Did Trump's Supreme Court Rig the Midterms?

Pod Save America has brought you by Simply Save. It's May, time to spring clean your home and your bank statement. Traditional security is built on predatory multi-year contracts. Simply Save is built on a wild idea. A company should actually earn your business every day with zero hidden fees or long-term traps. With Simply Save, you can customize your system to fit your needs. It ships fast directly to your door. Simply Save is more than just a security camera. It's a comprehensive system of sensors. Indoor and outdoor cameras and 24-7 professional monitoring the app-guided setup is simple and there is no drilling required so you can install and arm your system in under an hour. It's backed by Simply Save's 24-7 professional monitoring agents who dispatch emergency help when you need it. Over 5 million people value and trust Simply Save with their home security every day. I set up a Simply Save. Really glad I did. It was easy to do. You can customize it yourself to your home and then it arrives. You can get help if you don't need it. You can just have it running in a matter of minutes and then the app is really intuitive and the customer support is really reliable. Right now our listeners get 50% off a new system when you sign up for professional monitoring and your first month is free. Just visit simplysafe.com slash cricket. Get half off at simplysafe.com slash cricket. There's no safe like Simply Save. Welcome to PodSafe in America. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. John is out of town today so I am delighted to have with me the one and only Alex Wagner. Alex, thanks for doing this. Oh, what a thrill, Dan. I love when John goes out of town. It is a thrill. I mean, look, people are cheering that you were here instead of John. We want John to be able to travel at a moment's notice. You know? It's a big country that needs a lot of John Favreau so I'm happy to be a pale, pale imitation of him. Not at all. An improvement, many would say. Okay. We've got a lot to talk about on today's show. Pete Hegzeth is on the hill trying to defend a war nobody wants. Trump is laser focused on his grudges and perceived enemies like Jimmy Kimmel and Jim Comey. We've got a huge Supreme Court decision in the Voting Rights Act and Maine Governor Janet Mills dropping her senate bid as well as a possible reboot of the apprentice. Then Tommy talks to Iowa Senate candidate Zach Walsh. Before we get to all of that, I just wanted to say thank you to every single one of you who have become subscribers. For those of you who haven't, what are you waiting for? You know my pitch. You know how important it is to support strong independent media outlets like ours. Plus you get ad-free episodes of your favorite shows, our sub-stack newsletters, and special subscriber-only shows like Potsdam America Only Friends and Polar Coaster with the one and only Dan Pfeiffer. Hope you'll take a moment and head to Crooked.com slash friends and subscribe. Okay, let's get to the news. The conservative super PAC Americans for Prosperity released a memo on Thursday warning that Republicans may lose the Senate if they don't sharpen their affordability message because, according to their polling, Democrats are now more trusted on prices in the economy. So is Donald Trump taking that advice? Not so much. He spent this week laser-focused on one of his least popular programs, his vengeance tour against his political enemies. Let's start with Jim Comey. The FBI announced on Tuesday that it had secured a second indictment against the former FBI director, this time for quote, making threats against the president in a 2025 Instagram post featuring seashells. Here's Trump trying to explain this in the Oval Office on Wednesday. Do you really think that he was endangering your life or threatening your life with that one? Well, if anybody knows anything about crime, they know 86, you know, it's a mob term for kill them. People like Comey have created tremendous danger, I think, for politicians and others. No, he's a dirty cop. He's a crooked man. Alex, can you explain this indictment? First of all, I just want to say as someone who's worked in restaurants, 86 means hold the may out or whatever. 86 the mayo, 86 the chicken parm. It does not mean kill the chicken parm. Just saying. Okay. See, this is an important, Jim Comey should hire you as his attorney. Well, I don't even think Jim Comey really needs an attorney here because I am fairly confident that this is going to get dismissed. But what do I know? I just play a lawyer on TV and podcasts. Daniel will remember the last ill-fated attempt this administration made it and criminally finding Jim Comey guilty of any crimes. That was the indictment secured, and I put that in quotes by unlawfully appointed prosecutor Lindsey Halligan representing the Eastern District of Virginia. The judge in that case concluded that Halligan's indictment of Comey, which sought to find him guilty of lying to both Congress and I believe the Senate Judiciary Committee, the judge tossed that indictment out because Ms. Halligan was unlawfully appointed to her post. Therefore, all matters flowing from that appointment were equally unlawful. It was clownish. But I do think the term beclowned itself belongs in this indictment because it is so foolish as to make clowns look like serious people. First of all, if you've read the indictment, it's like, it's so short. It's a page. And this is how it goes. Just can I read a little excerpt of it? Please do. Yes. In May 15, 2025, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, James Brian Comey did knowingly and willfully make a threat to take the life of and to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States in that he publicly posted a photograph on the internet social media site Instagram, which depicted seashells arranged in a pattern making out 8647. 47 being the number of Trump's second presidency. 8647, which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States, to which I say, prosecutors would a reasonable recipient interpret a seashell message on the beach as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States. It seems to me, Dan, and again, I'm not a lawyer, but if you have the word seashells in your indictment, you're already losing. Comey said he did not actually even arrange the seashells that he saw them on the beach and took a picture of them posted them to Instagram, which makes me say, will the real beach mob boss please stand up? Yes. Who is this person and will they come forward or are they going to let Jim Comey take the fall? Take the hit. For their sand art. Sand art. This thing is so embarrassing. It's ridiculous. No one can actually possibly believe that this was a real threat. The Jim Comey is making a real threat. No matter how you interpret the number 86, it is ridiculous. I guess I will say I have wondered what was going to happen to kidnappers and serial killers used to cut out letters from magazines. How were they going to survive in the post, in the death, in a world after the death of print media? And the answer is seashells. And I say also the bar here is really high. There are previous cases that have been adjudicated at very high levels of our judicial system that give a lot of leeway for free speech, including expressions of real intentional harm directed toward the president of the United States. In North Carolina, I believe the criminal statute says that threats fall outside of protected speech only if they show the speaker had a reckless disregard for the strong likelihood that his listeners would be incited to do harm to the president. I mean, I am sorry. Reckless disregard and beach combing don't go together. I mean, this is embarrassing. This is like they are so scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to fulfill Trump's desire for Jim Comey to see the inside of a jail cell. Like it is embarrassing. There are some reports today as well that they are in Virginia trying to make another run at Comey this time for leaking information from Congress. We'll see what happens there. But like it's embarrassing. Can I just say if you haven't been paying attention to what is happening inside the Department of Justice at the level of the U.S. attorneys, you should. Jeffrey Tuben has an op-ed in the New York Times this week detailing some of the absolutely clownish people who are being tasked with carrying out these clownish endeavors. And they're literally like right-wing podcasters. I mean, there's a right-wing podcaster at the charge of the FBI. Yeah, exactly. Right. These people are so utterly unserious that I would say everybody gird your loins because there's going to be more of this bullshit coming down the pike for as long as Trump's controlling the DOJ. I mean, let's not look down our nose at podcasters taking high-level government positions just for their record. I mean, if our Secretary of State will all say what a great turn of events that was. I would say there are, I'm unlikely to get an appointment in any subsequent administration, but I would suggest that Secretary of State is quite low on the list. That's really how I'm going to start. I mean, I can find many other cabinet agencies that you would be fit to, I mean, especially compared to, I don't know, literally every single appointee in the Trump administration. That's fair enough. But I digress. These are clownish people doing clownish things, and hopefully our judicial system will continue to do the important work that it's doing by dismissing them. Kimmel is also trying to take down Jimmy Kimmel again. As we talked about on Tuesday's show, the White House is pretending to be big mad about a joke Kimmel made days before the Correspondent's Center about Melania being an expectant widow. The FCC has now launched an early review of all of ABC's broadcast licenses. They said this was part of a longer-running anti-DEI investigation, but the context is pretty clear. And the White House Communication Director did tweet that Kimmel is a quote, shit human being, and that ABC needs to fire him immediately and he should be shunned for the rest of his life. Alex, what is going on here with the FCC? Is this a real threat? Well, I mean, yeah, it's a real threat insofar as the Disney's going to have to comply. The FCC can do this, right? It's difficult. It's an unusual process, but they can absolutely do this, and they can make life expensive and challenging for Disney and its affiliates as they seek to gum up the works and throw sand in the machinery. It is, I think, an escalatory move from the last time the FCC took on ABC and Jimmy Kimmel, which was just to pull him off the air. And I don't think it's a good development in terms of our democracy and the First Amendment and the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. So I mean, I think it's definitely problematic. I think, though, this time is a little bit different. First of all, Disney, I think, learned its lesson when everybody, a lot of people who were Disney plus subscribers, started canceling their subscriptions, outraged over Disney pulling Kimmel off the air for a week or however long it was. And I think also, these networks are understanding that if you allow an administration to terrorize you based on a whatever joke said on one of your broadcast networks, that is both the end of television and comedy. And neither of those things is good for business if you're a broadcast network or an entertainment network. So I think there's more, I would hope there's more fight in Disney's belly this time around. And I think an early indicator of the change dynamics is the posture of the National Association of Broadcasters, which released a statement on, I think it was Wednesday, saying effectively, what the FCC is doing here is bogus. And if it wants to do this to Disney ABC, then we're all, that equally affects us. So an opening salvo against Disney is an opening salvo against all of us, which I think is that it's a hopeful sign that corporate America has learned some lessons since 2025 when everybody was taking the knee to Donald Trump and his winged monkeys as they sought to terrorize them and encourage them to be pledge allegiance to Donald Trump. Yeah. I mean, I think in the end of the day, nothing bad is going to happen to ABC here other than like you said, they're going to have to work a little harder to get a result they were going to get anyway. But there is a chilling effect from this sort of action from the FCC. It sends a message and it, like if you're Jimmy Kimmel and your ABC, you feel pretty good about what's going to happen here. You have the power to fight back. If you're a smaller network, you may not. If you're someone who does not have Jimmy Kimmel's cloud image, he was basically known as the mayor of Hollywood. He's so popular. It could cause you to think twice before you say certain things or do certain things or it could cause the executives at smaller networks or maybe networks who have more in front of Trump like at Paramount, who have more stake in what the Trump administration does than ABC does to kill a story. The thing is, we know about the jokes that happen or the stories that happen or the comments that happen that then get some response. We don't know about or the stories and the jokes that don't happen because people are afraid of the response. Can I say? And that is ultimately what Ben and Carr is trying to do here. Can I say though, I think there is one reality that corporate America is particularly and increasingly acutely aware of, which is the house is likely to change hands and the Senate could change hands. And 2028 isn't that far off if you're a corporate executive who looks at things in multi-year forecasts. And the reality is that these Paramount is a great example. They have so alienated themselves from the party that is likely to take power, at least in the legislative branch in the coming year, that they have some work to do. And the more they make these arrangements with the Trump administration, the more they do the bidding, the more they're going to have to go to the Hill and testify as to how this isn't a corrupt practice. And I think that they're going to have to, I think they understand that there's going to be a call for some accountability on this, which I do think is why you have, for example, Paramount has done every bent over backwards for this administration. But Nora O'Donnell, who is on CBS, who is, which, you know, as part of 60 Minutes, has asked Trump some probably of the toughest questions that any journalist has asked him in the last month relating to his role in the Epstein files in the wake of the White House Correspondents shooting. So I think, or attempted shooting. I mean, I just think I'm not like a corporate stew, Chair Dan. I'm not suggesting that. Despite this long defense of corporate America. My story defense of the C-suite. But I do think, you know, there are financial realities that are going to come into play here. And Trump is a lame duck, not just politically speaking, but in terms of business. At some point he becomes dead weight. And these kinds of fights are only going to, I mean, I think you can only, you can only wage them on Trump's behalf for so long before you're actually putting yourself in harms away. Yeah, I think that, I think that's true. Hopefully people are beginning to realize that there will, we're going to get to an exception on this later in the podcast when it comes to the Amazon corporation. But it even take the Noro Donald report, like the Noro Donald, she did a good job. She asked the tough questions. Like these, that was an uncomfortable situation to begin and she persevered through it. But there is a report today that CBS really edited out a bunch of sort of Trump nonsense. You know, there was that, that the term everyone was using and be back in the day was like sane Washington to make them sound more normal. And but there's apparently a lot, according to this one report, a lot of stuff that would have been not good for Trump that did not get in that. You know, is that because that was a legitimate journalistic decision about how to fit this interview into this, you know, the allotted chunk? Is it because they have already been sued by Trump for various issues? I look forward to the campaign counter suit. When will Kamala Harris sue CBS for whatever, $38 million because it's deemed election interference in the 2028 election? I digress. Honestly, that would be one of the best things she has done since the election. It would be very popular. Positive America is brought to you by Wild Alaskan Company. You ever buy some quote unquote seafood and then you read what it actually is. It ain't seafood at all. It's not crab. Or yeah, it's not. Sometimes it's just not crab. It's just not crab. It's just not crab. Or it tastes like it's been around for a long time, probably because it was. Wild Alaskan Company offers the best way to get delicious, wild-caught, high-quality seafood delivered to your door on your schedule. Each Wild Alaskan box comes with individually portioned fillets, vacuum sealed, easy to prep and great for any meal, no matter how quick or elevated. All fish is quick frozen fresh from the Alaskan waters, which helps lock in its freshness, texture, flavor and key nutrients like Omega-3s. Fish you can trust with no GMOs, antibiotics or other additives. Every order supports sustainable harvesting practices in Alaskan fishermen whose history is tied to the region and practice. We've eaten a bunch of Wild Alaskan in our house. We had some salmon flays. We had some white fish that we turned into tacos. It tasted delicious. It tasted fresh. It was easy to do. I don't know, the experience was easy. It showed up at the house. We put it in the freezer, took it out when we needed it. Like, whoa, how do you beat that? Yeah. Wild Alaskan company is so confident that their fish is the best that they offer 100% satisfaction and money back guarantee. So you can try your first box risk-free. Go to wildalaskan.com slash crooked for $35 off your first order of premium wild-caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.com slash crooked for $35 off your first order. Thanks to Wild Alaskan company for sponsoring this episode. Fatsave Americas brought to you by Aura Frames. This Mother's Day frame what makes your mom special with Aura Frames. You know, my mother, like I can't get her flowers. She's allergic to flowers. So we had like a lot of dried flowers around the house. But you don't want to get dried flowers in Mother's Day. Send an Aura frame filled with pictures. Honestly, it's a great gift. This is a freebie gift. Everyone's like, oh, God, Mother Day is coming up. What do I get? What do I get? Aura Frames is a amazing gift that always hits. You put 100 photos of your family and then. One tasteful nude. Yeah. Just or just like, like throw in somebody, you know, like, um, put in like Tiger Woods, just have Tiger Woods pop up, you know, free unlimited storage. You can add as many photos and videos as you want. Preload photos before it chips. Keep adding from anywhere anytime. Personalize your gift. Add a message before it arrives. You have a gift box that comes with it. You can share your photos and videos effortlessly and download the Aura app or text photos straight to your frame. It's top rated. Reach number one on the app store on Christmas Day 2025. That's, that's a little late to reach it. Oh, I guess people are downloading it because they got it as a gift. That makes sense. That makes sense. Make Mother's Day special with Aura Frames. Name the number one digital frame by Wirecutter. You can save on gifts. Mom's love by visiting Aura Frames.com for a limited time listeners can get $25 off. They're best selling Carver Mat Frame with code crooked. That's A U R A Frames.com promo code, crooked support this show by mentioning us a checkout terms and conditions apply. There's also been a lot of back and forth lately about Fed chairman Jerome Powell, the DOJ recently dropped its bogus investigation into him over the renovation of the Fed building. Not only is Powell not going to trial. He's rewarding Trump's effort by sticking around the building longer. Let's take a listen. After my term as chair ends on May 15, I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time to be determined. These legal actions by the administration are unprecedented in our 113 year history and there are ongoing threats of additional such actions. I worry that these attacks are battering the institution. I will not leave the board until this investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality. And I stand by that. Trump, of course, responded on true social Jerome too late. Powell wants to stay at the Fed because he can't get a job anywhere else. Nobody wants them. Alex, did you ever think that Jerome Powell would be the hero we were waiting for? Is this decision really a big deal? Oh yeah. I mean, listen, I think Jerome Powell and I know this sounds pretty like heavy handed, but I do think he represents as we talk about like resistance to or 3.0. He's the face of a different kind of resistance warrior, which is someone who otherwise... Do you have a Jerome Powell bobblehead? I mean, it's still at the factory, Dan. It takes a minute because of the straight hormones of her moves. It's still down bobblehead. It's stuck on the other side of the straight right now and it cannot get to you. I understand. Like I'm waiting. I do check religiously every day. But Jerome Powell, you know, his refusal to go quietly into the night, I think really has provided a template for many other kind of conservative institutionalists who would never stick their necks out to say, fuck no. And the fact that he is refusing to leave as a governor of the Fed is a real fuck you to Trump. You know, I mean, and also who knew Jerome Powell was this tenacious? Like what a pain in the ass it must be to be Jerome Powell, right? Like the dude doesn't need to work again. I mean, and he certainly could get another job. But the fact that he is sitting there largely to be a thorn in Trump's side and show to the incoming director of the Fed, Kevin Warsh, what resistance and an independent autonomous body looks like. That is super important. And like hats off to Jerome Powell on Angel's wings. Go get it. Yeah, I mean, it's the reason why it's specifically important is it denies Trump of another vacancy on the Fed board. Yes, that too. And this I think this has a couple of things. One, he, Jerome Powell knows how power is deployed and how to use it. And this gives him leverage over Trump for the investigation because the original investigation was dropped because Tom Tillis would not approve Kevin Warsh as the next Fed chair until the investigation into Jerome Powell was dropped by the DOJ. The fact that you can just drop the investigation at the whim of a senator suggests it was not that serious investigation to begin with. But of course we knew that. And it also, I think, says something about how Jerome Powell feels about Kevin Warsh, or at least some fears that Kevin Warsh is, might be more of a Trump stooge than he suggested in his hearings. And so he wants to be there to keep an eye on him. So I think hats off to Jerome Powell. This is Jerome Powell, we salute you really, honestly. Get Tony DeCopel on the line. Can I say one other thing? And that is, don't forget that Jerome Powell was appointed by Donald Trump. Yes, he was. So maybe whatever magic Jerome Powell has in his fingertips can be sprinkled on to Kevin Warsh as he takes the reins of the Fed. Well, from your lips to Kevin Warsh's ears. OK, one last thing on the Department of Justice. As we discussed, Trump is trying to use the correspondence dinner attack to justify building his ballroom, which is his true passion project. The Department of Justice filed a brief on Monday asking a judge to dismiss the lawsuit that's holding up construction. Alex, I think you noted that the language in the filing was a bit unusual, so to speak. What do you know? Well, can I just read you a little bit? Yes, do for people who haven't. You would be your second legal document reading of this podcast. Listen, I play I play Andrew Weissman on this. Watch out. Watch out. Strict scrutiny. Watch out. Kate Shaw, Leah Litman, Melissa Murray. OK, this this filing is like, I mean, literally, it was dictated by Donald Trump if not actually written by Donald Trump and then just printed out on DOJ letterhead. Like here's some of the language in it relating to the ballroom. If any other president had the ability, foresight or talents necessary to build this ballroom, which will be one of the greatest, safest and most secure structures of its kind anywhere in the world, capital W on world, there would never have been a lawsuit. But because it is all caps, Donald J. Trump, a highly successful real estate developer who has abilities that others don't, especially those who assume the office of president. This frivolous and meritless lawsuit was filed. Again, it's called all caps, Trump derangement syndrome. On top of everything else, this project is a gift to our country from President Trump and other donors. It is free of charge to the American taxpayer. Who could ever object to that? A lot of title case in there that I didn't get into because it just was becoming too much. But clearly, you know, if you're wondering whether Todd Blanche wants to be attorney general, this kind of thing is the only proof you need. And if you want, we're wondering if literally the dumbest people in the world, maybe now populating our Department of Justice, here's confirmation that the dumbest people in the people in the world are perverting our justice system to be an ego boost for Donald Trump. I guess the best thing I can say about Donald Trump is that his desire for the ballroom is his most authentic self. Like it is like it still remains wild to me that after someone brought a gun to potentially try to assassinate Donald Trump, his first instinct, right? Like a more magnanimous person would call for national unity, call for the toning down of political rhetoric would look inward at perhaps the things they had said, the way they'd celebrated the deaths of their political enemies, the riot they sparked at the at the Capitol. The calls for the hanging of the vice president, it would have done those things or a cynical person would use it to advance their political agenda in some way, shape or form. And instead they use Trump, use that moment to push for the ballroom because that is the thing he truly wants more than anything else. It's the thing he cares about. It's the thing he's obsessed with. It is very, very strange. It is quite unpopular. It is a gift to Democrats. It is just like a, like God bless him for doing that. I hope he does it all the time. I hope he runs a ballroom fall campaign. I hope he tours ballrooms in the battleground states. I hope he brings swing voters to a round table where they discuss the marble to be used in the ballroom. I hope they do all of those things like more ballroom, the better Donald Trump. Just to note to the point of how unpopular it is, the Washington Post is out with a poll today showing Americans reject Donald Trump's planned ballroom, I believe by a two to one margin down. It's pretty good. It's pretty good. He's not going to let the public stand in the way of his ballroom. No, sure. Or reason, financial, politics, reason, law, none of it will stand in the way of this ballroom. Speaking of affordability, Pete Hakeseth was on the hill on Thursday for a second day of testimony defending a war that has now driven the price of gas to an average of $4.30 a gallon. Of course, Hakeseth was his typically modest and contrite self. Here's a sampling. Many congressional Democrats, as I pointed out, want to declare defeat two months in. Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years and they were nebulous missions that people went along with. This is different. The biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans. Can I speak or are you just going to monologue falsehoods all over the place? It's not a falsehood. We moved 7,500 troops off of the X-Pingist on the intel. Stop. Just address the election issue, please. Well, again, that's the most important thing. It's what's happening. It's yet another gotcha hypothetical, which is your speciality. It's not. Tell the American people, will you deploy the uniformed military to our polls to collect voter rolls or machines? Are you accusing me of performing because you're performing for cable news right now? What's it out to you from the two days of hearings? How do you think Democrats did overall? You know, I love these Hill hearings. I mean, if you needed any more evidence that this is a group of idiots and stooge's and corrupt actors who populate the president's cabinet. Clowns, if you will, it's a tie-it all back together again. And by the way, it's like, it's a curse actually going up to the Hill because you see who's gone up and like they've been summarily dismissed shortly thereafter. And the Hegset is always on thin ice. Right. I mean, Bondi, Noam, now Hegset. Amazing that this is the first testimony that he's given in the 60 days of this war, near 60 days at this war. I was struck by his impertence. I mean, duh, but, but it is so galling in a moment when a war is being conducted at the expense of the American taxpayer in America's name and is killing American service members. The idea that you as a secretary of defense would go up there and have an attitude towards lines of questioning about how much the war cost, that you wouldn't be transparent about how American lives have been lost and would just offhandedly mention that there was a 14th casualty as if that, that wasn't a big deal for 14th American casualty, I should say. And, and, and just utterly, you know, refused to recognize that the people who decide whether any of this is worth it, the people who decide whether they want to pay for it are not the, not the secretary of war, not the secretary of defense, it's the American people. And these are their elected representatives asking legitimate lines of questions about what's happening. And I, I just, I think it's, it's all fucked. But this in particular, this war is so fucked. And so not what the American public wants that to not even begin to try and sell it or explain what is happening is such a betrayal of the sort of foundational parts of our democracy. And the other piece of it, I would say, Dan, is just the corruption inside that Pentagon is really obvious, right? Like there are two lines of questioning today when he's up at the Senate, he's asked, or actually, I think yesterday as well, he was asked about his special advisor, Tim Parlatori, the president's former personal lawyer, who is clearly representing either unsavory people or foreign actors in his private law practice, but now through a sleight of hand is a senior advisor at the Pentagon and has access to classified information. Hegzef knows this is a liability. He knows there's something very crooked in all of this and refused to really answer any questions or shed light on that arrangement. And then Hegzef was asked about, from Elizabeth Warren today, about stock trades that happened right before the Pentagon announced we were going to, we were attacking Iran. And Hegzef refused to answer any questions about people inside the DOD who might be profiting off of Trump's catastrophic war in the Middle East, in Iran. Um, there's so much bad stuff happening at the Pentagon. It's hard to know where to begin. This hearing tells you something you see in the press conferences too, that Hegzef does, which is that in his mind, he is not accountable to Congress. He's not accountable to the Senate that approved his nomination. He's not accountable to the American people. He's not accountable to the Constitution. He's accountable only to Donald Trump and no one else. And the way in which he, like this is all a performance for Trump. That is who it is for. That is what he is trying to do. He's trying. He knows he is on, he's kind of on thin ice because Trump has repeatedly pointed out that going to war was Pete Hegzef's idea, which is usually the sign that Donald Trump is looking for someone to take blame for an unpopular idea. He knows, like he definitely knows down deep in that very vacuous soul of his, that he is totally in over his head. Like he is, he's trying so hard not to look like he is scared shitless that he looks scared shitless to be in this job. I do, this is not an important part, but I do think it's funny that in that part where he declares, like this should not be washed over that the greatest adversary the American military faces is not Iran. It's not some of Iran's allies around the world who are helping them in this war, like Russia. It is Democratic members of Congress for the rhetoric. But in doing that, what is the best part about that is, is that he says in there at this point, as if like they went through the testimony and they were like, look, we need a caveat in here just in case another threat emerges. We must say at this point, like it is, it's been, the whole thing is fucking bananas every time he speaks. It is like, it is an embarrassment to the Pentagon, to the country, to the troops who must, who serve at his command. It is just, it is terrible. I will say, I thought it was great that the Democrats, I mean, it's not that these people happen to be on these committees. So it's not like they were championed by leadership, but that you had so many veterans who know from combat, whether it's Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slatkin or Jason Crow who were incredibly tenacious. Pat Ryan. Yeah. Pat Ryan. These people know what war is and they know what the battlefield is and for them to be going after and really pointed and I think emotion, like they're, they're clearly very angry for them to be exasperated and outraged with Hegzeff, I think is meaningful. And it's also a different side of the Democratic Party, right? Like we just, the tent is so big, but you know, you can be, I don't know, I think it's a good moment for Democrats when that is the sort of juxtaposition. You know, everyone has been, you know, Trump ran as the no wars president. He's been very, very sensitive to the political costs of these wars. So there has been this question, why did this happen? And Ashley Parker and Mike Shearer of the Atlanta, had an incredible piece this week called the Yolo Presidency that kind of answers the question and they quote someone close to Trump saying this, he's been talking recently about how he is the most powerful person to ever live. He wants to be remembered as the one who did things that others couldn't do because of his sheer power and force of will. This includes Iran. According to sources in the story, Trump doesn't care about losing the house. He only slightly worries about losing the Senate because it would mean a longer impeachment trial. What did you think of this piece? It's like, I think my favorite piece that I read this week, it's so, it is full bonkers. You mentioned that Trump is his full self when he's talking about ballroom renovations. He's his full self when he is in like home reno mode. He is, according to this reporting, walking around gluing challenge coins as military commemorative coins. He's gluing challenge coins to the doors of the White House, to various offices in the administration, in the White House. Like, like an old grandpa, just like dusting off his fishing rods to put on display in the garage. I mean, it's literally the idea that Trump has just has forsaken political reality and doesn't give a shit about the midterms or the legislative branch. And instead, thinks of himself as a man who is embarked on a great mission. Allah, Alexander the Great, Napoleon and Julius Caesar. Those are the three great men mentioned in this piece. Like, first of all, I guarantee you that Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte could get the motherfucking straight of Hormuz open. Okay. They're like the greatest military tacticians in world history. The idea that Trump puts himself on that level is both deluded and dangerous. And it should inform our thinking about any kind of quote unquote strategy that comes from this White House, right? It is a cult. It is no longer, you know, he's not the head of a party. He's just, I mean, he is in the worst way in the way that dictators care only about their legacy and no longer about the country or the republic or whatever it is that they're governing. That's Trump. I mean, it's, it's there. There's, he doesn't care about the, he apparently didn't care about his running mate in 2024 because he said at one point in the article, who cares? I'll be dead. I don't care about what happens to MAGA after. I mean, just think about that as the organizing principle. Next time you wonder why Trump's doing that, something that's so obviously can't is going to disable his party in the coming midterms or 2028 presidential elections. I mean, it is a great piece. Mike and Ashley are top notch there with the post for a long time in North Atlantic. Now they are, they're true. They're great reporters and great writers. The funny part of the piece is it begins with this rhetorical question about whether Trump has been reading the works of Hegel because of Hegel's theory of world historical individuals, like sort of great man theory. And obviously Mike and Ashley don't think that Trump is doing that. But in the piece, it says, like they asked some Trump aides if he'd been reading Hegel and they all sort of laughed with the idea that Trump's not much of a reader, which I know we know that, but there just is something very concerning by the fact that the president doesn't read. Yeah. Right. He doesn't read books, doesn't read briefings. Yeah, it doesn't read. He kind of reads the New York Times, I guess. I think it was Scansa headlines. Scansa, he has a human printer print out the headlines that are favorable to him. He is a fundamentally incarious person, but it's more than that. The self absorption has reached true malignant narcissism and we're just along for the ride, Dan. We're just long for the ride. That's it. And what a bumpy ride it's been. Yeah. Runaway country. Potsday of America is brought to you by Armoura Colostrum. Armoura Colostrum is a simple nature inspired addition to your daily routine with over 400 bioactive nutrients that help support your gut and immune help to build a stronger foundation for your everyday wellness. When you prioritize your body's baseline, you're better equipped to show up with focus and energy no matter what the day holds. Well, many turn to probiotics for gut support. They often only focus on one part of a complex system. Armoura Colostrum works differently by providing comprehensive nourishment for your gut's natural barrier. It's designed to help sustain your microbiome and support your body's natural defenses against the stressors of modern life. Armoura Colostrum provides a blueprint of nutrients that complement your body's natural renewal process from supporting skin and hair vibrancy to assisting with daily recovery. It's the ultimate tool for those looking to optimize their well being at the cellular level. Research also shows that Colostrum can be a powerful ally for your active life. It supports the body's natural ability to absorb nutrients and maintain lean muscle. We've worked out a special offer for our audience. Receive 30% off your first subscription order. Go to armoura.com slash cricket or enter cricket to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's a r m r a dot com slash cricket armoura.com slash cricket. Potsafe America is brought to you by Quints. This time of year, you might start to be more intentional about what you wear day to day, leaning into pieces that feel easy, comfortable and still put together. Quints says, go tos to upgrade your wardrobe. The fabrics feel elevated, the fits are clean and everything just works without needing to overthink it. Quints is all the wardrobe staples for spring. Think 100% European linen shorts and shirts from $34. Lightweight, breathable and comfortable, but still look put together and clean. 100% pima cotton tees with a softness that has to be felt. Their pants also hit that same balance, relaxed and comfortable, but still polished enough to wear pretty much anywhere. Everything is priced 50 to 80% less than what you find with similar brands. Quints works directly with ethical factories, cuts out the middlements. You're getting premium materials without the markup. I bought a bunch of stuff from Quints, both for myself, kind of like basic t-shirt, stuff like that. And also some really nice sweaters for people at the holidays. By the way, Mother's Day is coming up. It's a chance to buy a nice gift from Quints, which is a beautiful stuff for mom. Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to quints.com slash crooked for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada too. That's Q U I and C E dot com slash crooked for free shipping and 365 day returns, quints.com slash crooked. Even as Trump is dead set on doing unpopular things like focus on the ballroom and they wore in Iran, the Supreme court's conservative majority in Florida Republicans are riding to his rescue in a ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme court threw out Louisiana's congressional map and hollowed out the Voting Rights Act even further. Louisiana's Republican governor announced on Thursday that the state will delay its House primaries on May 16th in order to redraw the map, which could see at least one majority black district drawn out of existence. In her dissent, which he read from the bench, Justice Kagan wrote, the court's decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality and electoral opportunity and said that it would have grave consequences. Alex, what do you make of this ruling? I think the ruling is important because it is a statement from the highest court in the land about racism and what the court believes about the lawfulness of measures to combat racism, right? Effectively, the court says gerrymandering is fine if it's partisan gerrymandering, nevermind if that partisan gerrymandering has explicitly racial and racist undertones. Adam Sower writes so beautifully and compellingly about the court and race in America and his assessment of this, I think, is worth noting. He, Sower, says that the court has rules, that the state is oppressive when it interferes with the right to discriminate and respects liberty when it allows discrimination. And I think that's totally true, right? That it's trying to disenfranchise black voters, which is exactly what's happening here in the court's eyes. That's not racist. But preventing Louisiana from disenfranchising black voters, that is racist because it ultimately redounds to the disadvantage of white people. Like it is so, the logic here is so upside down at, first of all, at odds with how we understand racism in America to say nothing of public opinion. Did you know, Dan, that 50% of black America lives in the South? I mean, the implications for this are vast, right? Like in Louisiana has, I think a third of the population is black. And it's, you know, they're trying to create two majority black districts out of six. And what the court has done here is just a wholesale inversion of, first of all, what Congress intended in its reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act in the 1980s. We're not going to get, I mean, we don't need to get into this sort of intent versus effects piece of this, but nonetheless, the Supreme Court, which when convenient, defers to Congress, has chosen to completely upend congressional intention here, which is pretty clear, in furtherance of a project that began decades ago and which Sam Lido and Clarence Thomas and John Roberts were all a part of when they were young staffers and a young judge during the Reagan years. And like the project of unwinding civil rights progress, the project of reversing attempts to make a more equitable society has long been one of the foundational goals of the right wing movement that began in the wake of, you know, the 1960s and 1970s. So like congrats, I guess, to the Roberts Court for doing this. This is like a real dismantling of civil rights progress and will have vast repercussions, not just electorally and politically, but for our society. When you disenfranchise 20% of this country will also affect Latinos and Asians and states like California. When you disenfranchise people of color in this country, you have a less representative democracy, you have a less just country. You don't have the America that I think we all aspire to. There's so much to say about this ruling and I'll get to the political impacts in a second, but John Roberts, who has gotten a bit of a improved reputation over the years about some of the rulings and the tariff case, a couple other anti-Trump ones. But long before Trump, John Roberts's main project as Chief Justice was the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act. Through these decisions, Shelby County, Verzolder, there's Bernovich, there's now this one, this is just right. One of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in American history, like in this, all the headlines are like they hollowed out, which I said here, they limited that is, that is maybe true in the words that Alito used, but in actual practice, they struck down section two, as we understand it. The ability to like what was left here is they allowed partisan gerrymandering as a principle in Shelby County. Now what they have done is essentially said that the last possible way in which you could stop prevent gerrymandering, which was designed and inherently always will dilute the power of black voters. If you were trying to dilute the power of democratic voters in a state, the way in which you do that is you dilute the population that votes at 80 to 90 percent for Democrats. And so they're now saying that is okay. That is what is happening here. Has dramatic implications. Did you say Louisiana 30 percent of its population is black? They're going to only have one representative at best when this is over. In several states like Arkansas, like Alabama, Mississippi, are going to after this is all said and done, at some point in the future, we'll have no black representatives, even though they have 30 percent of their population is black. They are going to eliminate the democratic delegations in most southern states because of this. They are going to cut down the number of black members in places like North Carolina and elsewhere. And, you know, by some estimates, 30 percent of the Congressional Black Caucus would be gone if the Republicans push forward with two maximum advantage on aid with gerrymandering with these new laws. So the question is in this midterm, what is the actual impact? The Republicans are going to get one more seat out of Louisiana. I think we're going to talk a bit about the map in Florida, but this is going to give us more legal cover to what's a pretty illegal map in Florida. And then in Tennessee, there are a handful of states, because this is coming so late in the cycle, there's limits of what Republicans can do. Many, the filing deadlines have passed in all 50 states. Many states have held their primaries. Other states have held their, have not held their primaries, but early voting has already started. And so it's very likely we create mass chaos to do, to redraw the maps at this late stage of the game. But there are some places where they can do it. Tennessee is one of those places. There is one Democratic district in Tennessee. Steve Cohen in the Memphis area, I believe, hosts it, represents it. The Trump spoke to the governor of Tennessee today to try to encourage him to redraw the maps before the election. Marsha Blackburn, who is the center from Tennessee, who's running for governor in Tennessee, called for this. You could see that happening here. They could do something similar in Missouri, in South Carolina. I'm not sure they'll be able to do that. In Georgia, where early voting has started, it started this week, I believe. There are some Republicans calling for a special session to redraw the maps. Would Brian Kemp do that? I don't know, but you can sort of, it's going to help Republicans in this election, but the longer term consequence is a house that's going to be less Democratic, small D, less Democratic, big D. It's going to be much wider, which one of my sub-stack subscribers said would be like adding white food coloring to mayonnaise. So, which I thought was very funny. And not Iole. We're not talking Iole. We're talking about Helmins. Yes, we were talking about super white Helmins mayonnaise. And it's just, it's like, this is terrible for democracy. And it's going to mean going forward a structural advantage for Republicans in the house that is akin to the one they currently hold in the Senate. Can Democrats take the majority under the House? Under that scenario? Absolutely. And we might win enough seats this time to do that even under a post-Supreme Court decision map, but it's going to, you're going to need a bigger wave every time to do it. It is, this is a very, very bad decision in the long run. I don't think it's not going to cost us the house this election, but it's definitely, but it's going to hurt in the long run. Can I ask, I mean, because I'm a loyal message box subscriber, a paid subscriber, as all true Americans should be. Yes, true Americans. As an, and yours, you said it, um, I'll quote you, Dan pretending we're still legal documents and message box in the same episode. I came with fucking receipts, dude. What do you think? You think I'm going to favro my way through this? I show up when Dan Pfeiffer asked me to be his guest on Pod Save America. Pretending we're still playing the old game is how we lose the house for a generation, every governor's race, every state legislative chamber, every secretary of state contest in 2026 is now a redistricting fight. Act accordingly. Mike drop. Okay. Those are good marching orders. If you weren't fired up about a secretary of state contest in your, in your state, get fucking excited because it matters. And this is going to mean that Democrats across the country are going to have to do what Democrats in Virginia and California did, which is they're going to have to redraw their maps to maximum effect. That's going to mean Illinois, New York, Maryland, where there was resistance this time in states that have redish anti-Jerrymandering ballot initiatives or constitutional amendments. We should try to undo those if they were in blue states. Like this is sad. And the high road gone. I think gerrymandering is bad. It is. But we have to do this up until the moment where we have enough power to pass a national ban on partisan gerrymandering. Like, and just worth remembering, every single Democrat voted for a bill that would ban national gerrymandering and every single Republican voted against a national ban on gerrymandering. So. Can I ask something even more explosive? Yes, of course. I know you're looking at Republican state houses, but what about the Republican Supreme Court? Isn't it time to think about this body of this body is so undecor- I understand they are constitutionally outlined to have these powers. But what the court is doing is so undemocratic. And I think Alito and Thomas or Alito or Thomas could retire at the end of this court term and allow Trump to appoint two zygots and solidify a conservative majority six against the zygots or our human beings. And like, should there not be a conversation if Democrats retake power around court reform? Yes, 100%. I have, I thought that we should have undertaken that effort when we had power in 2021. Now we didn't have enough Democrats to get rid of the filibuster to do that. And there certainly wasn't support for court expansion, but I, they're like, this is one of those things that I don't think we need to run on. But once we do win, we should do it, which is like, there should, we should look at term limits, we should look at court expansion. There should obviously be a code of ethics for these corrupt assholes who were doing things. Like, like, yes, like there, this is a gigantic problem. And long after Trump has moved on to work full time on ballrooms and home renault projects at Mar-a-Lago, the, his legacy for decades afterwards is going to haunt us because of this court. And so every option should be on the table to deal with that. If you're wondering how we got to this point where so many conservatives populate our federal judiciary and our highest court in the land, I have a book coming out this fall that details the rise of all of it, which is, Alex, what's your book called? It's called the steel. The steel. And can people pre-order it now? I believe they can. Although I think I'm supposed to be doing some swishy roll out for all of it on, in social media. But yes, if you Google Alex Wagner, the steel, I have a cover here somewhere. Anyway, it's coming out September 15th. I think I should really do. You know what the number one item on everyone's swishy book roll out for liberal political books is? What? Potsafe America. Okay. Actually, it's Heather Cocks. That's this show. After Heather Cocks, Richard St. Potsafe America. That's this show. Yes. You were on it. You're not even just guest on it. You're hosting it. Good Lord. Oh my God. Everyone go pre-order. Go Google this book. Dan, don't think this is the only promotion we're doing for that book on this show, but I respect the time that we're allotting to book promotion right now. Trust me, as someone who has written three books since I've been a Potsafe America co-host, I can, I can shake a stick at no one's book promotions because might have been quite voluminous. And quite, I basically annoyed people into buying my books. So. No, you're never annoying. You should try. You're never annoying. All right. Also on Wednesday, just to add to the bad news here, Florida advanced its aggressive new congressional map, which could net Republicans four seats in the house. There's been some speculation that this new map will be a quote, DeSantis dummy Mander. What do you make of that? I, I, I've meant to look up me ball Ron and whether that was his nickname. And I didn't do it. That was a, it was a prize. I looked it up. It was a private nickname that Trump was reported to use for. And I'm not, I don't know if it ever made it to truth social, but it was. I'm sorry. It's reporting. I expect all bad things to come out of Florida. Are you asking me whether I mean, like, do you think, do, do I think this is going to happen? Yes. I think this is going to happen. I think we should expect the worst craziest shit to emanate from Ron DeSantis as Florida. So this is no exception. Yeah. So a dummy Mander is a term for when it's okay. No, no, I'm happy to jump in here. The dummy man is a term of art for when the new map performs worse than the old map. And so there's some question here, because most experts thought that DeSantis could add two seats safely. And once you add four seats, you're at risk of spreading the peanut butter tooth in here. So the math of gerrymandering is, or redistricting is pretty simple. You have a static number of Republican voters to make more Republican districts. You must move them out of safe Republican districts and put them into Democratic districts. Then you must take those Democratic voters and move them from Democratic districts and put them in Republican districts. And if you do that poorly, then you put a bunch of seats at risk. I don't know if this will be a dummy Mander, but the seats that the way DeSantis did this is he did not shore up the two most vulnerable Republicans in the, in Southern Florida. And the four new safe seats are probably not even going to be ranked as safe by the political report. They're probably lean Republican at best. Or maybe likely Republican, but they're going to end up being about seats that Trump won plus nine in 2024. And that's within the realm of what is possible for Democrats. The other thing here that I think is just worth noting is the, we're using the 2024 results in Florida as the baseline for how safe these seats are. The Trump won Florida by like 13 points. And, but that was because, which is a huge margin, the gigantic margin of what was like the prototypical swing state for many, many races is Trump won because he won Latinos by 13 points in 2024. To give you a sense of how nuts that is, he only, he lost them by five in 2020. And he lost them by 27 in 2016. So we're, we think there's a 40 point swing over the last eight years of, among Latinos in Florida. And there's a mountain of evidence, both in polling and in election results in Florida and elsewhere, that 2024 was an outlier in terms of Latino support. So if you really do, in the Latino vote in Florida is incredibly complicated because it's very diverse. Um, so it's not, you can't just look at numbers in other parts of the country and transpose them to Florida. But there is, there is risk here that if Latinos really are swinging back to Democrats, if not the 2016 levels, but close to that, then some of these seats Republicans are counting on may turn out to be democratic. So there's, there's some risk here for meatball. Me, meatball and, and, and also Mike Johnson, another kind of meatball. Another, a different, a slimmer meatball, a more petite meatball. A bespectacled meatball. I'm not even going to give him slimmer. All right. As we know, as we know, Dan, Ron DeSantis is a petite man. But anyway, he's, he's, he's short. Um, and, but he will use some lifts in his boots to see him a little, to improve his stature. All right. Speaking of elections on Thursday morning, Maine governor Janet Mills surprised many by suspending her Senate campaign, citing a lack of financial resources that paves the way for Graham Plattner, who's been consistently around 30 points ahead in Mills in the polls to become the presumptive democratic nominee for the Senate seat where he'll face Susan Collins. Alex, you and I have talked about the Maine race once or twice on some podcast over the last few months. What do you make of Mills's decision to drop out before any votes were cast? I mean, I just think what are the fucking chances that you and I would be recording Pod Save America together the day that Janet Mills dropped out? It's like someone has it in for me. May a culpa, may a culpa. I just want to say, you know, I've been talking about Janet Mills, not as the great defender of Janet Mills. I've just been asking some questions and not in the vein of Tucker Carlson about the way we talk about women with experience who are older and just, you know, whether, in fact, Graham Plattner, who is an incredibly dynamic political figure who has run a really interesting, I would say innovative campaign, but whether that's going to pass muster with the crazy Mainers who are going to decide whether Susan Collins is going back to the Senate. Right. So I'm just asking questions. Now, it is unquestionable that like Democratic primary voters wanted Graham Plattner to be the nominee. And I think, you know, he clearly earned it. The fact that Janet Mills came into the race the ways she did. And I know you have lots of thoughts on this, well, with DSCC backing and Chuck Schumer, you know, tells you and you wrote a message box about this. I don't want to, I don't want to encroach on your in lane. Feel free to quote from it if you'd like to. Well, I didn't, I didn't think it was, I didn't, I ran out of cut paste room on my documents. That's fair enough. You know, it says a lot about the state of play inside the party and what, you know, the liabilities attached to institutionalists and the desire for new blood and a new DNA. And I get that, you know, I, I, I am a warrior and I do worry. I mean, Susan Collins is been thus far. She is the iron lady, right? Isn't that what they called Thatcher? And, you know, she is a special place in my heart for her vote, putting Brett Kavanaugh over the top as she claimed there would nothing bad would happen to Roe v. Wade. She's betrayed her label as a moderate and as an independent countless times when it really mattered. And, you know, I don't think she deserves those labels at all. So I would love to see someone else replace Susan Collins. I, I do worry, you know, Graham Platner has a lot. That there are a lot of dynamics. There's a lot of weather that converges over that candidacy. But at the same time, he's doing things, I think, for the party, especially as a veteran talking about the Iran war in a really important and compelling and foundational way. He's established a dialogue that I think is missing from a lot of parts of party leadership or you don't hear from party leadership. So I'm hopeful that he can inject some real life into not just the party, but the political conversation, if he does get elected. So that is me waving the white flag, saying I was wrong in thinking that Janet Mills would gain more traction or had like some secret support somewhere in the state, I think. And let's see what you do, Graham. Let me come to your defense here, because the way we've had this, we had this debate on Pennsylvania, America a long time ago. We had this debate a couple of times on political experts react. And it's been, I think it's overly simplified as Alex is pro Janet Mills and Dan is pro Graham Plattner. You at no point in this, did you argue that Janet Mills was going to win the primary? Like that was the conversation you and I've had has been about Graham Plattner's electability. And which I think is remains an open question. We don't know if he's electable till he actually wins. And there's obviously a dump trucks worth of opposition research based on the tattoo on his online posts. And we, we do not know yet how that's going to play. As you point out, I think there, there are some takeaways from this. Like it is, it's not surprising that Janet Mills dropped out because she had clearly was losing by a lot and was out of money, right? She had stopped running TV ads and even stopped running the Facebook ads. You run to raise money. So like you are really out of money when that happens. But it is like, if you take a step back, like the idea that the two term incumbent governor of the state endorsed by the DSCC and endorsed by Chuck Schumer has to drop out a month before the election is sort of a, like that seems, that's shocking. Right. Sign of the times. But it, you're right. It is a sign of the times. It is like Janet Mills is 78 years old. She will be 85 at the end of her first term. She said she was only going to serve one term. Now Janet Mills is not Joe Biden. I interviewed Janet Mills. She seemed nothing like Joe Biden, certainly the Joe Biden on that debate stage. Um, but she was paying a price for Joe Biden. Right. Just a, in a democratic established, a 78 year old establishment politician endorsed by the same establishment politicians who told everyone that Joe Biden was good to go. It's like, that's too much of a burden for someone to overcome in a post Trump and a Trump Biden era, right? Just, you cannot do that. And Platinum is a good candidate, right? People want change. He represented change. She represented the status quo. The Schumer endorsement was a big problem for her. Like, and it just, he endorsed her and then was immediately asked questions about would you support Schumer for leader? And she didn't answer the question. She said, you know, I haven't decided yet. Well, no one buys that because Schumer endorsed her and recruited her into the race. So like, like, even if she really felt that way, that was just like hard for people to, to believe when, especially when Platinum was saying, I will not do it for Schumer. Um, and so like this is where we are. Like, you know, we need, now we need Grand Platinum to win. Susan Collins has, there's no path to the majority without this, um, without Maine. Like we absolutely have to win Maine in 2020. Susan Collins outperformed Donald Trump by 18 points. Biden, she won by nine points. Uh, and Biden won by nine points, which is like just that level of crossover voting in 2020 in the 2020s is unheard of. And so she's a very tough candidate. We need him to win. And now hopefully everyone can unite around Platinum and we can go go make this happen because we have to. It's a non-negotiable, as they say. Yes, it is. Okay. And now, and now we have nothing left to talk about. Yeah. This is the last time you and I will podcast together unless Grand Platinum loses than you and then I will be on your, I will be on your podcast every day for a month. I hope that does not come to pass down. Yes. I mean, I would love to be on your podcast every day for a month. That would be an enjoyable use of my time. You are invited every day for a month, no matter what. But that's not the circumstances in which I would like to do it. Okay. One last thing before Tommy's conversation with Zach Walls and the latest sign of the coming apocalypse, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Amazon Studios executives have been discussing a reboot of the apprentice with none other than Donald Trump, Jr. as the new host. What the hell is going on here? Do you, Alex, do you think Americans are really yearning for more apprentice on their TV or is it possible that Jeff Bezos and the folks at Amazon may have an ulterior motive here? Oh, why would you think that? Just because they spent three trillion dollars on a Milani Trump documentary that made them like five cents. First of all, we should just note that it is not an active production for all of you listeners on the West Coast. You know what that means, but everybody else in the country, like it's unclear if this is really going to happen. However, they're discussing it. They're discussing it. They're talking about it. It's like literally the least surprising thing ever. And, you know, I know we started this conversation talking about the way in which corporate America may be feeling a little bit, you know, maybe itchy to stop being such stooges, such butlers for Trump. Well, I guess that that memo didn't get to Jeff Bezos because clearly Amazon's just relentless, shameless, currying of favor with the Trump administration has not come to a conclusion. The idea that we would reboot the apprentice with another Trump in the hot in the lead seat in the captain's chair is like nauseating to me. And yet, if Amazon doesn't bite, I would assume someone else would because there are some certain percentage of the country. You have a built in audience for it. And I'm sure, you know, the powers that be would love to, you know, the grooming ground for Republican presidential candidates isn't Senate's isn't the isn't the governor's seat. It's being a reality TV star. So yeah, if Don Jr. is going to have a future in politics in this country, he better get into an apprentice reboot and reboot and stat. Someone should tell Jeff Bezos that the Supreme Court has gutted our campaign finance laws so much that we basically exist in an environment of legalized bribery. So he does not have to, to use your term, but clown himself to bribe Donald Trump. He does not have to buy bad documentaries. He does not have to remake terrible shows. He can basically just write Donald Trump a check. He can write it to Trump's library. He can write it to the ballroom. He can write it to a Ciberpack. He can buy a bunch of crypto coins. Like it's not necessary to embarrass himself to get the what the result what he wants, which is he wants Trump's Pentagon to give Blue Origin his space company, some contracts so they can compete with SpaceX. And he is doing everything in his power to make that happen. And but he is not savvy enough to realize that he is embarrassing himself and making his political position harder in the medium term in the long run by doing this in such an ass clown like fashion. And the grant. Switzerland got like a reduced tariff rate just for giving him a gold bar. Like it's cheap. You don't even have to try this hard. Someone tell Bezos. All right. When we come back, Tommy's conversation with Zach Walz. Pod Save America is brought to you by blinds.com. There's a version of your home you haven't lived in yet. Where the light behaves, where the rooms feel finished, where you sleep until you decide to wake up. And who's that bringing you a delicious breakfast in bed? A beautiful woman or man? That's a what a life. It could be yours with blinds.com. They've spent 30 years making it easy to find the perfect fit with over 25 million windows covered and 50,000 five star reviews. You feel confident you're in good hands. Whether you want to go full DIY, bring in licensed vetted pros to handle the measure and install or land somewhere in between. You'll always be in control. They make it simple to choose the level of support that works best for you with flexibility every step of the way. You'd help picking the right style. Book a free consultation with one of blinds.com's award winning design experts. No pushy sales. People know awkward in home visits. Just advice on your schedule. Believe in ship simple, steer door fast and free. Choose from a huge variety of styles at prices that fit any budget. It's backed by blinds.com's 100% satisfaction guarantee because at blinds.com, the only thing they treat better than windows is you. Love blinds.com. We got some blinds.com in our office. Right, Peter? Oh, change the whole vibe in there. Can it was getting hot in the afternoons. There's sun on our computer screens. Now we can really read the news. Right now blinds.com is giving our listeners an exclusive $50 off when you spend $500 or more, just use code CROCKET to check out limited time offer rules and restrictions apply. See blinds.com for details. My guest today is a Democrat serving in the Iowa State Senate and how he is now running the Democratic nomination to represent Iowa and the United States Senate, bit of a downgrade going from Des Moines to DC. But Zach, well, it's great to meet you. And Tommy, it's good to be here. You're also running for Senate with a two year old. So you're trying to do like the red panda spin as many places as you can at once. No, look, we can definitely talk more about that later. I do not necessarily recommend it, you know, but thankfully I've got an incredible wife, two very supportive grandparents who are a 15 minute drive away from my house, a sister who helps out a lot. Actually, they're watching him literally right now. And this campaign would not be possible without their support. So if you're listening, I love you. Bless grandparents, truly. And also when you go on the road, like, you know, you're in LA right now, you don't have the nanon. So that's kind of nice. Yeah. I mean, look, we've got 33 days to go at this moment. So it's kind of hard to get any restful sleep at all. But thankfully, Eli is mostly sleeping through the night. He did learn how to climb out of his crib recently, which was and my poor wife was alone. It was terrifying. Yeah. And like we were on the road and she's texting me photos of how he's like pulled things off the shelves in the room and like, oh my God, I'm so sorry that I'm not there. My buddy would tell me like when his kids learned to crawl out of the crib, he would just wake up in the dead of night with a two year old, like three inches from his face. There's nothing more terrifying. Anyway, great to finally spend some time with you in person. Listeners might have heard of you because you gave this speech back in 2011. You were a 19 year old college student. It went super viral at the time. You're defending the right for all Iowans to marry. But that was a while ago. Can you tell listeners about yourself, your story in the moment that led to that speech and in what you've been doing since. Yeah. Well, you know, that speech changed my life. It's actually how I met my wife, Chloe. She was living in New York at the time, writing for a feminist blog called Feministing, which is kind of this big deal, third wave feminist blog at the time. And she was on blog duty the week that video went viral. And she wrote up the video and the headline she put on it was Marry Me, Zach Walls, 100% true story. And, you know, I thought this was very cute. And I thought she was very cute. So I sent her an email. I was like, you know, I won't marry you, but I'd be happy to do an interview. And anyway, we've been together for about a decade. We've got a two year old and, you know, it definitely changed my life. You know, led me into advocacy for families like mine all over the state, ultimately across the country and into politics when I ran for the state Senate in 2018. I was only 27 at that point. So I was the youngest member of the Iowa Senate when I was first elected. Seven years later, I am still the youngest member of the Iowa state Senate at 34. And when we defeat Ashley Henson in November, I will be the youngest member of the U.S. Senate. We'll dethrone John Ossoff, which I'm looking forward to. That is well, yeah, actually talking to someone who's running for Senate with a two year old is a rare thing. Usually it's a two year old grand kid. So again, that speech though, you were talking about what was it? It was like a horribly bigoted Iowa law that they were trying to jam through. Well, so, so Iowa was the third state in the country to recognize same sex marriage. And I grew up with my two moms, Jackie and Terry. My mom, Terry's a fifth generation Iowa farm girl from Clayton County. My mom Jackie is a nurse from Central Wisconsin. And it was incredible watching them have the chance to get married in 2009 after that Supreme Court ruling two years later in 2011. I was a sophomore at the University of Iowa. I was studying civil and environmental engineering. I was going to go build bridges and what have you. But then when Republicans were pushing forward this proposal to reverse that Supreme Court decision by amending our Constitution, I knew that I had to speak up. And the reason that was the case, and I haven't talked about this in the speech, but one of my very first homework assignments, I was in the eighth grade, this is in 2004, was to watch the Republican National Convention, those speeches, and then talk about it in class the next day. And I will never forget what it was like watching some of the most powerful people in our country stand in front of the nation talking about the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the war on terror, and then warn our country about the enemy from within and this radical Supreme Court decision from Massachusetts and the threat of gay marriage to our families, to our children and realizing they're talking about my family, they are talking about children like me. And it was so scary. And when I went into class the next day, I knew that I should say something I wanted to, but when I got there, I was scared. I felt like there was a target on my back. And so I didn't. And I stayed quiet. And that feeling, that shame, frankly, of feeling like I should say something and didn't have the courage to do it, that stuck with me and just seared in my memory. And so when I had the chance to give that testimony in 2011, I knew that I had to do it when I had the chance to run for the state senate in 2018 and to fight back against terrible things that Republicans are doing in our state. I felt like I had to do it. And when we, my wife and I were talking about this potential for this campaign last year, running for the US Senate with a two-year-old, not easy. But it felt like it was something that we had to do because I know what it feels like to need someone who's willing to fight for you when you can't do that yourself. And there are so many people in our state, I think across our country right now, who feel not exactly the same, obviously, the way that I did. But I think everybody deserves someone who's willing to go to bad form. And that's what this campaign is all about. Absolutely. So I lived in Iowa for a year in 2007. Loved it. Like the greatest. Were you in Iowa City? I was in Des Moines, but I just was on the road all the time. So I went to like 70, some 73 counties with Obama, right? 71 in county. Doing what you're doing right now. Yeah. So amazing experience. Loved every second of it. Obviously, it was colored by the fact that Obama won the Iowa caucuses and that got us the nomination and the presidency. But, you know, Iowa made this massive swing from 2008 and 2012, when Obama won it twice to 2016, where Trump won the state by like almost 10 points. Massive swing. And you could see it, especially in all the kind of river counties in the east. What do you think happened and how do Democrats get those voters back? So I get this question a lot, you know, Obama, Obama, Trump, Trump, Trump. And one of the things that I think a lot of folks can be hard to understand is that the message that Barack Obama was running on in 2008 and 2012 about challenging the status quo, bringing change to Washington, D.C., challenging the establishment to us. That sounds very different from Make America Great Again. But to a lot of the voters that our party has lost, they sound very similar, right? People who are willing to challenge a broken status quo. And especially for a lot of folks in small town and rural America, they have been failed by leaders in both parties. And I would say in Iowa, going back to the farm crisis in the 80s, our state has had a reflexive skepticism of the establishment because of how much damage that did to our state and what the kind of consequences of that have been over the last 40, 50 years. And so you've seen Iowa support people like Bill Clinton in the 90s, Barack Obama in the 2000s, and now Donald Trump on that anti-East Aleutian message. I also will tell you so I live in Coralville, which is in Johnson County, Democratic County, but my district when I was first running in 2018 included Cedar County to the east and Muscatine County, south and east. And I spent a lot of time knocking on doors in Cedar and Muscatine counties. And I talked to a lot of Obama Trump walls voters. And whenever I would talk with somebody like this, of course, you want to know what are the issues facing your community? And if they tell you that you're voting for you, like what's going on here? And what I would often hear from voters was something to the effect of, look, I don't agree with Donald Trump on every single issue, but I feel like he's fighting for me and for my family. And you're here, you're listening, you're understand what's happening here. So you got my support too. And I think, you know, that is something that I learned actually after that 2011 speech, I spent a lot of time traveling around the state, traveling around the country and, you know, the marriage equality campaign was all about meeting people where they were, binding common ground, answering tough, sometimes wildly inappropriate questions from people, but bringing some grace and humility to that rather than I think the view that some folks have of Democrats is that we look down on people or we judge people if they disagree with us and condescension, whatever. But if we had taken that approach and marriage equality, if that kind of condescending, looking down on people, marriage equality would not have passed. And so having those lessons was why I was able to win in small town rural areas, represent those areas for four years, my first term, three and a half now here, my second term. And it has made me a much better legislator. It's made me a better candidate. And I think that is why we're going to win the selection in November, because there's a really unique opportunity to win these voters back because of how bad the Trump policies have been for small town and rural America. But you have to have a positive vision. It can't just be about how bad things are. You've got to be looking forward to. Yeah. Let me ask you about one of those bad things. So Trump, you probably saw, started a war with Iran. It is going terribly wrong. It's increased the price of oil, increased the price of gas. It has increased fertilizer prices and availability all around the world. There could be a global hunger crisis if this thing doesn't end soon. What has the impact been on Iowa farmers and the Iowa economy? And then what role do you think the U.S. Senate should be playing in ending the war? Price of diesel is another part of oil and gasoline going up. Basically every piece of Iowa farm equipment runs on diesel. So, you know, we're in the midst of planting season right now. I was looking at my watch, April 29th. We, you know, are so all those machines that are out in the fields right now, those are all a lot more expensive to operate than they were three months ago. For fertilizer costs, you know, the vast majority of Iowa farmers had already bought their fertilizer for the spring. So there, if these fertilizer prices stay elevated into the fall, that's when you're going to start to see some real issues. Now, that's not to say that every farmer had already bought the fertilizer, but the vast majority by 80% had already. But again, depending on how this goes, how this is resolved, that's going to be a huge issue. And then of course the human toll as well. Two of the first six fatalities were from Iowa. And look, we can't have another endless war in the Middle East. And for what it's worth, I don't hear support for the war from people. When we're out campaigning, we've done almost 300 events across over 70 counties now, and people don't like this idea that, you know, Trump is trying to say, well, we don't have money for healthcare. We don't have money for our schools, but we can get 50 billion more dollars to go bomb Iran, right? That's crazy. Yeah. And when we talk about, you know, Washington, DC, that has failed states like Iowa, people all over the country. It's exactly what we're talking about. Yeah. Let me ask you about some Washington stuff. So you criticize your opponent, Josh Turrick, who we interviewed a couple of weeks back for getting support from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Can you describe what support he's getting to listeners? And, you know, you're sort of thinking on Schumer, are you saying you wouldn't vote for him for a minority or majority leader? Do you have a horse? If not, Senator Schumer, would you reject DSCC funding if you do in the primary? Like, describe this. Criticism. Let's take a step back and like, let's talk about the extension of a U.S. summit with Obama and Trump. My view is this party needs new leadership. It's part of the reason why I'm running for the seat in the first place. And that was part of why when we launched the campaign back in June of last year, I said, this is before Josh got in the race. I would not support Senator Schumer to remain as the leader. There's two reasons for that for me. Number one, you look at his track record as leader. I don't think that it has met the moment. I mean, we are facing in Donald Trump an existential threat to our country, to our democracy. I mean, this is a guy who just a few weeks ago was tweeting about nuking Iran. Right. Um, the things that they have done just this morning, I saw, I know the Supreme Court ruling on the VRA. I'm sure we can get to that. Save America Act. I mean, they are January 6th. There's so many things that this administration is doing that are such a threat to us that you need more effective response from Senate Democrats. And Schumer's not provided that. Second, and I will never forget this. Chuck Schumer said on television, it is fine for our party to write off rural voters and blue collar voters, because for every one of those votes we lose, we're going to make up two more in the suburbs. And that math might work in New York. It definitely does not work in Iowa. And frankly, that's not the Democratic Party that I want to belong to. You know, since the New Deal, this is the party that has fought for workers' rights and civil rights and women's rights. We are the party that fights for people who have lost their jobs to being offshored or now being replaced with artificial intelligence. We fight for people who need a champion, no matter who you are or where you come from. That is a Democratic Party that I believe in, and that's the Democratic Party that we have to fight for. And to get that, we need new leaders. Representative Tarkov, he gets in the race a couple of months later, has not taken the same position that I have. And so Senator Schumer has been supporting him. There's a super PAC that has been spending a significant amount of money bolstering Representative Tarkov in our primary. The DSCC has been promoting various events and opening doors for Josh. And look, they can do that, right? But what I will tell you is if we want to win in November and we want to win back those voters that our party has lost, who are frustrated with a rigged system that has done devastating damage to our state's economy, that has, through their campaign finance system, corrupted our politics, I think it is going to be a hell of a lot easier to win those voters back with the candidate who can look voters in the eye and tell them, I don't know, Chuck Schumer, a damn thing. I'm here to work for you, not for Trumor, not for Trump, not for Elon Musk or the billionaires, the big corporations. We need a senator who's going to do what's right for Iowa. That's what I've done in the state Senate. That's what I'll do in the US Senate. So I look, I agree with a lot of your critique there of not meeting the moment. A lot of it. I'm just curious, like sort of how the, how would this manifest in a general election? Like, does it mean rejecting money from the DSCC? Does it mean rejecting like the Democratic National Committee's fund? Here's what I tell you. Look, there's, you know, obviously, if we win the nomination, the reality is, and there's been reporting on this, Democrats in DC still want to win this seat, but you win the seat and then you have the ability to help shape what the general election looks like on your terms rather than on Washington's terms. And Tommy, I don't need to tell you folks in Washington have not had a great track record in Iowa over the last 14 years, right? Uh, and so from my perspective, I think that having a nominee who has been able to run against the establishment to say that actually we are going to talk with voters in a way that we believe reflects a way that actually wins on the ground. We've been investing in organizing very early. And I will also tell you the message that we've been running on, which is about the economy. It is about the corruption. It is about a new vision for the future of small town of rural Iowa. And hope we can get to some of that in a minute. That is resonating with a lot of people. When we turned in our nominating petitions, it's about a month and a half ago now, 15% of our signers were registered independence and Republicans. We get signers from all 99 counties and like triple the number of signatures that you needed from folks to legally get on the ballot. Um, I was also the first candidate in the race, uh, Democrat or Republican to get a grassroots contribution from Iowans in all 99 counties. Um, our 99th county was Wright County, which is up in North Iowa, 25 bucks from a guy named Gary, Gary gets a systematic number 99. So like we're thrilled to get Gary on the phone so I can say thank you and learn about why he's supporting the campaign. Gary, uh, you know, it tells me he's a retired small town lawyer. He's excited to see a new generation step up. He's, uh, president of his local school board, loves my passion for public education. He's a Vietnam veteran. And then Gary tells me that he's a registered Republican and he loves our anti-corruption message. Uh, and so now Gary and his wife Susan are some of our best volunteers. And in fact, because of Gary and Susan, uh, we turned in 174 signatures from Wright County as a part of getting onto the ballot. And we have been unable to determine the last time a Democratic candidate percent that came anywhere close to that amount. And so we think it's an example of how our approach, our message and the structure of our campaign is resonating. And so if we win the nomination and folks from Washington want to work with us rather than us working with them, if that makes sense in the vision that we have for how we win this race, that's their decision. Right. Sounds like you're saying you're like, if you win the nomination, the DSCZ is going to spend and you're not going to stop them and you'll work with them, but you feel like you will have better negotiating terms. Yeah. And like, again, I think to me that illustrates the strength of this grassroots campaign, right? The fact that we've been able to have, um, you know, we've outraised my opponent in the primary, despite him having every door open for him, uh, by the committee, you know, all those various things, we are working our tails off, right? And Iowans respect hard work and frankly, they respect people who are willing to say out loud the things that they know are true, which is that there are leaders in both parties who have failed states like Iowa and we need change. And we have to have somebody who's willing to push for that change. And look, it may not work, but I'll tell you, uh, I think it is going to work. And I think that is exactly the message that we are going to ride straight into November. And, uh, I hope that we can talk about Ashley Henson because I bet a lot of your listeners probably don't know a lot about her, but she is one of the worst. So I do want to ask about her, but on the reform stuff. So voters are furious at Washington. They're mad at the political system. They're mad at Congress. I think Gallup had a poll out the other day that found Congress, the congressional approval rating is 10%. Yeah. They're like, you know, 60 points underwater. So what's your plan to kind of reform the Senate, fix the image of it being broken? Like, are we getting rid of the filibuster? Are we banning PAC and lobbyist money? We talk in term limits. Like, tell us your, your plan. I'll read you read my campaign website because that's literally, so, uh, really early in the campaign, um, anti-corruption, this reform really emerged as something that we heard from Iowans on the trail. And so we've got, uh, literally the, so we're, we launched our Iowans over insiders tour. This was about two and a half weeks ago now. And we've started with our anti-corruption plan that includes filibuster reform, which is not a position that my opponent has taken in this primary. Uh, it includes overturning citizens united, uh, which I've made a promise. I will be a day one co-sponsor of an amendment to the U S constitution to do that. Um, I've made a promise. I'm only going to serve two terms in the U S Senate if elected. I've become a big believer in term limits. Um, I've seen for a stand in the state legislature, what happens when good people stay for too long and it is so much worse when bad people stay for too long. And we can all see that playing out in the U S Senate. Uh, the third thing that we talk about is banning members of Congress. And I've made a promise to follow this by examples as well. Um, no owning, trading stocks, cryptocurrency, prediction markets. Um, people deserve to have a government that they trust is actually working for them, not for their own bank accounts. And the other thing too, I think that is so important for us as a party, you know, I mean, I go back to this point since the new deal, right, the things that we fought for, Democrats believe that government can do really good things to make people's lives better. Social security, Medicare, infrastructure, public education. But if people don't trust the government, then it's going to be a hell of a lot harder to do those things. And so I think restoring that trust is incredibly important. And getting that money out of our politics is incredibly important for the economy as well, because people understand like, can, you know, every Iowa voter explain the difference between a 527 or a C4, like, no, of course not. But do people understand that there is a direct connection between how rigged the economy is and how corrupted our politics have become by these super packs and billionaires and dark money? Like, yeah, absolutely. Everybody gets that. You know, Donald Trump was not wrong when he said that we need to drain the swamp. The problem is that he's not draining the swamp at all. If anything, he's like floating in it. Just like building a new swamp. Totally. Totally. Like Pete Hexath in there and a bunch of other douchebags. Well, let me ask you like some of your, what your critics would say, like, supporters of your opponent would point out that you ran a pack in a previous job, the next gen 50 pack, they would say like, did you find religion on this issue because money was getting spent against you? Like, how did you come to this? And how do you explain that previous job? Yeah, I mean, look, so first of all, there was no federal independent expenditure of that organization at all, right? So it's a complete baffles and orange situation. But I would tell you, I think like a lot of young voters of our generation, I'm going to say our generation here, I think that concern about money and politics has been something that we've seen for a long time. And part of that, I think is growing up in the post-citizens United era, going back to 2010. I mean, it's funny, I still remember watching those episodes of the Colbert Report where Stephen is like explaining, you know, his dark money group and the Stephen Colbert pack and everything, and just thinking about how absurd that was. And I was a college student then, and now like actually being in elected office, you know, you can see it so much so. But I will tell you tell me one story about the influence of money and politics. My very first years in 2019, these large out of state investment companies started coming to Iowa, buying mobile home communities and trailer parks and proposing outrageous increases to the monthly lot rent, 50%, 60%, 70%. And like, I would be very unhappy if my mortgage went up 70%. And these folks have, you know, a lot less flexibility in their budgets than I do. And this one company from Utah bought 15 communities across the state, three of them in my Senate district, two in Johnson County, and then one in Cedar County, the more rural part of my district. And as their state senator, I took it upon myself to go knock doors in my communities to hear from my constituents, my people about what was going on. And the stories I heard were heartbreaking. I met a woman named Candy. Candy was a widow and her late husband had saved up, bought her this beautiful double wide trailer. And she had a place to call her home. And she was worried about her own home. She was terrified about what happened to her neighbors. And I, you know, I was so angry about what I was hearing that I was able to take these stories. And I went to my Republican colleagues. And even though I was a freshman, and even though, you know, we obviously didn't agree on every issue, that experience that I had as an advocate for marriage equality about finding that common ground and being able to bring people together, we brought together a bipartisan group. We hammered out a bill that we could all support. And as a freshman, I got that bill with the help of people like Candy and her neighbors who came to the state house to fight for that bill. We got it through the Senate 48 to zero. Everyone assumed this was a done deal. And then two days later, you get a text message asking me to come over to the, to the house side for a closed door meeting about my bill. And I remember it like it was yesterday walking in. First person I see is the lobbyist representing these big companies. And the second person I see is a state representative who's holding my bill, shaking her head. That state representative is now a member of Congress. And she's my Republican opponent in November, Ashley Henson. And I was in the room and I watched is Ashley Henson killed my bipartisan bill as a favor to that lobbyist. And after this was over, I looked up how much money this lobbyist had bundled for her reelection campaign. You want to guess how much it was? 50 grand. $1,500. And you will, you will never guess though, who was some of her biggest supporters in her campaign for the U.S. House or who did a fundraising event for her in the Senate campaign is a few months ago. So when we talk about this connection between, you know, the rigged economy and the corruption of our politics, I saw that firsthand as a freshman legislator. And look, I will tell you this, I was excited to run against Joni Ernst. But when I found out I was going to be running against Ashley Henson, I jumped out of bed the next morning. Because this campaign is about a lot of things. It's about this rigged economy that is benefiting the big investment companies at the expense of people like candy. It is about the corruption of money in our politics. It is about that new vision that we have for the future of small town of rural Iowa. But one of those things is definitely the opportunity to end the political career of the woman who killed my bipartisan bill for $1,500. Take a little spite. I like spite. I'm also very grateful that you said it's our generation when you're 34 and I'm not. Don't think about it too hard. No, it's honestly the nicest thing I've ever said to me today. Can I just one last time? Tell me more about Ashley though. So she, what do voters need to know about her because she's not a well-known political person? Totally. Well, you know, it's funny. When Ashley first got in the race, this is back in September. So we get in June. It's actually funny. We were in the planning process for the campaign, obviously. And then on like June 3rd or something, Joni Ernst says, well, we all are going to die in response to a question about Medicaid cuts. Yeah, that was not a good answer. It was not a good answer. And it was not a popular position to take on healthcare. And so, you know, we had already been planning to announce the campaign that happened a few days later. In August, poll comes out for the general election showing me leading Joni Ernst by two points and a head-to-head matchup. You know, 10 days later, she's out of the race. Ashley Hinson's getting in. I don't think we can take all the credit for Joni withdrawing from the race, but we'll take a little bit of the credit. Take it. And when Ashley first got in, you know, to exactly your question, a lot of folks don't know who's Ashley Hinson. And so I would kind of tell people, look, she's kind of like the Marjorie Taylor Green of the Midwest. The problem is I can't use that comparison anymore because Marjorie, I know she seems reasonable compared to Hinson. Look, she has all the same terrible votes that Joni Ernst does for the Republican budget, the big billionaire tax cut, cutting $800 billion from Medicaid, defunding Obamacare, all of that stuff. But in addition to all of that, she's cosponsored a total abortion ban in the U.S. House. She has voted not once, but twice against capping the cost of insulin. She's voted against Medicare, being able to negotiate over prescription drugs. She's actually voted to cut Social Security, which not a lot of people know yet, but they certainly will in November. Very bad vote. She is someone who's accepted millions of dollars from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. And so from my perspective, I think that there is no one who I would rather have the opportunity to run against in this election. And I'll tell you, Tommy, when we defeat Ashley in November, I'm going to personally make sure that Candy and a couple of her neighbors come out to Washington, D.C. for this one again. There you go. I'm not a fan, I guess, of Ashley Hinson. I feel convinced here. But so as you know, we have a primary coming up. Vote Vets were the organization that you talked about earlier that's endorsed your opponent and put a bunch of ad dollars on TV and support them. They released a poll. It has Josh have 20 points. I wonder if you think, if you agree with those numbers and why you think you are a better position to win this race? Absolutely. So look, it means an internal poll, very little detail provided about it. But look, they've spent five and a half million dollars. And when we talk about how super PACs have this disproportionate impact on our politics and primaries like this one. And of course, this is not our only race in the country where super PACs are spending millions and millions of dollars. This is an example of, I think, something that a lot of Democratic primary voters are really frustrated with, because it feels like the super PACs are drowning out the voices of individual voters. You've got, like you said, over five million dollars spent so far. And that is a significant amount of money. What I will tell you is that if we've been traveling across the state, folks are really resonating with our anti-establishment message. And it's not frankly just Gary and other Republicans or independents. A lot of Democratic primary voters are not happy with what is happening in Washington right now. They are not satisfied with the leadership of Chuck Schumer and they are ready for real change. And so when we talk about how we need to make that change a reality, that is something that is resonating across the political spectrum. And when you see, you know, to your point, candidates say, well, I'm opposed to dark money. I'm opposed to super PACs and they're benefiting from millions of dollars of outside spending. I think voters aren't happy about that either. And so what I would tell you is we're on to tomorrow and we're going to continue, you know, during the final stretch here. We've been, the last two and a half weeks, our Iowans over insiders tour. We started with a very comprehensive anti-corruption plan that actually Senator Elizabeth Warren personally texted me to say that she really liked it, which I think about the highest honor you could give for an anti-corruption plan. We had our plan on the economic agenda. And one of the things I would just point out on that, Tommy, is that when we talk about things like a billionaire wealth tax, when we talk about breaking up the corporate monopolies that have a stranglehold on agribusiness in Iowa, so like four companies control the global grain market, four companies control the fertilizer market, one of those companies, by the way, is Coke Industries. I think probably the only people who hate the Koch brothers more than Pod Save America listeners are Iowa farmers. That is something that resonates with people. You know, I think some people in DC think of that as like a progressive or lefty coded thing. That is not the case at all. I mean, you go talk to an average swing voter in the state of Iowa and you ask them about those two things, they're going to give you a thumbs up 100%. And so that is how we're going to win is because we have a message that is not being filtered through super PACs. It's not coming from Washington. It's not coming from pollsters. It is coming from people across our state. And that's how you're going to win. What do you say to people who are like, look, Iowa City is the most liberal part of the state. You haven't had a run against a Republican. Maybe you're not ready for like, you know that you've heard this response. What do you say to that? Yeah, well, look, I mean, if you think that I haven't defeated Republicans, I would encourage you to ask Bob Vander Plaats or any of the other folks who are trying to change Iowa's marriage equality law back in 2011. And what I would tell you is that the idea that this election is going to be decided based on where a candidate is from is absolutely absurd. I mean, same people who said that Barack Obama couldn't win because he was from Chicago, Illinois, right? And that was wrong, right? People don't care about where you're from. They care about why you're there. They care about what your vision for the future is. And if you have a concrete idea to have about how to make it a reality, we've got all those things. Again, I will also tell you, I'm the only candidate running on the Democratic primary who has represented small town and rural Iowa, Cedar and Muscatine County, Obama, Trump, Walls counties. And for years, I took really seriously the responsibility of showing up to those listening posts and those legislative forums. I was often the only elected Democrat on the panel answering questions from the audience, me and like five Republicans, you know, not quite Jubilee style, you know, or whatever, but like pretty close. It's just surrounded. And that experience, it made me a better legislator. It's made me a better candidate for this office. And as the exact same approach it will take as a U.S. Senator, I believe 100% in the importance of showing up, doing town halls, Chuck Grassley famously does the 99 County tour every year. We'll do that in the U.S. Senate. And we'll make sure that we have a candidate who or candidate in this race and then the Senator who actually is listening to the people and fighting to go to work for them. We emulate Grassley's Twitter style of just my staff doesn't let me tweet anymore. So which is probably for the best. Last question for you. Do you have a political hero or mentor or some of you want to emulate in Washington if you win this? Yeah, Tom Harkin for sure. You know, look, he my mom Terry was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when I was seven years old. It's a devastating disease. And I watched as I was growing up per physical decline into a wheelchair. And you look having gay parents, even in Johnson County in the 90s and early 2000s, was not easy. But having a parent in a wheelchair was also really tough. And without the Americans with Disabilities Act, and this is a point where Representative Turk and I think both are incredibly grateful to Senator Harkin for his leadership on that. You know, that made a huge difference for my family. You know, that time was also when I learned the importance of what labor union can do for a family. My mom Jackie is a SCIU nurse at the University of Iowa Hospital. She was laid off during the Great Recession. And that contract that got negotiated on her behalf made a huge difference for our family at a really tough time. And you know, I think about Senator Harkin, I think about his work with Americans with Disabilities Act, I think about him being a relentless champion for labor unions. I've been fortunate enough to win the endorsement of 25 different labor unions and organizations across our state in this race. In fact, I was the iron workers local in Des Moines, invited me to become a member. So I'm now a huge pain iron worker, okay, local 67. So if this politics thing doesn't work out, I got a future in the skilled trades. Yeah, yeah. And what are you going to make me? Well, I mean, data centers are the big thing right now. And that's that's a whole separate can of words. But the thing right now that I would tell you is that, you know, fighting for a state where no matter who you are, you know, how you're, you know, what your family is like, whether you have an ability or disability, what have you, that is really important. Fighting for the ability of people to come together to negotiate good jobs, bear wages, great benefits in an economy that works for us. Those two things to me, that's what Senator Harkin represents. And those are things that are really important to me as well. Well, Zach, best of luck in your campaign. Great to spend some time with you and appreciate it. I really appreciate it, Tommy. I enjoy the conversation today. And if anyone listening wants to learn more, join us at our website, ZachWalls.com. We'd love to have you on board. That's our show for today. Thanks, Alex for co-hosting. Thanks to ZachWalls for coming on. Loveably back in your feed on Sunday with a conversation with Senator Bernie Sanders. If you want to listen to Podsave America ad free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to cricket.com slash friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube or Apple Podcasts. Also, please consider leaving us a review that helps boost this episode and everything we do here at Cricket. Podsave 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 Senglin and Charlotte Landis. Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our executive assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cone, Hailey Jones, Ben Hefko, Mia Kellman, Carol Pelleve, David Tolles and Ryan Young. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.