I Know Why Spineless MAGA Bow to Trump

They just have no courage. They have no backbone to stand up to this president. And that's why they haven't in the last year. It is really a question of courage and whether or not they say, I don't care what this president does. I don't care if I put my own re-election at risk. I'm going to stand up for this country because right now we have a dictator and a regime that is seeking to completely destroy democracy, to enrich billionaires and enrich people like him. That's what all this stems to, by the way. It's not just the vanity project of Trump. This leads directly to profiteering, making money and making money for his friends. I'm Joanna Coles. This is the Daily Beast podcast. And today we're talking to one of the nine Democrats who insist that President Clinton show up in front of the Oversight Committee to talk about Epstein and what he knew about Epstein. He's also, however, someone who wants to impeach Christine Ohm, Pam Bondi, Pete Hegseth and RFK Jr. The moment the Democrats win back the House, if they ever do. I am talking about Maxwell Frost, the youngest member of the House of Representatives. He was 25 when he got elected. He's 29 now. He's in his second term. And you might have heard of him recently because he was just having a drink at Sundance when a stranger came up and just hit him in the face and said, that's what's going to happen to people like you and you're going to be deported. So no time to waste. Let's get into it. So Congressman Frost, just tell us about the attack that happened on you in Sundance. Are you fully recovered? What happened? Yeah, I'm OK. And, you know, actually, at the time of the assault, I wasn't bruised or bleeding or anything like that. I mean, it was painful, but I didn't bruise or anything. Essentially what happened is I was at a private event that a friend had invited me to at a bar and a guy broke into the event, ran straight up to me and started, at first I thought I was just a drunk, confused guy and then he turned very violent and essentially started saying racist things to my friend and I, who she is visibly a brown Latina and talking about how we were going to be deported, were the kind that he was going to deport. And then he punched me in the face, like right here on the face, knocked my glasses and ran away. Yeah. And then he bolted and ran away. And actually, apparently, and I didn't see this, but according to the police reports, he then went up to another person, a black woman, and essentially said, we're going to deport you too and pushed her into the bar. And then he was apprehended. He was quickly arrested. that he has court coming up and the whole thing. It's an active investigation, so I don't want to comment too much on it, but that's pretty much what happened. And it happened so quickly, and I was so shocked in the moment. I'm not the type of person to bottle up my feelings, but I am the type of person that sometimes it takes me a few days to fully process something. So even in the moment, I was like, okay, and then kind of went on through the weekend, And it wasn't until I got home that I realized I was a victim of a hate crime. And that's exactly what it was, especially because of what he said about me due to the color of my skin and who I am, my friend, too. So it was a very scary thing. And, you know, the bigots are emboldened right now across the entire nation. And it's important that, number one, we do what we need to do to protect ourselves. But number two, that we understand it doesn't feel great to say this, but there is no space that is 100 percent safe. And so it's just important for us all to always just keep that in mind as we go to events and stuff, especially as elected officials. Sometimes I forget I'm a congressman when I just go out to events. And it's something I'm going to take a lot more seriously now. Well, I was going to ask you, did you sense or do you know whether or not he targeted you specifically because you are a congressman or did he just burst into the party looking for some violence and you were one of very few black people there? Not 100% sure. There are actually a lot of people of color at the event itself and a lot of black and brown people. But I'm unsure exactly what was behind the whole thing and the initial reason he had broken in. I know for a fact it was a hate crime, but that's something that's being investigated. He did come up to me and start talking about political things and deportation, etc. us. Well, we interviewed Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett on the podcast a month ago, and she said she now has to wear a bulletproof vest. Wow. Yeah. I mean, and that's something that's, you know, been suggested of me when I do parades and different stuff like that and something we do, you know, when needed. But it's a very dangerous time for everybody, not just elected officials, but also particularly for elected officials as well. We saw what happened to Melissa Hortman, um that assassination and murder in minneapolis we um even years ago saw what happened to nancy pelosi's husband and um that guy was there to kill her right um and then even just in the last week with what happened to me and what happened to ilhan omar so it's very very scary yeah and of course we should throw in the charlie kirk of it all too yeah charlie kirk being assassinated and and murdered on a school campus. I mean, we can keep naming stuff and just political violence is on the rise in this nation. And quite frankly, it's something that's always been around. Our country has a very violent history. And I think we've gone a few decades here where maybe a bit of it was more tampered down than it used to be. But there's been periods of this country where just political violence has been normal. We oftentimes like to otherize other countries and think we're the exception on everything. But there is political violence in the United States. And it's up to us to root it out and make sure that we heavily condemn it and do what we can to keep each other safe. Well, and there's also violence that appears to be coming from the state in the form of ICE. We've seen two people shot on the streets of Minneapolis, unarmed people, or certainly Alex Preti was unarmed by the time he was shot disarmed. I guess I should say. How does one, I mean, I want to ask you, what's the point of Congress right now? Because it seems to be a government of one and Congress seems almost pointless at this point. But before I do that, let me ask you, how do you think we can de-escalate the political violence? How do you think you can, as an elected official, de-escalate it? I really think the ramp up of political violence and what we've seen over the last decade is a direct result of Trump. I think Donald Trump has brought the worst out of everybody in this nation. And as part of the reason we've seen things ramp up in the way we've seen the last decade, 100 percent starts not fully, but starts, I think, a lot with Donald Trump. And I think it's important that we call that out. I think we have to be careful. I think it is important that any leader ensure that their rhetoric isn't going to be misconstrued or used to radicalize someone to the point where they cause violence. I always tell people it only takes one. It only takes one person hearing you say something, taking that as a call to violence and then acting on it. Period. And it's also important that we, you know, I don't buy into this thing where oftentimes reporters or different people will say, well, a lot of times you're very direct about what you believe in. Do we need to tone that down? No, the answer is no. And we can't allow political violence and the fact that there is political violence put us in a position where we won't call balls and strikes, put us in a position where we won't call out the fact that ICE executed. and I would say murdered two people in the middle of the streets as they were exercising their First Amendment rights. Many would say, Maxwell, what you just said leads to political violence. I disagree. And I think there is a very, there's a fine line, but I think we all know what that line is. It's the fact that we are a violent nation. We're a nation that has more guns than people in it. And so when people can easily get the means to do political violence on others, We have stuff happen like we saw happen with Charlie Kirk, like we saw happen. I mean, even people killed president, Melissa Hortman, Nancy Pelosi's husband. I just think like we have to have both conversations because I don't want it to seem like we don't want people to say what they actually feel because because of the political violence we have. That is how you let those actors win, by the way. That's how you let these people who've decided to be violent win is when you decide to shut up about what really matters. Are you surprised that the president keeps up his level of rhetoric given that he's had not one but two assassination attempts on him, one of which a bullet grazed his ear in as much as we understand what happened. And then another time a guy got up very close to him on a golf course with we all saw the pictures of the rifle butt poking through the fence. In fact, he just got sentenced to life imprisonment this week. I'm not surprised because this is the president's MO. This is what he thrives on. This is how he built his political movement is on violent language, not just not language that's true to what he believes in, right, which is what we were just talking about, but violent language that is meant to shock everybody. And that's how he rose to power. And that's how he's going to stay in power. I think that's what he believes. And so regardless of what happens or whatever the consequences are to others or himself, I think he'll continue down that path. Okay, so let's talk about what it's like. What does it feel like being in Congress right now? Obviously, you're in the minority party. But I mean, it seems completely pointless and toothless Congress at this point. The president is doing whatever he wants. He's not asking permission to Congress for anything, for Venezuela, for blowing up boats in the Caribbean, for the Trump-Kennedy Center. he's literally acting almost as a rogue president at this point. Yeah, I mean, he's he's acting like a dictator. This is a regime that has been put into place and all the checks and not all of them, but a lot of the checks and balances are moot right now because and a big reason why is because the majority in Congress are Republicans and Mike Johnson have given the power of Congress to the president. So the president's also the Speaker of the House. So you're 100% right. I want to say Congress is pointless right now, because believe it or not, 45% of all the executive orders Donald Trump has done have either been reversed, paused or stopped due to court orders or congressional appropriation, different things like that. So it's not he doesn't 100% doing everything he wants. And I always have to remind people that he's a liar. Right. So when he takes to the mic and says he's going to do something and we freak out about it, which we should just remember he's a liar. And a lot of this stuff won't will never happen. But when he makes you believe that it has happened or it will happen, he is already one. And then a lot of studying into fascist, but specifically authoritarian leaders. You know, most authoritarian leaders are kind of bad legislators. Most of their power doesn't really come from legislating it and it happening, being put into law. But they get most of their power through their rhetoric and through people obeying in advance and then them effectively convincing the opposition that all hope is lost and that there's nothing they can do about it. And so I think we always got to stay very like focused here. I'm not saying calm down people I actually say this to empower us to fight back even more because we do have the ability to win Look at what going on across the country Like I said 45 percent of the stuff this guy wanted to do has not come to fruition And that because the people power Look at Minnesota The fact that he occupied this city The people continue to fight back and fight back, did not allow this administration to make them think there's nothing we can do. And now we've seen 700 ICE agents are being withdrawn from Minnesota. There's still a lot more work that needs to be done. I'm not saying everything is peachy and fine. Two people were murdered and executed in the middle of the street. We've had 35 people in the last year that have died in ICE detention centers. That doesn't get spoken about enough. but I just hope people know that there is there is things we can do to push back but congress is it is we've completely given up our power to the presidency and this is part of the reason why of course the midterms are so important but most of my work has been focused on oversight and figuring out ways outside of the system as it as it exists that I can do what I can do to protect my community and not be the minority, but be the opposition in this moment, which is what I think we need to be. What are you hearing? And I'm always curious about this. What are you hearing from your Republican colleagues in Congress, some of whom are just as appalled about what's going on as you are, but are either terrified of being primaried or being singled out by Donald Trump? What did they say to you behind closed doors when that when no one is listening i'm not sure any of them are as appalled as i am but let's say some that are that are appalled or not feeling good they just have no courage they have no backbone to stand up to this president and that's why they haven't in the last year now we're starting to see cracks right we're starting to see more and more of them not just speak out because speaking out okay thank you but doing something about it and more and more of them are deciding to do something about it. But little by little, we see people stepping up. But it is really a question of courage and whether or not they say, I don't care what this president does. I don't care if I put my own reelection at risk. I'm going to stand up for this country because right now we have a dictator and a regime that is seeking to completely destroy democracy, to enrich billionaires and enrich people like him. That's what all this stems to, by the way. It's not just the vanity project of Trump, But this leads directly to profiteering, making money and making money for his friends. And I just think it's important for people to always remember that it's all connected to the money and it's all connected to this insane greed that we have in this country. All right. Well, just I mean, let's come back to the grift that's going on and the four billion dollars that we think Donald Trump has made, if not indeed more than that. And goodness knows how much his friends have made and members of his family have made. Thomas Massey is one of the Congress people that I think you might be referring to when you talk about Republicans that have actually done something standing up. And obviously with Roe Connery demanded the release of the Epstein files. You're on the oversight committee. The Epstein files has been this extraordinary dump. Nobody knows how to go through it. It's being attacked very piecemeal. Is there not a more effective way for us to understand quite what's in the Epstein files? Do you mean in terms of like going through them and kind of connecting the dots? I mean, why didn't the oversight committee demand that there was, you know, a proper panel put together to go through and search for specific names, specific threads? I mean, it's as if someone has literally dumped three million emails and just said, OK, have at it. Well, this is part of the reason why being in the majority is so important. I mean, it's going to more than double our staff on the oversight committee and our ability to be able to present this and go through the information. But to be clear, like it being dropped on us like this, that's what Donald Trump ran on, released the Epstein files. That's what the American people asked for. Release, release the files. Right. It's what we've been told, release the files. And that's what we fought to do. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find an opposition in Congress and the history of this nation that's been able to pass as many bills via discharge petition as we've been able to do just in the last year. And obviously, the Conno Massey bill is one of the most important ones. But we got to be clear. Number one, Donald Trump broke the law and waited over a month to release the bulk of the files. By the way, we don't have all the files yet. We're still doing the math to figure out how much is left. But there's a lot that they have not released. And a lot of these redactions are not acceptable. But we got to remember that most of the information that we got that's been very damning and helpful in this investigation, whether it's the birthday card that Donald Trump wrote to Jeffrey Epstein that had him drawing a prepubescent, essentially a teenager or a child saying Jeffrey and I were a lot alike. That didn't come from the Epstein files. We've been working at subpoenaing things all year on from many different places. We subpoenaed the banks. We subpoenaed the estate. most of what we've gotten that's been helpful hasn't even come from the government. It's come from other things that we've subpoenaed. This investigation will take years. I know some people are under the illusion that there's going to be some kind of drop in a bombshell that, you know, changes everything day to day. That's not how this will work. It'll be more like Watergate in that it'll be a drip, drip, drip of information for a while. It was seen as a sideshow for a while. And then we start getting big pieces of information where we connect the dots. And I think that's really what's going to happen with this. And a lot of it is going to be unlocked once we're in the majority and we're able to, number one, sue, but also able to issue our own subpoenas. And what just happened with the majority wanting to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton, I think, has really set a new standard because we will subpoena at some point Donald Trump as it relates to this and a lot of other things as well. So Donald Trump will be subpoenaed to appear before the Oversight Committee to talk about the Epstein files. At some point, I can't see how we wouldn't subpoena him to speak about this. There's a lot of things we'll need to speak with him about, especially being in the majority. And some of this might be during his presidency, but probably mostly after it. But this is I'm going to call it the Comer rule. You know, James Comer is the one that has now set this rule that we can subpoena former presidents like this, which is fine. And I believe that if Congress wants to hear from you, you need to come speak to us no matter who you are. Right. But chasing it that with the criminal contempt, I think sets a new standard for Congress, which I actually think is a good standard. We're going to we want you to speak with us and you're going to speak with us. And they should know we'll use the Comer rule, the Comer law, as we see fit, because we have a lot to investigate. And part of the problem that Democrats had last time around when they had power is there wasn't enough accountability done. And that was one of the issues from the Biden DOJ, President Biden's DOJ, is they did not hold President Trump accountable. That man should have never been able to run for president again after staging an insurrection on this nation. We're not going to allow that to happen again. There has to be accountability this time. We're not just going to let all this illegal stuff fly because we want to move on with the country. So if the Democrats win the House in the midterms in November, so it's, you know, coming closer, coming closer, is your goal to impeach the president? Our goal is to follow the law and our goal is going to be to follow investigations where it leads us. So the president is ready. Which are the investigations that you will prioritize? If we have the honor of being the majority, there's a lot of investigations that are going to be happening. Epstein's one of them. But DHS is going to be one of the biggest priorities. Christy Noem, who needs to be impeached as well. That will probably be one of the most important proceedings that we do because people have to know impeachment isn't a thing that happens. It's a process. Right. They're proceedings. And that's definitely something we'll be engaged in as well. I mean, Kristi Noem has to has to go. A lot of them have to go. A lot of them have done impeachable offenses. So so who are the others that you think have done impeachable offenses? Pam Bondi is probably second in line to Kristi Noem. The top impeachable offense she did was keep the Epstein files away from us far after the date that Congress set that was voted on by every single Republican except one and every single Democrat. Every day that she did not release the files after our 30 day deadline was her breaking federal law. And so for me, that that alone is enough for her to be impeached. christy noem and we can go down the list but under her leadership and under her direction two americans were executed in broad daylight not to mention the gross violations of people's human and civil rights in terms of immigrants at the hands of ice um so those are top two rfk jr as well um i mean what would you what would you impeach rfk jr for rfk jr um i think there's a few things, but I think where we really need to start is the corruption at hand here. And I think there's real, I think once we get into an investigation, I think we're going to be able to uncover real evidence of corruption. And the fact that this man, when he was running for president, you know, just a few years ago, was touting some things in terms of, you know, his findings on medicine and the way, you know, and nutrition. And he's completely changed his tune on things. And we think there's financial interest there as well. And so we need to investigate it as well. And I think RFK Jr. is one of them. Okay. What about Pete Hegseth? I'm going to go down the list now. You said you could go down the list. Let's throw in a couple more. So we've got Christine at the top of the list, Pam Bondi, RFK Jr. Where would Pete Hegseth be on your list? Pete Hegseth? I mean, I don't want to necessarily go down the list, but I mean, just like off the top of my mind, we can look at some of the gross violations of OPSEC and national security. One of the biggest ones being what happened with the with the signal chat. I mean, this is something that the president really wanted to move past and not talk about. But that could have led to it is because of the benevolence of the reporter. that that didn't lead to U.S. troops dying. And so that in and of itself and many and, you know, usually when somebody at the high level of government makes a mistake like that, it is a microcosm of a lot of other things as well. So there's a lot of investigations that need to happen. I don't believe you just say, like, let's impeach them because I don't like them. But the fact of the matter is a lot of these members of the cabinet for Donald Trump are grossly incompetent, but have in many cases broken the law. And I think it's just something we have to look into and something we have to investigate and something we have to act on. And that's going to be something I know, Robert Garcia, the, you know, hopefully the future chair of oversight. We're going to be ruthless in our investigations. Congressman, hold on one second. We're just going to take some ads. And I'm back with Congressman Maxwell Frost. So you're going to be ruthless in your investigations. You're one of the eight Democrats that voted for the Clintons to be held in contempt. I only voted for the Bill Clinton one and not the Hillary Clinton one in committee Okay But didn they both refuse to appear before the committee So why one and not the other Because I think the they both they they both did not uh come before the committee but I think the reasoning why the initial subpoena was sent to Hillary Clinton was 110 political. And the fact of the matter is that same subpoena vote subpoenaed a lot of people. And a lot of those folks, James Comer allowed them to submit what they knew through a declaration. Bill and Hillary Clinton did the same thing. I think what sets Bill and the former president, President Clinton, apart from Secretary Clinton and a lot of the other folks is his proximity to Jeffrey Epstein via photos we've seen and different things like that, that I think make the reasoning for having him come and speak with us directly a lot higher. But there was a lot of people we subpoenaed that James Comer said, give us a signed declaration about what you know, and that's OK. You don't have to come in. But for Secretary Clinton, she did the same thing. He said that wasn't enough. But she doesn't have that proximity to Jeffrey Epstein, in which I think we must have her in front of us. And if she doesn't do it, we send her to jail. Because let's remember, the criminal contempt is saying we want the Department of Justice to send these people to jail. And obviously, Donald Trump ran on locking her up and all this stuff. And I think that's where that came from. That's why I voted no on the Hillary Clinton one. I think give us what you know through a written deposition because that's what he allowed a lot of other people to do. But with President Clinton, just due to the his proximity to Epstein, a lot of the photos we've seen, we definitely want to hear from you in person. What are you going to ask him? We want to know what he knows. We want to know about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Look, we know that just meeting him or knowing him or being in photos with him doesn't mean doesn't he doesn't mean like you're guilty of his crimes, but it does mean you know about him. And we want to know what you know. We want to know the things he told you. We want to know just everything as we do this investigation. Just because Congress subpoenas you in an investigation doesn't mean we're saying you're guilty, by the way. It means we're saying you have information that we want to help us in an investigation. And when we call you and we say we want you to come in front of us and that you're so close to the investigation that we need you to speak with us, you need to come. And that's why I originally voted yes. And I got to tell you that a few about a week after that vote went through, Bill Clinton sent an offer to James Comer that said, OK, I'll do the transcript. You can bring everyone from the committee. And he essentially said yes to everything Comer wanted. And because President Clinton said that I was going to vote no on the floor on the criminal contempt because he is he is satisfied everything that we wanted. But then James Comer moved the goalposts and said, well, now I want it filmed. So, you know, it was just like continuing to move the goalpost, which shows for him, it's entirely political, which is just horrible because something that we promised the survivors when we spent hours with them in rooms listening to them and something we promised the countries. This isn't about politics. It doesn't matter if you're Democrat or Republican. We're going to follow this till the end. And obviously for James Comer, it is about politics for him. It's about nothing else. But for us, it's about justice for the survivors and everybody. So but it's all been sorted. We're going to hear from them. I know at least Secretary Clinton has said she wants to do it publicly in a public hearing. I'm all for that. I don't know why Comer would be against that unless he has something to hide. So we'll see where this leads. But again, just because we subpoena you doesn't mean we're saying you're guilty. It means we're saying we want the information that you know so we can continue our investigation. And then do you think that President Trump would ever be subpoenaed while the Democrats are in the minority? No, I don't see that happening because the Republicans, I don't think, have the spine for that. In fact, we tried to add a subpoena on when they moved this Bill Clinton one. We did an amendment to add Pam Bondi because if anyone should be held in criminal contempt, it should really be Pam Bondi. She has not come to our committee to speak about this at all. She hasn't been our committee at all throughout this entire Congress. And she's the one that was really directly violating the law without releasing Epstein files. So she was also the AG in Florida while Jeffrey Epstein was doing a lot of his crimes. Right. Yeah, possibly, because it was through a U.S. attorney that the sweetheart deal went through. And obviously we did a deposition, Alex Acosta. So obviously being the AG, I mean, there's she could know a lot. She might not. You know, it depends just because it was a federal deal that he received and not one through the state. However, because it was a U.S. attorney, not a state attorney. However, we need to she needs to be held in contempt because she broke the law on not releasing the files on the timeline we set. And that and I think that's like the that's the thing like right in front of us that we that we need to deal with. So and they said no to that. So if they're going to say no on Pam Bondi, who is breaking the law that they voted yes on, they would never do Donald Trump. I mean, they would never subpoena Donald Trump or anyone in his family or anything like that. To play devil's advocate, we've heard Todd Blanch say that, you know, hundreds of agents were working full time on the Epstein files, redacting them, reading them. They did eventually release three million of them. Yes, it was a few weeks later than technically they should have done. But I can understand that the sheer volume of Epstein files meant that it might not have been responsible to release them before then. Is there an argument that actually it feels very technical to go after Pam Bondi for that because the Epstein files are now out? Not all the Epstein files are out. And in fact, the day that they released them, they made a statement saying they weren't going to release the loads of files they still have. They were making an argument about redactions and things like that. So we got to be clear. They're not all out. Number two, the only types of redactions we approved in our law had to do with victims and survivors. There was much more redactions than that. They decided to redact essentially people that they thought would be harmed politically in Friends of Donald Trump. They said this publicly. Number three, it's not a technical thing. It's the law. So, right. It's not technically it should have been three weeks before it's by the law. It should have been three weeks before we gave them a month. We gave them 30 days. And then the last thing is Pam Bondi is the she herself paraded in the first two weeks of her administration, giving these fake Epstein find Epstein file binders to in right wing influencers. she's the one that said she had the files on her desk for over a year so to to then now have this new argument that they're trying well it's so many files we had to go through all of them we couldn't do it in a month she's the one that said she had them for a year on her desk and didn't do a damn thing about it when she found out that donald trump's name was in them and and it's this isn't even conjecture this is stuff all these people have said publicly because part of their incompetence is they never talk to each other so one person says one thing and the other person says the other thing. We put two and two together and we figure out we've been getting lied to the whole time. And this is part of the frustration that even a lot of Republicans had with the release of these files. So it doesn't hold water for me, what they're saying. Let me give you an example. When we get these dumps, let's say we get 40,000 pages right now, the minority, the Democrats, in oversight, we have half the staff, they will be locked in a room in an office going through these files, figuring out what we should release to the public because of transparency, redacting victims. And they will do this within 24 hours to two days. So I'm just saying like they're, you know, it's BS. It's BS. Okay. To be straight up. All right. It's BS. And if you're in the majority, when the midterms happen, Pam Bondi and Christina will be at the top of the list for impeachment. All right. So in terms of democratic leadership, who would your candidate now be for president in 2028? I don't really have a name. I have some criteria, though. OK, what's your criteria? Yeah. You know, the thing I'm looking for, number one, is I think we need a president who's going to be unafraid to. Number one, seek the accountability that is needed for the people in government that have broken the law. We spoke about this a little at the beginning of the interview. We can't have someone who's going to say we're not going to seek accountability because we need to move on as a nation. We need to move on because essentially what will happen is we don't hold the lawbreakers and the top leaders of this regime accountable for breaking the law and essentially circumventing the Constitution. It will happen again because there was no accountability for it. So that's one big piece of it. The other big piece is someone who understands the wealth inequality in this country, the crisis that we're in in this country, and understands that it's going to take big ideas and big solutions to get them through on an aggressive timeline to show people that government works for them. I, for me, moving towards a single payer system and ensuring that everybody has health care in this country is one of the most important things that we have to do, especially with the new president, given how Republicans have just completely destroyed the health care system that was already destroyed before. We can't have somebody who thinks that little clips around the edges are going to save this country and put us in a good position. So the question is, are you a presidential candidate that believes that we're going to rebuild it to what it was before and that's enough? and that's that's not meeting my criteria or do you believe that there's an opportunity here where we get to build it in a way that's much better than it was in a way that actually works for working people so who is answering that criteria right now the people that are clearly running who is is speaking to that criteria i have no name i i have no names for you because the fact that matter how is that possible you must be looking at everybody and thinking who's going to lead your party out of the wilderness. I mean, I mean, I look at people and say, OK, that person gave a good speech. OK, that person's being aggressive. And I like that. But the fact of the matter is, I mean, how is it possible? Have you seen any of these folks release the policy that they're going to run on? No, because we're in a shadow primary, which means people are more kind of showing the way they speak about an issue, the way that they frame an issue. And that's really important. I just want to sit here and give you names when I haven't seen what the people will be running on which could be a lot different than what they've traditionally run on now i guess that i i'm i guess that i'm i'm less sanguine than you are about what people vote for and and how they vote and why they vote and i think they vote for the person not the policies and i think they vote for people who have energy and they think are going to stand up for them. Yes, but you asked who I was going to support, right? Okay, but you're a congressman whose party is in the wilderness. You're deeply frustrated. This is your second term still in opposition. Who do you look to to lead your party to the next level? And I understand they have criteria that you need them to meet, but in terms of personalities, Is there not anybody that you feel enthusiastic about? I mean, there's a lot of people I feel enthusiastic about. I just don't I'm not sure I want to frame it in like people I know will be or people I'll support for president. Right. But there's a lot of people that are doing good work that I'm enthusiastic about. There's a lot of great people in the House. I mean, we have people like Greg Kassar, who's the who's the chair of the Progressive Caucus. We have Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who's inspiring people across the entire country. And really, I think, giving a great message on why all this stuff is happening right now in our country and how it enriches the billionaires. You have people I brought up, Summer Lee, Dele Ramirez. We have governors that are fighting back in different ways all across the country. So you have people in the Senate that are figuring out how can we fight back and actually have a fighting chance here Chris Van Hollen Chris Murphy Elizabeth Warren of course Bernie Sanders Raphael Warnock You know there people who are doing great work that I think you know when people ask me, who do you think the leader is? Part of what sets our party a little apart from the Republican Party is we have many leaders right now. But I'm fully aware that like it's not people don't walk into a booth and say, what's the policy? What's the where are they at on the ideological spectrum? people vote with their heart and I recognize that but a big part of it is people have to see themselves seen in the story and part of the story is like the solutions like on what they're going to run on and I've just I've seen so many candidates who are one way and then they run for president and their tune changes either better or for worse so we'll kind of have to see where that goes but there's a lot of great people you know everyone we're talking about there's a lot of good people out there. And a word from our sponsors. And I'm back with the youngest congressperson, Maxwell Frost. You're the youngest member in the House of Congress. How old were you when you were elected? 26? 25. 25 when you were elected. Congratulations, an incredible achievement. You have in your party, and you referenced Elizabeth Warren, and you referenced Bernie Sanders, who's technically an independent, who are both in their 70s. You have the Democratic establishment getting behind Janet Mills, the governor of Maine, who's been a perfectly good governor. But if she were to get the Senate seat, which they're backing her for, she would be 78 when she comes into the Senate. So 84 when she left. She's saying, I'm not Joe Biden, which seems a very strange thing to say. Should there be a term limit? Should there be a cutoff at this point term oh yeah there should definitely be term limits um i think it actually cuts both ways and what i mean by this is there should be term limits because yeah people get to a certain place in their life certain age where it it makes sense to pass the baton i don't believe in setting an age limit because that age might be different for everyone people are different you know have different cognitive abilities at different ages i'm not sure how do you but then how do you say to someone, I'm sorry, you're too old. I mean, we had Dianne Feinstein die in office when it felt very clear that she didn't even understand quite basic questions being answered. We had the president flaming out in the middle of a debate, in a catastrophic debate for him. Isn't it easier to have an age cut off so you don't have to judge people's mental capacity? i think having term limits will solve 90 of these problems that we're talking about but it wouldn't have solved it wouldn't have solved the problem for president biden sure it wouldn't have solved the problem for president biden but i mean that that that issue um obviously he ended up not running again and and you know there was discussions in the party on that. But I just hesitate to add an age limit because I just think the best thing we can do are term limits at this point. But what I also wanted to talk about is it also helps on the other end because it's not just about having people that are too old be in Congress or elected office, but it's also about people being in the place for too long. And I think that's a big problem too. For instance, I enter Congress at the age of 25 years old. If I had the honor of being elected by my constituents as many times as I want to run, if I had that honor, conceivably, a lot of my colleagues are 75 years old. I could be in the United States Congress for 50 years. Yeah. I mean, it's the oldest nursing home. It's been referred to as the oldest nursing home or the nicest nursing home, right, in America. Yeah, and what I'm trying to bring up too is the fact that I came in young and because I've come in so young, I could be in for a long time, longer than a lot of the people who have been there for a while that everyone complains about. Most of them have been in for 30 years. I'm saying I could be in for 50 years if my constituents elected me. No one should be representing the same district for 50 years, 40 years, 30 years, et cetera. All right. So how many terms are you willing to give yourself before it's time to step aside? If we want to get really wonky about it, actually, what I think needs, I don't know the exact number. And I think like. Oh, no, you're a waffling congressman. You're waffling. Come on, you must have thought about this. No, I'm not waffling. I'm just telling you like straight up, I don't have the number for you. And I'm curious on, you know, when I have more debates and discussions, people to figure out the number. But I actually think that we should have term limits that I think the term length of a United States Congress person should actually be four years and not two years. I think I think it should be aligned with almost every other elected office because and it should be staggered. Half of Congress is is up one year. Half of Congress is up the other year, because part of what happens is I think, number one, because of gerrymandering, we're getting to the system where all of Congress changes every two years. And because we have so many gerrymandered districts, it's going to be very slim margins. And it's always going to be that way. And I just think we need to not have the whole institution up at the same time, but other years. And then I also believe because we have all these super PACs, dark money, billionaire money and all this, essentially what happens is you get in for a year, you focus on your job, then you have to spend the whole of the year raising money because of this horrible system that we're in. And you don't get to spend the whole time solely focused on legislating. And I feel like four year terms will actually yield better legislators that are more focused on their constituents versus trying to get the job back so they can finish their bills and this and that. So my proposal is make it four year terms like we do for mayors and other positions. But at the term limits, what should those be? I don't know. Maybe if you have four year terms, maybe you can only serve. Four terms or maybe it's maybe it's less than that, you know, this is me just kind of spitballing here. But but I do believe that there should be term limits, but I also think the term should be a little longer. The Senate. I mean, we could have arguments on whether the Senate should really exist. But there's reason to believe why they should have term limits and their term should actually be four years instead of six. Oh, very provocative. Very provocative. We just have such a different system than when the founders created it that it just wasn't. It's just a different. We live in a different time. And I just think we have to keep things up. I mean, the House should be a lot bigger, too, by the way. We need to add a lot more members of the House. So either way. All right. So I was going to ask you a final question, which I asked of Jasmine Crockett and I asked of James Tallarica. How do you date when you are a congressperson? How do you how do you have any kind of quiet private life? Well, you know, on the quiet private life part, I'll say I think you don't get to have as much of a private life. obviously like you know when you walk around the district people know who you are it's hard to go to you know you go to a bar you know people are gonna know who you are um but i don't know you know for me i think find the things that you love and and find time to do them i mean i don't know you can see behind me i have my vibraphone i have my timbala drums and everything set up right you're a musician in your spare time yeah i'm a musician i'm a musician and that's what i studied in school And and I find time to go to jams and go to concerts and go to film festivals and things like that to be able to enjoy art, because that's really the thing I do. And that's like the one thing I do to feed my soul. But the other thing is self-preservation isn't and self-care isn't just about like being on the beach with the cucumbers on your eyes, even though that's nice. But it's also about finding ways to incorporate the things you love in the work that you do. And when you do that, it gives you a lot more longevity. And so, you know, that's part of the reason why I do a lot of legislation on music and arts and that kind of work, because I think it's important and I love it. That's why, you know, when we do Orlando Pride, I don't just sit on a convertible and wave my hand like we we rent a flatbed semi truck and I wake up at 6 a.m. with my best friends that I used to be in a band with and we build a stage on it and we play music in the parade. We make it a concert, right? And I just find ways to incorporate those things that I love in the work that I do. And that's like another way that, you know, I'm able to do the work for a longer period of time. But it's hard to have like a quiet, you know, kind of that quiet personal life. In many ways, you've sacrificed a lot of that, what that is for, you know, for people. But there's still ways you can figure out how to do it. And truth be told, I'm still figuring it out. I don't have it all together. And honestly, my first term, I didn't do a good job. I like really burnt myself out because I felt like coming in as the youngest member of Congress, I needed to defy the expectations. And in doing that, I really burnt myself out and didn't really take much time. I didn't really take much time off at all the first two years. I'm doing a better job of taking care of myself this term, but it's still the same thing because you look around and you say, I can't take a day off. We are living under fascism right now, an authoritarian regime. But also, and we know this to be true throughout so many struggles, is even in the toughest moments for our people, you do have to preserve yourself because if you don't, you will burn out and you won't be able to help anybody. And I just think it's important for us to keep that in mind. So young and yet so wise. Congressman Ross, thank you so much for joining us. I hope we can come back to you. You're full of points of view and also would love to talk to you more about the Epstein files, especially when the Clintons appear. Yeah, and that'll be just in a few weeks here. And so hopefully we'll have more information. I'm just from them, but we have a lot of outstanding subpoenas and we're supposed to receive more documents from the estate, more documents from the banks. Like I said, this is this will be going on for a bit because this is so deep. A lot of people don't realize how big this is, how many governments, how many people are involved in it. It was a massive failure of our system that failed these women and failed our country. But we're we're really going to get to the bottom of it. So but thanks for having me on. It was great to be on. So there you have it. the youngest congressman in the House, very diplomatic. I thought he refused to be drawn on who he thought would be a good national leader for the Democratic Party. But he seems very intent on not doing what President Obama did when he said the past is in the past. We're moving forward. He feels adamant that Christine Ome, Pam Bondi, Pete Hegseth and RFK Jr. should be impeached the moment the House of Representatives is back in democratic hands. Well, write and tell us what you think. Would love to know what you think of the congressman. Jot us a comment on YouTube. Don't forget to subscribe to The Daily Beast, the channel. Become a Bee Beast tier member. And also feel free to sign up for The Daily Beast itself where we keep you up to date with the latest madness that our president is subjecting us all to, Republicans and Democrats alike. So the good news is we have so many B-beast tier members now. There are too many names to read out. And we really appreciate your support. Thanks to our production team, Devin Rogerino, Ryan Murray, Rachel Passer, Heather Passaro, Neil Rosenhaus. at thedailybeast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to thedailybeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.