always has for him. Right. Go bankrupt, get rich again. Right. And I think especially since he survived the assassination attempt, he does have this. He has like a little bit of a little bit Messiah complex here, where he thinks like, you know, God has sent him to be president again. And he thinks it's, I think he, he saw Venezuela go off without a hitch for him at least. And he saw the, you know, in the 12 day war when they bombed Iran, like that went off relatively easily without a hitch as well. And so he just thought this would be the same. And he also sees it as a legacy item. He thinks, oh, well, no president's done this in 47 years. There's also a good piece in the Atlantic today. Jonathan Lamire wrote about how for Trump, like it's 1979 again, and he sort of like stuck in the 80s and 1979. And in 1979, you know, the popular political thing to say was like, oh, Carter was too soft on Iran. And, and, you know, we would have, if he had just bombed Iran, then it would have been better. And so like, and because Trump's always frozen in time, he's still thinking that it's like the 80s and that he's going to be the guy who couldn't do what presidents could try to do for 47 years and changed a theocracy in Iran. Yeah, I think, I think that's all right. Like he, it's like he has a Messiah complex. He also just has been, this goes to sort of his idiocy is to not understand the difference between a handful of directed strikes at Iran as part of Midnight Hammer or sending in the Delta Force into Venezuela to abduct one person from launching a war with Iran in the Middle East with the straight up for moves there. Like did not understand those differences is so it's galling really, like it's stunning to be that sort of ignorant of the whole thing. But he does all these things in the military, they do what they're supposed to do every single time without flaw, without loss of life. And he just thought he could get away with it. It's still, I think the 80s thing is a really interesting point because like it is his mentality about cities, about crime, about everything is that New York 1980s, the 1979, he sees how that ended Carter's presidency, the attempt to rescue the hostages, the inability to rescue the hostages in the embassy. But it still is strange that he has picked regime change as his legacy items. I know because he also watched Iraq unfold. And, you know, I mean, he claims to be opposed to that now. But what he was opposed to was when it all went south, he wanted to be on the side of saying, yeah, this is bad and what a catastrophe. And also, oh, he should have taken the oil. His lesson in Iraq is like, don't send in a whole bunch of ground troops and take the oil. And so, which I guess is why he hasn't sent in ground troops yet to Iran. But who knows, because the war continues. It's a very fragile ceasefire that has almost fallen apart numerous times. It may yet fall apart by the time they get to Islamabad this weekend. By the time you're listening to this on Friday, it may fall apart. Right, right, right. Because Israel is continues to just bomb the hell out of Lebanon and Beirut, a densely populated urban area. Hundreds of civilians have died, women, children, medics. And I guess finally, Trump called Bebe and said, like, you've got to pursue some kind of diplomatic negotiations with the Lebanese government, which had been trying to disarm Hezbollah before this latest war and had been also trying to negotiate since the Israel began bombing them, had been trying to negotiate with the Israelis some kind of a diplomatic solution because so many Lebanese who have nothing to do with Hezbollah are dying in this war and millions have been displaced. So I guess Trump has got Bebe to agree to pursue some kind of diplomatic negotiations, though Netanyahu also said there will be no ceasefire while negotiations go on. And so and the Iranians are saying like, absolutely not, we don't want to negotiate if this is happening, who knows if they'll stick with that or not. But that's sort of where we are right now. It just it does show the weakness of Trump here, which is Trump wants a ceasefire, he wants this over. The thing preventing this from being over is Israel bombing Lebanon. And he is unable to convince or force or use leverage on Netanyahu to get Israel to stop bombing Lebanon. And Israel is going to keep bombing Lebanon because they want the war with Iran to keep going. They want the United States to keep bombing Iran. So they're going to keep bombing Lebanon. And we were just in this is a circular argument that Trump cannot figure out how to get out of because he does not have the guts, the courage, the strategic sense to figure out how to get Netanyahu to do the thing he wants, even though Net Israel is dependent on the US for so much, particularly in this moment. And, you know, he also doesn't understand, or maybe doesn't care, like what Netanyahu's thought processes on this, which is not dissimilar to his thought process in Gaza, which is they're not just like taking out senior Hezbollah commanders, they are taking out like mid level Hezbollah, you know, operatives who are embedding themselves in civilian populations. Israelis don't seem to care. They're bombing the civilian populations anyway. They are basically occupying southern Lebanon at this point. And they may not have and it doesn't seem like they want to give it up, just like they are occupying Gaza. And basically, their view is, we're just going to keep pushing the boundaries outward from Israel. And we're going to keep calling them buffer zones. But what they really are is just taking land and occupying more land, thinking that somehow this is going to be enough to eradicate Hezbollah, Hamas, or any of the other terrorist groups they think are threats. And it continues to be proven wrong over and over and over again. And I wouldn't expect Trump to understand that, but maybe someone in the government might. So in the last few days, Trump has turned his attention toward another sworn enemy of the United States, NATO. The Wall Street Journal reports that the White House is considering a plan to punish NATO for not going along with Trump and Netanyahu's war by removing US troops from NATO countries. Trump has also been ranting about NATO, posting, quote, NATO wasn't there when we needed them and they won't be there if we need them again. Remember Greenland, that big poorly run piece of ice. Okay. You would think all this might have made for an awkward meeting between Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Ruta on Wednesday, but not so, according to Ruta. Is the world safer today than it was before the war was started? Absolutely. Because, and this is thanks to President Trump's leadership. Do you still consider him daddy after yesterday? I was not calling him my daddy, but saying, but of course, daddy has also a special connotation and I now have to live as this the rest of my life. Dan, do you still consider Trump daddy? I don't really know how to answer that question, John. It's like a trap is what it seems like. That guy, go ahead, you defend Mark Ruta. As you did in our morning meeting. I did. I did. I mean, what I was shocked by was the way in which you just dismissed the importance of NATO to the global alliances. I mean, here's the thing. Obviously, Ruta has developed, it has a strategy of appeasement that is incredibly embarrassing. For him, for NATO, for those of us who even have to consume him, it is embarrassing. I don't know how he sleeps at night. The problem for Ruta is NATO does not exist out of the United States. And they are staring down a face where we have Russian aggression headed towards the European continent. And if the United States pulls out of NATO, they lose the most important military part of NATO in the biggest threat deterrent to Russia. And so he like, I don't applaud the way he's doing this. I'm embarrassed for him. I'm embarrassed for his family that this happens. But he is trying to keep NATO together because like you love to just say, fuck you and walk away. But if he does that, then NATO, which is the thing he's in charge of, collapses functionally at least. Even if Trump doesn't formally pull out of NATO, which you know, you need to go to Congress for anyway, or who knows, maybe in a true social post he'll do it. Maybe he doesn't do that. If you're Vladimir Putin, and you have eyes on potentially invading a NATO country, do you really think the United States is going to come to the defense of NATO militarily, or even otherwise, if you go ahead and invade at this point? Probably not. And that's the whole alliance right there. That's the whole point of NATO. Now Trump seems to think, in these posts, Trump seems to think NATO is like, because you're in NATO, whatever one country wants to do in NATO, and whatever wars they want to pursue, and invasions, and bombings they want to do, then everyone else has to join too. And you're like, come on, we're NATO, you gotta help me. Yeah, he thinks we're all part of the same gang. And he doesn't realize it's a defensive alliance. Once again, a basic principle learned in European history, 101, or whatever else that Trump has eluded Trump till his 80s. Completely embarrassing. I'm so comfortable with my Helix mattress. I was sleeping like a bug in a rug for a girl. So, you know, let her out for her nightly diarrhea, and then I got right back. I've had all kinds of sleep issues over the years, and now I have a Helix mattress and so comfortable. You can customize it to your sleep preferences. Make sure you get the right one for you. I have a Dawn Luxe, super comfortable. Get free shipping and seamless delivery. Helix delivers your mattress right to your door. With free shipping in the U.S., the happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk-free customer first experience designed to ensure you're completely satisfied with your new mattress. So, you can rest easy with seamless returns and exchanges, plus Helix offers a 120-night sleep trial and limited lifetime warranty. I'm a huge fan of it. Just said that. So, you know, you should get one. Go to helixsleep.com. Love Helix mattresses. Podsday America is brought to you by Mint Mobile. Like most people, I like keeping my money where I can see it. Unfortunately, traditional big wireless carriers also seem to like keeping your money too. If you're fed up with crazy high wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks that actually cost more in the long run, then switch to Mint Mobile. Stop overpaying for wireless just because that's how it's always been. Mint exists purely to fix that. Mint Mobile is here to rescue you, with premium wireless plans starting at $15 a month. All plans come with high-speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Bring your own phone and number, activate with eSIM in minutes, and start saving immediately. No long-term contracts, no hassle. Ditch overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for $15 a month. $15 a month? Do you know how much you could be saving? Oh, with all these other wireless carriers? Mint Mobile, $15 a month? Come on. So expensive, the other ones. Come on. Come on. If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com.cruc. That's mintmobile.com.cruc. Upfront payment of $45 for a three-month 5G plan required, equivalent to $15 a month. New customer offer for first three months only, then full-price plan options available, taxes and fees extra, see Mint Mobile for details. So if the ceasefire doesn't completely fall apart, JD Vance is headed to Islamabad this weekend for negotiations with the Iranians. So I hope they're ready to say thank you. They've got to be meeting JD Vance with a lot of thank yous or else he's going to be very angry. Vance's team has seemingly been leaking to every reporter who listened that the vice president has been the senior Trump official most opposed to the war in Iran. This comes up quite a bit in the Times piece we talked about. When the ceasefire came together this week, Vance happened to be out on the campaign trail in Hungary. That's what it does. Yes, one does holding a rally for the country's pro-Putin authoritarian incumbent, Viktor Orban, where he just as a nice touch accused the Ukrainians of election interference. JD Vance accusing the Ukrainians of election interference as he, a U.S. official, was in Hungary campaigning for the authoritarian incumbent in that country. And apparently lacks self-awareness. Very normal. But America's best hope for peace in the Middle East did make some time for Iran questions on the tarmac and Budapest. Here's how he handled it. I think the Iranians thought that the ceasefire included Lebanon and it just didn't. We never made that promise. We never indicated that was going to be the case. First of all, he said that there are a few points of disagreement before the negotiation. Well, that must mean that there's a lot of points of agreement because there's a 15-point plan floating around. There's a 10-point plan floating around. If he's frustrated about three issues, that actually means that there's a lot of agreement. That's point number one. Point number two, to respond to each of those issues. And I read it very closely. Let me just say this. I actually wonder how good he is at understanding English because there are things that he said that frankly didn't make sense in some of the, in the context of the negotiations that we've had. The second thing Ghalibov said, which again, I found fascinating is he said, we refuse to give up the right to enrichment. And I thought to myself, you know what? My wife has the right to skydive. But she doesn't jump out of an airplane because she and I have an agreement that she's not going to do that because I don't want my wife jumping out of an airplane. We don't really concern ourselves with what they claim they have the right to do. We concern ourselves with what they actually do. And I think the president's been very clear on the enrichment question. Our position on that has not changed. I tell you, the, my wife really came out of nowhere. They did not expect him to reference his wife jumping out of a plane. But it really is interesting to see how J.D. Vance grapples with these foreign policy issues. You can tell he's really giving it thought and definitely not sort of just making it up on the fly. He is such a pedantic, obnoxious high school debater. Actually, I think, I think the misunderstanding, it couldn't be us. I think the misunderstanding is you not speaking English very well. Do you think their translators don't exist? Do you think that, what does he think this is? It's like, actually, it really depends on what you mean by right. Like, I have an idea. I have a way to get out of this because I was really thinking about Usha and skydiving. Like, do they have it? Is the agreement that she won't skydive or do they have a mutual non-skydiving pact? If I was her, I'd be like, yeah, sure, I won't do it. But if you want to jump out of a plane anytime. I'm sure she probably wants to jump out of almost any moving vehicle that she's in the JVance. I will fly you myself. So, if Vance does get a primary challenge in 2028, how far do you think he'll go in trying to communicate that he was always against this war and will it work? Because they are out there, someone from his camp, if not Vance himself, did some real leaking to the New York Times about him in that meeting. They have to Politico before. It's been quite a few places now that the Vance team has been out there just making sure everyone knows how opposed to the war he is in private. If you think Joe Biden was tough on Kamala Harris for trying to find areas of disagreement, how do you think Donald Trump, the guy who threatened to hang his last vice president, is going to be in the course of this election? Yeah, I don't know. I can't tell. I mean, I think he will be a complete dick, but like, I do wonder if on some issues he'll give him a little way. I don't know. I mean, it would be funny and not funny, it's not to my word sad. Darkly funny. Darkly funny if he's more malleable than Joe Biden was on this crucial issue of electability. Here's the thing though. Sunny hosting, get the question ready, you know? I don't think we're going to see JVance on the view at any point. A couple of things here. One, JVance is not going to have a lot of success running in the Republican primary away from Trump. Like the way these things typically work when a vice president is running to succeed a president, a two-term president, and we have two modern examples, George H.W. Bush and Al Gore, is there is a continuity candidate and there's a change candidate. And JVance by definition is the continuity candidate. And the continuity candidate almost always wins like George H.W. Bush and Al Gore did because even if Trump is unpopular, fading out from the scene, he still will remain very popular with Republican voters and popular enough that it would push JVance. So he's going to own everything Trump does. And his worst strategy, which is the strategy I suspect he would do because he is all short-term ambitious and not a lot of long-term strategic thinking, his worst strategy would be to try to distance himself from Trump because he's going to own everything Trump did. Right. Yeah, it's going to be interesting. It's going to be something that I enjoy watching. Yeah, it is because... Because he's also a bad liar. Yes. He loves to lie. I'm not saying it's not his passion, but he's not very good at it because he's also not very charismatic. And so I don't think he can pull it off that well. And I don't think he thinks he's clever enough to sort of split the baby on this, but he's not. Yeah, the gap between how clever JVance thinks he is and how clever JVance actually is, yeah, that's like the gap in the where the negotiations stand between the U.S. and Iran right now. And he just is so politically maladroit. He's just like a lumbering oaf knocking things over as he works his way through this. And so he's going, you just always see the cards up his sleeve when he is talking. And it's going to be, if he is trying to do anything other than just like be Trump 3.0 or whatever it would be, it's going to be so embarrassing and so easy to poke fun at. I honestly will consider unretiring from politics if JVance is the nominee because that would be the most fun campaign to work on. You could have like actually just... Honestly, I think we probably have more fun just doing it from here. We don't want some fucking lame candidate being like, no, that's too mean. I'm not candidate. I am on the make fun of JVance super pack side. Super pack. Okay. I think you can do it at JVance whether Republicans definitely did DeGore and just make him an absolute caricature of himself in such a group. We don't need to join one of the... That's just perfect. We'll just start one here. Okay. All right. We'll get on that. We launched it right here. We have a plan. See you guys in two years. Well, I'm glad that the guy who... You can always see the cards up his sleeve. He's our man in Islamabad for the Dikouchees. Well, yeah. He's there to take the fall. You think so? I mean, it's unclear exactly why... I think one reason why he's there is no one... The Iranians and all the other interlocutors do not trust Wicoff and Kushner because they're complete dopes. And they think all the... And then they think the people who aren't those two are like blood thirsty warmongers and they do... And I think with some legitimacy, they think the JVance is the most opposed to this war and probably will be easier to talk to about potential peace or some diplomatic agreement than anyone else in the administration. Yeah. I think that's probably true. I think they probably trust him a little bit more. They're a mistake. So, one thing's for sure. Vance must clearly be aware that the outrage among MAGA elites who opposed this war has now reached a fever pitch. I know we've played a lot of these clips in the last month, but they just keep getting better and better. So here you go. How do we 25th Amendment is ass? Can he just behave like a normal human? I mean, honestly, like the president, all right, 3D chess, shut up. Fuckin' shut up about that shit. His negotiation tactic is to kill an entire country full of civilians, men, women, and children, an American president, so that the Strait of Hormuz will be opened. It's just wrong. The American people have to open their eyes and deal with reality and deal with truth. And the truth is, look, you may have supported President Trump for 10 years like I did, like you have, but this is not the same man. This is not the same man that we supported. Those people who are in direct contact with the president need to say, no, I'll resign. I'll do whatever I can do legally to stop this because this is insane. And if given the order, I'm not carrying it out. Figure out the codes on the football yourself. Dan, this is breaking. We do have a response from the president to all this. And I'm just going to read this presidential statement. And it is lengthy, so I will try to go quickly. And my emphasis will be only where there are all capital letters. So. Thank you. Thank you for your service. I know why Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Candace Owens, and Alex Jones have all been fighting me for years, especially by the fact that they think it is wonderful for Iran, the number one state sponsor of terror to have a nuclear weapon, because they have one thing in common, low IQs. They're stupid people. They know it. Their families know it. And everyone else knows it too. Look at their past. Look at their record. They don't have what it takes and they never did. They've all been thrown off television, lost their shows, and aren't even invited on TV because nobody cares about them. They're nutjobs, troublemakers, and will say anything necessary for some free and cheap publicity. Now they think they get some clicks because they have third rate podcasts, but nobody's talking about them and their views are the opposite of MAGA. Or I wouldn't have won the presidential election in a landslide. MAGA agrees with me and just gave CNN a 100% approval rating of Trump. Not hand flailing fools like Tucker Carlson, who couldn't even finish college. He was a broken man when he got fired from Fox and he's never been the same. Perhaps he could see a good psychiatrist or Megan Kelly, who nastily asked me the now famous only Rosie O'Donnell question or crazy Candace Owens, who accuses the highly respected First Lady of France of being a man when she is not, and will hopefully win lots of money in the ongoing lawsuit. Actually, to me, the First Lady of France is far more beautiful than Candace. In fact, it's not even close. Or bankrupt Alex Jones, who says some of the dumbest things and lost his entire fortune, as he should have, for his horrendous attack on the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, ridiculously claiming it was a hoax. These so-called pundits are losers, and they always will be. Now fake new CNN, the flailing New York Times, and all of the other radical left news organizations are hailing them and giving them positive press for the first time in their lives. They're not MAGA, they're losers. They're just trying to latch onto MAGA. As president, I could get them on my side anytime I want to, but when they call, I don't return their calls because I'm too busy on world and country affairs. And after a few times, they go nasty, just like Marjorie Trader Brown. But I no longer care about this stuff. I only care about what's doing right for our country. MAGA is about winning and strength in not allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon. MAGA is about making America great again. And these people have no idea how to do that. But I do because the United States is now the hottest country anywhere in the world, President Donald J. Trump. Okay. A few things here. First, I want our listeners to know, there's no editing. John did that in one take flawlessly. Yeah, I did. I didn't practice at all, no. It was very impressive. Also, just a couple swerves in there. The deep, when you read it, it's all kind of, it begins, you kind of know where it's going, right? Yeah. There are losers are not on TV, which to Trump is the pinnacle of success is cable television. Third, then we swerve into a vigorous defense of Brigitte Macron, including a testament to her beauty. Yeah. So he is in the no penis camp. Yes. Then he debunks Sandy Hook conspiracy theories, which was nice. And then we're back down the rabbit hole. Then, and also, you know what, he doesn't return their calls because he's too busy on world and country affairs. Yes. Which is evident. But he definitely does not care. He definitely does not care. There's nothing about that that suggests caring. He is not mad online. Not at all. Make sure everyone knows. He is not mad online. I no longer care about that stuff. He doesn't care about it. And that's why he doesn't usually talk about it. And that's why he can barely speak about it. Just fire it off a op-ed length post about this. So in addition to those people getting under his skin, there's also a great New York time story about the most MAGA of MAGA fans on, of all places, Truth Social, which is where that lovely speech I just read was first posted. And apparently, there's all these people on Truth Social, which has got to be all the people on Truth Social because I don't think there's that many people on there in the first place. But they're all posting that they're ashamed to have voted for Trump, that he's gone off the deep end, etc. etc. I think like 50% of the replies to his Easter Sunday, I'm going to kill you all post, whatever the fuck it was, were negative. Only like 20% were supportive, something like that. The New York Times analyzed like 40,000 truths. I'm just, I'm hoping they used AI on that. What do you think about all this? Do you think it'll start showing up in polls of Republican voters? Because it hasn't already. It is showing up in polls of Republican voters, right? It is. It's happening on the margins. Sorry. Yeah. I mean, Trump's approval rating among Republicans about around the same last year was low 90s, high 80s, which is kind of where he's always been. Now it's low 80s, high 70s, depending on what you look at it. It's in the 70s in the PRRI poll, similar in the Pew poll. What is notable is it's mostly from non-Maga Republicans, his approval rating is most definitely among them. That's very Iran war related. He's getting 80-some percent of Maga Republicans and some polls as high as 100%, according to his fake Karyantan poll, among self-enified Maga Republicans. The Iran war is basically almost even. I think it's like plus eight with non-Maga Republicans. I think we tend to think of non-Maga Republicans as people just to the right of the bulwark. That's not actually the case. It could be people who are, you know, have pretty conservative views on some issues, who supported Trump this time, but didn't support him previously, who got in the process because of him. They're just not, they're just like probably less engaged Republicans, but they're pretty conservative. I bet Marjorie Taylor Greene would consider herself a non-Maga Republican at this point. Because Maga doesn't, we've talked this before, does not mean you're an adherent to a specific philosophy. It means you're a diehard supporter of Trump. People who are non-diehard supporters of Trump can span the ideological spectrum within the Republican Party. We do have another post from Trump. Iran is doing a very poor job, dishonorable, some would say, of allowing oil to go through the Strait of Hormuz. That is not the agreement we have, President DJ T. Okay, so we're doing this in real time. Things are going great, it seems like. We talked about the Toll one and now he just, it's like he's learning, yeah, he's just learning about things in real time. And I guess it probably took him a while to draft the post about Tucker and Megyn Kelly, so maybe he hasn't been paying much attention to the news. Yeah, I mean, so you know this as a former speechwriter, is that you would go into your office and you just start writing. Sometimes you got, you got to turn the Wi-Fi off on your computer so that you can draft, you can't be checking social media. And so he finishes that. He did say he's been very busy with World and Country Affairs. Yes, he came out of the World and Country Affairs meeting, checked the internet and like, holy shit, the Strait is still closed. It's like a course you take in college. Yes. There is another thing about the Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, all these folks breaking him a Trump is one, it's a real problem for him politically for a couple reasons, one, like that has been his strength is he has had unanimous Republican support among elected officials and mega media. And now that we have these high profile people breaking from Trump, that just, that is bad for him is like his lost his superpower. And the other way to think about this is I think people tend to think that these are quote unquote, MAGA shows and the people who watch it are MAGA Trump Republicans. And obviously the majority of them voted for Trump and like Trump, but they are not fully MAGA. This is not Fox, this is not the Fox news audience, right? The Fox news audience are hardcore Republican supporters of Trump, mostly over the age of 70. The people who consume Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson tend to be younger. They tend to necessarily engage less in politics and what, and, but it's not also just not the audience of those shows every day of people tuning in to who that matters. It's that these clips are going viral everywhere. And so people who do not, who may have voted for Trump do not engage in politics. They're seeing critique from in part, you know, like in group allies of Trump. And that is very, very damaging. These are people, these are trusted voices among a certain set of voters. And now they are saying the same thing about Trump that they are hearing on Podsyn America. And that is the worst possible place for Donald Trump to be. And Trump aside, because, and you know, we'll talk about the midterms in a second, but like this is also going to deprive, like people who are cross pressured, who might like a lot of things that Trump has done, don't like Iran or are hearing all this criticism about him on Iran. Like are these people going to make sure they go out in the midterms and vote for Republicans? Are these people going to like sign up to join JD Vance's campaign when he announces in 2028? Like it is doing damage far beyond Trump. What is happening right now? And far beyond what the polls show right now. Yes. So a common thread with the Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson line of critique is some conservatives specifically calling for invoking the 25th amendment, which if you recall from earlier seasons of the Trump show, or the spin off series, Sleepy Joe involves the, involves the vice president and the cabinet deeming the president unfit to serve and removing him from office. A lot of Democrats have also called for invoking the 25th amendment and or impeaching Trump, I think it's a Wednesday, we're at around 70 Dems in the House and a handful of senators. You had a whole message box about why this isn't exactly a simple process or even a feasible one. Go ahead. I love an organic message box plug. So thank you for that. This one got me very exorcised because like we've all sort of come to the conclusion that Trump deserves impeachment and removal, but that is not a realistic way to get rid of him. If the Senate was not going to remove Trump after he sent a mob of his supporters to murder them, it's hard to fathom the scenario in which they will. So now people have started calling for the 25th amendment because the behavior that Trump has exhibited really every day, but particularly in the last few weeks here, particularly in these truths starting on Easter, is that of someone who really shouldn't, is not mentally fit to be in office. And so Democrats are calling for it, members of Congress are calling for it, it's seeing a lot of this online. And here's the problem with this is the 25th amendment is actually a more challenging to execute than impeachment removal by a large degree. So first, it begins as you point out with the vice president, a majority of a cabinet that includes Pete Hague Seth, RFK Jr., Trump's personal defense attorney right now, Steve Woodcoff is apparently a member of the cabinet. A majority of them have to send a letter to Congress saying that Trump is unfit. If they do that, JD Vance becomes the acting president. What happens then is Trump gets a chance to tell Congress he's fit, which he would obviously do. Then Congress has 21 days to reconvene. And then you need two thirds of the house and two thirds of the Senate to vote to keep JD Vance as acting president. So it's like, how is that going to happen? That is not going to happen. You can't not let alone just getting a members of Trump's cabinet of flunkies to say he's unfit and then getting two thirds of the house and the Senate, which is a higher bar than impeachment. And here's my problem with this strategy is it puts the onus on the wrong people. The people who are responsible for Trump being able to act this way, execute this war, act without any sort of accountability are Republicans in Congress. The cabinet does not have to have faced the voters in November, Republicans of Congress and do. And so our focus should be putting the blame for where we are on the people that we can vote out. Because the best way to reign Trump in is not to appeal to JD Vance and the Republican cabinet, it's to elect a Democratic Congress. And I think this distracts from that. End of rant. I couldn't agree more. I even like on impeachment, like, we're going to get JD Vance. Is that but first of all, the idea that Republicans come this far, and now they're going to impeach Donald Trump when they, when they took a flyer on it after January 6th, like it's just none of it's going to happen. I get that this is a stand in for why aren't Democrats doing more, more Democrats should call for impeachment or 25th Amendment. We got to do something. We got to do something. It's just not how the system is set up right now. And the best way to, you know, end Trump's presidency is to elect a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate and then elect a Democratic president in 2028. That's just the way it is right now. And on issues where you might be able to get just enough Republicans to have a working majority in Congress, then maybe you can do stuff there. But even then, Donald Trump has veto power, like Donald Trump has tremendous power as president right now. And he has that power mainly because the Republican Congress, at least enough people in the Republican Congress, most of them, 90 something percent of them go along with literally anything he tells them to do. And, and they need to be held accountable for that. That's what the next election is for, holding Republican politicians accountable for never saying no to Donald Trump about anything. The other, my other beef with this is it's like a cheapsdun. It is, you know, you're getting all these text messages that are like, sign our petition that Trump should be, to call the 25th Amendment is a way to get online engagement and raise grassroots dollars. And when we treat our voter without telling people the true context of how this works, there is a penalty for treating our voters like idiots. Time and time again. And this is one of those examples. Pushing this, pushing Democrat, and look, I'm well for pushing Democrats to do things that they are too afraid to do. 100 percent. We have a long record of doing that. But like, pushing Democrats on this and like yelling about Democrats and not like that is treating voters like idiots. Some of the pushback you get from people is that you want to make the case that Trump is unfit. If you want to make the case Trump is unfit, you do it this way. Donald Trump is unfit for office. I see it, you see it, and the Republicans in Congress see it. The thing is, they are afraid to do anything about it. So if you want to reign in Donald Trump, we have to get rid of the people who allow him to act this way. Go to votes of America.com. Or even so the house, some house Democrats today, because they're all on recess, first of all, most Democrats, especially all the Democratic leaders said it's crazy that we're on recess still. Donald Trump is threatening genocide. They Congress should come back into session. Republicans have refused to bring Congress back to session. Democrats have no power to do that, but they called for it. A bunch of them went to the Capitol today, Democrats, and were like, all right, we're going to try to force another vote on the war power's resolution. Republicans, again, blocked that. That would be another thing that Congress could do is to reign him in on the war itself. And again, Republicans refuse to do that. Again, you can't make up the numbers right now. We just don't have the majorities right now. If we have majorities and then we're not doing things with the majority, then you should definitely blame Democrats for sure. And the one that we don't have the majority of for sure, Trump's cabinet. Hence the problem. Yeah, no kidding. Ponte of America is brought to you by Sundays. We all love the idea of feeding our dogs real fresh food, but the reality is that fresh dog food usually means taking up freezer space, time to thaw and prep, then a lot of mess when you serve it. Get the good and leave the hassle with Sundays. Sundays was founded by a veterinarian and mom, Dr. Tori Waxman, who got tired of seeing so-called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics. So she designed Sundays, air-dried real food made in a human grade kitchen using the same ingredients and care you'd use to cook for yourself and your family. Everybody out of Sundays is cleaned and made with real meat, fruit, veggies, and no kibble. That means no weird ingredients you can't pronounce and no fillers in the best part. You can just scoop and serve no freezer, no thawing or prep, no mess, just nutrient-rich, clean food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days. So you get more of them to share together. You got to feed your dog good dog food. They feel better. They're healthier. They'll live, you know, longer because they're getting good food. We all love Sundays. We all love Sundays. Your dog will love Sundays. Make this switch to Sundays. Go right now to SundaysforDogs.com slash Cricut 50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code Cricut 50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at SundaysforDogs.com slash Cricut 50. SundaysforDogs.com slash Cricut 50 or use code Cricut 50 at checkout. All right. Here's some good news. It seems like Republicans who will be on the ballot this November are starting to become, as the White House likes to say, panikins. I guess it's their version of bedwetters. I don't know. They're both kind of stupid, but it's fine. On Wednesday, Politico published a story with the headline, We lose the midterms. Republicans worry Iran might have already cost them Congress. Woo. The title of which quotes a source described as, quote, close to the White House. It's not just the polling freaking them out. Earlier this week, Democrats notched another pair of huge overperformances in two big elections. The Wisconsin Supreme Court will now have a 5-2 liberal majority after Chris Taylor crushed her conservative opponent by 20 points, which was an over 20-point swing from Kamala Harris's 2024 performance in the state. A 10-point overperformance from the last time in 2025 that the liberal candidate won a Wisconsin Supreme Court election. And down in Georgia, even though the Republican candidate did win the special election to replace Marjorie Taylor Greene, Democrat Sean Harris beat Kamala Harris's performance in that district by 25 points. The largest overperformance in any special election by a Democrat since Doug Jones won the Alabama Senate seat way back a thousand years ago in 2017. What was your reaction to the elections this week? Great. Great. I mean, great. Next. All good. These are all small sample sizes, but the margins in elections since the war on Iran started are better than the average. It's about Democratic overperformance, both in 2025 and earlier in 2026. Yeah. Now we're getting into the 20s. You and I talked about this a couple episodes ago, and it was like teens, high teens to low 20s. Now we're in 20s to mid 20s. It was about, I think it was 12 and a half points through early 2026. And the last couple have been very impressive. Democrats are very good at winning Supreme Court seats in Wisconsin. I think we've run four in a row now, which is a credit to the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the way they've trained Democratic voters to understand the value of these, winning the Waukesha mayor's race, first Democratic mayor 15 years, incredible. The turnout in Georgia. But we're just seeing it all over the place, which is Democrats are fired up. Republicans are unenthused and swing voters are moving to Democrats. And you're seeing in Wisconsin, small sample size again, and in Georgia, you're seeing huge swings among Hispanic voters and Hispanic precincts, like massive swings. That's all very positive news. I know. I'm trying not to get too high on our own supply here, but some of these results are just, it's the perfect storm of all the things that could go wrong for Republicans with voters, which is that they, in the higher turnout elections, they are losing because voters are switching, people who voted Republican or voting Democrat. And then in other elections, the GOP turnout is collapsing. So you have Republican voters either not showing up, they're both not showing up and switching their vote. And in deep red places, blue places all over the place, all different types of districts. The dark lining sort of things to watch out or just be aware of is there are caps on how well Democrats can do because the house map is so gerrymandered. We've talked about this before. There are only four Republicans in districts that Kamala Harris won. I think there was something like 19 or 20 of them, Republicans in districts that Hillary Clinton won. And we had seven of them in California alone in 2018. So, but this environment is actually much better for Democrats than 2018 was at this point. And like you can, there's a world in which a lot of seats that would not otherwise be in play or in play. I mean, the Cook Political Report moved the Iowa governor's race to a toss-up today. I know. Go rubs hand. And again, and this is, this matters a lot for the house, which we were talking about, but it starts to get me thinking about the Senate even more. Yeah, this is, this is, the Senate is in play with a margin like this. It's a, like, if it really is like 12, 13, you really have to nail it exactly because Trump won a lot of these states that we need by 11, 12, nearly 13 points. But we're, we're in the game right now. And that's something that seemed impossible six months ago. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but it does seem like the 2028 Democratic primary has already begun. A bunch of potential candidates showed up to speak at Al Sharpton's National Action Network event in New York City this week. And down in New Orleans, the DNC spring meeting kicked off on Thursday, where one of the first headlines was about how a non-binding resolution criticizing APEC's influence was voted down, while two other relevant resolutions were kicked to the something called the Middle East Working Group. DNC Chair Ken Martin explained that the APEC resolution was merely shelved in favor of a quote, blanket repudiation, quote, condemning the corrosive influence of all dark money in Democratic primaries, which so then the idea is that that resolution included APEC, among other organizations, or other, you know, dark money organizations. This is all on the heels of new Pew polling this week that shows roughly six in 10 Americans now have unfavorable views of Israel, including an all time high of roughly eight in 10 Democrats, which is up from 69% just last year, and 53% in 2022. Interesting detail on the, on the DNC thing in a political story before the vote, an anonymous DNC member said that they received direct calls from two quote presidential aspirants who would have to answer for the DNC's positions on Israel and APEC if they run. Now, I read a couple times, I'm still curious if those presidential candidates wanted the resolution to pass or not pass. But they called about it. What's your guess? And how do you think this issue of Israel plays out in the 2028 primary? I, I maybe one on one on one on other side of the issue. Oh, maybe. Who knows? But I just, if you were thinking of running for president in 2028 and in April of 2026, you were calling DNC members about a resolution, a non-binding DNC resolution. You are focused on the wrong things. Also, not for nothing, but I'd like to hear a compelling argument for why we need non-binding DNC resolutions. It seems like it's the same reason for why we need questionnaires from interest groups that presidential candidates fill out. Yeah, it's just that at least, that at least has it all cause ourselves some trouble. Well, that one at least, you are, has a purpose from the group's perspective, which is to get the group's perspective. Yeah, from the group's perspective to get candidates to lay out a position on things because they're going to make endorsements. And so you want to, you should have to answer some questions you want to make endorsement. We can go along on the, on the role of groups. I know you have a lot of thoughts on it. We don't agree on all of them. So it'll be a fun debate one day, but the here, I don't even know, it doesn't serve a purpose for anyone, the DNC or anyone else. So maybe we should just give it a try. Look, I do think that when it comes time for the 2028 Democratic Party platform, we should also get rid of that. I know, I know, but at least there you can say, yeah, yeah, that's a different, that's a different thing. Like, what is the party stance on Israel, party stance on any number of controversial issues and then everyone can fight it out. It is like, what is the non-binding resolution at the DNC going to do right now? It's going to give you political stories. Like that is, that's a sole purpose is for there to be political political stories about it. The other two resolutions, by the way, were one recognizing a Palestinian state and the other conditioning military aid to Israel. And I think the Middle East working group is a place where these resolutions supposed to go die. Yeah. I think that's the point. Yeah, you haven't heard a lot about the Middle East, Middle East working group with the DNC. No, I assume that, I mean, this is, it's like, it's not an unclever solution to the problem of just like, this is a place to send, where you're not killing them, you're not enacting them, you're sending them to some other place. Right? You're, you're referring, they're just simply being referred. The whole thing is, the whole thing is done. It builds a lot of trust with the voters in the party. Yeah, it's, well, also, the path to establishing a better democratic party policy on Israel is not through the DNC committee process. That is correct. It is through the candidates. Who made it should be coming up with the position, as opposed to calling the DNC. Yes. It's just a bizarre use of timing energy from that candidate, or those two candidates. And look, it's hard, you know, you have eight and 10 democratic voters who have an unfavorable view of Israel. You have even fewer who trust Netanyahu. It is, you have, you know, a huge majority who sympathize with the Palestinians, as opposed to over the Israelis in Gallup polling. Just there's been a dramatic shift on this issue among Democrats since 2022. Just massive. I cannot imagine the next democratic nominee winning the primary with a position that says we should continue giving the military and other aid to Israel that we give right now. No, no one would run on that. That wouldn't even be, I feel like, I feel like even conditioning aid at this point is the, like the moderate position. That's table six. I think I imagine that most of them will get to ending aid to Israel. Offensive aid or? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I think there's an argument to be made, right, which is like, we should treat Israel from a perspective of the taxpayer funding that we are providing the same way we treat any other ally, any other country. And to me, it's a question whether it's a real alliance right now, because I think that the government there is an authoritarian government, which yeah, we have one too. But I think that the government there is not one that I certainly want to support with my tax dollars, as they have did what they did to Gaza are still doing to Gaza are doing what they are to the West Bank are doing what they are to Lebanon right now. And so, and it is a wealthy enough nation that they should be able to provide for their own defense. And like, I don't I don't I think that to me, and look, these are treated as like fringe lefty positions, for some reason still. But you know, over 60% of Americans support getting rid of all aid to Israel. And you just saw the eight, it's 80% of Democrats at this point, you go to 18 to 49 year old Democrats, it's even higher. 18 to 49 year old Republicans, it's like 57 60%. I mean, I think that people who really care about Israel and are much more pro Israel should really think long and hard about why it is that they have lost the the public battle over this public opinion war over this so badly, and why it has shifted so dramatically over the last couple years. And the answer is not because of tick tock. I was gonna say yes. And you know, it's just it's just not and it's at this point it's insulting to tell people that. And I think if you really care about Israel, then you need to think long and hard about like, why this has happened, and whether fighting so hard to continue the US relationship with Israel, as it is right now with the aid that we're giving it is really worth what has happened to public opinion because of it. One thing I'm confident of is that this is going to be a point of great discussion during the Democratic primary be a lot during the debates will be on this issue. For sure, it's going to come up in town halls and interviews will come up with interviews on this podcast and everywhere else. So we're going to get to know how all the candidates feel about it. I imagine that a pack will through its super packs, try to influence the process in some way. I'm quite confident that their their desire to do so will be counterproductive to their aims and the candidate they support. And it will backfire as it did in Illinois, as we saw recently. Just one other thing that I think is just something people should flag in their head as they're listening to the conversation around this is the way in which the DNC switched from not taking a pack contributions to not taking any contributions from dark money groups is a rhetorical device. A lot of Democrats are using right now to not answer the APAC question. Well, they'll say, well, yeah, I'm not going to take it from anyone, but without getting to the heart of the question about APAC and the role that APAC specifically plays, you could ask that about other special interest groups and you should AI, right? We have these AI super packs who are who are putting their thumb on the scale for some Democrats and primaries. You saw the crypto super packs come in and try to influence the Illinois Senate primary. So we should have talked about all of those interest groups, but people who do not want to take a specific, don't want to specifically answer the APAC question because they feel like it's fraught will then turn to this, well, we shouldn't have any dark money in politics as opposed to dealing with this specific question. And what I would say is don't avoid this question because it's fraught. That's good advice generally, yes. Just, you know, and it's like, if you don't know enough about it, learn more about it and decide first, you know, always decide, forget about the polls, decide what you believe about this issue, just as you should decide and have a real thoughtful response and ideas on, you just mentioned it, artificial intelligence or any number of controversial issues that will be, or non-controversial issues that will be debated in 2028. Figure out what your position is, figure out where you would go, figure out how you would answer these questions. That's the most important thing from like a, what do you believe moral perspective? But I should just say, and we went through this in 2020, there are some positions that in a primary are argued about and Democratic candidates worry because they're like, oh, well, I'm pushed to the left in a primary and I'm taking these sort of lefty positions, then I got to worry about what happens in a general. And this whole issue about Israel and APAC, this is not one of those issues because this is not only like, like the views on Israel are very clear within the Democratic Party is overwhelming. We're talking 80%, same with military aid to Israel, same with APAC, and it's also a like 60% issue in the general election. So now if you genuinely care, like just are very pro-Israel, then like, you know, don't take the position just because it's, you're looking at the polls, like, you know, go and fight the position and say, if you don't agree with me, you don't agree with me, but this is where I am. And this is what I believe. But like, don't pretend, no one should pretend this is some lefty issue that people are getting pushed on in the primaries that is going to then cause them trouble in the general because that's just bullshit. All right, one last thing before we get to Tommy's conversation with Rahm Emanuel, as we were getting ready for today's show, we looked up at the TV and suddenly Melania Trump was making a statement at the White House, denying that she had any substantive relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Let's take a listen. I have never had any knowledge of Epstein's abuse of his victims. I was not a participant, was never on Epstein's plane, and never visited his private island. My email reply to Maxwell cannot be characterized as anything more than casual correspondence. Several individuals and companies have been legally obligated to publicly apologize and retract their lies about me, such as Daily Beast, James Carville, and Harper Collins UK. Not Harper Collins UK. The end was magical. Everyone in the office was like, what the fuck is happening right now? Do you have any idea? No one seems to. Maybe we'll get an answer as an answer as come while we're recording this or when we'll come between now and tomorrow. But none of the reporters can have any idea why she did it, what the context was. A lot of times, there will be rumors going through DC or politics about a pending story. I've been looking everywhere for it. Yes, and everyone knows it's coming. Even if it has been printed, it hasn't, but everyone in politics knows it's coming. And then you will see politicians do things and they make sense if you know that story is coming. This is not one of those times. It doesn't seem like anyone knows what she is talking about or why she picked today to offer this out of context statement of protesting way too much about her relationship with Epstein. Also, apparently Trump told CNN he knew that she'd be making a statement. And then Jackie Alamany from MSNOW called him and he told her he had no idea she'd be making the statement. And that's also what Jackie Heinrich from Fox heard as well, that he had no idea. So there's conflicting reports of whether Trump did. I did notice in one of the playbooks, either in the morning or PM, at the bottom, there was a New York Post story before the announcement where an associate of Melania Trump said she'd be making a quote big announcement today that would quote spread internationally. Well, congrats. For people who don't know, the email she was referencing was in the Epstein files. It was to Glaine Maxwell. She said, dear G, how are you? Nice story about J.E. in New York Mag. You look great on the picture. You look great on the picture. Those are her words. I know you were very busy flying all over the world. How was Palm Beach? I cannot wait to go down. Give me a call when you're back in New York. Have a great time. Love Melania. That was from October of 2002. The New York magazine piece about Jeffrey Epstein. She was referencing was the piece where her husband is quoted as saying he likes the girls really young. So that's cool. I don't know, man. I don't know. Is that your advice you would have given Melania Trump as a White House communications director to randomly go out to the cameras on a Thursday afternoon in the middle of a war in Iran to just say, hey, I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know, Jeffrey Epstein. Bye. Yes. I think that's the exact right thing to do to go out there and no questions. I will take no questions about this. I do not know Jeffrey Epstein. While I have your time, I just wanted to briefly deny involvement in any illegality that you did not ask me about. Okay, bye. And if you think that you can connect me to Jeffrey Epstein, just ask James Carville or Harper Collins how that went for them. I will see you at the next premiere of Melania. Amazing. She is a weird one. Okay. When we come back from the break, you will hear Tommy's conversation with the former mayor, ambassador and White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. POTSET Podsday America is brought to you by Bombas. The springtime thought is finally here. Flowers are blooming days are longer and we're saying yes to more plans and finally getting outside. Running, walking, just moving again. It's the perfect time to upgrade your everyday go-tos with Bombas. Bombas sports socks are super comfortable and designed with sport-specific tech for running, cycling, yoga, hiking. You name it. Bombas are cushioned where you need it. Sweat wicking and they don't slide around so you're not constantly adjusting your socks. And with the weather warming up, it's time to add Bombas sandals into your footwear rotation. Their Friday slides are made with a super lightweight and waterproof EVA that's soft but still supportive. They're super comfortable and perfect to just slip on and go with your running errands, lounging outdoors or just want something comfy and casual to wear. John Love it over here wears them to his famed Pilates class. Yeah, we're in there because I got the grip socks from Bombas but I also wearing all my gym classes that I'm going to. Love working out these days, really getting into it. Now that the weather is finally getting better in springtime thoughts here, it's LA. It's LA. Yeah. Didn't write this ad copy for us, that's for sure. Hey, tens of thousands of people aren't leaving LA County because of the weather. Okay, they're leaving it because of bad governance. Okay. So let's get that right. All right, buzzkill over here. I'm just saying. Always comes back to zoning. It does come back to zoning. But you know what? That doesn't stop me from having a great time jogging outside of my Bombas sports socks. I got the vintage striped ones. Love them. I wear them all the time. I match them to my shorts, John, because I'm gay. Bombas, get them. I'd like to match things too. All right. Don't make that a gay only thing. Okay. Okay. And for every item you purchase, an essential clothing item is donated to someone facing housing insecurity. One purchase, one donated with over 150 million donations and counting. Head over to bombas.com slash cricket and use code CROCKED for 20% off your first purchase. That's B-O-M-B-A-S dot com slash CROCKED code CROCKED at checkout. My guest today is a former member of Congress, White House Chief of Staff, Mayor Chicago Ambassador. Sure, seems like he's running for president in 2028. Ron Mimmanuel. Great to see you again. Nice to see you, Tommy. Welcome to Los Angeles. You have a more of a casual LA chic, I see. Yeah. Yeah, like a glove. It's the only thing clean. Just rip it off your brothers. Going to Harry's closet. Too bad he's too big. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just you know, we all saw the shirtless photos of him and Elon Musk. He's been working out. Or the meds are working either way or both. He's changed. It's a hell of a drug. All right. We're joking because we're breathing sigh of relief this week because our president decided not to go through with his threat to destroy the entire Iranian civilization. So that's nice. That's what counts as a win in the Trump 2.0 era. But the debate over why the war started is raging. Have you had a chance to read Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's long piece of The New York Times? Okay. So they report that on February 11th, Prime Minister Netanyahu met with Trump in the Situation Room. The head of the Massad zooms in. They make this pitch. Yeah. Yeah. Who I'm sure you know. And they give this presentation about the case for war. It includes a bunch of assumptions about how easy it'll be that are now catastrophically wrong. We're probably, you could tell they were at the time, but now we know they were. Can you remember a foreign leader meeting with the president in the sit room during your time? Is that weird? Yeah. I think, well, two things I want to, one thing about last week, I want to go back to because I was thinking about this more. You have the president of the United States. The president of the United States. This is not a speech in which you do the arsenal democracy. We're going to destroy civilization, the Persian civilization. At the same time, the vice president is in Budapest saying we're going to save the Christian civilization. And then you have a secretary of defense who's calling this a Christian crusade. What could go wrong when you have those kind of brainpower working elitism? Now I feel better. I got that off my chest. And the president tweeted, you know, we're saving and destroy. Whatever. We're destroying everybody. Which is the cry of a terrorist. So we're both destroying and saving two, one civilization and the other. So nobody, I'm thinking of both my Clinton time six years, an Obama time. I do not remember a single, not only a single foreign leader in the situation room, anybody themselves or their staffs ever even given access to that room. So or any one of those rooms or etc. So I don't ever remember that happening. And I don't think it would ever happen. It is very weird. So what happens in that room is also weird. Not only that they're in that room, but what happens in that room. So obviously, Trump decides to go to war. He and he alone is responsible for his decision. There is this debate and a ton of reporting now about the pressure campaign by Netanyahu and lobbying Trump to go to war with Iran. What is the appropriate way to talk about that in your view? Because I'm sure you've seen the folks I've seen who argue that it can veer into a conversation that is anti-Semitic, that leans into tropes about Israel, control the United States or foreign policy. Like, what's the right way to talk about? It's going to lead into that. And also given what the Secretary of State said six weeks ago, it's only going to kind of layer that. I think depending on how conversations go in Islamabad, you're going to go from that conversation to I think this president may scapegoat. Now, you and I both worked for President Obama, but I want to say this is the prime minister has been shopping this to four, possibly five. I can't remember Clinton, but Bush, President Bush, rather, 43, President Obama, President Trump, you know, the first term, President Biden. Everybody rejected this. And because when you looked at it, the equities versus the liabilities just in pan out. So I don't give the president of the United States who has agency here any past, but this will go into a very bad place and a very, I think in the sense of the prime minister made an argument to the president. I don't absolve the president and anybody on his team. But I also read the story of the flip side of this, Tommy, which is also nobody in the president's administration. They're all, they don't have their hands on the bloody way. They're all leaking on each other. They're saying they opposed it. Yeah, they opposed it. You know, this is all crap, you know, other words that they use to describe their position. So everybody's trying to make sure that they were not seen at the scene of the crime. And I'm sorry. So I don't absolve any of them. The prime minister said what he said to the president, but this argument is going to, given the context also in America and given the context of anti-Israel or anti-Semitism, it's going to lead to a very bad place. And I do think though, and I will say this, I mean, President Obama was presented a similar plan. That's how the Olympic games, I think that was the term that was used for the cyber attacks on Iran's capacity. Nobody took kinetic, the decision to go into the deep end on the kinetic effort, this president did, and it's on him. Yeah. No pass. It's certainly on him, but it also just seems like self-evident based on all this reporting based on what Netanyahu himself says when he's back in Israel, where, you know, he's been, there was a tape release in 2001 where he was kind of bragging about his ability to manipulate leaders in Washington or move them, I think was the term he used. But let's just like lobby them, do politics. Well, look, I mean, let's go back. He runs for reelection with the message, oh, I think I'm getting the exact word, but I'm getting the sentiment right, which is a leader at a different class. That was the message and it had pictures of him with Putin and pictures with him with Trump. So that was actually what he campaigned on publicly. So you don't have to kind we don't have to be archaeologists or anthropologists here. That's what he campaigned on, that he could play at a level that nobody else played. So it's in his own words. But again, only the president of the United States can order American servicemen and women, only the president of the United States can order resources that are pulled out of the Indo-Pacific, pulled out of different theaters to that theater, pulled fad weapons out of South Korea, pulled patriots that were supposed to go to Ukraine, only the commander in chief can do that. And so, you know, the prime minister made his case, doesn't mean you have to buy it. Yeah, exactly. Tucker Carlson, speaking of things only the president can do, Tucker Carlson is very worried about Trump using a nuclear weapon in Iran. Has that fear occurred to you? And if you ask, can you talk a little bit about the process and how that actually works and how few checks there would be? I don't, I don't leave. Look, I mean, it's a theoretical discussion and we're hypothetical rather. I don't think the president of the United States would do that. And while I have zero confidence in the people around him, and I mean that from the cabinet to the White House, I actually think they would hit the pause button, even they would find some nerve of character to step up and say, what they didn't do here, meaning here being the lead into the Iran war, they would know that this would have to be stopped in some way. The pause button would mean convincing him though, right? I mean, there's no like, you can't take the nuclear button and throw it into the ocean, so we can't press it, right? No, there's no way, look, head of the Joint Chiefs, there's the rest of the military. I think there would be a, I'm just betting on human character, there would be a massive pushback on this. I don't know what got Tucker Carlson, he's not like a horse whisperer, the great whisperer to Donald Trump to say that, but this would be, well, I don't mean this cavalier, so I want to be very clear. You can definitely take the Nobel Peace Prize off the table, that's not happening. So I don't mean to, I said that as you, this, I don't believe that would happen. Okay, I'm glad to hear you. I just think there's a lot of other things that I think that are worth spending intellectual energy on to and analyze what are the repercussions, things that they never do, even an impulsive person like this would not do that. Let's hope so. J.D. Vance, the vice president, is now going to Pakistan to lead these talks on Saturday. He'll be joined by Steve Wittkopf and Jared Kushner. Oh, I'm so comforted. I watch Trump's son-in-law and his golf buddy. Is this just a real estate deal? Isn't this just real estate? Yeah. So look, I'm not a big fan of Dumb and Dumber, Kushner and Wittkopf. I think they're just, like, it's a very technical negotiation, right? The JCPOA negotiation took 18 months. That's how long it took to cut a nuclear deal. The wish list on the Iranian side that they're demanding from the US is far more vast than that. It's like, get all your troops out of the Middle East, things of that nature. Does Vance getting involved give you any more confidence or hope that they can get some deal or maybe another ceasefire? This is reading tea leaves. Only in the sense that the Iranians think he was negative about the war. If they believe that, they may have a slightly better confidence to deal with him. Obviously, any credibility, and I believe zero for Wittkopf and Kushner, the idea that you had no expert said it's very clear from the UK who was in the room in Geneva, they didn't even know what they were being offered pre-the war from the Iranians. Zero confidence. I have some sense that maybe Vance will have a different level of respect. It gives you somebody new they can interlock. But remember, they've been burned twice, once in June, this time in negotiations. They're going to come in it with appropriately heavy, heavy cynicism. Let me say one other thing, which is, and take this slightly different in a sense of Vance, one, you can't unring this bell. But you can say, okay, how do you kind of make lemonade out of this lemon that we've created? That's A. B, as the Iranians went in, we went into this war trying to degrade Iran's nuclear capacity. They discovered they had the nuclear option, the Strait of Hormuz. The other thing, C, Iran since 79, has wanted to get the United States out of the Gulf, and they become the Persian Empire again. That is their task. So how do you kind of undo this not in some way? One view is on the short term, on the Strait of Hormuz, either all ships are out or no ships are out. And you're going to cut off Iranians' money and China's energy. Everybody's out or nobody's out. And it's easier to close something as the Iranians are proven than for us to try to open it. So reverse the score. Second medium term, the Iranians want a fee. I think we go to the UN's International Maritime Entity. They run it. There is a fee charge, but it goes to Iran, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, everybody who got suffered in this process, not just Iran. And the dollars or the resources are split that way among all the countries. And it's managed by the United Nations Maritime Association. Third long term, use the Abraham Cords beyond what it is as a peace agreement that we're a party to. It now finances a pipeline for Kuwait, for the UAE, for Bahrain, etc., either to the Gulf of Oman or to the Red Sea. So there's alternatives to the Strait of Hormuz. I would in addition say to anybody who's part of the Abraham Accords has zero tariffs. And I would also say anybody in the Abraham Accords gets a front of the line on U.S. military equipment. He would double down on America being a trusted ally to our Gulf partners. But that to me, short term, medium term, and long term is the best way to navigate what is a big giant lemon. Yeah, it's a nightmare. Well, let me offer you what I think might be some pushback to the plan. Sure. I'm open to anything. That's just my idea. We're spitballing here. Trust me, this is more sophisticated than the situation. And the first meeting between the Prime Minister and the President, much more sophisticated than third analysis. If we jointly closed the Strait of Hormuz with the Iranians, wouldn't that make a party to all the potential famine that could happen if no fertilizer is getting in the way? There's no doubt about it, but here's the other thing. Their economy is devastated. The only lifeline they have or international, the IV they have, rather, is what they're selling to China. We do know now, you and I sitting here today, China was a party to pushing Iran to say yes. There are elements that then ruled, okay, we're going to do that for the ceasefire. So if you shut off where China's getting their major energy, you say, I'm not saying this is pretty, but we have never, ever, the United States in 250 years, gone to war and allow the other country financial security where our allies suffer. And I say enemies or opponents or whatever term you want to use, both Iran and Russia. This is insane. And so you're literally keeping whatever prop you have to Iran and China, people that are trying to hurt you, you're actually giving them economic benefit. So to me, yes, it would be chop. There's no perfect here. But we're going to shut it. We're not going to shut it with you. We're going to shut you down. You shut everybody else down. We're shutting you down. Yeah, at least that level is the playing field. I mean, I also worry. You're looking for leverage here. Right. We currently, clearly, Iranians have shown us we don't have much. I mean, and I think that's why Tucker's worried we get to a nuclear option, because there's no conventional military way to open the straight up her moves from the air. You can't bomb it open if they're laying mines or just firing off one missile. I mean, the other thing, going forward, when you look at like Trump's goals here, like first of all, the highly enriched uranium is still sitting in Iran. Doesn't sound like we're going to get it back or get it out unless there's some deal cut to the big concern, right? They clearly degraded Iran's military. They bombed the shit out of a lot of stuff. The other consideration was cutting off their support for proxy groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. My concern is if they are now able to charge this toll at the Strait of Hormuz, that is going to be a massive withdrawal. That cannot be it. That cannot stand. That will go back to rebuilding their military funding, Hezbollah funding all these proxy groups, right? I mean, it seems like, again, this is Trump's problem he created. It just seems like. There was always an implied pressure that implied that Iran could do this on the straight up, but it's never was tested. It's now been tested and they discovered, look, I got an 800 on my SATs. Okay. They've never before did they, everybody believed this. It was always in international order. The second thing, I mean, I want to go to the class at the war college. Ukraine and Iran have no Navy and they've controlled the waterways. I want to go to that class. I want to study this. I'm serious about that. I think, you and I have sat there, but we have a doctrine to fight two wars on two fronts simultaneously, capacity to do that. We're going to have to change the doctrine to be able to say we're going to fight two wars, one conventional and one unconventional. And we're not set up that way. Neither our military, our industrial base, or the capacity, both of these theaters, I mean, what's happened in the Iran war and what's happened in a Ukraine, Russia war or Russia's war on Ukraine has taught us an exponential lesson that we are not ready for the unconventional asymmetric war and we better, that's the second war. Now, March of 2025, a year ago, I wrote a piece for the post, which is, don't ask for Ukraine's minerals, ask for their drone technology. That's where their experts at. Now, not only did we not ask for it, we rejected it when they offered to help. The president doesn't know friend from foe and we are now stuck where our Gulf allies are buying weapons from Ukraine, but we stiffed our arm. And they have no Navy and they've destroyed the Russian Navy and the Black Sea. We can claim, which appropriate, we have destroyed the Navy of Iran, but they control the strait of the humerus. No navies and they control waterways. That tells you where the future is. A lot of tactical victories and strategic losses there. Somebody said the other day I read this, I can't remember who. America's won every war, every battle that has lost each war. Sounds about right, since World War II, for sure. Let me shift gears. So you've been crisscrossing the country. You did a recent stop in New Hampshire. You're still not ruling out a 2028 presidential run and more definitive answer today. No, but I'll whisper it to you. Exploring. No. Okay. I went there, I went three places recently, which is La Crosse, Wisconsin, into Franklin, New Hampshire. And then I've been in Spartanburg, the Corridor of shame in Abbeyville, Piedmont area, the Black counties, and then Columbia, and then Charleston. And that was all about looking at community colleges and what both all three cities are doing, which I think incredibly innovative. Things that we also did in Chicago between community colleges, you know, leading into the future economy, but also linking up with high schools. Something that I think is the fundamental thing we have to flip the switch on. And the top issues I assume are whether Democrats should talk to leftist Twitch streamers is kind of like up here. Then it's like the economy and then education. Let me, well, I wouldn't go down there, but I would just say, that was a joke. I understand that. I'm going to just, I would say I've done a town hall in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and a podcast there. I just want to make a little, did it in a, met with 10 teachers, educators, parents, 10 kids up in Franklin. I did a, in Manchester, the eggs and politics thing. I did a, at Wofford college, Craig Martin interviewed me there in front of the college. We went to a community college. I did 400 people in Charleston. Nobody asked me about Hassan Beger. No, nobody, nobody, they asked me about how do they get ahead. They asked me how they get an education. Now, you know, I'm, the ticket to the middle class and getting ahead is through education. And you can't, you know, we live in a period where you're urban when you learn. Nobody's asked me that question. And I've had to close to about 50 questions from people. Yeah, it's from, you know, the billionth reminder that the conversation in DC and the media sometimes doesn't match what the country actually. Sometimes. Yeah, often. I would say close to 90% does not match. It's a parallel universe. Yeah, it is. Yes. So you did a recent appearance on the view. You said DC needs a power washing because of all the corruption. You also wrote a Wall Street Journal column talking about how Democrats could use the majority. And you said the Democrats, you're clear of the gotcha politics and excessive focus on Trumpian slime. Is there a tension between those two things? No, so I appreciate this. Maybe this is on me from not writing clear. I think I wrote in that piece. Not I think I know. There's a difference between corruption and him being untruthful or a liar. I'd go 100%. I've said this, as soon as I came back from Japan, 2024, December, I said, go after the corruption. I built when I was chair of the DCCC, the House of the Tom DeLay built. The corruption, what's going on with the prediction markets, what's going on with Wiccov's kids, Lutnick's kids, them and people in the president's kids, 100%. When Nome's done at the DHS and the contracts that they provided, 100%. There is a difference between that corruption, which matters to your wallet and our playing to type, which is a retribution vindictive politics, that then they say, Washington and they break the sound and they turn it on mute right when we should be turning to our agenda. There is a two-sided here. Hit them on the corruption and offer a proactive agenda. I actually think, given where I've been, not only the states I just talked to you about, but other states, Washington does need a good power washing. Absolutely. Not just trading stocks in Congress. Did you ever think you would ever see investor day in the Oval Office? Or bets on invasions of a country. Or did you ever think a member of the court, not just Supreme Court, be taking gifts from people who have cases in front of them or trips? Okay. So the whole place needs to be cleaned. What does that reform agenda look like? What do we propose? Well, I'll give you my thing. One, I would raise the minimum wage. So that's number one. Two, well over September 2025, August, I wrote, and I believe there should be a rate payer bill of rights. Three, I would do acts on healthcare cost control, specifically around the insurance companies, gouging people, breaking them up. Four, I would do a ban on social media for kids under 16. I've called for this before, first, on prediction markets. No federal employee or their family can participate. Yeah. I mean, like reforming for Washington. So like, something like that, banning Cal-Chi, banning stock trading. Banning all that, but also stocks, companies that you've been in. If you have X of, let's say your net value is north of, just I'm totally number out, million dollars, has to go into a blind trust. That's true for all federal employees. Second, not just the Supreme Court, but any court, you're not allowed to take gifts and be very specific on the ethics package that Robert thinks he has, but doesn't enforce, make it codify it. And that's also true for the president of the United States and family members and the cabinet. Now, the other thing I said for, and when you hit the age of 75, get pre-TSA because you're out of here. Done, finished, pasta. You're not hitting your prime at 78. I like that a lot. Let me try to annoy you now. So you bought and sold some, you bought and sold some individual stocks when you're ambassador to Japan. I know the American prospect wrote a piece criticizing the timing of one of those purchases because it came before a government announcement that they said could benefit the stock. Was that a mistake? Are there other things you do differently? If I did, it is, it's definitely a mistake. I don't know what that is, but definitely. I look, I did a blind trust when I was chief staff, when I was mayor, when I was congressman. Also did it there as ambassador. So if anybody did it, I have no idea. Oh, it was a blind trust, it wasn't your ambassador. Why doesn't everyone just do a blind trust that seems so easy? That's what I just said. I'll give you a funny, not a funny story. I guess to trade on inside information. I get elected to Congress. And I'm going to get on financial service. I said I'm going to set up a blind trust. Chairman Oxley comes to see me and says, I don't want you to do this. I said, well, I'm doing it because I'm a bare knuckle politician. Something's going to happen one day on a hearing that we're going to do in financial service. I don't know what they're going to do. So forget about it. And I did it for then. I did it also, normalizing and tell you, did it when I was chief of staff, and I did it when I was mayor, 100%. It seems like a no-brainer. I don't know why it's not law. I mean, look, in 2007, I was a sponsor of a legislation that's related to exactly this, which is stocks traded in front of committees. In front of your committee, you can't have be involved or investor or trade stocks in committees, other interests that have any company that has interest in front of the committee. It's insane. I mean, I think this is an issue. But it's all Washington. That's also includes the executive branch. Well, yeah. And I think this is an issue that kind of drives people crazy because it's a no-brainer. Of course, members of Congress or the president's family or cabinet shouldn't be buying and selling individual stocks. Everyone should put their stuff into blind trust. But it's in the president of the United States will go before the State of the Union and say that and say, we're going to pass legislation. But he only saw it by Congress. He didn't talk about the executive branch and he didn't talk about the judiciary. Well, of course. I guess what I'm getting at is he says that, but then people are also well aware that Nancy Pelosi's husband has made a shitload of money trading individual stocks. And there's a lot of people that track that index and feel like you know, you can't have that. Tommy, that's why I said the whole Washington. Look, there's no individual or no one of the three branches of government that you're going to get without a blemish. The only way to do it, everybody. Go on. Before that, I'm going to ask you a couple more issues that I think progressives will push you on if you do decide to run for president in 2028. It's no different than me pushing myself. Good. So you were mayor of Chicago when a young man named Laquan McDonald was shot 16 times by a police officer. Your administration had a video of that, of his killing for over a year until a court ordered it released. You didn't release it until the court order. What do you say to people who are angry, not just about, you know, the Chicago PD killing this kid, but also what they feel like was a cover up to evade accountability? So there's not a day or a week that goes by that I don't think about this, what I could have done different. Number one, a young man lost his life innocently. Third is I thought I had, but you're earlier, two years earlier, fixed the system. And I acknowledge when I said it to this whole city, spoke, I thought I fixed something and the problems were much deeper than I appreciate. Might have wanted to think I thought I fixed it when the gulf between the community and the police department and the culture in the police department, which is much deeper. And I said, that's on me. I have to fix this. I own that. Now, you know this, Chicago is not alone. No cities alone, given what's happened on police departments across the country. And I did go about fixing it. But as the inspector general said, I've actually, the problem is I followed the rules because with the last thing you want is a mayor involved in making a political decision when the FBI, the what's IPRO, which is the police department's independent body, everybody's investigating, you don't want the mayor involving themselves. Then you say you're politicizing a criminal investigation. The FBI was involved, the U.S. attorneys was involved, the states, there were four entities investigating. So if you don't involve yourself, you're part of covering up. If you do involve, you politicize an investigation in danger of the prosecution. In Chicago, the police officer actually was prosecuted and convicted. That doesn't change anything. That's on me. I own it. As you know, one thing, the difference between a legislator and somebody who's a mayor, it's lessons learned going forward. And so you have to make changes. I did it. And in this process, Tommy, his uncle, who's a pastor on the West Side, Laquans, he and I have become really good at self-references. It's not a week that goes by that we don't talk or communicate in one way. But did I screw up? Yeah. If you're looking for perfection, I'm not that guy. Do I? If you're looking for a person that knows how to learn from mistakes, 100%. Another sort of big fight within the party has been generational. I mean, you said a minute ago, you, I think, want to get your TSA pre-check because you're getting out of here at 78, right? 75. 75. Sorry. So I love that. I think we need a new generation. I think when I first said it, you texted me and said, great. I don't think that people in DC are internalizing your message, right? I mean, this fight is playing out most clearly in Maine where truck tumors are really thumbing the scale on behalf of former Governor Janet Mills. The grassroots seem to be behind Graham Plattener. God knows who will win. But this, it doesn't seem like Schumer is concerned about the whole conversation we just had about Joe Biden's age. How do we fix that? And what do you say to young activists who you might meet in Iowa or New Hampshire or whatever who are like, well, look, you worked in the Clinton administration. What does the next generation look like? Are we paying lip service in this or are we really fighting? So the way I look at it is a couple things. One is there is a generational piece to that. But as you know, all your strengths are your weaknesses. After Donald Trump, I'm not sure we can afford as a country on your job training. I say jokingly, but I'm serious. You got to be good in the family room. You better be good in the classroom. You better know the boardroom, the break room, the situation room, and not just the bathroom, which is something we really get experts as a party. Now, I also think also one piece of change was a party that's known as weak. There's nothing as you know, when it came to fighting, the insurance companies get 10 million kids health care. One person got that assignment. When it came to making sure we got health care for people with preexisting condition, one person had to leave that effort. When it came to making sure we took on the financial industry and the banking industry, they do fundamental reform, one person got that call to leave that effort and take on the gun lobby and the NRA. Nobody's ever gotten in the ring with me, didn't walk out without a bloody nose or a broken nose. Ask the Republicans when they saw Nancy Pelosi become the first female speaker. So I make no more and I will say this otherwise. I don't need another title. I got 20, yeah, I saw you one for cheap on eBay. I got 20,000 kids that got free community college because I was willing to take on a failed system. I got kids that used to have a 56% graduation rate and 84% of them now graduate high school with a degree and college credit and have a mandatory letter of acceptance from either college, community college, branch of the armed forces or vocational school. 98% of our kids in Chicago achieved that. I have took on a bureaucracy where we didn't have kindergarten or pre-K throughout the city and I made a Republican finally increase the funding to the city of Chicago, which has been every mayor's desire, got something done that hadn't happened before. Do I take on failure? Damn right, because I'm a lucky guy. I had grew up in a family, an immigrant family that had love and education. The question is, are you willing to sit there and husband your political capital or spend it and take it on? So nobody who's walked in the arena with me did not walk out without having a broken nose. More than willing to say that. And if you want just generational change, I'm not. You want somebody that knows how to take on a fight and win, that's a different battle. That's a good pitch. Last question for you. Last, I was just getting kind of into this. You know this is fun. 2006, things were really well for Democrats in the midterms. You noticed. You were leading that effort in the house. I was sitting on my ass in the Senate working for Barack Obama. I was watching what you were doing. So you were the scheduling problem. Sorry, he's got a ready book. Chapter one. Democrats keep overperforming in these special elections. The most recent one and the biggest overperformance or biggest swing to Democrats just happened in Georgia, Georgia 14, Marjorie Taylor Greene's district. I would say Wisconsin. I'll give you a different view. Okay. Well, that what we took literally racked up Bashar al-Assad numbers in Madison in this most recent Supreme Court. No, I'll tell you why. No, it's just something different. I'll let you, you want to finish the question? Well, no, the question is just like, I feel better. I feel increasingly bullish. I think the question is how do you close the deal? Is it about Democrats getting out and making an affirmative case and fighting? Or you see some other people that say, crouch up, hide under the table until the day after the election? Neither one is right. First of all, 90% of this race is a referendum on the president and the rubber stamp Republicans. That was true in 1994. It was true in 2006 about Bush. It was true in 2010 about President Obama and the Democrats. And it's true in 2018 about Donald Trump and the Republicans. This is a referendum election. And I can tell you, having gone all over this country, it's building ahead of steam. This is going to be level five type hurricane. Two, side note, why I think Wisconsin? One of the last three Supreme Court biggest one was just the other day. And then monsters. Second, second, we've now 14 for 14 in statewide elections, haven't lost one. Third, we picked up the suburban County outside of Milwaukee, where the Republicans used to balance against Milwaukee. We picked up the county except C. Third, fourth, in the third district, which is the southwest corner where La Crosse is, where I went in for Rebecca Cook, where the Republican member of Congress there. The Supreme Court candidate, our candidate, took 57% of the vote there. Donald Trump won that county overwhelmingly. It used to be where Rod Kind was, Congressman. The Wisconsin numbers in a battleground state were not just good on the Supreme Court. You go two, three layers down, they were unbelievable. And I think what I would say is keep the focus on the Republicans, keep the focus on the fact that they've been complicit with Donald Trump. I do have argued this before. I'd present a six and 2026. Not because anybody remembers the six and 06 or the contract with America. You should have it. A, it helps you focused in 2027, what your priorities are. It creates a discipline dialogue inside the party, what we're going to stand for. And it will not just help in 2026. 2027 will be the seminal year that will decide for us who we are and what we're defined for in 2028. And when we ran health care, children's health care, the renewal, helped negotiate it for President Clinton, led the effort in the House with Speaker Pelosi, forced Bush to veto it. 60 Republicans were with the Democrats. It sets up Obama in no way. When George Mitchell in 1990 gets Bush 41 to sign a tax increase, it breaks up the Republican Party. Pap, you can and challenge is a sitting Republican president, and it sets up Bill Clinton in 1992. So I believe do the work now, both not only for 2026, but for the discipline of 2027. One of those is going to break through and get to the President's desk. If he signs it, you want it to be something that divides the Republicans from him. If he vetoes it, you want to make sure it also divides the Republicans from him. The goal there then says who we are and who they are. Yeah, I agree. I think running against Trump is important, and we should continue to do it. I still think we have a massive problem as a party of people not knowing who we are or not knowing what we stand for and maybe not liking it if they do. Tommy, there's three or four layers here. Not knowing what we stand for, not knowing whether we'll fight for who we think. The reason I'm going around on these community colleges, 40% of the people in America go to community colleges that go to higher education. These are the unseen, unheard, unrespected folks. I know what I did to reform the community colleges of Chicago and what we did to make sure that people that went there can walk in and say, I went to Malcolm X and get that nursing job at Rush Presbyterian Hospital. The guy I met in Spartanburg who's working on mechanical skills and he has a $33 an hour plus benefits job waiting at GE for him on May 11th. To me, you can't just say these things that sound great in faculty lounges or papers. You actually have to feel the people that are under the intense pressure not only have an agenda for them, but they're willing to take on and break some eggs to get it done. And our party hasn't, just hasn't. It's not just about glicks. It's about calculus. It's not just about social media posts. It's actually about social studies. And we haven't prioritized the right things. We just haven't. And we have to be acknowledged about that. And we got ourselves caught. I've said this before and I'll say it again, in a cultural cul-de-sac going around in circles. We were off the American people when they're backs against the wall, they expect Democrats to show up. They don't think Republicans are show up because they know they're in the boardroom cutting up the pie. They expect us to show up and we did not show up for them. We deserve this spanking. And we got one. Rahm Emanuel, great to see you again. Thanks for coming. Yeah, we solved all the world problems. Yeah, we got it. We're good. Hormuz, wide open. All right. That's our show for today. Thanks to Rahm for stopping by. And I'll be back in the feet on Sunday with a conversation with none other than Hassan Piker. That's right. Rahm Emanuel was here today. Hassan Piker will be here tomorrow. And then I will be closing all of my apps for the weekend. Yeah, I'm going to be closely monitoring your social media usage starting Sunday at 6am. Yep. Nope. You could complain all you want, because I'm sure the clips can be everywhere, much like Melania. I will not be taking any questions about my relationship with Hassan Piker. Who is this Hassan Piker fellow? I've never think about him recently. I don't know. I think he's something about Twitch. I don't know what you're talking about. Twitch. Oh, Twitch. Anyway, have a good weekend, everyone. Bye, everyone. If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to cricket.com slash friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube or Apple Podcast. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Cricket. Pod Save America is a Cricket media production. Our producer is Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farrah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Cherlin is our executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Hailey Jones, Ben Hefkot, Mia Kellman, Carol Pelleve, David Tolles and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.