Can a Jew Actually Become U.S. President?

- Hey everybody, welcome in Mark Calpard here.

“Thank you for joining new episode of Next Up With Me,”

Mark Calpard, grateful to you for joining and have a great show for you today. Our guest today includes Senator Rand Paul from the great state of Kentucky. He's been presiding over the hearings

involving Anthony Fauci and today, his committee took a big step and making a criminal referral. We'll talk to Senator Paul about that, but also about the big picture

of what's going on with Dr. Fauci and his efforts to get the American people to truth. Also near a tandem will be here, former top-wide advisor to Joe Biden and longtime advisor to Hillary Clinton.

Others should now the president and CEO at the center for American progress. We're gonna talk about the Democratic vision for dealing with the affordability crisis as well as her review of what's going on

with all these contentious party primaries now. But before they join us, one of my favorite segments is my report of my long today. Eight per 28, eight on Tuesday, I brought you my list of the top most likely in order to Democratic presidential

nominees for 2028.

I was always solicited your reactions,

your comments, your questions, your criticisms about who's on there and the reaction to this was almost uniform. We had a new number one. We'll bring up the list to show it to you. Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania.

Number one on the list for the first time and people said almost uniformly in reaction, impossible. No Jewish person with a pro-Israel set of positions is gonna be nominated by the Democratic Party in 2028 because the energy in the party comes from the anti-Israel physician.

Okay, there's a complicated contention, okay? Take this head on. I did this with Bernie Sanders. When I put him on the list and moved to my and I told you folks, don't dismiss him because of his age

and I took head on this question of would the party nominate someone of Bernie Sanders age after two very old presidents and I didn't convince a lot of you, but I'm gonna do a better today 'cause I'm gonna convince you.

It's a two-part thing, right? It's Josh Shapiro being Jewish. Is that what people think is disquafing or is it that he's got pro-Israel positions? And I'd contend to you that Josh Shapiro

is the right person to take this head on. It's weird, it's weird confluence because not only is Josh Shapiro thinking of running pro-Israel who happens to be Jewish, but so are several others. There's more potential Jewish presidential candidates

and they've ever been. And so this is a timely discussion, but it's particularly timely for Josh Shapiro

“because I believe that if you take away the question”

of his religious faith and of the perceptions of his use on Israel, this guy is very deservedly one of the front runners and I'll remind all of you who pick apart items on the list every month or the whole list. Someone's gonna be the Democrat nominee

and I'm gonna break the news right here. It will not be a perfect person. The Democrats will nominate someone who's flawed and you can go back to everyone who's been nominated I'd say since Reagan.

Flood, I remember when I was covering 1988,

the first campaign I covered

and everybody said, here are all the flaws in George H.W. Bush as to be the nominee. Can't be nominated, they told me. He's perceived to be a whamp, he's in Reagan's shadow. He's got all these things related to Iran contra.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are no perfect candidates, okay? Someone will be nominated and you look at the list there. There's Gavin Newsham have flaws for the just for the nomination. Now that's all we're talking about.

Of course you guys, Pete Buttigieg, Kamla Harris, AOC, Bernie Sanders, John Ossof, Mark Kelly. Ladies and gentlemen, everyone on that list has flaws. But what some of you are arguing is that the flaws of Josh Shapiro are this one

flawed, Josh Shapiro, this issue of his faith and his positions on Israel are dispositive, are disqualifying, but you're not saying the same thing

“apparently at least this week about the flaws of the others, okay?”

So, why is Josh Shapiro number one? I'll remind you, he's very popular in a battleground state. Pennsylvania, no more important political state. He's cruising to reelection. He's a very strong fundraiser.

Great retail politician can walk into any setting talk to voters, great giver of speeches, great with the media. He is light as both a potential nominee and a potential president by some of the most sophisticated people in the party. Nancy Pelosi likes him, the Obama's like him, the Clinton's like him.

Lots of people like him. And they want a strong nominee, but they also want a strong president. And they believe he is electable. They believe that if he can win the nomination, he will be a very strong. And of course that makes sense because

a popular governor of the most important battleground states,

you know, almost guaranteed that he'd win Pennsylvania. So, of course, he's electable. What are the reservations besides his faith and his positions on Israel that people have? Why might not run?

He's got young kids and he might decide not to run. I have told you in the past, there's questions about

Does he have the operation around him, the political

“sophistication to build a campaign raised the money, can front controversy?”

He's made enemies within the party, no doubt. And that's not a good sign. He doesn't have quite as many allies as he might. And he's not that tall. And I hate to put that on the list, but it's a reality.

It's a reality of a lot of these candidates. We tend to like our presidents tall. OK. But those are not reservations I heard from any of you in asking for reaction. Date for 28, none of you said he's not tall, none of you

said he doesn't have enough allies or he's got young kids. What you said is he's Jewish and he's got positions on Israel that are disqualifying, makes him a non-starter. Now, presumably, not presumably, because some of you have said this as well.

That means Roman manual, John Ossoth, JD Pritz, JB Pritzker, a list of slotkin, Jared Polis, also all potential candidates. You're saying none of them can run. And I have to say, the case I'll make to you today is, I think Governor Shapiro is best positioned

of all these Jewish Democrats to make the case of why that shouldn't be disqualifying. Before I make the case, let me show you just a sample. I could have showed you a lot of the strong reaction that people had about Governor Shapiro.

Here's A4 from Larry on Twitter. Larry says there is no way mark. I normally admire your analysis, but this is silly. There is zero chance the Democrats pick a person of the Jewish faith to be their nominee.

So Larry says zero. OK, here's an email from John A5, please. That is what John said. Tell me and others on the right. It seems almost impossible that someone like Josh Shapiro

has a shot of becoming the Democratic nominee. Even excluding the fringe, anti-Semitic crowd. There is still a large portion of the Democratic Party with strong opposition to Israel. Josh Shapiro's voice support for Israel's right

to defend itself. For many Democrats, this is a priority issue for them. One, they are not willing to compromise with. I personally believe any political scandal that Gavin Newsom would endure during the primary process

would be far less significant than that than what the anti-Hizuro crowd will throw a Josh Shapiro.

“How does this weigh into your considerations, John?”

Thank you. I will address all that. Here's Scott A6. Another skeptics on Twitter. Ridiculous, read the room, Mark.

No Jew, especially one who supports Israel, and it's openly Jewish will get the Democratic nomination. The party is becoming virulently anti-Semitic, learn Jewish history. It may up sending saving your life one day,

and then finally an email from Spencer A7.

Spencer says, I think you're under-counting just how popular the DSA movement is across the country. It is not just in Detroit, New York, it's in Raleigh, Charleston, Nashville, and every other city in town across the South.

If the DSA wing of the party can center around a candidate, AOC, Bernie, et cetera, I currently don't see a way they can win no matter the order. I've been, talks about going to campaign events. They have the money, more importantly,

they have the emotional drive of the party behind them, just as Trump did in 2016, the parallels are uncanny. Spencer is absolutely right. The energy in the party now is anti-Israel, anti-Apack,

the American organization funded by Americans that support of Israel, no doubt. But I don't believe that the party's gonna nominate a person from that wing of the party. In the end, as I told you on Tuesday,

when I explained why Shapiro was number one,

“I believe the party's gonna nominate a moderate,”

and I believe that person will not be as pro-Israel as previous Democratic nominees or previous presidents of both parties, but I believe it'll be someone from the sensible center on Israel,

and I believe Shapiro's best position to make that case.

First of all, the environment could be totally different.

All of this, all of this is occurred with BB Netanyye, who is Prime Minister, and he is a lightning rite, he is a hot button. He causes a lot of the passion on the left of the Democratic party to be anti-Israel.

Okay, he could lose, he could be out of office long before the nomination fight begins. And other issues could come up. Right now, this is amongst the hottest issues within the party, every analyst I talked to,

this says this will be a big issue, maybe the big issue in the nominating process. But it may not be, you know, there could be Martian invasion, there could be a recession, there could be all sorts of things.

Okay, now, Governor Shapiro knows full well that this is a controversy within the party, and like almost everybody in the party, he is moved to a more anti-Israel position. But I believe that he is in the middle,

he's not an absolute reflexive defender of Israel, but he's also not an automatic critic of Israel. Just like Vice President Vance as a matter of fact, I believe that if the nomination goes to someone who is not from the AOC wing or the Bernie Sanders wing

whether they're Jewish or not.

“And I hear all the time from folks in the community”

from Democrats, who are my sources, who I talked to this week. It's not that he's Jewish, it's bad as positions on Israel. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm here to tell you, his positions on Israel are pretty standard

for the establishment wing of the party. So I don't buy it when people say it's not a bad being Jewish. I don't know if they think it through all the way, but trust me, when they say it's not about the money, it's about the money, when they say it's not a bad being Jewish,

it's at least a part about his being Jewish, okay? And you can't really untangle it. You can't untangle people's reservations about the prospect of his being the nominee from his faith. You can't untangle that completely from his positions.

But let's be serious about his positions. Let's be rigorous here. Here's a chart, A3. This shows you where Governor Shapiro stands, versus Hakeem Jeffries, the leader of the Democrats in the House,

who's got kind of the standard set of issue positions.

“He's not as anti-Israel as other members of the Democratic House,”

but, and then the vice president. Two-state solutions should there be a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, both the Vice, I came Jeffries and Josh Shapiro say yes. What about the Israeli settlements

that have been so controversial for a long time?

Governor Shapiro has been critical of them,

as is Hakeem Jeffries, okay? What about Benjamin Netanyahu? Governor Shapiro has been extremely critical of them, as is Hakeem Jeffries. What about calling what's happening Gaza agenda-side by Israel,

a statement that's made with increasing frequently by other Democrats? Josh Shapiro hasn't done that, which does not make him any friends on the left, but either is Hakeem Jeffries.

And then what about a pact, the organization of Americans, who help fund political campaigns and other efforts to support Israel in the United States? Josh Shapiro has talked about them. Very similar to Hakeem Jeffries.

My point is, this is not a guy who is on the far end of being supportive of Israel. It's just not.

And I think the Democratic nominee

contrary to Joe Biden and Comllaris who hid from this issue is best they could, is gonna be the establishment candidate who amongst other things takes us on. Who diffuses the issue,

does not get carried along by the currents, but his governor Shapiro said more generally about the difference between the establishment wing. And the left of the party, who has a battle of ideas. And on that battle of ideas,

it's gonna be the loud angry voices on the far left who opposes Israel, A to Israel, who don't necessarily believe Israel's legitimate, in which there's a strain of anti-Semitism. And the voices who are reflexively pro-Israel,

who are also angry and scared, no upset. Someone is gonna be able to step forward and shape public opinion, not be afraid of it within the Democratic Party to diffuse the white hot emotion that exists right now.

That's what a leader does. And in some ways, that is what Barack Obama did it his best. And that is arguably one of Josh Shapiro's best skills as a politician, to appraise a situation where there's loud angry voices,

upset voices on the extremes. And to say, where is the middle? Where's the actual electorate? And while the loudest angry voices within the Democratic Party now,

the hacklers, the online folks, the folks with podcasts, while they are more anti-Israel than Josh Shapiro, I don't believe that they're the hard and sold the Democratic Party, even as the polls suggest things have changed.

“Josh Shapiro, if he wants to be the nominee, I believe,”

can make the case for the radical and reasonable center of public opinion within the party on this. Establish his phone of fleidies as a critic of Israel, but also a supporter of Israel. So let's look at how he's done on these topics.

Here he is talking about Benjamin Netanyahu back in March on the Pod Save America podcast. Listen to the nuance, listen to the criticism. Is that's too please? - We're able to acknowledge there's a lot of nuance

on these issues, and we should debate them, and just because people have different opinions, doesn't make them a bad person. And just because someone doesn't agree with the Netanyahu government, which I don't on many, many things,

doesn't make them an anti-Semite. Just because I disagree with Benjamin Netanyahu, doesn't make me an anti-Semite, in as much as because I disagree with Donald Trump, doesn't make me any less of an American patriot.

- Ladies and gentlemen, Bill Clinton called to triangulation. Finding a safe space between two extremes. In the case of Bill Clinton, it was typically between the liberals and the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. In this case, it's between the reflexively anti-Israel

and the reflexively pro-Israel to wings. There's space in there. You just have to be willing to do it with the manner he just did.

This is back in May of this year, to Politico. Again, listen to the nuance, listen to the search for a reasonable position that's not fueled by emotion, as much as it is fueled by the facts.

Josh Shapiro and APEC, that's three please. It's been used cynically by some, to try and silence certain voices, to try and say that certain people participating in politics shouldn't count or should be viewed in a toxic way. Now, do I agree with every political decision they made,

every endorsement they made, of course.

“- How they hurt themselves, but I think,”

- But I think what we have seen is a weaponization of that. And I think that is a danger for our system. When you have people who are advocating for issues, that they feel strongly about, and they are having their voices, silence.

I think that's a problem in our system. - There's a blurring with what you're being against, APEC, and being against, Jewish folks give the money you're saying. - I think it does get blurred, because now what you are seeing is not quote unquote, APEC money or however, it was term,

but you're getting the Jews who give to that candidate who also support APEC. Again, it's reasonable, it's fact-based, and it's a much more rational bold position than the people who are out there saying APEC is evil,

or the people who are out there saying how dare you criticize APEC.

Same thing on one of the most important and hot button issues,

two state solutions. Should there be in Israeli state, a Jewish state, and a Palestinian state side by side? Here's Governor Shapiro, same tone, same manner of argument, S1, please.

- Dead for years, years.

“Long before October 7th, that I favor a two state solution.”

Israelis and Palestinians living peacefully side by side, being able to determine their own futures and their own destinies, being able to work as they want and worship as they want and understand the power of living peacefully side by side,

and how that will lift up both parties in this, or both sides of this conversation. It is my hope that we can see a day where peaceful rain in the Middle East, where there will be a two state solution, where all leaders involved in the conversations

will respect the other side, and show a willingness to make the hard choices to find peace,

and I hope that the U.S. government will always be a partner

in peace and trying to find a path forward in the Middle East. - The part of the Democratic Party, that is to the left of Governor Shapiro on Israel, is gonna have to find a candidate. We've talked about that here many times.

If it's not Bernie Sanders, if he doesn't run, if AOC doesn't run, will it be Rokana? Will somebody else emerge?

“That's an open question, but if the question is,”

who's the establishment candidate with the temperament, the knowledge and the courage to accommodate the aspirations and the beliefs of the far left of the party without agreeing with them, to accommodate the reflexively pro-Israel crowd, without always agreeing

with them. That's your man, ladies and gentlemen, because he's got the credibility to do it. You know, the phrase Nixon goes to China. President Nixon had the ability to make peace with China

because he was such a virulent anti-communist. A Jewish American can criticize Israel as he see him do, can also stick up for Israel. It doesn't make sense to break ties with Israel. Re-shaped the relationship, there's an appetite for that.

There's a call for that. Maybe the less so post-Neton Yado. But this guy has the capacity to stand up to the extremes of both sides.

Not reflexively, Apex never done anything wrong.

Not reflexively, ban Apex, but to find the middle. And as to his faith, the polls say, people are open to a Jewish president, both in the nominating process of the general election. Here's a poll that was done when Joe Lieberman ran for president

in 2004, A1. Is it okay to have a Jewish president when he was-- I'm sorry, in 2000 rather, when he was named his Al Gore's or any minute in 2000, 92% of Americans said they vote for a qualified Jewish presidential candidate.

Same question in 2024, A2, is it okay to have a Jewish president would you support? 88% of Americans say they would vote for a Jewish president who can't it. Now, that's two years ago, maybe things have changed,

but there's support. And people, many voters would like to see a president of faith. Here's a president, a man of faith, talking about his religion in what it's taught him. This is Josh Shapiro talking to Dana Bash of CNN in July.

Ace S4, please. But I have found in my years of service in government

Let them know what motivates you to serve and why you do this work.

“My faith teaches me that no one's required to complete the task,”

but neither are we free to refrain from it. Very similar to what Ben Franklin preached about citizen participation in our commonwealth, in our country, in perfecting our union. I think that that is uniquely American. This idea that we all have a responsibility to get off the sidelines,

get in the game, and do our part. That's what my faith teaches me. That's how my family raised me. That is who I am, and I'm not going to apologize for it. He's an observant, he's more observant than some of the other folks

thinking about running who we're Jewish. But I can tell you, these other candidates, these other establishment candidates, do not have his credibility on these issues, do not have his temperament, do not have his courage. Biden and Harris were terrified of the far left the Democratic Party, terrified.

And that wrapped him in knots. This guy will continue to think it through.

“And I believe, despite what many of you say, they'll never do it.”

If someone who's Jewish and more pro-Israel than anti-Israel, things they can finesse their way through to the nomination, then you all are right. That person, that Jewish-American, that pro-Israel candidate,

they'll never win the nomination.

But if someone does what I believe Josh Shapiro will do if he runs for president, uses the power of persuasion, the power of facts, and a thoughtful approach to finding common ground with respect across the spectrum. For the point of view of the far left and the very pro-Israel point of view, I believe that person, regardless of their faith and regardless of their history,

of support for Israel, I believe that person not only can be the nominee, but I believe that person will. And I believe the most likely person for that to be, is Josh Shapiro. All right, let's see if I convince you today. That's my report in my log talk to a lot of folks since Tuesday about all this.

Email me your thoughts on today's report. Let me know what you think. If I convince you that Josh Shapiro, a Jewish-American who's more pro-Israel than anti-Israel, not only could be the Democratic nominee, but has a good chance if he does run. Send me an email at [email protected].

Again, send your emails about what I said today. To next up at devilmaycaremedia.com. All right, we're going to take quick break. And when we come back, Rand Paul, Republican Senator from Kentucky, to talk more about Dr. Fauci and the historic step is committee took today.

Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky, is next up. Talking now about life insurance, we all know we need it, but many people put it off because it feels complicated, expensive, and like something they can wait. Well, now's the time to stop waiting.

Take care of it today with select quote. In just 15 minutes, high quality coverage can be secured to fit any lifestyle or any budget.

Here's what makes select quote different.

They're licensed insurance agents work for the consumer, not for the insurance companies. They compare options across multiple trusted carriers to find the right coverage at the absolute lowest price. Unlike other brokers who push policies that pay them the most,

select quote agents, they're different. They actually shop around with nearly 40 years of experience and over 2 million families already help. This is the expertise that you can trust. Even with health issues, such as high blood pressure, diabetes,

our heart disease, their agents know exactly which carriers will provide the very best rate. For those in good health, same day coverage is available with no medical exam required. Don't delay the peace of mind, select quote.

They shop you save, get the right-inch life insurance for you for less at select quote.com/mark again. Go right now, go to select quote.com/mark today to get started. [MUSIC PLAYING] All right, next up, and joining me now,

the Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who presided over hearing this morning at which the committee voted on partisan lines to send a contempt citation to the Justice Department. This is his first interview following the vote. Senator grateful to you for joining.

Glad to be with you. Thanks for having me. I want to spend a lot of the time talking through the story. You're trying to allow the country to understand and history to understand about Anthony Fauci, but let's talk about today.

There's neither of us or lawyers, but we both are. There are a lot of legal questions here about what happens next.

“What's your most optimistic case about what the committee did today?”

Where could it lead and when to get compliance from Dr. Fauci? You know, my goal all longest to get the truth out.

A million Americans died in the pandemic.

And I'd like to know why we funded dangerous research in China. There's not really any liability attached to that question.

He can have a different opinion on whether it was dangerous or not. He can have an opinion about whether or not they're opaque in China, whether or not they've been honest with us, whether the investigation was accurate. But his opinion shouldn't really attach any liability to it.

“That's what I've been mostly concerned about.”

And really it didn't start in 2020. His advocacy for a gain of function research goes back to about 2010. When he funded research in the Netherlands and a researcher by the name Ron Fauci, took the bird flu and gave it 8 point mutations and made it more infectious between mammals. See, right now, the one thing that saves us from a disaster with bird flu is that it's an

animal virus goes very easily from chicken to chicken from bird to bird. Occasionally comes to humans, but does not transmit human to human. So to my mind, experimenting to try to make the bird flu more transmissible human to human is a death wish. I think it's akin to monkeying around with plutonium. I mean, it's really, really dangerous.

And this is a debate we should have in our country. But it was mostly decided by Anthony Fauci for his 40 some odd years. He would make these decisions. And many, many scientists disagreed with them. This is the kind of fulsome debate we should have.

And so the contempt citation is because he's unwilling, even though he ran these agencies for 40 years, he's unwilling to have a wholesome discussion over this. I'm going to walk through the chronology with you starting with gain of function.

“But what are the lawyers in the committee tell you or the Senate lawyers tell you?”

How quickly could this act the committee took today to find him in contempt? How quickly could that yield something productive? Right. We have a hand carrying it over to the Attorney General today and also to the U.S. Attorney in DC.

Ultimately, if there were proceedings over contempt of court,

it would be the U.S. Attorney in DC. But I'm guessing since this is very odd profile, probably there'd be a discussion with the Attorney General. So it's in their playground now. I mean, it's up to them to make the decision on whether or not they pursue this. There's not a whole lot of law with regard to this.

But there was a Supreme Court case in the 1890s that said that if you had been given immunity through a pardon that the Fifth Amendment didn't apply. Because the Fifth Amendment is a protection against self-incrimination. But if you've been given immunity, at least the Supreme Court in that case made that decision. The courts will have to decide whether that's applicable to the current situation.

But I guess my concern because I won't be part of the legal battle is teeing it up for those who will to determine whether or not it's something they can pursue. And really, one outcome isn't necessarily that he goes to jail, that he's forced to testify. You know, they would come back and testify and we get these answers. Would you be comfortable if he testified under a full grant of immunity,

including from governors, if that's possible? In other words, he said his side says he's worried about his state prosecution.

Would you rather he never face any legal jeopardy for what he says,

including if he perjured himself to just let him testify? The problem with giving someone immunity to lie is they may want to just come and lie to him. You can't get rid of the idea that it's wrong to lie. If you get rid of that, then the testimony is absolutely worthless.

“You have to have some repercussions for lying.”

But the other side of the coin is always to do is tell the truth. In fact, he can come forward and he can say, yes, I deleted thousands of emails. I destroyed government records, but he can make some kind of rationalizations that didn't think there were government records. I didn't know an email was a government records and I'm sorry, but I've been pardoned for that.

You can't do anything to me.

He could say about gain of function what he's always been saying.

He didn't think it was gain of function. And I think it's disingenuous, and I think in many ways, not honest. But he could have done all of those things and testify and he chose not to. I mean, he chose to please the fifth or 11 times and all he had to tell the truth. He didn't even have to say he didn't commit crimes.

Tell the truth that he actually did destroy records, but you know, he doesn't have liability for that. Yeah, I tell people all the time when I talk to them about your hearings and about you on this topic. There are two things that are true that aren't always true of members of Congress doing investigations. You're not doing this for political gain for you or for your party. And you're trying to find the facts. You're not cherry-picking facts to make the strongest possible case.

And I've told you this before, you know this, not every member of Congress does that. It's part of why you are a singular member. And that allows us to make certain statements about what we already know, because the facts that you and your colleagues have brought forward. I want to ask you about some allegations, and you tell me if you feel comfortable,

Okay. First is Dr. Fauci, despite concerns, not just by you, but in the scientific community. Dr. Fauci was a longtime supporter both intellectually and financially of gain of function research.

“Is that a established fact in your mind or you need to know more?”

Yeah, without question. And like I say, it goes back and I learned about this. I didn't have, you know, an opinion on anything. I wasn't aware of the most of the debate. It was a big debate in the scientific community beginning with that experiment on the bird flu in 2010. 200 scientists from a group that called themselves the Cambridge Working Group,

led by an MIT scientist protested. They said he should have never funded the research.

And they said that it shouldn't be published, because they were worried that if you published a how to manual of doing this, that it would become like a how to manual for biological weapons. This had nothing to do with partisanship. In fact, the person who led it, I think doesn't like me either because he's much more to the left and doesn't has had no communication with me other than critical. But this was a big debate. It led under President Obama to a pause and gain

in function between 2014 and 2016, the federal government quit doing this because they were so worried about it. But yes, without question Anthony Fauci was on one side and many scientists were on the other side. It had nothing to do with Republican or Democrats.

“Yeah, that's right. And sometimes, some scientists who share his position say you need to do”

this research, because it makes us safer. But it seems like the preponderance of you as you said,

it's too dangerous. Number two fact or allegation that Dr. Fauci supported either financially or rhetorically or institutionally the gain of function research that took place in the Wuhan lab is that a established fact or something you want to find out more about. He was aware that they did gain of function research. If he were here, he would say he didn't fund gain of function research. But it would be, I think, a semantics debate over what is gain of

function research. If we define gain of function research as making a virus more transmissible or more pathogenic, more disease carrying more dangerous, I think without question, the research he did. And it's interesting to hear the comments. Lawrence Tabak was a, the acting director for NIH. And he was asking one of the hearings, what about it? Was it gain of function? And he would answer the gain of function because it's a loaded question. But he said without question,

we can't deny that the mice got sicker. So they took a virus, they combined with another virus, then they compared the new virus to the old virus and the mice got sicker.

Ultimately, in one of ECO health was the group sponsoring this.

Ultimately, in one of their reports, they report back that six out of the eight mice died from the new virus. This was clearly a virus that was gaining disease-making power. And yet Anthony Fage, you would say with the straight face, but it didn't technically meet our definitions, so you believe it's an established fact that that lab was doing gain of function research. He disputes it. Isn't it established fact that he helped fund that research?

Without question, they were doing gain of function and he funded it in his emails from January of 2020 in a slack group, which is a big group of ourologists. He said, we know they're doing we're suspicious because the virus looks manipulated and we know they're doing gain of function research. To his aid, when he pulls up the research that he funded in the subject line, he puts the gain of function

“research point on a rule on. A established fact or something you need to know more about,”

that Dr. Fauci had a lot of experts telling him that this virus originated in a lab, not in a wet market with animals, and that he, his public statements ignored that expert advice and claimed it was from the lab for a long time repeatedly and indignantly and criticized those who said it came from a lab as being conspiracy theorist. Is that to you an established fact or you need to know more? Absolutely true. It's a fact. He talked to a

group of ourologists that he and selected. They all told him privately, they were very, very concerned that the sequence of the RNA of the virus looked like it had been manipulated. That's what they all said privately. He encouraged them to write a paper. He edited the paper and then he produced it from the White House podium that said the opposite. They all publicly said a lab leak is not plausible, but privately even six months after they wrote the paper, these scientists were still privately

talking to each other and saying, you know, they're still a reasonable chance that this came from the lab. A established fact, is this an established fact you need to know more, that entity factually during a pandemic as the pre-eminent voice elevated by two presidents to be the face, the spokesperson

other elements of society, even though he knew there wasn't a scientific justification for them.

“A established fact or something you need to learn more about. Absolutely true and a fact and I think”

what's important and what's been missed by some of the media is they don't see him. They see him as a disinterested party, but he's just a subjective person, but he has a conflict of interest in that if this virus came from a lab that he funded, he shares responsibility for that decision making. If it came from nature, he doesn't. So he can't be an objective party in lab versus nature because if it came from the lab, it would be damaging disreputation. So all of his arguments have

been conflicted by self-assist. Senator, you've ruined my Perry and Mason moment. I plan to continue to make a plan to connect the dots at the end, but we'll get back to that. A established fact or something you need to know more about. Dr. Fatchy on his own and through the instructions he gave to people who worked with them, destroyed emails that would would obviously be evidence to try to probe further some of these questions. Is that an established fact or something you

need to learn more about? It's a fact we have direct quotes of him telling people to delete email, delete voicemail, and then delete your deleted file. We have one that we will pursue and that's from one of his assistants, congratulating and cheering on that she deleted a ton of emails this weekend. We sounded like it's at his direction. We will interview her and hopefully she will tell the truth on how often she did this for him, whether it came in his direction, but that is something we

“will pursue. A established fact or something you need to learn more about. Members of the establishment”

media were friendly with Dr. Fatchy in some cases for decades and protected him both on camera and off camera on the record and off the record by favoring and his point of view accepting his point of view and ignoring even during even as these things have come out the story that you're trying to tell. A established fact or something you need to know more. It's absolutely an established fact and I'll give you an anecdote. I was going to be on the air with one of the major networks

and I sent them a clip. It was a two-minute clip where I've been on a year before and they gave me like 20 seconds and cut me off and Anthony Fauci got 90 seconds, two minutes to justify. And I said, "Well, that's not really fair." And she said, "Well, he's a government official." And I said, "Hmm." So am I. Why is he the government official that is seen as the source of objective truth and I'm a partisan? And that was the big mistake I think of the media and still

is kind of of search engines too. Google will give you the first 100 opinions on the origin of

virus will all come from like government sources and the government isn't objective on these things. Neither this governor or the previous governments and really we shouldn't be trying to influence search engines to put only the government point of view upfront and everybody else is submerged. Why would the media be so interested in protecting Dr. Fauci and not telling the story that you and I are discussing here today of that is culpability? I think that there is a viewpoint that

elite people or smart people know more than other people. So and I think it's a terrible sort of point of view and I disagree with it completely that many of they believe that the common American can't

“make these decisions. So you need to curate the truth. You need to make sure the truth isn't too”

much for them to handle. And it's like on vaccines. I'm not opposed to all vaccines. I'm not even opposed to the majority of vaccines. But I think each individual should get the choice and get to making an informed decision on the benefits, the benefits versus the risk. But there are people on the other side who believe that I'm so in discord and that we really shouldn't have any discussion and that there should be sort of a theological acceptance of things you were told to do by your

better. And I guess I object to that at my very core because as a physician if you came into me and I was this way because all the surgery, most of the surgery I did was elected. If you have

cataracts, I always told you the cause of your blurred vision is cataracts. You're at this level.

Some people say this is an acceptable level but ultimately it's you determining what are the risks in benefits of surgery. The risks are very small of cataracts for you but there are some and making the decision that you think your vision is bad enough. It's an individualized decision and not everybody makes it at the same degree. This is a poll, might make it at a 2040 vision. Some people might make it when they're 2100. It's an individualized risk assessment.

Let me ask you the media question a different way. What would you say the American people, if the question is how large are all have some of my colleagues in the media played in keeping the story of what Dr. Fauci did from the public and from history?

miracle where we are now. It's a miracle of persistence and that, you know, incredible amount of

“evidence. The internet sleuth and the writers, Alina Chen, wrote a book called Viro with Matt Ridley,”

just an amazing book. Nicholas Wade used to be a writer for the New York Times, a science writer, great writer, but parseed out and figured out, I didn't know any of this. When I started reading about this was really probably June of 2021, I really had not thought about where it came from, lab or not hadn't thought about it extensively until 21, after reading Nicholas Wade's article. But now we went from in April 2020, anybody who had any doubts was called a conspiracy theorist.

And people should worry about that, that in a science journal, in Lancet, one of the oldest scientific

journal, 20 scientists came together to say, anybody who thinks this came from the lab is spreading

conspiracy theory. That is a, you know, that is a, you know, that is a pejorative. That is, that is something's used in politics. You tell, you say, if you're my enemy, I say, you know, you're doing this in your conspiracy theory, but it's not really an argument. It's a name calling, and but when that happens in science, we have to be very worried that we're not getting real scientific debate now that we're making science into politics. Sometimes someone gets a

presidential pardon because they've done nothing wrong, but the, the president feels they're going to be unfairly, unfairly persecuted and prosecuted. And sometimes people get presidential parties after they've been convicted. It's not that common to get a preemptive presidential part. No one had, no one had indicted Dr. Fauci. He had not been convicted. And yet he got a blanket pardon from president Biden. What do we know now? And what more do you want to know?

“Does it matter if we know why he did it? I think it's important to point out that this was an”

extraordinary pardon. The only other pardon issued like this that I'm aware of was to honor Biden over a 10, 11 year period. Although he's been, it's certainly, but he's been convicted. Yeah, it's been convicted, but it's similar. And then it was a 10 to 11 year period and unspecified or vague as to what crimes. In this case, you're right, no conviction. And that's extraordinary as well. I think people will, as long as they still remember this episode in our history,

we'll be talking about the pardon being extraordinary. I think that whether or not the courts or anybody overtakes that kind of pardon or it becomes subject to courts scrutiny, I think probably not too likely it is a sort of, I think the justice of things to happen here. So I think it will continue to be debated for a long time, but I think as acceptance of the pardon and as pleading the fifth, we'll make it impossible for history to ignore the controversy that was around it.

So just to summarize, connect the dots and I've just a few more topics when I ask you about this guy supported the kind of research that many scientists think are dangerous in a lab in China. After supporting it, he then downplayed the prospect that the virus came from the lab. He then became one of the primary decision makers in the public face of explaining how the virus occurred and what we should do about it. He then destroyed emails in order to

preclude the full visibility into what he did. All the while having his word accepted by many of my colleagues in the media as gospel and then receives a blanket preemptive pardon

“from his friend the president of the United States. That's the narrative, correct?”

Perfect summary. And my colleagues, my colleagues are for the most part uninterested. They cover this as Rand Paul versus Dr. Fauci, the persecution of Dr. Fauci, the process of this of the referral. That story is one of the most him. If true and as you said, most of that is illustrated pretty clearly. This is one of the the biggest stories of a government bureaucrat who's the highest paid person in the government making a series of self-interested decisions posing as

the protector of our public health. It's also from a broader point of view a misunderstanding of science and how he should report science. Einstein wrote that I'm just one experiment away from being disproved and that he would accept that he was disproved and if another experiment contradicted him. Galloleo challenged the church. There was a controversy. There's still, you know, the controversy is exists. Even in my lifetime, when they first started taking a gallbladder out through a laparoscopic

decision, the university's resisted, the big poobas, the famous surgeons who wrote all the

textbooks said, you'll never be able to see it through there. It would be much more dangerous and

who cares if they have a little less pain and they can get up quicker and then there was an over taking. The scientific consensus was overturned. With the removal of cataracts, the first people

universities. So so many innovations come from somebody challenging the status quo. And so those challenges have to go on, but it's important. Science isn't settled. I mean, if these people have

never been to a convention, a scientific him, when you get there and you present your paper,

“everybody points a finger at you and says, well, your control group wasn't good. That's what”

scientific criticism is always criticizing the experiment to make you do a better job than next time you do your experiment. I want to ask you about a few other issues related to this. It announced that you all have obtained his government mobile phone. What do you know about what might be on there is angry bird scores, his text messages, what is recoverable from the phone? I don't know yet. I mean, I really don't even have anything not to tell you yet. It's too soon

for us to know. We are on the process of going through it and it's still most important as about

are there records pertaining to his knowledge of where the virus came from? When did he know it?

What did he know? Are there his justifications for why we should fund this kind of dangerous research? And those are the things that we will look for on there, but I don't have any answers yet. Did it or does it require recovery of data as you had to do with his diary on the government electronics? I don't know the answer to that, but we will have people that know more about computers and technology and wiping and erasing that we'll look at it. And it is one of the

questions I've asked about any of his devices. Is there an unusual blank space where things have been deleted? And that doesn't prove to you anything what those things were because you may not be able to recover them. But if I took your phone right now and I looked at what your normal deletion process is, there's probably still some stuff in your deleted file. If the deleted file is completely empty, that makes me think that someone is as empty this.

And it's not proof of anything, but it's indication that someone has taken the time

“to clean up the phone or wipe it. I think you can determine that even if you don't have the proof.”

But some stuff is recoverable. I mean, the one guy that's been indicted right now, who's under indictment is David Marens. And when you look at his, he was quite clear. Even though he knew about FOIA, he was bragging everybody knew on email how to avoid FOIA. And he's going to end up being prosecuted for that. So we'll see what we find on the phone. I don't, I don't really know, yeah. Do you know if it's an iPhone?

I believe so, but I actually, I would have to act my stuff right now, and I just don't have any conclusions to get you. We'll come back and talk about the phone. The diaries, you're a believe or an individual liberty, you're a big believer in privacy, you're a big opponent of government, a big government. He wrote the thing on the government computers. I have no doubt that it was within the purview of the committee to get that from the justice department. But as a believer in individual

liberty, why not only release the portions that pertain to science and his public role as opposed to a lot of personal stuff. And it was that an easy decision for you, a difficult decision, because it doesn't seem consistent to many with your neural attitude towards privacy.

The, the first thing with regard to whether what it is, a diary or a log or where it belonged,

it was on government servers, was on government email, where it's posted. Your diary is absolutely private, so I can't get your diary unless a judge approves it and it's a court order. So it needs to be some sort of formal order and there has to be a real reason to do it. With regard to what gets released, the decision on that, we want to do the best to protect people that are mentioned, but he's mentioning these people. If someone's privacy is being violated, he's violating their

privacy by putting it on a government email that is subject to subpoena. What should be released, we decided not to go through and, you know, redact and decide what should be released, but I do think that it was justifiable to get it and to release it because it's not under his pillow, and it's not something that is on a non-governmental device. There's also a legal precedent.

“Do you remember the senator, I think it was from Oregon, Packwood? Yes, sir. So he wrote, you know,”

big long diary/autobiography on his government computer, but in it were things that pertained to things he was accused of malfeasance, and the court sent up ruling that this was not a diary, that was a public log on government computer. I have no doubt that under law what you did was fine, but if he'd written in there about his child's mental health treatment, that would be removed. So did you remove anything? There were mistakes made in some of this and some things were

were some mistakes and going too fast, and there were some items that people complained about,

“and I immediately said I was sorry and removed those, and I could have been more careful that”

it was a bit of we were headed towards the public hearing. We wanted the information to be in the public space, and so, yeah, I mean, if we kept it for a month before we did that, we would have missed the public hearing, but there might have been some things that shouldn't have been released. But the things we learned of, we did take out of the public sphere, and frankly, most of them were not commented on, because people had the decency not to report stuff that, but also to realize the first person

that violent their privacy, if your medical records are on his government log, he violated your privacy. He made a big mistake because once he put your government records on there, he's

certain a hip of isolation, it's a hipocratic oath violation, he should have never put people's

private government stuff on there. It was about a family member of that's different, but we would have wanted to exclude that. Fortunately, I don't think there was any family member of Malaysia. I want

“to try to get two questions in here in two minutes. First, you've could several times over the”

course of the last few weeks, so you'd like him to apologize. What's the value of an apology from MTO? If we don't want this to happen again, him acknowledging that he was wrong to fund this research will be a a word of caution in warning to the next generation of people come through, and the debate will ultimately have been one on gain of function, the danger of it, and it's one reason why part of my legislative solution to this is a commission of scientists that oversee this,

because you're right, there might be some research that you and I talk and all these signs we all sit down and an hour later, I'm convinced, well gosh, this might be the cure for cancer, this might be the cure for diabetes, and we actually do modify things. We modify bacteria all the time, they produce insulin, they make different drugs, they make monoclonal antibodies, all that stuff, I'm not opposed to the very narrow area we're talking about is respiratory viruses primarily

“spread through the air that we have a difficult controlling and that everybody gets like the flu,”

that attaching dangerous things and massaging animal viruses to become human is just a real mistake, but we haven't debated it enough until now. He's the focal, Fauci's the focal point for this, but it has allowed us to have a full-sum debate, and I still hope the debate is ultimately concluded, and he could help that by apologizing and saying he's sorry for funding this research. If he called you and said center, I really want to work this out. I don't want this conflict of 85,

I want to put this behind me. I will apologize. What else can I do? What would you ask them to do besides the policy? Publicly say that and come and testify to us with the knowledge that as long as you tell the truth, you're completely safe from from prosecution. All right, center of politics. I'll say

whenever I interview you. I'm focused on the substance, but I'm always trying to get you to

laugh at least once, and the angry birds did it, so I'm grateful for that and I'm grateful to you for making time. Thank you, center. All right, that's Senator Paul. We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back next up, a look at the reports about potential major shortages and munitions at the Pentagon and what a series of high-level leaks about the war against Iran, mean for President Trump. That's next up. Okay, right now, think about the last 30 bucks that you

spent. Maybe it was on a streaming subscription. You don't even watch or a lunch you've already forgotten. That's 30 bucks and it's gone forever. Aker Gold, they let you turn that lost money into something that are physical 24-carot Swiss gold. You simply pick a plan. Your balance builds up, and once you hit the price of a bar, they ship its straight to your door. Real gold in your hand at your house. And over time, you're now sitting on something that's been valuable since the

dawn of civilization. And hey, for you collectors out there, they just dropped the limited edition hot wheels collection. These are super cool. Officially licensed by Mattel, they're strictly cat and once they're gone, they're done, they're history. While you're checking those out, claim your free entry to something else, the free speed club sweepstakes. They're giving away a 1 gram hot wheels gold bar plus a massive grand prize. The 10 gram 24-carot gold hot wheels bar.

Both of these special objects come in official collector packaging and they're up for grabs right now. So start stacking for just $30 at GetAkerGold.com/mark again. Go check it out. That's GetAkerGold.com/mark. Go and subscribe today. All right, next up, let's talk about a new problem that's been around now for several weeks for the president, which is leaks out of the Pentagon about aspects of the Iran War. Previously, we had leaks about the operations being considered. We had leaks

about skepticism from some leading members of the national security team about the efficacy of attacks on Iran continuing, whether they would affect behavior. And now the Washington Post

That says the president had a heated conversation with Secretary of War Pete Exet about whether there was a shortage of munitions needed to pursue the Iran War. Who's fault it was? This is high level stuff. The president has not been happy that he's gone on to social and talked about

finding out who the leakers were and prosecuting them. Leeks were a big part of the first

trunk term. They've been less of a part here. But these are leaks of a different kind. Leeks related to national security. And while as a journalist, I like open debate.

“One hand can't help but wonder when there are leaks of this level of seriousness. Who's doing it?”

Unless you believe the reporters are just making it up and I do not, these are serious people at the very highest levels of our national security for some reason feeling compelled to tell reporters about real problems allegedly with what's going on with the effort to try to be Iran. The shortage of munitions has been around as a story since almost the earliest days of this conflict. And numbers vary but there's no doubt that the US has depleted its stockpile with implications

for dealing with Iran but also for a potential conflict with China or Russia or somewhere else. America's allies are affected by this in the region because these munitions are used in part not just to protect American assets, human assets and equipment and ships etc but to help defend our allies. This is a big deal and the press story is an interesting one but the president of the United States is understandably frustrated. Dealing with what is now a series of leaks at the highest

“highest levels related to the question of how this four will go. The war remains a problem. The”

Quackmire continues it's a political problem for the president but it's also an existential problem for his administration and a serious problem for the country because as long as his conflict continues the uncertainty and the potential for a wider and escalating conflict is certainly there. We'll keep tracking this but I will tell you this type of leak at this level this series is something you don't normally see except at a time when there is real doubt within the national security

establishment about what's going on. In some cases it would be done by people who want to cover their butts who don't want to have go down in history is having participated in a conflict in a way in which the United States was not using the military in its most effective way. Donald Trump sometimes talks about the state he is regularly taken on the bureaucracy of intelligence and national security in the Pentagon. There's a war going on with Iran but there also does seem to be

a war now between the president and at least some members of his national security team. All right there you have it. We'll keep tracking that story. Take a quick break and next up near a tandem of the Center for American Progress. We'll talk about the affordability crisis and that big result in the Michigan Democratic Center primary near a tandem is next up. I said this before you hear me say it again if you're 64-year-older this is the exact advice

I'd give a friend or a family member before you sign anything with Medicare get a second said

“advice on it. That's why when somebody calls with all the confidence the world instructs you into policy”

after policy, dental, cancer, heart attack stroke, one umbrella plan after another and half of it

you never needed in the first place. Chapter had a client like that recently. He'd already been

sold a whole stack of extra coverage on top of his Medicare plan. His chapter advisor looked at what he actually had and told him plainly most of it was redundant. Didn't need it. He was already covered. That's the kind of call you want before you sign something. Not after. That's the thing about chapter. They're independent Medicare advisors. The only ones who compare every plan from every carrier all across the country. Chapter folks, they're not paid to push one plan over another or

to sell you coverage you don't need. You get a real person on the phone for free walking you through everything in under 20 minutes. There's no pressure, no pitch. It's who you need to call. So give my friends a chapter a call before you enroll in anything. You can reach them at 262 454 0503. Again, let my friends a chapter help you get it right the very first time. Call them 262 454 0503. Alright everybody, next up. Enjoying me now near a tendon former top white advisor to

President Biden. She also advised President Obama, President Clinton, and pretty much every prominent Democrat of the last several decades. She's now the president and CEO of the

Center for American Progress and Near. Part of why I always love talking to you is I talked to a lot of

people who understand policy and a lot of people understand politics, but not many of them understand both and of course with that understanding both. You might as well be fighting with both hand time behind your back. Thank you for being here. Thanks for having me. And you work at a place that has had a record of longevity in the same thing. Producing ideas that are actually

start there food. You guys have come up with some ideas that are intriguing to me. I want to talk through what can you do within the confines of the free market to make food more affordable for Americans?

“Yeah, so first of all, I think it's important to recognize that food costs have gone up dramatically”

over the last, you know, six, seven years. They went up. They went up over the last five years. They've actually also continued to go up a little bit over the last year and they haven't really come down. So I think kind of a central anger for people is that food makes up a bigger share of their

kind of take-home pay and there hasn't been much relief. A first thing that we could do is to end

all tariffs on food. There are terms of resonance, but on all goods, it is affecting food costs. So those aren't that isn't responsible for all the increase by any stretch, but any any costs on food seems unwise to us or any additional taxes or tariffs as unwise to us. On the other side, for other ideas affirmative ideas, we've talked about an idea that we've proposed an idea that has worked in other countries, which is to ensure there's, you know, to have the federal

government come and negotiate with grocery stores around a basket of goods and try to stabilize

those prices. You know, what's happened in other countries is that has worked effectively

and food prices on basic goods like milk and eggs and other things have stayed constant, which has actually been a pretty big help to working less people. So is that a mandate

“you say that to safeway, you can only charge $2 for a quarter milk or just voluntary?”

It's kind of a negotiation, honestly, sort of like a Medicare drug negotiation. It's a negotiation. People can kind of walk away from it, but we don't mandate a certain price for food, but we do think the federal government could really work with companies to ensure that those basic

products will be more affordable to people. Now, what companies have done, just a free market

works is they've increased some prices for more expensive food. That has happened in other places and that, you know, from our perspective, making food more affordable for kind of working class middle-class people is kind of worth the trade-off. Yeah, obviously it'd be great if the government without a mandate could contribute to lowering those prices, but wouldn't the stores, I know Walmart tries to do this every day, wouldn't they be trying to keep prices low for the most

important in popular foods, anyway, in other words, to extend the government altered their behavior,

“wouldn't that risk messing with the market in a way that would be unhelpful?”

Yeah, I mean, I guess I'd step back and say right now tariffs are altering food prices and altering behavior of companies all the time and then in terms of government interference with prices. It's on the other side, it's to keep, it's actually raising prices, not lowering prices. And then, you know, I will say we have a situation where the Trump administration is taking shares of companies that is the largest scale intervention in the market, I have seen. And I guess my

view of this is if Republicans are comfortable with taking shares of companies, I think the government working and, you know, really negotiating pushing companies to keep basic prices more affordable. I do think it is a free market and the way companies may respond and we've seen this in other places is that they could raise prices on other goods that, you know, more expensive goods. And that would be, that is a response. And I think the way, you know, what we're trying to

do is we've seen a huge increase in food costs, basic food costs make up a lion's share of the food for the people are relying on, particularly working class people. Energy is another area that making up a very high percentage of people's costs and cost to businesses as well. And you've got a range of ideas to give me your favorite idea for the you guys have for reducing energy costs. Well, we institute rate freeze, the way we do that is not a mandate on

utility companies to just not raise rates. But the way we do that is really two steps ensuring that there's more supplies. So making permitting easier, making it easier to expand supply of energy, we promote, you know, renewables, it's easier to build, faster build, but we build, we're, you know,

a place we differentiate. We, we are strong believers in increasing supply. But we want to make

sure when we increase supply of housing or energy that it means lower costs for people or, you know, protection against huge increases. So the way we do this is essentially we subsidize the grid, the federal, it's a federal subsidy of the grid and expansions of the grid as we're building more energy. That means that the utility companies don't have an excuse to raise rates because the grid expansion has been a central element of that. So it's kind of a two-for-we have the federal

agreement, invest a lot more in grid expansion that should insulate costs for utilities. And that's one of the ways we offer a rate for these. Also, very quickly on data centers, we have argued

and it's our policy that the data centers should never cost consumers more money on the utility

bills. So it really insulates, it really ensures that the data centers and AI companies pay the costs of data centers and it doesn't just go on to, you know, like basic consumers. I'm super interested in the grid, but it would take the whole rest of the time when it's

“written. So again, go right ahead. Go read about it. It's the most important thing. Really,”

it's literally the most important thing of it and all of this. But let's talk briefly about AI data centers. I keep hearing from everyone working on campaigns that I'm sure data you see as well, qualitative and quantitative. People across the country, regardless of party, geography,

people are really fired up about this. And there's all sorts of reasons why there's nimbee,

there's the energy issues, there's environmental issues, there's jobs, there's distrust of AI, et cetera. Why aren't more people talking about it? Some are, but it doesn't seem like it's front and center in these campaigns. I mean, it's coming. It's growing. Yeah, it's growing. I mean, you do see a page, cognetti, um, shared brown are now running ads. Page is running in, um, in a house seat in Western Pennsylvania and shareholders in Ohio. They are running ads on these issues. And it's obviously

been, it was an issue, it's an issue in Wisconsin. And just recently, uh, Greg Abbott is instituting

“a pause. And I think the fundamental issue in the data centers. I think there are a lot of layers. But”

the fundamental issue of the data centers is that people, um, are really angry at the idea that their prices would go up in utility costs and water costs because AI companies, the wealthiest companies on the planet. They have the highest market capital, missed anything. Um, want to have data centers. We've had data centers for a long time as if we're nose, not just not AI data centers, just but for even the internet, if data centers, they have an engender of this level of opposition because they are

using energy at a level that raises consumer cost so quickly. And just because of the structure of the way rate pairs pay for all additions to the grid and everything, you know, people are really worried about that. There's additional ways. I do think there's a layer on here, which is people are deeply concerned about what AI will do to jobs writ large over the next several decades.

“Yeah. And if, and this to me is an important part of, uh, this is an important opportunity for”

leaders because if the only vision, if the only, um, solution set is, you know, a Trump administration, which is AI can do whatever it wants, we want it to grow, it's free market and federal, or the left saying stop data centers and just stop AI. That is going to gravitate people to a zoo, after unless there's big ideas on the table, which we were working on, it just had to ensure that AI the benefits of AI, which higher productivity gains, but like, you know, things like that can flourish,

while, you know, American workers, the broad public actually also benefits from AI. If you're interested in what the center left is thinking and it's sophisticated and practical way, about food prices, energy AI, I recommend you go to the website and take a look because there's few people in the marketplace of ideas who are doing this and you don't have to be center left to be interested in this because this is going to be where a lot of the debate is found in Congress

and the presidential campaign trail and in our national tent square. Let's talk about the midterms. If a prominent Democrat elected official or former president or former presidential nominee called you and said, "Nir, I've looked at this guy, I just can't support him." Each just is, is some of his past statements, some of his positions, they're just too far the left for me. I'm thinking of endorsing microjudgers or announcing that I'm sitting out the race.

What would you say to that person? I mean, I think the, when you look at the data on Tuesday night,

stances that appeal to a broad electorate. My own view is that the Senate,

I would say to people if you think that Donald Trump's policies are existential, then it's really important for Democrats to win the Senate. That's kind of my starting point.

“But as I think it's important for Abdul Osid and his campaign to recognize that he has,”

you know, he has demonstrated some real weaknesses. And I think the polling errors before Tuesday hit a lot of this, but he demonstrates some real weaknesses with working-class voters in Michigan. And as you know, and a lot of people should know, Michigan has one of the highest shares of working-class voters in any swing-state, the cycle or any state, the cycle. But let's talk

about where that comes from, because this core message, which is mantra brilliantly repeated over and over,

money out of politics, money in your pocket, Medicare for all. That would seem to have appeal to working-class voters. I keep looking at his issue positions, and frankly, his specificity. He doesn't seem to be more wanting to me to appeal to working-class voters than others, at least based on his policy positions. So what, what, when you say he needs to have an agenda

“that appeals more to working-class voters? What's missing from what he's currently talking about?”

Yeah, so I think this is a central issue, which is working-class voters across the country are pretty moderate on some security-related issues. They're moderate on immigration. They're moderate on crime. They believe the public safety is a real issue. They believe that, you know, the boarders should be secure. And at cap, we put forward ideas where you-- But let me stop you. You're saying he's got to clear the bar on security issues to get hearing

from working-class voters on economics, is that what you're saying? I'm saying that working, I mean, I think Abdul Al-Seed's mantra on money in politics and money in your pockets is a smart strategy. I had a present. Obviously, he went a very contentious primary, and that's not easy to do, and he did it. So I do want to say that I do want to acknowledge his messaging on those issues. But I do think that all of us, all Democrats, have to struggle with

the fact that working-class people are not-- and I think this is really issue for the left, is there is a somewhat-- some believe that working-class people are kind of closet, very left voters, and that really is blive by data, which is, and I think we saw it on Tuesday night, which is like working-class voters, lower-income voters, working-class voters, non-college voters, who are a big share of the electorate in Michigan, or, you know, like, believe healthcare should be,

everyone should have healthcare, and believe healthcare should be a cheaper. They think utilities cost too much, they think food costs too much, and we should meet them where they are on those issues. Right. And they're also pretty moderate on social and security issues. And do you fall short on those right now? Well, I think he has not-- he did not make a compelling case on those issues. Now, like elections are a long, and we've seen other candidates--

I mean, I will know, Mayor Mimdani moderated on crime, and, you know, I think that helps him, actually, as you went forward. Now, this will be a big issue. Abdul Usid, I've said, all throughout this campaign, is a charismatic and smart candidate. Would you like to see him-- That's fast enough. Fastly, things fast on his feet. Would you like to see him stop appearing with Hassan Piker? Absolutely. Why? Because I think-- and I've said this, I think the things that

Hassan Piker has said are, first of all, we should be able to say, are just wrong. Let's put them

“outside of politics. And I think in politics, you should political leaders should be able to say”

some things are just wrong. I think calling any groups of Jews or, you know, we can try and explain these things in Brad saying America deserves 9/11, he's sort of tried to rescind some of these things. But, you know, these are comments that I should-- our outside the bounds of normal discourse. So, I think, you know, my own take on this is these are wrong, and people should say they're wrong. Yeah, well, would you expect the Clintons and the Obama's to campaign with Dr. Abdul Elsa?

I mean, I think a lot of Democrats will campaign for-- Do you think they will? I do. I'll say it. I don't know. I mean, I don't know what will happen. I think if you moderate it in a lot of issues and really trying to explain them, and like, I mean, it's not moderating. It's like, it's, you know, I think I think it's really just saying to all the voters in Michigan that you're a candidate for all the voters in Michigan. And so, I think,

you know, I mean, Whitmer and Hayley immediately endorsed. And I think they recognize that this

in a Democratic Senate, which is a lot of them have talked about it in the last couple of months,

“then, you know, you have to actually appeal to a broader swath of voters. And it's not a--”

you know, I think there's often a view amongst some on the left that moderates are really trying like kind of something out. They have a more moderate positions. We're really, they're trying to actually appeal to a bunch of what the voters. Mike Rogers is a difficult candidate. The truth of this race has been, is a difficult candidate for Democrats. Hayley was like in public polling, was doing, like, a little bit better. I'll see, it has been doing worse. But in a place where, I mean,

“the truth is for both Hayley and, and, I do all see, the vote share that Mike Rogers is getting”

is much, is much better given the state than then where Republicans are doing in states like Michigan, elsewhere. So, you know, I mean, he's a tough candidate. So, I mean, this will be a big test.

Yeah. Um, I have a million other gracious for you, but his Bill Clinton would say,

“they're telling me I got to quit. Um, so we got to go near a love having you on a look for it,”

having you back, certainly, uh, between now and the midterms. Thanks for having me. Again, Center for American Progress website will tell you lots more details and go look at the policies. You may not agree with them all, but they're interesting and they're innovative and they're certainly addressing affordability rather than saying it's a hoax. Thank you, Nira. Thank you. All right. That's it for today's program. Thank you for being here. Back on Tuesday with a whole

brand new episode, I hope everybody has a wonderful weekend. As always, please spread the word about

the program. Make sure you are subscribed to us on both YouTube and wherever you get your podcast. So you always know what's coming next up.