Hillary Clinton: The Supreme Court Knows Its Own Rulings Are "Nonsensical"

The level of corruption, political and financial corruption that is not even being hidden anymore, Mark, it is out in plain view.Perhaps the midterm elections will at least put the Democrats in a position to try to do something about it.But these people are unleashed and unhinged.

Secretary Hillary Clinton, welcome back to Defending Democracy.

Thank you so much, Mark Elias.It is always a pleasure to be with you and do anything I can to support the important work you're doing.

Well, I always start with the proposition that Hillary Clinton was right all along.So that's going to be the theme of this episode.I want to start with, unfortunately, something you were right about, which is the U .S.Supreme Court.We have seen in the last few weeks them rule against independent federal agencies except for the Federal Reserve Board.

In the FTC case involving Rebecca Slaughter, they said that basically the president can fire whoever he wants.They seek to carve out something of an exception for the Federal Reserve Board.We saw them rule today against transgender rights.We have seen them uh, rule, uh, in various, uh, other cases, uh, against what seems to be common sense interpretations.And even the cases that we, that we kind of agree with, birthright citizenship, it was 6 -3, it wasn't 9 -0, as many people expected.Case that, uh, I was involved in, in, uh, in winning, uh, involving mail -in voting was 5 -4.

A case that honestly, if you'd asked me two years ago, I would have said, I don't know, 7 -2, 9 -0.So what do you make of the Supreme Court today?

Well, Mark, I think you and I probably make of it the same.This is a movement conservative court.was installed for the purpose of turning the clock back on a lot of our rights, but more than that, precedent that had literally stood the test of time in how our government should actually operate with appropriate checks and balances.And I think that, you know, their view about this so -called unitary executive, which really is a fancy way of saying the president can do whatever he wants to do unless we have some qualms.But then we will, you know, only apply the qualms if it's a Democratic president, not a Republican president named Trump.I don't think there's any sugarcoating it.

This is a court that was hand selected by the Federalist Society that was intended to do exactly what it's doing.It's shocking when they don't fall in line with Trump.It's shocking when they stand up to him on anything.But as you rightly say, some of what they do is still splitting the blanket.Why would birthright citizenship be a divided decision, even though it came out allegedly the right way.Look at the mental gymnastics they went through.

to, you know, give the president literally the power that used to be available to a president in the middle of the 19th century to hire and fire and influence anybody in the federal government to do whatever the president wants, except for the Federal Reserve Board.I mean, it is a nonsensical and it's almost embarrassing to read because they know it's nonsensical, but they don't care.And what we've got is a full court attack on fundamental principles of constitutional law, of judicial precedent, of long -standingand interpretation, and it truly is turning the clock back.You know, when I voted against Alito, I gave a speech on the Senate floor, and as I recall, I said, you know, this nominee wants to turn the clock back, not just on the last 50 years, but the last 100 years, on the 20th century.Corporate power is to be privileged over individual and community power.

Money is the god.You have no limits on what you can spend to influence the political system.And it was something that I was worried about, which is why I voted against both Alito and Roberts for different reasons, but coming out of the same concerns, that this was a concerted effort to try to fight the battle over rule of law, rights, constitutional interpretation, balance of power, checks and balances, institutional restraint.it's clear where they stand.

Yeah.You know, it's funny you mention that you took on both Alito and Roberts, because as I recall, there were a lot of Democrats who were willing to take on Alito.But Roberts kind of charmed a lot of Senate Democrats, honestly.And, you know, it's been it is now very much in fashion in the Democratic Party to say, you know, that that someone is a fighter, like they fight, they stand up and they take hard fights.And I feel like sometimes recently that gets conflated with sort of ideology, you know, left, you know, center, centrism within the Democratic Party or leftism, left, the far left, the mid left, the center left, whatever it is, like, and, and I think that, like, it's important for people to, tothat your entire career in the Senate and then in the administration and then as the Democratic nominee and since has been to fight against what you know, Republicans and the Tea Party movement at the time and now the Trump administration is.

And along the way, you know, you took on the alt -right, and I've asked you about that before, like in a really important speech that we'll link to that people should read way before people were talking about kind of like the, you know, the crazy online right.You kind of identified it.So can you talk about where you think we are as sort of a party of fighters?

I did have the benefit of seeing and understanding fairly early the very well -organized, well -funded coalition that brought together economic interests, religious interests, ideological and partisan interests, starting you know, certainly in the, you know, the 70s, but it had been brewing for a lot longer than that.But it was a coalition of, you know, the rejectionists, the movement of not just politics, but of culture and society was, in their view, contrary to their preferred understanding of the American experiment.And certainly during the 90s, you know, being on the front lines of a lot of the battles against these interests, which led me, you know, to say at the end of the 90s, there was a vast right wing conspiracy, you know, which a lot of people thought was overstatement.But in fact, it turns out it was understatement.

Like it's

truly one of these things.

When I say this is the episode about Hillary Clinton is always right, literally when you said that there was a vast right -wing conspiracy, people jumped all over you.It turns out it was much vaster and more right -wing.

It was.But part of what happened in the 90s very clearly.You know, there'd always been, you know, radio figures, Father Coughlin and others who were, you know, from the right who were extremely negative about Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman.And yet in the 90s, we saw the proliferation of media outlets.That's when Fox came on the air.Rush Limbaugh was dominating the radio audiences and others that were, you know, following in his wake.

So what had been a kind of, you know, behind -the -scenes effort to marshal the money to get, you know, Justice Powell to write his famous memo about how corporations had to stand up against, you know, efforts to undermine corporate power, all of that, you know, it was kind of carried out behind the scenes.It was, you know, discussed in, you know, hotel dining rooms, think tanks that were funded by financial interests on the right.All of that had been going on.But with the advent of an effective communication strategy to go much further beyond the bounds of right -wing American politics, you know, into the churches, into the Republican Party, into, you know, the press in ways that really began to create this broad -based movement.And then, of course, it, you know, was obviously exponentially increased with the advent of the internet and the information ecosystem thatprivileged disinformation, misinformation, and the like.

So I saw that happening and I really did feel like it was an existential political threat.And I saw that there were real coalitions, the moral majority, obviously, you know, that was an important part of the merging of the Republican Party with the religious right.And I saw how voices that had been, you know, attacking or complaining about the politics of FDR, for example, were now joined with the politics of grievance against the culture.You know, the women's movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement.I mean, all of these were rejected by the the very forces on the right, but they understood how to weaponize that.Their economic arguments were not going to win the day, but their cultural warfare was quite effective.

So that was the backdrop of what I was seeing as I was both in the White House and then running for office myself.

So you mentioned one of the topics that I wanted to talk to you about, which is civil rights.So in 1965, Congress passes the Voting Rights Act, a landmark piece of legislation.Throughout the years, you saw Democratic and Republican support the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.I think you were in the Senate, actually, when it was passed 98 to 0 in the Senate.So you probably had talks with your colleagues on the other Republican senators about it.You saw it reauthorized by Richard Dixon.

signed into law by Richard Dixon, by Ronald Reagan, by George Bush, all Republican presidents.The Supreme Court this term, in the Calais case out of Louisiana, all of a sudden decided that, in its view, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the last remaining piece that essentially protects black voting power, minority voting power, is unconstitutional.Talk me through how you see this evolution from a sort of bipartisan, you know, Ronald Reagan's calling the Voting Rights Act of 1982, the crown jewel of American liberty.You probably could say what the people were saying on the Senate floor in 2006, but like, how did we get from there to here?

When the Voting Rights Act was passed, and literally I rank President Johnson's speech promoting the Voting Rights Act is one of the greatest speeches I personally have ever experienced.I remember being glued to our little black and white TV, watching him make the case for this legislation to protect the voting rights of all Americans, particularly black and other minority Americans.That was always a flashpoint for the anti -civil rights mentality that was not just in the South, but heavily located in the South.And remember, Johnson said with the passage of this bill, along with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Democratic Party has lost the South for a generation.Well, it turns out like three or four or five or maybe, you know, infinite generations.So he was not in any way naive about the continuing opposition to the very

simple proposition of one person, one vote, and establishing the institutional framework to guarantee that.And as you rightly point out, that was at least at the level of leadership of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, George H .W.Bush, that was accepted and embraced as a part of the American journey toward a more perfect union.So you're right, I was in the Senate when we voted 98 to nothing to reauthorize it.And I remember that came after literally thousands of pages of evidence.

People went to great lengths to provide evidence about continuing discriminatory treatment, both intent and effect.And the evidence was overwhelming.It's not like, well, you know, a little bit here, a little bit there, to the point that 98 of us voted in favor of it.And George W. Bush said he would sign it, which he did.But remember, I told you I voted against Roberts.And one of the reasons I voted against Roberts, because you know this, is he was a law clerk for Rehnquist, Chief Justice Rehnquist.

And he wrote a memo about how abominable.That's not the word to use, but that's the intent or that's what came across to me.The Voting Rights Act was and how we needed to get beyond it.Naive, but deliberately so.putting on those rose -colored glasses of a post -racial world, which never has existed, never will exist, which is why you need laws and you need institutional frameworks.So it didn't surprise me that when they got a court that Roberts was now in charge of, they brought the laws that

could bring this case.And literally, for a so -called conservative court, there's nothing conservative about it.And there's certainly nothing conservative about the lack of respect they have for congressional power, for Article One power, which looked at this problem which studied this problem, which gathered evidence on this problem and thought the Voting Rights Act was still necessary in order to conduct free and fair elections where everyone would feel that they were heard, their voice was counted, they were represented.And so this is part of the you know, very long game that the movement conservatives play.They never seem to get discouraged like people on the center left and left do, like, oh my gosh, why didn't you do this?I'm done with you.

They play a long game and they set up the Federalist Society and they recruit young lawyers and they place them in Republican administrations and then they, you know, kind of, you know, curry their careers to be in the right places at the right times and they then dominate the court.It's, you know, just the reality of the court that we currently have.But the full -scale assault on voting rights which this court has wielded is, you know, so contrary to reality.There is no doubt in my mind, as we saw, what state legislators did to try to destroy majority Black districts.But it wasn't just their legislative action.You know, I read a lot of reporting about what they were saying, you know, free, free at last from having to be fair to Black voters and other minority voters.

We can do what we want.And pretty soon, you know,they say, we're choosing the voters we want.The voters are not choosing the representatives they want.And all of the half -hearted arguments about, you know, how we've advanced beyond that, you know, they were just put to the lie when you saw what happened in state legislatures, which was gleeful to the point of, you know, really stomach turning about how they were going to eliminate, you know, the voting rights and the representation rights of black and brown and other voters.

link in front of you on the screen or in the description of this episode below.So one of the things that you are sadly an expert in is the weaponization of government.People may or may not remember, but you were targeted by a like witch hunt of an independent council.In fact, it was so abusive that it actually led to the abolishment of the independent council statute on a bipartisan basis.This was in the 1990s.Later, when you run for president, Donald Trump is leading chance to have you locked up for It is entirely unclear what, other than you are running for president against him.

There is, you know, the House, I think it was the House, maybe you're going to tell me it was the Senate, had you testified for hours upon hours upon hours?

Well, I testified actuallyin both.This is about Benghazi.I testified in both.Seven congressional committees were, you know, very clear that, you know, there was nothing there and they closed their investigations.We actually made some recommendations about how to improve security.

That's when they created the so -called Special Committee in the House.And the stated purpose was, you know, to literally bring me down because I left the state department with a 67 % approval rating for the job I've done.And, you know, if there were a chance I might run for president, which obviously some people thought I might, then let's bring her down.So create, you know, a rump committee and have me testify for, as I recall, 11 hours.And then they walk out of the committee and say, there's no there there.But you know, that they're very good at performative politics.

And so the very fact that I was testifying for 11 hours, you know, puts in the heads of voters like, oh, my gosh, you know, must be some reason why she's testifying for 11 hours.So, you know, they were You know, they knew what they were doing.They're good at this.

I wasn't actually done with all the weaponization against you.Then we had the John Durham investigation, which was an absolute sham and an absolute disgrace.And it drives me crazy that the legacy media has not exposed that for what it was, but that obviously led to nothing, led to a handful of people getting indicted and acquitted.But that was a smear effort aimed at you and your campaign.I'm sure I have missed five or six other efforts, but I want to ask you, like now that we see like the Department of Justice just openly going after Tish James in New York, going after James Comey, who I have no, I am no fan of, but like the guy should be able to take pictures of seashells, going after, and going after ordinary Americans, you know, going after people, you know, there was,just a instance of a poll worker in Syracuse who was confronted by ICE agents for - Inside the polling place.

Again, this is one of these places where no one listened to you when you were saying that what is going on here is just the gross abuse of the system to politicize law enforcement and government against political opponents.What do you, like, where are, like, Donald Trump seems to be elevating this to a whole other level.

The level of political persecution by the Trump Justice Department, which has really turned into a big personal law firm for him and his allies to go after his perceived political enemies, is a tragic development.I mean, I am deeply worried about the hollowing out of the Justice Department.I don't know what they're missing.I have no idea.you know, what the Russians, the Chinese and others are doing, what crime, you know, syndicates are doing.They don't seem to care.

They don't seem to pay much attention to that.They're more interested in going after, you know, his perceived enemies.I guess he has like an enemies list that would put, you know, Nixons to shame.And you're on it.Oh, yeah, that never ends.But it is, You know, the level of corruption, political and financial corruption, that is not even being hidden anymore, Mark, it is out in plain view.

And perhaps the midterm elections will at least put the Democrats in a position to try to do something about it.But these people are unleashed and unhinged.And it's very difficult to rankin if you don't have a justice department to rein them in.You use state attorneys general, private litigants, but it's very hard to go after this blatant corruption and begin to hold people account.But we have to try.

I think with Trump, he is going to double down.I see no indication that even if he loses the House and the Senate in the midterms, that that's going to affect him because he doesn't care about the law.He doesn't care about complying and nobody can make him comply.The federal judges that have stopped him from doing certain things are doing what they can all they can, and thankfully, a lot of the judges at the district and appellate court level who have ruled against him have been appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump himself.So that is our only safety valve.Unfortunately, oftentimes when they rule against, you know, Trump and any of his administration, The Supreme Court puts it on the emergency docket and basically gives them what they want and say, we'll get around to the decision on the merits at some future point.

It's been a mixed bag, but the courts are the only check that we currently have.If the Congress is under Democratic majority control, I think there's so much to be investigated, and I have urged that they be investigated, investigating a lot of the corruption, the financial corruption that is on the front pages of newspapers.So this is going to be a huge challenge because Trump is not going to comply unless he literally, literally is forced to.And it's hard to force him to because he lies and he gets out from under obligations and he says one thing and it's not true and it's hard to pin him down.And he is just going to continue to govern the way he wants to govern, which is free of any norm, law, constitutional provision, legal admonition.So I am very worried.

I think winning the midterm elections is not going to be easily translated into the agenda for affordability.and the accountability that needs to be pursued.

I've got to come back to this idea of fighting and you as a fighter and a role model, frankly, for people like me and others who, you know, who learned from working for you, for your campaign and watching you in public life, that you got to stand up to the bullies.You can't, you can't back down.And you've got to, you've got to realize that when you are on the right side, it is worth fighting.You and I were both co -defendants in a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump in Florida.I think he thought he would bring a case in a favorable court and he would go after you and me and a whole bunch of other people.And instead, he lost.

And he lost so badly, his lawyers got sanctioned.They owe you attorney's fees.It turned into a rout.And I always point out to people people that when Donald Trump sued you and me and others, we didn't like say, let's figure out how to settle.We weren't like, okay, how do we cut a deal?but yet everywhere we stood up and we fought and, you know, like kudos to you and David Kendall and a whole bunch of lawyers did a great job and helped justice prevail.

But when you look around and you see all of these big institutions and people with all of the resources in the world to fight, I mean, a lot more resources, you have certainly more resources than I have, like they could afford to stand up and fight and instead they capitulate.How do you, do you ever like, do you ever call them and say, hi, this is Hillary Clinton?Like, what are you guys doing?

No, but I have been very disappointed starting with the law firms and big kudos to the ones who stood up to Trump.And guess what?They won.You know, I always knew these were winnable cases and why?so -called big law capitulated and their only explanation was, well, we represent a diversity of clients and all the rest.I'm a recovering lawyer and I like a lawyer who fights for me. I like a lawyer who stands up and fights, especially a lawyer who stands up and fights, you know, for what's right, regardless of, you know, the challenges and the odds.

And these law firms, you know, it was just total acquiescence.They thought they could just brush it off, keep going, pay no price.I think they did pay a price.And I think that's, you know, very unfortunate.A lot of the universities were in a more difficult position because they are dependent in their research and a lot of faculty funding on the federal government.And when you have a president who doesn't respect science, doesn't care about research, doesn't think that any of it is important, it was very difficult.

for them to deal with that.And I have more sympathy for them.The idea that you could fight when you were so dependent upon the federal government, it made it harder.And they've been trying to maneuver through it, cut deals, get out from under it, get their funding back.But the ones that really make me sad are the big big corporations, you know, people who are worth a lot more than Donald Trump, people who run major corporations, people who should have the confidence to, you know, be able to stand up to him.I always did a little cheer when any one of them did, like I remember Costco decided that, you know what, I don't know what you think about DEI, but you know, we have a diverse workforce.

We have a diverse, you know, customer base.We have a diverse supply chain.We like diversity.Diversity is good for Costco.And you know what?Equity is kind of a good thing too because we want to treat people in an equitable manner and we want to be inclusive because that gives us a bigger market.

Hooray for Costco.But there were too few of those who said, we're not going to be couched.Too many of them, you know, reacted quickly, capitulated.I think they hurt themselves.I think they're still hurting themselves.And, you know, it's disappointing.

The media capitulation was of a different sort.They just bought up the media.It reminded me of the way Putin sent out his oligarchs to try to buy up the media in Europe in order to influence politics, to suborn leaders, to try to get a pro -Russian, pro -PutinismSo you look at the different institutions and why they did what they did.There might have been slightly different reasons, but the bottom line is that, you know, the calculation they made was to go along and in many cases, I think, abased themselves in order to curry favor with Trump and his associates.And it was a very sad, you know, it was a very sad spectacle.

I've got to ask you a couple of questions, putting on your expertise in foreign affairs and former Secretary of State hat.So I am worried that Bill Pulte is the head of the Office of uh what is it national uh intelligence national uh yeah the national director of intelligence ndi yeah i wasn't to be honest with you all that keen on pulsey gabbard in that position uh yeah you should have been yeah last i checked she was hanging out on an evidence truck uh his ballots were being seized in fulton bill pulte does not seem to be qualified to be the head of national intelligence and i am worried that you know we have seen efforts by foreign governments to interfere in our elections and bill pulte does not seem like the kind of guy who's going to stop Can you just walk people like me, who are not experts in this, through what it is that this office does and whether we should be worried about interference in elections or not?

You should definitely be worried about everything.This is a naked partisan takeover of the Director of National Intelligence, which was formed following 9 -11 to better try to coordinate the various intelligence agencies, you know, the CIA, the NSA, there's like 17 of them, because we missed a lot ofsignals that we should have paid attention to leading up to 9 -11.And it was thought in this legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security and created the DNI that this would be a better coordinating mechanism.I think there's a lot of problems with it, but it is at the hub of all of our intelligence.The DNI has access to everything, everything that they want to see.

I mean, I hope there are career and even political appointees in various of the agencies that are slow walking or refusing to share information with Pulte.But I would also call out to, I don't know why there hasn't been a lawsuit brought.He is manifestly unqualified under the statute to hold that position, I would argue, even in an acting role.They're not going to nominate him thinking they can avoid the collision with the statutory requirements, but somebody ought to be bringing a lawsuit to test it, to try to enjoin him until the you know, the merits are decided as to whether an acting DNI doesn't have to comply with the requirements, which strikes me as another tortured argument that is worth trying to test.He has just installed as a deputy somebody who's one of these election conspiracy theorists who think Trump won in 2020, or even if they don't think it, they say it because that's how they get in good with Trump and the delusion that he tries to perpetuate on all of us.So the bottom line to me is he's very dangerous.

He's a loose cannon.We saw what he did trying to go after alleged enemies of Trump when he was at the mortgage agency.And I just think it's sodeeply insulting to the intelligence community to put someone who, number one, knows nothing, has never had a position where he was exposed to anything with respect to intelligence.But I am sure they are cheering it in Beijing and Tehran and Moscow and other places because it's a shambles.It was a shamble under Tulsi Gabbard, who was, you know, chasing red herrings as fast as she could pedal, trying to act like, you know, that was the real threat to our country.

We are facing incredible threats, cyber threats, AI threats, conventional military threats, nuclear weapon threats, biological threats.I mean, the list goes on and we need the best intelligence we can get.And there's no way that's going to happen with somebody like Polte in charge over at the DNI.And, you know, it's so contemptuous.It's not just contemptuous of the intelligence professionals.You know, they don't they're not always right.

They make mistakes.But the ones that I've dealt with over many, many years have by and large, you know, tried to figure out what was happening that could threaten our security, that could, you know, go after our electric grid that could shut down our air traffic control system, that could disrupt our health care system, that, you know, on and on, the threats are pretty real that we have to deal with.And we need smart, dedicated professionals protecting us.And we don't have that.

So I'm going to let you escape without me asking you about 2028.But I'm going to ask you about but I'm going to ask you about 2026.OK, so, you know, you've alluded to this and I I've said it that I think this iselections are essential for democracy.We need Democrats to do well.We need Democrats to take control of the House and the Senate.

We need Democrats to win up and down the ballot.You now have the luxury of not having to be on the ballot yourself, but watching the field develop with the experience and the judgment that comes with it.What's your advice to Democrats?Like, what do you worry about?What do you think that they need to do more of?What do you think?

Well, we're not going to win the majority just by, you know, changing who's in the chair in deep blue districts.And obviously we've seen a lot of energy go into that.We have to win districts that are currently held by Republicans in order to take back the majority.And we have to win states that are either currently held by Republicans or were and are now open seats in order to win back the Senate.So I am a numbers person.How do we get to the numbers we need to control the House and the Senate?

Because, you know, all of this talk about affordability and accountability and everything everybody wants to do, none of it will happen if we don't have the majority.When I was in the Senate for eight years, I was in the majority and in the minority, and it's a lot better being in the majority.And I want to see us get to the majority.And that means winning swing districts.And, you know, So a lot of the energy is in the public anyway on the left with these internecine democratic fights in blue districts.But what I'm looking at are the candidates that are being nominated that have a chance to win in districts and states that we need to win in order to be successful.

And there I'm actually very encouraged.I think we have good candidates from what I've seen being nominated that fit the district, that are running good campaigns.And every district to some extent, particularly the swing districts, may have a slightly different look to them because, you know, what would play in a swing district in New York may not play in a swing district on the border in Texas or in the valley in California.And so you do need to have an overall message, which is affordability and accountability, and then you fill in the blanks.But you also need to run as a candidate that can win the votes of a majority of people in your district.I'm encouraged, but it's a long time between now and November, and I was especially encouraged by the mail -in ballot.

decision that came out of Mississippi.Thank you and your team and everybody, Mark.You know, I mean, it's ridiculous that we would be looking at ways of limiting voters, but that's the only way they can win.They can't win a fair fight in a district or a state, which is why Trump is so obsessed with, you know, stealing voter rolls and purging voters and, you know, making up ridiculous claims about, you know, people not eligible as citizens for voting, which, you you know, that is like so vanishingly, you know, non -existent, it is, you know, laughable.But that's his game because he can't win a fair fight.And his Republican Party, which has, you know, become a cult, answering only to him, can't win a fair fight.

So as you look out across the country at the House and Senate races, the governor's races, all of that, it feels to me like Trump has sort of lost some of his grip like it is still he can still he can stillyou know, swing a small primary electorate where it is a Republican or Republican.But between the war in Iran, which seems very unpopular, the, you know, inflation, you know, which he seems almost contemptuous of, you know, like it doesn't feel like he is is leading the Republicans down a successful path?

Well, I think to go back to what we were talking about earlier, I think he has become more and more unhinged and more obsessed with what makes him feel strong and powerful.And I never thought he cared much about the people, including the people who voted for him and showed up at his rallies and all the rest of it.But I think it's gotten a lot worse.I mean, the contempt he has shown To a bipartisan accomplishment, whatever you think about all of the features of the housing bill, I know that Republican and Democrats actually worked together and did their jobs in both the Senate and the House, and they came out with a bill that they hope would help to spark more housing around the country.It's one of the main issues people talk about.He could care less.

You know, he wants to stay in power not to provide housing for people, not to provide health care for people, not to really improve the financial well -being of the average American, he wants to stay in power for the perks.He wants to stay in power for the financial benefits flowing to him and his family.He wants to stay in power to wield unaccountable power against anyone that he considers a political obstacle or an adversary.So I think it's pretty apparent and the polling seems to demonstrate that You know, obviously he has no support among Democrats, those few.alleged Democrats who may have voted for him in 2024 have seen the error of their ways and kind of returned.Whether they vote for Democrats, I don't know, but they're not going to vote for him or his candidates.

The independents, the numbers are very strongly against him.You know, people who may have voted for him, but they didn't vote for the war in Iran.They didn't vote for the corruption tearing down the East Wing of the White House.They didn't vote for him saying things like, I don't care about inflation.I don't care about housing.I don't care literally about you.

They didn't vote for their health care premiums going up.They didn't vote for any of that.So I think, you know, If we get a good turnout, a good midterm turnout, I feel very good about our chances.And I also think there is a, you know, hardcore, it's about 34, 35 % of the electorate who are literally going to follow him off the cliff.But will they show up?I mean, how How enthusiastic will they be?

As I look at the elections that we've held in the last year and a half, Democratic turnout is much higher.You know, there seems to be more energy on the Democratic side.So his contempt for America, for our rule of law, for an agenda that would actually improve the lives of Americans, I think is so obvious now that people are, you know, turning away and he's doubling down.He's doubling down on his exercise of power in a way that I guess gives him some kind of psychic narcissistic reward.I don't know what else it does, but he loves tearing things down.He loves going after people.

He loves insulting people.He hates answeringquestions that he finds troublesome.And I think that act is getting old for everybody.

So the last thing I wanted to ask you about is you recently, I think, called for the abolition of the Electoral College, which would be a really good start.

Actually, I called for it in 2000.

Oh, did you?

I did.I did.You know, when I won my Senate race and Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College, that's the first time I said this is you know, this needs to go because this is not reflective of one person, one vote.And we shouldn't be hanging on to an anachronism that was designed for slave owning states, really.

So you are speaking my language here because I think that one of the great limiting features of the Biden administration.I'm not going to ask you to criticize the Biden administration, but one of the criticisms I had for them is that Though Joe Biden himself spoke eloquently about democracy issues and really gave some of, I thought, his best speeches were speeches about voting and democracy.I think his administration was way too cautious.I think it was very sort of tied to norms and tradition and nostalgia for maintaining what was.And, you know, the next, few years, Democrats are going to have to make some decisions about what to prioritize.I hope they will prioritize democracy issues.

But I think that if they do that, they have to take some big swings.They have to go beyond just restoring the Voting Rights Act to what it was in 1965.But as I've said before, we can do better than a law that was passed in 1965.We could be more proactive.We can do things like, you know, work towards abolishing the Electoral College, which, as you say, is an anachronism at best, right?It's out.

You know, we did way with the state legislature's appointing senators, we certainly could move to a popular system ofelections for president.I wonder if you, you know, either have particular ideas or if you see any energy in this space within the Democratic Party and the center left and left to kind of like reimagine how we can make democracy stronger when we hold power again.

Absolutely.And I could not agree with you more.If we don't do that, shame on us.If we don't come up with real protections for voting rights, take a look at the Voting Rights Act.Let's re -envision it for the 21st century, as you said.Take a look at popular vote.

I mean, the popular vote movement is going state by state and they're getting closer to a 270 electoral vote.number that might feel possible, but let's figure out what legislation in Congress could protect that so that it's a structure that would be blessed by federal legislation so that when we reach perhaps the number of states we need, so that the state selectors vote for the winner of the national popular vote, it's protected against Supreme Court interference.So I think there is an agenda, an affirmative agenda that we need to be looking at.I'm totally on board.I would look to you, Mark, and other defenders of democracy.You've been in the trenches.

You understand the games they play.You understand how to protect us against those.Let's start working right now.My fear And I've said this to a lot of people is, you know, we don't, as I mentioned earlier, play the long game and we don't play it in a coherent, unified way.So I'm sure there are people in the center, center left, far left, whatever we call ourselves.who are working on what they want to see.

But let's get together.There are certain fundamental decisions that have to be made.Democracy is core to that.Let's get together and figure out how we can be ready on day one when the new Congress is sworn in on January 3rd.Let's be ready with legislation.Let's work with whoever the leaders are going to be to make sure that, you know, we do what Project 2025 did.

We won't have a White House, but we will have a Congress.And let's not waste that.Now, will Trump Veto things, yeah, but that still sets us up for the debate.It sets us up for action later.Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.Let's get what we can get passed.

Let's figure out what the coalitions are to build it.And I don't think there's anything more important than protecting voting rights.So let's get to work on that right now.

Secretary Hillary Clinton, I'm on board.

Good.

And I think this is, you know, this is This is so important.I want to thank you for everything you've done.You have been such an inspiration and large part of my career and the passion and the successes that I've had in the last decade or so.I've told folks that the two inspirational people who, if people want to know where I get my fight from, which I get question all the time, like, why is it that I just keep going and going?I say there are two people who have basically influenced me.One is Reverend Barber from North Carolina, who, you know, his Morrow Monday marches and the idea of building a multiracial coalition around voting and elections was really inspirational.

And I identify with him in the approach I take.But with respect tohow it is that every day I'm able to get up, even after I've been attacked and when I've had a good day or a bad day in court, I would say it's because of you.And it's what I learned from you and what I heard you tell us in the days following the 2016 election about the need not to retreat from the fight, but to double down on it.So on that, I want to thank you as well.

Well, right back at you, my friend.I mean, Mark, I cannot thank you enough.Thank you enough on behalf of every American who cares about our country, every American who knows that we've got to stand firm on constitutional principle, on the rule of law, and voting is at the heart of that.We have fought so hard over 250 years to get everybody included, and we're not going to let other people exclude on the basis of race or any other factor.get into that fight and we're going to win it again.And you're the leader of our time, you know, and I thank you.

And please take care of yourself because we need you.And if I can, if I can ever, you know, be on the other end of a phone call to say, keep going, Mark, you know, you can always find me. I'm one of your biggest admirers.