Rep. Ro Khanna on Epstein, ICE & a Billionaire Wealth Tax

24:27Support for On With Kara Swisher comes from Runes. If you're looking for a health goal that you can actually stick to, you might want to check out Groom's. Groom's is a simple daily habit that deliver real benefits with minimal effort. They're convenient, comprehensive formula packed into a snack pack of gummies a day. This isn't a multivitamin, a greens gummy, or a prebiotic. It's all of those things and then some at a fraction of the price. And bonus, it tastes great. Groom's ingredients are backed by over 35 ,000 research publications. While generic multivitamins contain only seven to nine vitamins.

25:00Gruens have more than 20 vitamins and minerals and 60 ingredients, which include nutrient-dense and whole foods. That includes six grams of prebiotic fiber, which is three times the amount of dietary fiber compared to the leading greens powders and more than two cups of broccoli. It's a daily snack pack because you can't fit the amount of nutrients Gruens does into just one gummy. Plus that makes it a fun treat to look forward to every day. Kick off the new year right and save up to 52 % off with the code CARA at gruns.co. That's code CARA, K-A-R-A at gruns, G-R-U-N-S dot C-O.

25:42Support for this show comes from Delete Me. It can be difficult to know where to start when trying to protect your personal information from data brokers. Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Delete Me takes care of the hard part, scrubbing your personal information and your family's personal information from data broker sites. It's simple, you sign up, tell them what you want gone and their team gets to work. And it's not just a one and done service. Delete Me keeps monitoring and deleting your unwanted personal data throughout the year.

26:15I have been using Delete Me for a while and there's a reason why I think it's the best one. I spent a lot of time looking at what's on these dashboards and changing what it can do because data thieves essentially change their tactics all the time. And it's really important to keep on top of it, especially as the new year begins. See why Wirecutter named Delete Me their top pick for data removal services. You can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20 % off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteme.com slash Kara and use promo code Kara at checkout.

26:52The only way to get 20 % off is to go to joindeliteme.com slash Kara and enter code Kara at checkout. That's joindeliteme.com slash Kara, K-A-R-A, code Kara.

27:09So I'm going to pivot to the Epstein files because this is where, you know, it's so funny because we started off, I was starting to want to talk to you about the Epstein file, but so much other stuff has happened, which both the two major things, obviously, are the billionaire tax and the Epstein files. But let's start with the Epstein files because they have not delivered. They've got less than 1 % or something like that. You and Representative Thomas Massey, a Republican, have been instrumental in forcing the release of the files. You've said in January it's going to be a bombshell month when we find out some of the co-conspirators were.

27:36Talk about where we are right now with the release of these files. Obviously, Pam Bondi has been slow to do so. And how it's going to be a bombshell month if she drags her feet. Well, the release has been woefully inadequate. You're absolutely right that they still have millions of documents. They're admitting to the federal judge in the Southern District of New York that they've got millions of documents. Thomas Massey and I just this week intervened with the Southern District of New York with an amicus curiae brief as a friend of the court saying, please appoint a special master so we can actually get these documents.

28:09Explain why that's necessary first and how it would work, just so people understand. What the judge would say is, I'm going to appoint an independent person to determine what should be redacted, what shouldn't be redacted. And I'm going to make sure that the release actually complies with the law, which the judge keeps citing. I mean, they've got two thirds of the Southern District of New York working on this. First of all, I don't understand with AI and all this technology why you need so many lawyers doing this. I mean, obviously, you need a lawyer at the final review, but it seems the technology of the Justice Department could use upgrading.

28:42But if they really are going to say that it's such a national security or important issue to comply with Massey and my law, which I'm glad they're saying they're putting in the effort, then have a special master make sure that it's done right and done in accordance with the law. That's all we're asking the judge. The judge has been very fair as I've seen his decisions. I don't know him, never talked to him. But my trust, I think the country would trust him a lot more, frankly, than they trust DOJ or Congress. I mean, I'm not asking Massey and I to be making these decisions. Have an independent judge.

29:13There are two revelations that came out that are really important, even of the 1%. One, and this is really critical, there are references to many, many more co-conspirators. Why is this important? Because the president says it's a hoax and it's all Jeffrey Epstein. Even some people in the Democratic orbit, oh, this is just Epstein and Maxwell. No, now we know there are a lot of other co-conspirators from the documents. And by the way, we know that those co-conspirators weren't charged. And there are prosecution memos out there that they haven't released explaining why they dropped charges on the co-conspirators.

29:46So that was one really important revelation. And when you talk to the survivors, they'll tell you that they were told if you complain to the FBI or the police department, nothing is going to happen. So don't even do it. So why should they now? What I've said is they have already named these names in their interview memorandum to the FBI. They're called Section 302 statements. Basically, FBI agents sat with these survivors and their lawyers. We know from the survivors and from the lawyers, they named specific men who either trafficked them or abused them, and that those names are in the 302 files.

30:19They have not released a single 302 statement. So I'm less concerned about all the millions of documents, right? They're kind of doing this document dump, which is just, let's just put out all this stuff and confuse everyone. There are three things we need to see. We need to see those Section 302 statements that are the survivors naming names, right? That's what the American people want to know. So they don't have to, right, I guess. Which they didn't have to. They're in those statements. So they can't be asked to do it again publicly. They'd be subject to defamation lawsuits and threats. It's already in those statements.

30:52They need to release those names, those statements, which they have not done. The DOJ hasn't released any of them. And then they need to release the prosecution memorandum from 2007 and 2019, which talked about 60 counts against Epstein that were reduced to two counts, talked about all the co-conspirators who weren't charged. And we need to understand why there were decisions made to drop all of the investigation. So where are we on that now, right now, with all these other noise, which, you know, you could almost say everything is a distraction from these Epstein files in many ways. It feels like it with Trump.

31:24I feel like he'd be like Carol and Pluribus and drop an atom bomb if it would get him out of the Epstein files. What is in the way right now and what happens since they were ordered to do so? And that took you forever to get that to happen. What happens next? Well, it really comes down to the next step to this judge and whether he will rule for a special master or not. We will see some of these millions of documents because the Justice Department has said to the judge they're releasing them. The question is the quality of that and will they have excessive redactions. And then Thomas Massey and I are planning to introduce inherent contempt.

32:01Inherent contempt, if it passes the House, it just requires the House would fine Pam Bondi personally$10 ,000 a day for every document that she didn't release. Whether that passes and is enforced, the point is it's showing the crack in the MAGA base. of all of the issues, and I don't fully understand why. You know, I said that very early to Scott. I was like, no, no, this is the bearing wall for all of them in many ways. This is the issue that the MAGA base is livid over Trump on. You know, some of them agree with Trump on Venezuela. Some of them agree with Trump on ICE even. Some of them agree with Trump on his tax break bill.

32:39Some of them agree with Trump on what he's done in appointing Robert Kennedy. This is the one issue where the MAGA base has said, you promised us you would get these corrupt folks who raped and trafficked these girls. You aren't doing that. You become part of the system. And they are livid at Pam Bondi. And so this is why this is – Trump is panicked about this because he knows every day that this goes on, he's losing someone in his MAGA base. And this is why Massey and my inherent contempt against Bondi matters. If we just did impeachment against Trump or Robert Kennedy or something, it would be met with a yawn in the bag of ice.

33:18Bondi, you know, Massey put out a poll, a Twitter poll, and the vast majority, I think 70 percent, wanted Bondi impeached and the others wanted Trump to fire her. So what has to happen to get the rest of these files released? I believe we need a strong decision from the judge because the judge matters in this case. I believe we need influential commentators like you not dropping it. I mean, their whole— No, we're not dropping it. Well, that's been their whole strategy that eventually people will forget. We need the courage of the survivors. They've come to the Capitol twice when things were stalling.

33:52We need their courage to be willing to continue to engage because ultimately people may be intrigued that Massey and I are kind of an oddball couple. Yeah, I want to ask you about that. Talk about that relationship. You're an odd couple to say the least, but you've managed to work across the aisle at a time when almost impossible getting it done in Congress. is he has really put his neck out there. I mean, in your case, it's not your, you know, it's still very brave of what you're doing, but for him, it's particularly. Yeah, no, he's shown on this issue, there's far more consequence to him than there is to me politically.

34:25I mean, there's consequence anytime you take on big, powerful people, you ruffle feathers and it's easier to keep your head down. But for him, it's literally his seat in May. I mean, the president has put his entire apparatus, think about this, what it takes to become president of the United States. That entire team is out there with their number one goal to defeat Thomas Massey in May. And Massey in private moment says, hey, if I don't come back, I don't come back. I mean, it's a real race. It's not, okay, he's definitely going to win. He's got a clear path to win and is up by 10, 15 points, but it's going to be a fight.

35:00Talk about that relationship with the two of you. Well, he's got a dry sense of humor. He's one of the smartest people in Congress. He's an MIT grad. He's got a wicked sense of humor. We text a lot. He's the type of guy who reads footnotes, so he'll get energized by the most random things. He's newly married. I've gotten to know— His wife died, for people that don't know. His wife died, who he was deeply close to. One of the most disgusting things Trump's done, I mean, he obviously does a lot, whether he insulted Massey for getting married to his new wife. We've talked about, you know, his grief, the difficulty of that.

35:40We joke around about, you know, when he went on his honeymoon. I mean, we've become friends. I mean, I see him on the House floor. We text. But we're also friends committed to work. You know, right now we were texting back and forth about Iran and when is the right time to reintroduce our Iran War Powers resolution. Is it ripe yet or not ripe? Because right now the United States hasn't done anything, but Trump is threatening to do things. So a lot of our interaction is around substantive work. And that's what's built the friendship as opposed to the other way around. Right. And Epstein, how did that come together?

36:14Very briefly, that idea of the two of you. Well, we were doing the Iran stuff together, actually, six months ago. We had done the War Powers resolution. Massey and I have been doing that for years, and we partnered with that again on Iran. Of course, the strikes that Trump did only lasted a day. Fortunately, he didn't get escalated into a full-scale war. And so that issue was around the time that Pam Bondi says, well, there's nothing more to see. And I just introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee saying, well, why don't we require the release of these files? Massey saw that there was one Republican, Ralph Norman, who voted for my bill.

36:52And Massey's a math guy. Like I said, he went to MIT and he says, okay, in a rules committee about 12 people, if you lose one Republican, statistically in a Congress of 435, we'll probably be able to get 20, 30 Republicans. And so he called me up and he said, well, why don't we work on this together? When we started to work on it together, I thought this would be yet another valiant failed effort that Massey and I have led for 10 years. I didn't expect that we would actually get the kind of momentum where it would pass the House, pass the Senate, and the president would sign it. Right, which you did.

37:23Yeah, you had all these people who were not necessarily strange bedfellers, we would say. So one of the things in this – in the Epstein things, you call it – you talk about the so-called Epstein class, which you call elites that operate with impunity. And your quest to get the bottom of what happened to Epstein is motivated at least in part by a desire to restore trusting government by showing that Epstein class isn't above the law. Why is this case taken on such a symbolic resonance in this country? And what will it take to persuade voters that the government can hold elites accountable when they commit crimes?

37:56And I should mention Bill and Hillary Clinton are refusing to testify for the House Oversight Committee's Epstein investigation. And Representative James Comer is threatening to hold him in contempt of Congress, even as he's politicizing the situation in a really unprofessional way. Still, should they be forced to testify? Well, there's one thing we still believe in, regardless of party in this country, and that is that you don't rape young girls and you don't abuse young girls. And I think the reason this has taken on such power is that sexual assault is far more common in this country than we realize.

38:28The amount of people since I've been doing this who stopped me in an airport or said to me, you know, I was abused, I was raped is more than I can count. And that it is so jarring that we allowed powerful financiers, powerful politicians, powerful world leaders to go to this island, abuse girls, watch 14-year-olds paraded naked, have this happen for years, and the country really didn't blink. and that there's something deeply rotten about the moral values that allowed us to do it. So yeah, elites may evade taxes or elites may offshort jobs, but the American people didn't think that the elites were, for their own gratification, preying on young girls or turning a blind eye as young girls were being raped, and that that was fine for our society.

39:22So that's why this idea of an Epstein class, if they could get away with this, what else are they getting away with? And if we can't hold them accountable for this, how are we going to hold the elites accountable for anything? And that's why it's resonating. That's why it's resonating with a lot of MAGA folks who believe the system is fundamentally corrupt and that there are two tiers of justice and that some of them who have served the country, been in the military, are committed to one set of values. And this elite governing class doesn't share those values. On Bill and Hillary Clinton, they should testify in front of the House Oversight Committee.

39:58They shouldn't avoid that. I will say that the politicization of it, though, is not right. I mean, they purposely just released Bill Clinton pictures to make that the story as opposed to the victim's 302 statement. So release everything. And I think Clinton himself has said release everything and release the Clinton pictures and the Clinton stuff, but release everything so you're not cherry picking. and fine, have the Clintons come and testify and have them testify under oath, but then also have Maxwell testify and others testify like the people in the Epstein Estates and people who were at Mar-a-Lago who were implicated or named and have it a much more broad-based inquiry.

40:37So the criticism of Comer has been the selective calling of the Clintons. There's no Democrat who believes that the Clintons should get a pass. Right. Then last question on this topic, Like, what is Trump so afraid of from your perspective? And should he testify? I mean, obviously, he's not going to because he has absolute immunity. Maybe not on this. But what is motivating him here? I don't know. I genuinely don't know what it is because I don't think it's just him. I mean, I think people know that he was on these planes and it's— There's picture after picture after speaking of pictures and videos.

41:15They were friends. They were friends. Yeah. And so it's unclear to me that there's some smoking gun with Donald Trump himself of things that we don't already know about. There is just some powerful forces that he wants to protect. I mean, obviously, people who may be powerful donors, powerful interests. There's been speculation. Are foreign governments involved? And I want to be very careful on that because there's nothing that I have seen that clearly corroborates it. On the other hand, there has been a fair amount of speculation from survivors or others that are there other things involved. And I would just cite Julia Brown, who's the best reporter on this.

41:56Julia Brown. I just texted with her today. That's funny. And she says there may be other governments involved, but there may not be. We don't know, but we need a full release so that we aren't engaged in conspiracy theories. But, you know, people look at this and say, this guy's meeting world leaders. He's friends with all these powerful people around the globe. How is this happening? Who is he protecting? The transparency is what's needed. Including himself. So I'm going to switch to another thing that I think you and I have talked about for years. And you kindly texted me and said, I've come around to your way of thinking on this.

42:35I have. It took me 10 years. It did. I was always like, Ro! When you do something, I'm like, stop hanging out with these people. So we'll talk about this group of elites that also operates, which I think, with impunity, tech billionaires. Your support for the one-time 5 % tax on billionaires in California is causing a lot of agita in Silicon Valley elite circles. So talk about how the tax work and why you're in favor, even though Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom says it would push innovators out of California. He has some argument to be made and lead a fewer middle-class jobs and ultimately lower tax revenue.

43:07There is some proof of this in other countries. But talk about why you're for it in this way. What shifted you? Well, I've always been for a wealth tax. What shifted me, though, is I didn't realize the vehemence at which I would get disowned and attacked. And the slightest thing of suggesting a 1 % tax on real wealth. It's a one-time 5 % tax. But, you know, initially I'd suggested 1 % a year, but it's 5 % over five years. But the vehemence of the anger made me text you saying, wow, you know, I mean, folks are allergic to any sense of increasing that kind of wealth tax. Now, why did I say that we needed a wealth tax?

43:56Well, there have been huge cuts in Medicaid to California. This is going to mean rural hospitals and services are going to close. This is going to mean millions of people are going to be without health insurance. This is going to be hundreds of thousands of people in health care jobs. Nurses and other positions are going to be eliminated. People say, well, the SEI union cares about their health care jobs. I said, yes, as if that's something bad. Isn't a union supposed to make sure care that hundreds of thousands of nurses and healthcare workers aren't laid off yet? They're not hiding the ball.

44:33They're saying that this is why we're doing it so we have healthcare in this country. And what I said is at the same time, this bill gave tax breaks to very wealthy people, including billionaires. And so I said, okay, if we could have a 1 % a year, 5 % over five years tax, to make sure that people had healthcare, those are my values and that's something I support. Now, I hear the concerns on some of the drafting. There are two provisions of it that I'm working to get changed, which is you should not be taxing founders on the voting shares that they have because that's not real wealth. and there's back and forth of whether that would count as wealth or not.

45:14But, you know, that is something I don't support if it's 5 % of your own stock and then you have 50 % voting rights and that needs to be redrafted. And there's the second provision, which is what do you do if you're illiquid? And there needs to be provisions for that. But that's been my position that you can keep the innovation engine if you fix those two provisions, and you can still have a 1 % tax. By the way, 72 % of the billionaire wealth in California is in public stock. So you can get to a lot of it with fixing those two. Yeah. I think it's, to me, it's interesting because I have a little, I was like, maybe not this way.

45:53Scott and I sort of support an overall tax overhaul, but it'll take longer, right? An AMT tax that just handles it. And I think what it is, it specifically targets, It's about 100 people, I think it is, who are threatening to leave California, except for Jensen Huang, who's apparently staying. I have two minds of this. One is you made your – and I said it to one this weekend. I said you made all your money in California, you ingrateful piece of shit. You could figure out a way to pay more taxes, and we deserve the taxes from you given you made your wealth here. The second thing is, yes, there are different ways to do this, but the length of time it would take and the kind of vehemence you would fight whatever happens means nothing would happen.

46:36So why don't we just do shock and awe at this point because you don't seem to be availing yourself to thinking that you owe your state something more, which they don't, which they don't think that at all. They don't. They think that there's waste and that there's abuse. And there is some waste. I'm not going to say everything we've been spending is perfect. But the point is, you have a real crisis here with people not having health care. And a lot of the – even they will acknowledge this. This is not, OK, now we're taxing them a second time. A lot of what happens is someone makes a billion dollars.

47:13They end up saving that money. They don't pass it down until they die. And they're not paying tax on any of that appreciation for years because they're not realizing the gains and they're not getting a standard income. And this is an actual issue. Now, some of them say let's tax the loans on the assets. That's a reasonable suggestion. So when Elon borrows against his estate to go buy Twitter, that would be a realization event. That's a clean way of doing it. There are people who have constructive suggestions, and the people who are pointing out the illiquid issue or the founders' voting rights issue is reasonable.

47:50But the sense of like, oh, I don't want to pay. Yeah. How dare you, sir? Question my genius. I hung the moon. So every episode, we get an expert question, and I found a plutocrat for yours. Steve Ratner, the chairman and CEO of Will and Advisors LLC, the economic analyst on Morning Joe and contributing writer, New York Times op-ed page. Let's hear it. Hi, Ro. Just in terms of this wealth tax idea that you've been pushing, I think we all agree that wealthy people don't pay enough taxes. But regarding the wealth tax itself, I would ask you, one, does it make sense to do this at the state level, given the ability of people to leave the state, as seems to already be happening to some degree in California?

48:34And secondly, as I'm sure you know, a number of European countries, I think 12, have tried wealth taxes. Only three still have them. Is that really the best way of getting people at the top to pay their fair share? Or is some other form of taxation a better idea? It's a thoughtful question. First of all, I think that we should have it at a federal level. There's a constitutional challenge at the federal level. You have in the Constitution that you can't have a disproportionate burden on a particular state in terms of revenue. The 16th Amendment got around that for income tax. It's unclear what the constitutionality will be on the wealth tax.

49:15I think it's constitutional, but I support it at a federal level, and it would be easier to administer at a federal level. At a state level, I like the idea, like I said, the cleanest idea is to have loans taxed on a state. And if we're going to do it at a state level, doing it maybe 1 % a year on public stock, not having the founders' shares is a reasonable way to do it that I don't think is going to lead to significant exodus. But the directional point is that billionaires, in my view, can pay more so that people have health care, child care in this country. I call it an anti-revolution tax.

49:57I call it a sense of shared prosperity. I acknowledge that there are design challenges. Anytime you do something, there are design challenges. So why don't we work to fix those design challenges? I've offered to convene some of the tech leaders with some of these labor leaders and do something that gets everyone on board. And that's what I'm working towards. So in that regard, you know, one of the knocks on you has been, which I knock you for, is you've been everything to everybody. Like you're super friendly. And I'm like, don't be. Both a Bernie Sanders populist and a former tech lawyer who courts Silicon Valley initially supported Doge.

50:28And what did I tell you about that? But nonetheless, but you seem to have planted your flag firmly on the side of populists now with this. And in response, except for Jensen Wong, tech elites are now reportedly bankrolling a primary challenge against you. Obviously, that's not the half of it. They trip over themselves to flatter Trump. As I wrote in Burn book, it was capitalism after all. That was the first line in the book. What do you make of these challenges to you, this sort of indignancy? I've gotten several indignants at you, and I just tell them to shut the fuck up and pay your taxes. But were you surprised?

51:00And what are you going to do about it? It is your district. It is your district. I was surprised. I mean, I was surprised. But I've always been a progressive capitalist. And people on both sides are suspicious. Yeah, I'm friendly. I grew up in Bucks County. That's my demeanor, temperament. But it's not just friendliness. What I'm trying to articulate is a slightly different vision. I'm all for entrepreneurship and innovation and wealth generation. I just think that that prosperity needs to be shared, that everyone needs to have a stake and benefit in it. So sometimes the people who are progressive get suspicious because they celebrate entrepreneurship.

51:38And now the entrepreneurs and founders have been suspicious because they're saying, no, we need to be able to tax this extraordinary wealth because workers aren't making out. But ultimately, if you ask me what is the fundamental challenge in this country, it is income inequality and the wealth divide and people who don't have a basic amount of money to buy a house or health care. And so when those two clash, even though I'm trying to articulate something that's pro-growth progressivism, when they clash, I'm going to be on the side of working class folks and middle class folks. And, you know, yeah, it comes with political costs as people have seen.

52:13Do you think you were naive to think they cared about income inequality? Well, I thought there'd be more people like Jensen. Honestly, I thought there'd be more people like Jensen who would just be like, OK, we paid, we paid. And then I thought what I thought they would do is engage in the argument and debate and say, hey, Ro, you know, one criticism that was fair on me where I said, you know, I said 1 percent over a year. They said, no, it's 5 percent over five years. And I corrected the record. And that's fair. If I'm going to articulate a position, you should know all the facts. I should have – I didn't read the clearful provision on the founder stock even though they say it can be converted.

52:50I think that part has been poorly drafted. I should have – I thought there would be a debate like that and then we would have a debate on ideas. What I was surprised by with the vehemence with which they just said, no, this guy's progressivism is something that we think is going to hurt and kill Silicon Valley. And I don't believe that. I'm very proud of the innovation of Silicon Valley, the entrepreneurship of Silicon Valley, proud to represent it. But ultimately, I believe in shared prosperity and for my district, for the state, for the country. Are you worried about them getting you? Well, look, there's so many people who have tougher problems than I do in terms of my career, my platform, my politics will be fine.

53:36But look, there are two types of politicians, and both are reasonable models. One type of politician just kind of keeps their head down, keeps climbing up the ladder, doesn't make much waves, takes positions that their party takes. And I'm just not built that way. I take risks. I put ideas out there. I think that the fundamental issue is the income divide. and I don't mind offending powerful people, whether it's defense contractors, whether it's pharma, whether it's billionaires. People used to say, don't pick a fight with those who write for a living. And now the motto is, don't pick a fight with the billionaires.

54:10I picked the fight with the Epstein class. I picked the fight with the billionaires. That's who I am. I think people will get to decide. We'll be back in a minute.

54:53We'll see you next time. online, often available with same-day or next-day shipping. So you can protect your peace of mind, whether you're away or at home this season. The Home Depot. Smart homes start here.

55:25Attraktive Angebote beim Škoda Buffet am 24. Januar. Bei allen Teilen in den Škoda Partnern oder auf Škoda.de.

55:34RFK-JR, HHS Secretary, recently announced new federal dietary guidelines declaring war. Today our government declares war on added sugar. Also ending war. We are ending the war on saturated fats. In his tenure as head of HHS, RFK has ended the war on protein and declared war on ultra-processed foods and on the old food pyramid. You can see the food pyramid here. It's upside down, a lot of you will say. But it was actually upside down before, and we just righted it. The Trump administration has pushed companies to eliminate food dyes and in the first bill signing of the new year, says schools can now serve whole milk.

56:18Whole milk, and it's whole with a W for those of you that have a problem. On Today Explained, the push from the top to revamp the American diet. Today Explained drops every weekday.

56:33Let's talk about the future of the Democratic Party. Let's finish up talking about this. Elizabeth Warren gave a speech this week where she outlined her vision for the Democratic Party. In a nutshell, she said Democrats have to stop selling out to billionaires. And she called out tech billionaires like Marc Andreessen, even Democratic billionaires like Dustin Moskowitz and Reid Hoffman. Talk a little bit about how you're looking at where Democrats position themselves and you yourself. How do you position yourself in relation to other Democrats? The central challenge for time is wealth inequality and the fact that 70 % of Americans don't believe in the American dream.

57:09I represent a district that has one-third of the national wealth,$18 trillion. Every time I say that, they say, Roe, you didn't build the wealth. I don't claim to be building the wealth. I'm just saying there's an ecosystem of Stanford or Berkeley of entrepreneurship, of wealth generation that has$18 trillion. And yet the places where I grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, folks are wondering whether they're going to get a good paying job. They're wondering how they're going to afford a house, how they're going to get child care. The Democratic Party should have a simple mission, which is the economic independence and success of every family who feels left out of this economy and an understanding of this AI revolution that's coming.

57:46So it works for all of us, for the entire country, not just for a few billionaires. That's where the Democratic Party's core mission should be. And that, to me, is the central theme. It's the winning message for the midterms, particularly, because that needs to be won, presumably, by the Democrats. It's kind of an all-or-nothing situation. Yeah, I think, look, I think that's the substantively right vision for the country. For the midterms, I think it can be simpler, which is Donald Trump cares more about Venezuela than he cares about Pennsylvania, Michigan. He spent all his time getting us into these overseas wars and giving money to Argentina.

58:27What has he done to lower prices? What has he done to actually make your life better? And by the way, he's got an ICE agency that's rogue. You know, one thing, Cara, that people don't understand fully and I think has been a lot of misinformation, Kamala Harris got the same number of white votes as Barack Obama. What she lost in white men, she made up with in white women. So how did she lose? Well, the Latino community moved away from us compared to Obama. The Asian-American community moved away from us compared to Obama. The African-American men particularly moved away from us compared to Obama.

59:02A lot of those groups are coming back home. Partly Trump has insulted every country in the world, all that have diasporas here. So some of those folks are moving back to us. The ICE stuff has been horrible. His not being able to deal with prices has been horrible. We can build back that Obama-Burning coalition in 2026. And I do think we have a chance of 20 to 30 seats and Hakeem will be speaker. So let's do a quick lightning round of short, quick answers, if you don't mind. Should progressives primary more centrist Democrat incumbents like Representative Marie Glusenkamp-Perez in Washington and Representative Dan Goldman in New York?

59:39I'm for progressives running and I have no problem with primaries. I'm not going to speculate about particular people, but I have been always of the view I ran a primary to beat my conda. I think it's a democracy. Some people are trying to primary me. I've had primaries many cycles. I mean, what's wrong with that? Isn't that democracy? So you've called for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down. So have I. Explain why and who should replace him. He just is not effective as a bold voice in standing up against the lawlessness of Trump. For me, the final straw was when we had these big wins in November and then a week later, he says we're no longer going to fight to get the affordable care tax credits extended.

1:00:24And basically Green led a bipartisan group that cut a deal without getting the health care extended. If you're not going to fight for that, what are you going to fight for? But the second thing is just Chuck Schumer and I have worked together in the CHIP SAC. He's had a lot of achievements in his career, including the IRA, CHIPs, other things. But when you look at him, does that inspire you to think that's the future of America? Like, come on. I mean, anyone being objective looks at Chuck Schumer and you think, really? Well, you've been there for 50 years. Come on, give someone else a turn. Yeah.

1:00:56And I think it's a selfishness that has people cling to power that long. Like that is why they have contributed to a breakdown of trust in America, to a breakdown of trust in the governing class. Who would you like to see in that job? Well, I mean, it probably hurt them given that, you know, I called for Schumer. But look, I like what Van Halen is out there saying. I like Chris Murphy. I like Lisa Blunt Rochester. I like a new generation of folks who are out there, who are visible in leadership roles. I don't know if that's what they want. I don't know what they want to run for, but I want those type of folks to ascend in our party.

1:01:35So what about House Minority Leader Jeffries? How do you rate the job he's done so far? He's very affiliated with Chuck Schumer. It has to be, obviously. Well, I have a different opinion. I think he's been effective in a number of ways. I can point to concrete ways where he has been effective. He just got the Affordable Care Act tax credits extended in the House. We got four Republicans who came to our side to vote for that bill. He is much more energetic, in my view, on television around the country. He has no fear of empowering other people in the caucus to be out there, right? I mean, I'm on TV arguably as much as he is, as is AOC and Jasmine Crockett and Robert Garcia and many others.

1:02:16So when people look at the House of Representatives, they see all of the talent, and that's a choice. I mean, you could be a leader who clamps down on that, and Hakeem's not like that. So I think that the people are unfairly tough on him. In my view, he's done a good job. He also hasn't been there for 50 years. Give the guy a chance. He's going to be speaker. Let's see what he can do. So would you ever run for House leadership? You know, I'm flattered that people say that, but I wouldn't be effective there. I'll tell you why. I'm too independent. I don't do things by committee. Like, you know, could Hakeem just come out and say, yeah, I think we did a well-text?

1:02:54No, he's got to think about 218 districts and poll people and see what the consensus is. I'm in this because I have ideas. I have a direction where I want to move the country. And so it would constrain me. I wouldn't be the – what people like about me wouldn't be the case if I was in that position. Let me give you a line. Say you're a bad employee. That's what I say. I say I'm a bad employee. That's why I don't work for people. I work for myself. Just say I'm a bad employee, bad listening. But what about the presidency? Obviously, people talk about you. Either they love it or they're like he's too thirsty for it or whatever.

1:03:30I don't think I think anyone running for president is thirsty. So I discount that if you don't. Yeah. Well, look, I don't know. I mean, obviously, I want to be part of the national conversation. I don't apologize for ambition. I think, frankly, we need more ambition like Lincoln's ambition. They said that an engine that knew no rest. It has to be ambition for the public good. What I do have is a belief that we need a much more ambitious Democratic Party, a party that believes in transformation for an agenda that has failed working in middle class folks. And I have a vision. It's called New Economic Patriotism, 21st Century Marshall Plan for America, how we're going to get the economy going in every part of this country, how we're going to make sure the economy isn't just working for a few tech billionaires for everyone.

1:04:09And I certainly want to be part of the national conversation. It takes a lot. That's a yes. Well, no, it takes a lot to run for one of those things. And you have to talk to family and others. I mean, I'm not – there are probably 20 names out there. My guess is half of them will end up doing it and half won't. And my guess is probably no one really deeply knows even until that moment. But do I want to be part of— Why do they take so long? Why shouldn't someone just announce—why wouldn't you announce right now and say, and by the way, I'm going to have a Nuremberg-like trial for the Trump officials when I get in or something.

1:04:40Very bold. Yeah. Well, I do believe we need a trial for the officials who committed war crimes. Right. One, because it would distract from the focus of the House. I genuinely think—it's like Tennessee. If you start worrying about winning the set, you'll lose the point. And we definitely need to be focused on winning the house. And secondly, like who knows what the moment is going to call for, right? I mean, if we have some incredible war off, awful war or something, you know, maybe my skill set isn't the right skill set. What the issue is is that we've got a digital AI revolution and a lot of people are being left out and we need to make sure that someone is going to stand up to billionaires to make sure everyone is participating.

1:05:22You're the guy. And I'm the guy. But how do we know that until the moment comes? Right now, Gavin Newsom is in the lead because of his sort of pannacious personality, which is – he's really vaunted himself to the front just recently, especially being anti-Trump. He's the California governor. Or if you didn't run, is that someone you'd support or are you just going to – you're still in a wake-to-see? I'd see someone – I'd support someone who's more progressive. I mean I know he's out there I think sort of in a Bill Clinton-like philosophy. I like Kevin. I endorsed him twice. But I just don't think that's the direction the party needs to go.

1:05:57I think the party needs to go in a more Bernie Sanders populist vision, FDR for the modern age. As the party looks towards 2028 and tries to win back some of the men and rural voters that have abandoned it, on what social and cultural issues should parties show flexibility? Abortion, trans women in sports, gun control, something else? Or is it better not to compromise? I did have a really interesting interview with Sarah McBride, who I think is a fascinating public figure. Oh, she's brilliant. She was talking about having uncomfortable allies, and that's okay. She's managed to de-center the issue of trans despite being a trans woman and doesn't think – what she thinks matters is affordability, right?

1:06:38Let's not double down on everything. I don't think it's not to make them mad. I think she thinks other things are also important. What is your take on it? Well, Sarah, I think, is a classical liberal. She believes that she doesn't have a monopoly on the truth, that you engage in persuasion and conversation and that people may have different priorities. My view is you don't compromise or abandon your values. So I don't think that you compromise on abortion rights or trans rights or LGBT rights. But I think we lead with issues about the economy, issues about the working class having a fair shot, the economic issues that can bring us together.

1:07:17And we make it clear those are the highest priorities while we're not going to abandon our values for the trans community or other communities. I also believe that you can have these conversations with respect and not just call someone a racist if they think that the H-1B visa program was abused, but to sit there and say, OK, what do you believe and why do you believe this and here's what I believe? And to have a patience of engaging in good faith. And to the extent that you were kind enough to call me friendly, I think it's my upbringing in the 99 % of White Bucks County watching Phillies games, Eagles games, where I grew up with folks.

1:07:59And people aren't perfect and I'm not perfect, but a friendliness, a sense of non-judgmental. I admire it. What I was telling you, these are bad people and then they were bad people. I was warning about bad people, not people that you should have discussions with. I agree with you on that one. And it's just some people, it's not going to work because they don't care about poor people. They don't care about anyone but themselves. That was my point. And they're heinous people. That was what I was trying to get through to you. But by all means, talk to people you have. You should, I feel you should have flexibility on divisive social issues.

1:08:33At the same time, there's a point where you're like, no, we're not going to do that. So last question, the running thread through this conversation has been the lack of accountability. If a Democratic wins presidency in 2028, what's the most important step that a person should take to change this culture of impunity, which Trump so absolutely represents and said from the beginning, I could shoot someone in Fifth Avenue and get away with it? He wasn't kidding. Start with a pledge for accountability. Day one, release all the Epstein files that Trump wouldn't have released and make sure that you're prosecuting anyone who was engaged in the cover up and you can.

1:09:13Prosecute people who were engaged in orders to shoot boats where there was not a consideration of civilians there or where you were being shooting even though people were helpless. Prosecute people who engaged in cutting U.S. aid, killing people in Africa, a violation of the Constitution. Prosecute people who may have stolen data at Doge or done things that were in violation of congressional law. Make sure you know that, yes, you want to reconcile and bring this country together, but it's not going to be kumbaya where if you got away with things, we're just going to turn away and say no big deal.

1:09:53That we are going to hold people accountable for the crimes they committed in our democracy and the crimes they committed to the American people because for too long people just say, OK, the rich and powerful, they just get to get away with everything. And so I think having an accountability culture and making that clear from day one that that's our intent. So very last question. Do you think Donald Trump will face justice? I mean, so far he's managed to escape and get in two terms and whatever billions of dollars his family is worth. That'll be the decision of a Justice Department. I have a lot of respect for Merrick Garland as a jurist.

1:10:30I don't think he was the right pick for that role at that time. I think we, in some sense, you know, Willie Brown was in San Francisco said, you know, they should have had Kamala Harris in that role at Attorney General. This is not to diminish the Vice President Harris. But in terms of that prosecutorial intensity with fairness, that's who we need in our Attorney General. And someone who's going to take that. She'd make a great Attorney General still. She still would. She would. We'll see if she'd do it. Yeah. I don't know. She may have other plans. She might. Anyway, I really appreciate it, Ro.

1:11:02I enjoy our relationship over the long term, and I really appreciate you taking time here. I appreciate you. All right. And you were more right about these guys than I was. I'll tell you what I think next. All right. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Cara.

1:11:21Today's show was produced by Christian Castro-Russell, Michelle Alloy, Megan Burney, and Kaylin Lynch. Nishat Kerwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Special thanks to Bradley Sylvester. Our engineers are Fernando Arruda and Rick Kwan, and our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following this show, you get a tax break. If not, that's a 50 % tax for you, but just the Google guys, because those strange twins owe everything to the state of California. Go where you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher, and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us.

1:11:59We'll be back on Monday with more. zu