Jeffries Goes Soft on Trump Investigations

David, I also want to talk to you about the accountability part of the agenda here, which I think also is a mandate from voters who are disgusted with elites acting with impunity. They're disgusted with the crimes of the billionaire class. They're disgusted with the crimes of the Trump regime. You have Robert Garcia coming in, you know, as a likely chair of the Oversight Committee saying, hey, time to lawyer up. That got a lot of attention. What do you think are, should be some of the priorities here? And how do you think about this? Because I already see the media framing of like, oh, well, you don't want to just go for retribution, right? How should Democrats coming into Congress be thinking about this part of the mandate and the work to do? So I think right after the election, I think it was on Morning Joe, you saw, speaking of Hakeem Jeffries, he said something to the effect of, we have to focus on affordability, not focus on getting even. And that term getting even, to me, it raised a red flag because what it's doing is it's designed, I think, to depict holding accountable and looking back and using subpoena power to unpack what has happened. It casts that very important work. as revenge, as inappropriate revenge. And I think that was deliberate. It's a new version of the old idea from when Barack Obama was elected president, where he insisted we shouldn't look backwards, we should look forward. This idea that... Holding accountable and evaluating what happened, looking in the past, is somehow bad. I would argue, and I think most Americans probably agree, that one of the problems creating all of the other problems in the here and now and moving forward is the creation of an accountability-free society. That let's not look backwards, let's look forwards has been used to bury things like the Epstein files, has been used to essentially give a get out of jail free card to all of the law breaking that's happened now. It removes a deterrent. To bad behavior today, if you're constantly saying all of the bad, lawless behavior you did in the past will never be looked at, no one will ever be held accountable. And so I think that's what Hakeem Jeffries is trying to do. And I think. It's obviously the wrong path. And there's also this sort of sub-debate inside of this, which we at The Lever have reported on, where you've got the tech industry, through one of its powerful trade lobbying groups, trying to argue, hey, Democrats, if you do use investigatory power, subpoena power, only focus it on Trump and Trump's self-enrichment. Do not focus it... On the tech industry, the tech oligarchs or corporate America, right? Like this idea that the problem is like it goes back to the idea that the problem is only Trump, that not that Trump is a symptom of a larger systemic system of of corruption. Now, I think I was encouraged to see Garcia's press conference. I saw some clips where he was talking about looking at corporate power. You saw the Groundwork Collaborative put out. Its proposal for all the different ways to hold corporate America accountable, by the way, not just in how it has bent the knee to Donald Trump, but in how it has used its power to screw over Americans through things like surveillance pricing. That's all a long way of saying the Democrats. First and foremost, have the power and the responsibility to use that investigatory power to hold accountable those who have been breaking the law. If they don't do that, I would expect there to be a backlash. And if they don't have a broad aperture to look at how corporate America, it's. predatory practices and its corruption, both with the Trump administration and outside of it. They have to use that power to put all of that on the investigatory table. Or again, we'll be here in two or four years with the public saying, you didn't do that, and now we're voting you out of office. And just to draw the link between the Jeffries conversation and this, to underline your point about The way that he stacked this committee of AI people, one of them was, as you guys reported, was Valerie Fouché. So Valerie Fouché had won with millions of dollars of APAC support two cycles ago against, or maybe three cycles ago against Nida Alam. And she knew, or she suspected that Nida may be challenging her again, but she also understood that AIPAC was becoming extremely toxic in her district. Publicly said, I'm not taking any more AIPAC money, but that creates a problem. If you don't have grassroots support, you need big money. So Jeffries puts her on this AI panel. That's right. And all of this AI super PAC money floods in. So congratulations, good. She's not taking AIPAC money, but money's money. And she ends up winning by like 150 votes or that. She survived. But if those are the folks that you're putting up in the top positions of power, And then the AI companies come in and say, well, why don't you look at Trump rather than us? And that's who is in that position. And I'm like, okay, yeah, that's a good idea. Why are we, you know, you, you were pretty friendly to me last time around a couple million dollars literally saved my election. Like without that, she's not in Congress at all. And Jeffries' in order to pull off a calculated move like that has to understand that that's the result of it. I mean, I would argue maybe that's the deliberate result of it. That's actually what he wants. The whole point, yeah. Right, yeah. Like, that is, I mean, it takes the idea of the, I mean, the very, I mean, it's been around forever. The idea of the, you know, the banking committee chairperson or subcommittee chairperson raises lots of money from. The banks, right? I mean, it's sort of the fundraising system and how it captures the people who are supposed to be regulating, but it works at a secondary level. Oh, I'm the leader of the Democratic Party. I'm going to put particularly transactional politicians in particular places and that those transactional politicians who were rescued by money, wherever the money came from, it almost doesn't matter. Now I'm doing a favor to the industry that has funded them by putting them in the position. It's the host shaping itself to the parasite. Yes, exactly. And I think, I mean, look. That is the next level of this. And I think, again, I go back to the idea not to toot all of our own horns, but I actually think it's a real thing. Whereas you can imagine back in, you know, 10 years ago, Nancy Pelosi's political machine, or, you know, 30, 40, 50 years ago, Tip O'Neill's political machine, doing this kind of thing and expecting nobody to ever really hear about it. Like maybe, you know, congressional quarterly or, you know, in, you know, in the trade publications in DC. But there's no, the actual general public never hears about it. Now, there's a real information system and a real information conduit to make everyone aware in real time of the dirty deals that are happening. And I think the interesting question is, does somebody like Hakeem Jeffries actually appreciate What he potentially cannot get away with, right? And same thing with Chuck Schumer. Like, the old ways of getting away with things, hey, I'm going to stack this subcommittee over here or this steering committee over there, and no one's really going to notice. Like, there is now a noticing machine, right? Like, there is now a conduit to be like, hey, today, this morning, that bullshit is happening and people will find out about it. So it's interesting to sort of wonder These leaders from a sort of kind of an ancient, outdated era of politics even fully appreciate that. Yeah, that's such a great point. I wanted to put up this piece from this Twitter post from Lina Khan about the importance of investigations and how, you know, I think there's two components. I think there's the investigations into the. corrupt practices, the criminality, like any sort of abuses of Trump, the Trump family, Elon, like any, you know, the ICE murderers, like all of that sort of stuff. And then she's also pointing to how it can go hand in glove with an affordability agenda. And I thought this was really important context and also history. So she says here, why should congressional Democrats investigate corporate America if their mandate is to deliver real economic change? Because investigations... ...are a key catalyst for securing reform and legislation. For much of the last century, Congress used to be the main institutional player working to secure an economy that serves working people. A key tool was oversight. Lawmakers routinely investigated complex markets and major corporations, identifying problems and exposing wrongdoing. A major goal of these investigations was to learn what was driving certain problems and figure out how to fix them. She talks about the work that was done in 2019 on Amazon, Apple. Facebook, Google. She also points out, you know, some some lessons and some things to work towards, including beefing up the budget that goes towards this investigatory capability. But she points out even a relatively small number of dogged, talented lawyers ready to dive in can make an impact in the 30s. She's a single. Congressional lawyer Ferdinand Pecora helped reshape our entire banking system by subpoenaing records and interrogating top financiers, including JP Morgan. The investigation exposed self-dealing market manipulation, tax avoidance, and laid the groundwork for foundational New Deal legislation, including the Glass-Steagall Act and the Securities Exchange Act. And she goes on from there. But I thought that was a really important point in context too David, that it's not just about I agree with you about the elite impunity and about the accountability, but it also can be a tool for delivering for working people. Well, I mean, look, let's do, you know, I mean, sort of, I want to play the song, how a bill becomes a law, you know, like, like, like, I think we've all, the country has kind of forgotten because it's so long ago. How a bill is supposed to become a law. What's not in that song, in that famous School of Rock song. Sing a little bit of it for us. I'm just a bill. I don't like, right? What, what, What's forgotten about that is how are bills supposed to ever be proposed? Part of it is like, yeah, like the constituent comes and says, I have a problem, and then the lawmaker kind of writes a bill to deal with the problem. But in the interim, what is supposed to happen is Congress is supposed to use its subpoena power to investigate the matter, right? The lawmakers first do a real thorough investigation. What is the problem? What is one side? What does this side say? What does that side say? What's going on here? We got to subpoena these records. Okay, now we fully understand the problem. Now we're going to write a piece of legislation based on what we've learned to actually deal with the problem. The reason we haven't had that machinery nearly as robust of that machinery in many decades is because lobbyists basically took that over, right? That job then became the corporate lobby's job. Or put it another way, Congress basically outsourced that job to its donors and to lobbyists who just hand them up. pre-written bills rather than doing the investigation and the fact-finding on their own. Obviously, that is a deeply corrosive and corrupting system when the lobbies that are being regulated are handing, effectively, the congressional regulators or overseers the laws that they want, right? That is a form of deep corruption. Um That is operating almost imperceptibly in the background. The outcomes are essentially pre-rigged when Congress isn't doing its own investigation to figure out what to do because they're just relying on essentially the donor class. So that's a... That's a rationale and a reason why using investigatory power, you. yes, it raises public awareness of all the horrible things that have happened. Yes, it holds accountable people who broke the law. But also, it actually does find facts to inform legislation so that legislation isn't just handwritten by corporate lobbies. Great points. Well, David, it's nice to see you in such high spirits. I read an analysis of yours in The Lever right after the election saying this is the moment I built The Lever for. Tell us, you know, on your way out here what The Lever's plans are to lead this new democratic moment and guide people. Well, thanks. First of all, thanks so much for having me. Secondly, I did say before the election, actually, that I... ...was feeling optimistic, and it was really funny. Hasan Piker, I was talking to him about it, and he started almost laughing because he hadn't ever heard me be optimistic. You're not known for that. You're not really known for that, David. I'm not known for that. But, I mean, to be in this work, I think you actually have to, like, weirdly, even if you're pessimistic, like, to do the work, you kind of have to have a deep optimism that it matters. And I think the election really... truly proved that it matters. And not just our work, but your work and the work of independent media. And obviously, people like Bernie Sanders. I mean, I'm just thinking about, I worked for Bernie Sanders in the House in the late 1990s. And just to think about, that's been on my mind these last few, like to think about the journey. And I remember being a sort of wide-eyed, essentially kid in that office thinking, how are his politics not Why are they considered so fringe? I don't understand it. And it took almost 30 years for this moment to be like, it took 30 years for people to realize that these are mainstream, moderate, centrist, pragmatic politics. And it's just, it's kind of mind-blowing. So all that's a long way of saying, that's exactly why I created the lever from scratch right after the 2020 election. It's to take moments like this and make sure that What has been promised to the American people is what is delivered to the American people, especially, of course, by, you know, by the Democrats in the sense of they have made populist economic promises. They have made anti-war promises. They have made anti-genocide promises when it comes to Israel and Gaza and the like. And those promises now need to be delivered on. The point is, is that is that there has been a culture in the Democratic Party of, OK, the election happened. Now let's just go. back to brunch. And that attitude and culture has to end. It is what I would argue created the Trump era. When a lot of people, liberals, went back to brunch after the 2008 election, hope and change became more of the same, which ultimately delivered the conditions for Donald Trump. If we repeat that cycle again, it's going to be a Donald Trump, but worse. And the lever exists. To make sure that that doesn't happen. Breaking points exist to make sure that doesn't happen. The independent media ecosystem exists for that. And I think the challenge is to every single day be making clear to our readers of the larger audience and the public that the gap between what is promised and what is delivered is the thing that requires a permanent campaign. The election cannot be looked at as an end. The election is the end of the beginning. Wow. Incredible. Well, everybody, please check out The Lever News. It'll be in the description. After the election, I blasted the David Sirota rap song. Are you aware of that one? I had to top down in the car. I hadn't heard it until Hasan played it. I'm in the Lotus and I'm feeling like David Sirota and it feels excellent. Is the lyrics? I should tell you, I don't have a Lotus, but I feel like I'm figuratively in a Lotus right now. I do feel like David Sirota. There it is. I might run them. I will say I don't usually feel excellent. I usually feel angsty, but I do feel excellent right now. And I think, you know, but I'm realistic about it. This is a big challenge. We're all in the Lotus today. We're all in the Lotus today. All right. Love you guys. Thanks so much. Talk to you soon. Ryan Sirota was just talking about, you know, working for Bernie back in the 90s. And a lot of people have been making this comparison, like maybe Bernie Sanders is sort of like our Barry Goldwater, who didn't win, but really set the agenda for the Republican Party going forward. What do you make of that comparison? I think it's strong to be pedantic. Goldwater did win the nomination. Uh, in 64 and then, you know, got absolutely rinsed by LBJ. Whereas if Bernie had won the nomination, Bernie would have won. Yeah. And, and then, uh, and then what, you know, one term president, uh, impeached, like, you know, it might've been, it might've been a catastrophe, uh, or it might've set off the political revolution. You know, Jesse Jackson, you know, is some, you know, his presidential campaigns of the eighties helped to create Bernie too. So, you know, this goes back, but so many people that came into politics are now, whether it's, you know, Mamdani, Abdul, AOC, like it's unquestionable that like he was the entry point for a lot of these people and also gave them a frame because AOC, for instance, as she's talked about this, very excited by Obama 2008. Abdul, you know, there was Bill Clinton, you know, at his commencement. You can imagine, you know, different directions that they take as politicians, but Bernie Sanders really gave them the frame for, no, like another world is possible here. Like it's the millionaires and the billionaires, we're going to take them on. And that's how we're going to deliver for people. And setting that frame, you know, created this opportunity for people now to fully answer the Barry Goldwater question, like, is there going to be a Reagan? And we're not there yet. We're wondering what's going to happen in 2028 and 2032. So it hasn't been written yet. Has not been written yet. Yeah, I actually really liked AOC's post about Obama. And she was saying to all of you younger people, trying to understand millennial earnest cringe, just imagine your very first vote ever. It's for the first Black president. There's this massive wave across the country, you know, people winning in places, and you're sweeping out the Bush-era war criminals, and it all feels so possible. And that's your first vote. And also, I was talking to Kyle about this yesterday. We still, at least I did, Brian, you've always been wiser than me and ahead of the curve, but I still had this like the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. So we're just getting started. Like things are only going to get better from here. Like this is the beginning, but where do we go next? That was the vibe. And my daughter is 18. She voted. This was her first election, her politics. You won't be surprised to learn. Fairly similar to mine. She's so hyped up. The number of TikTok like blue wave hype reels that she sent me are astronomical. And so she's kind of having that experience now of what it was in 2008 of like, oh my God, this is on the table. Like we just went to the polls and voted. Now there's all this possibility. So it does remind me of that moment and how. How extraordinary it felt, how open it felt, how inevitable everything felt. And of course, to your point, nothing is inevitable. The arc of the universe does not always bend towards justice. It's something you have to fight for and scrap for and you can easily regress and you can easily go backwards. But I thought that was, I did like the way that she put that and connected this moment to that moment, the way that many of us felt at the time. Yeah. And my book tells the story too, that like in 2008, she was in college. She phone banked. She was excited for Obama. But New York is such a catastrophic voting system. She never got her absentee ballot. So she took a bus from Boston down to New York overnight to make sure she could vote in person, but then becomes, like everybody else, pretty disappointed with how he governs. And then Occupy comes around. And then Occupy flows into the Bernie Sanders campaign. And that's what really gave people like AOC This idea that, oh, there's another approach to politics that still recognizes the kind of hope and change and optimism. And I think that's part of what's helpful about this moment. I mean, first of all, you are seeing a genuine, like, generational change. It really, you know, Abdul and James Talarico and Andy Andrews. I mean, a lot of these candidates are young. A lot of them are millennials. And this is kind of the politics that millennials have always had. It's always been the most progressive Generation. And so and, you know, really fomented by the formed and shaped by the lessons of the Iraq war and the financial crash. And so it is a moment of millennial politicians and millennial voters kind of coming into their own and taking control. So I think that's a really important aspect of it. But the other piece that makes me hopeful is that. Obama was able to just run on a lot of vibes, but there wasn't as much of a sort of like ideological backing to it. And ultimately, and there wasn't as much, there wasn't the independent media. I mean, that's the part that Sirota's talking about, how different that is, that you couldn't get away with the same, like, I'm just going to pull over all the old Clinton staffers and like a bunch of bankers and put them in the administration, call that hope and change. You couldn't get away with, yeah, exactly. You couldn't get away with that in the same way today. So it does feel like there's more, I guess, content To the nature of the political movement on the left at this point. And that certainly a large part of that has to do with Bernie and the political education that people received, you know, watching his runs. And also the way that ultimately people who, you know, like Jennifer Welsh, I mentioned her earlier, who previously was adversarial towards Bernie. Joy Reid, same thing, have come around and been like, you know what? He was right. He was right. What he was saying about oligarchs, he was right. And that's where the whole Democratic base is. And now the fight is to make the politicians in Washington govern the way that the moderate view of the country, the actual views of the country reflect on economic issues. And that's why me and Ryan are pushing to nominate Bernie Sanders for 2028 run and do this one last time. Right, Ryan? I mean, he he should he should run and then have a running mate and say, look, I'm going to I will do two years. I'm going to pass Medicare for all. And I'm going to retire two years in. And then whoever the vice president is comes in. I don't think I'm with you on this one, Ryan. Why not? He's got, he can do two years. Come on. He does still seem exactly the same. Like I see no signs of decline with that man. He is as sharp as ever. He's just one of those people who is completely genetically gifted and is fully as with it as he has always been. Yeah. Well, it sounds like you're convinced, Crystal. Well, we're talking a lot about the future. So why don't we get to a little bit of future of AI? Hey, if you liked that video, hit the like button or leave a comment below. It really helps get the show to more people. And if you'd like to get the full show ad-free and in your inbox every morning, you can sign up at BreakingPoints.com. That's right. Get the full show. Help support the future of independent media at BreakingPoints.com.