AOC Takes A Shot At Biden

>>Freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
fired a shot at Joe Biden. This was when she was asked about a Biden
presidency to which she responded, God.>>In any other country, Joe Biden and I would
not be in the same party, but in America, we are. Now this was in an interview with New York
Magazine. I wanna give you some more context so first,
let’s take a quick look at the article itself. One Year in Washington, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
reshaped her party’s agenda, resuscitated Bernie Sanders’s campaign and hardly has a
friend in town. But let me just be clear about something. She might not have many friends in the Washington
establishment, but she has a lot of constituents and voters who are rooting for her and we’re
certainly among them. Now here’s how that line came up in the article. She said the Congressional Progressive Caucus
should start kicking people out if they stray too far from the party line. Other caucuses within the Democratic Party
in Congress require applications, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out. But they let anybody who the cat dragged in
call themselves a progressive. There’s no standard, she said. And I totally agree with her on that. I mean, we had Democratic presidential candidates
claiming that they were progressives while they were supporting fascist regimes in India. I mean, that’s not progressivism, like it’s
just->>Well, it’s easy to label yourself something,
yes.>>Yeah, exactly.>>And it’s easy to also imply that you support
the same, like if I were to ask you who among the Democratic primary contenders supports
the Green New Deal? Well, technically all of them, I guess, do
you think it means the same thing for all of them?>>Of course not.>>100% not, which is why we need to dig deeper.>>So she says the same goes for the party
as a whole. She was quoted as saying Democrats can be
too big of a tent. And we certainly know that. I know that this year in particular, when
I say this year I mean over the last six months, has been difficult in labeling myself a Democrat. Because there are members in Democratic leadership
who have enabled Donald Trump to an extent that I’m beyond uncomfortable with. And so identifying as part of the same party
has been incredibly difficult, but the way that the primaries are set up if you’re not
a registered Democrat in certain states, you cannot vote in the Democratic primary. And it’s gross that we have a system that
set up that way.>>Yeah, I hate that the party allows in people
who are so like at least ideologically violent to what it needs to accomplish for its constituents. But I feel like I identify with the Democratic
Party for the same reason AOC says that she has. We’re the actual Democrats, we embody the
spirit of the Democratic party going back way longer than the relatively recent neo-liberal
pro-corporatist thing that’s been, you know it’s been around for three or four decades,
but a big part of the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership. But farther back there, like, the part of
party that was able to get so many reforms for working Americans, that’s what the Democratic
Party needs to be. And just because some of these people are
running for office for the first time, and the party’s currently filled with these ghouls,
doesn’t mean that we don’t have the right to take it back.>>Yeah, you’re right. And we need to fight aggressively for that. Now people were not happy with what Representative
Ocasio-Cortez had to say about Joe Biden, and her views on the Democratic Party having
too much, casting a giant tent when it comes to ideology. And so since people gave her crap about it,
she defended her analysis. And she said, quote, yeah, I don’t know why
people are up in arms about this. Many other countries have multiparty democracies,
where several parties come together in a coalition to govern. In another country, I’d be in a Labor Party. Our primary field would cover two to three
parties and she’s absolutely right about that. Look, people have this visceral reaction to
Ocasio-Cortez because she has this incredible ability to call out the Democratic Party for
its devastating flaws and be effective in doing it. And so I think that that’s a great defense
of the point that she was trying to make. But she should also know that there are people
who are intentionally being obtuse. Like there are people who are intentionally
pretending like they’re dumb and they don’t understand what she’s saying, she didn’t say
anything controversial there.>>Yeah, it’s just true, learn about other
countries, I don’t know what to tell you. But that she has that ability to call out
the Democratic Party and specifically Democratic leadership, while also showing how it should
be done. She’s not just a critic. She is driving the conversation. She is organizing people and getting people
involved in this. That’s why you’re gonna see so many candidates
that were, some inspired by Bernie Sanders, others inspired by AOC. She’s in there as a critic, but she’s also
showing the way it should be.>>Absolutely.

Has the Left Reached a “Hard Fork?”

All right, let’s see what is on the minds
of folks in the audience. Don’t worry, I’m not taking phone calls right now. I know that
that would be the absolute worst nightmare for many in the audience. We’re not, it’s
Thursday. We’re not taking phone calls. Phone calls will be tomorrow. You don’t have to
turn off the show. I am talking about the David Pakman show [email protected]
slash R E. D. D. I. T. a few posts that came to my attention. A lot of people ask me about
this. Eric Weinstein recently tweeted about the left. I think the left has reached a hard
fork. Those that want to explore extreme wokeness,
open borders, anti whiteness, apologizing to homophobic, misogynist, theocracies worlds
without men, reparations for slavery, cancel culture, et cetera. Need to branch off and
good luck. You’ll need it. Listen, here’s my view about this is there I, I wouldn’t
call the left having, I don’t believe the left has reached a hard fork. I think that
on the highway of the left, it’s not even an off ramp. It’s like one of those driveways
that usually says for authorized vehicles only that aren’t really supposed to turn off
of. It’s not actually an exit. It’s not the highway splitting and there are some people
on the left who are going in that direction. I maintain that, um, that group is smaller
than many make it out to be and disproportionately loud, particularly on the internet. But again,
in the same way that those of us in internet culture don’t understand where are all these
Biden’s supporters. But then when you go into the real world,
you see there’s lots of people that you just don’t really hear from, uh, in the online
political mill. You who support Joe Biden, that’s a reality. It’s not an endorsement.
He’s not my guy. I’m just telling you, Joe Biden does have more support than you would
glean from being online. This wing of the left, this sliver of the left, as I call it,
has less support than you might believe if you spend a lot of time on Twitter and on
Reddit. So I, I don’t agree with Eric Weinstein that it’s a hard fork, but I’ve pointed out
that there are people on the left who, uh, who share the priorities that he’s listing
there another post, uh, about my hair. And we’re actually going to talk about this a
little bit later. I knew David’s hair was reminding me of someone, please reassess head
symmetry and hair goals in 2020. Uh, God bless. Sorry for the S post and there
is a picture of Gumby. Yeah, there, there have been some technical issues we’ve been
experiencing with my hair over the last few days and I’m actually going to talk about
it, uh, on tomorrow’s program, so I don’t want to short circuit that conversation now.
And lastly, there was a shirtless picture of me that went up on my Instagram a couple
of years ago. I think it was me jumping into a pool in Northwestern Spain, uh, or in, in
Spain, not in Northwestern Spain. And there are more and more calls for that opposed that
says it’s been almost two years since shirtless. Pacman pics have surfaced. David should post
more shirtless pics on Instagram for the people. Yeah, it’s a not happening anytime soon, but
sometimes, incidentally, there will be a picture very, very zoomed out where I am, uh, maybe,
maybe shirtless. Um, join the discussion. I suggest participating
in the one about the hard fork on the left rather than about my hair or shirtless [email protected]
slash R. E. D. D. I. T

Bernie IS Biden’s BIGGEST Threat

>>Bernie Sanders has not only been rising
in the polls, but if you look at some of the early states, like Iowa and New Hampshire,
he is performing incredibly well. In fact, he’s tied with Biden in some of these
polls. Now, the establishment-minded folks, first,
pretended like they were ignoring Bernie, didn’t take him seriously. But now considering the fact that he’s outraised
all of his opponents in the Democratic side, obviously, and he has the most small dollar
donors than anyone else on the Democratic side. Establishment Democrats are starting to panic
and that is noted in various pieces, but I’m gonna focus on the Associated Press and Politico. Now the Associated Press reported, establish
reminded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist
would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party’s chances in premier
house, Senate and governors’ races. Less than a month before Iowa’s kickoff caucuses,
the doubters are being forced to take Sanders seriously. So they obviously should have taken him seriously
from day one, they should have taken him seriously since the 2016 election when he was able to
close this massive gap between himself and Hillary Clinton. He was an unknown politician from Vermont. But it was his policies, it was his vision
that inspired voters to rethink what could be in this country, right? And so if they don’t want to take him seriously
that’s on them. But what I’m more concerned about is now that
they do take him seriously what kind of games are they gonna play to try to crush him? And he’s been incredibly resilient so far. I have a lot of faith in him. However, I also know that the corporate arm
of the Democratic Party is rather vicious and will stop at nothing to smear someone.>>The frustrating thing, we’ve seen over
the past couple weeks all these articles where they look at as polling, and they say, my
god, he’s actually, he’s performing pretty well. They look at the general election polling
showing him doing well, especially in some of the states that Hillary Clinton lost against
head to head against Donald Trump. You can’t look at his fundraising and not
be impressed by that. But they’ve only moved so far they’ve moved
far enough to, hey, Joe Biden or whoever’s that’s more, in their lane, you need to be
worried about this, but not to. And maybe that means something. Maybe the fact that Sanders is doing so well
actually represents something about the potential Democratic voters in a general election. Maybe it says something about, man, if we
really wanna beat Trump, maybe this is the guy to get behind.>>Yeah.>>They can acknowledge all these factors,
but they can’t acknowledge what it represents, all they can see is that it’s an obstacle
to Joe Biden.>>Absolutely, look, they recognize that there
is something that really resonates with Democratic voters and independent voters by the way. The only problem is what he represents conflicts
with what their donors want. And I think that’s the main reason why they
push back against him so aggressively. Every argument that you’ve heard from establishment
Democrats against Bernie Sanders is easily debunkable, right? And oftentimes doesn’t even make any sense. Their argument is, he’s so to the left that
he would have no chance in the general even though after the 2016 election, polling indicated
that he was the most popular politician in the country, okay? And there are Trump supporters who said they
would’ve voted for Bernie Sanders. So they ran Hillary Clinton. She lost to Donald Trump. What makes them think that this time around
someone who is arguably worse than Hillary Clinton, I mean, look at Joe Biden and hit
not only his record, but what he’s running on today. What he’s running on today is, I’m doing nothing
for you. I’m not gonna change anything. Right, anyone who dares to question him about
that, he responds in a combative angry way.>>Yeah, that you like your corn pop, won’t
come down, Joe.>>Right, exactly. And so what makes them think that he’s a more
viable candidate as opposed to Bernie Sanders. The truth is they don’t even believe that,
what they got they need to appease their donors. And that’s really at the heart of this. So let me give you more. And it goes beyond donors as well. I mean, they’re thinking about their own careers,
their own ambitions, and are they likely to get positions in Bernie Sanders administration?>>Change the tune fast, maybe.>>Let me just tell you, Neera Tanden is not
gonna be in Bernie Sanders administration. And she’s still real salty that Hillary Clinton
lost because she lost out on a cushy job in the White House, which is a great thing. So let’s move on to some of the specific statements,
okay. Phil Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel jumped in
on this and said, you need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters
and about battleground states. The degree of difficulty dramatically increases
under Bernie Sanders candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.>>No specifics, how? Why does it get harder? If he is able to outraise all of the other
Democrats, all the other Democrats with small dollar donations? He has more individual donors. He’s not funded by super PACs. He doesn’t average donation is $18. He’s outraise every single one of them. So what makes you think that he doesn’t have
a shot at beating Trump?>>They don’t have to say, unfortunately. I think it was the Washington Post. Everybody’s passing around that, I’m a Republican
and I think Democrats should give me someone I’m comfortable voting for, that op-ed that
just came out, and a lot of people read that headline. They’re like, who is that for? It’s around the manual. It’s for someone who actually still believes
that that strategy would work. Yes, to get swing voters you need a centrist,
like Hillary Clinton because it worked. It worked really well in 2016
>>Yeah, it’s ridiculous. No one believes this. No one believes the arguments that they’re
made>>By the way, and he worked for Obama. Obama was the guy who was trying to present
himself as far more left than he was. And Obama won in states that Hillary was incapable
of. So even on his face, even if he believes that
secretly you should campaign as a leftist, but then actually rule as a centrist. He can’t pretend that he doesn’t understand
the appeal of running a left campaign. Because he’s seen it work in practice.>>100%, exactly. I mean, Obama certainly presented himself
as a bold progressive. Now part of the problem was he didn’t have
much of a record as a Senator. The people could refer to see if he was telling
the truth. And look, 2008 was very different. People were desperate to get rid of Bush and
Bush era like policies. And so John McCain wasn’t a likable candidate
at that time and people took a chance and really believed Obama’s messaging. But now, I just think the electorate is different
and they’re looking for records, they’re looking for evidence, they’re looking for receipts,
and they want detailed policies.>>Yeah.>>So let me give you more. I’m gonna skip ahead and talk a little bit
about what these Sanders critics originally thought with Elizabeth Warren in the race. And I love this part of the story because
it was exactly what we predicted, right? Cenk and I talked about this a lot on the
show. Several Sander’s critics noted that he has
largely escaped intense scrutiny throughout the campaign. We all know that’s untrue. In part, because some assumed that Massachusetts
Senator Elizabeth Warren, another progressive Firebrand, was a stronger candidate who would
cannibalize his support. With Warren’s candidacy struggling to maintain
momentum, however, those assumptions are now being questioned. So they were really relying on Elizabeth Warren
to destroy any chance of Bernie Sanders becoming the nominee. But that didn’t work because unfortunately
Elizabeth Warren, kind of back pedaled on some of her progressive policy proposals,
specifically Medicare for all, I think that really tanked her campaign. So maybe don’t listen to the centrist advising
you and your campaign because I think the party, meaning the voters, have moved to the
left.>>Yeah, and I don’t think they predicted,
first of all, how many people would be in the primary. But of those people, how that would then shake
out in terms of who’s taking who’s support. It’s pretty easy to show that there’s at least
some overlap between Warren and Sanders. But there’s definitely overlap between Biden
and some of these other candidates, Buttigieg and things like that. And probably a little bit Warren, too. If she does back off some of the bigger, bolder,
progressive plans, then she’s not gonna lose the more centrist of her supporters, she’s
gonna drop some people that may go back to Bernie. But she’ll still hold on to the people who
are probably more likely to vote for Biden if she weren’t there.>>Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that. I think that’s what happened already.>>Yeah.>>To some extent.>>And really fast.>>Yeah.>>I will say, this sort of candidate arithmetic
is very difficult to do. If you actually look at who second choice
is. One of the most mind-blowing things that’s
been consistent throughout the last year is that generally, like Bernie Sanders and Joe
Biden, people generally think of the other candidate as their second choice. I know it doesn’t make any sense to people
who pay attention hardcore to the news, but a lot of people who like Joe Biden also kind
of like Bernie Sanders and vice versa.>>Yeah, it is kind of incredible.>>It’s weird. Just take it up with the polls.>>There was this conversation that I heard
on Michael Brooks’ show, this is months and months ago. But it was such a good point that I think
we often forget, especially as people who work in the news and we eat this stuff up
every day. Look, most Americans who aren’t like hyper
aware and paying like super close attention to politics and everything that’s happening. If you give them a survey on various political
issues, it’s really like a hodgepodge of all sorts of different things that are inconsistent,
right? And so you can’t think that all voters are
consistent on all issues. People have different life experiences, different
preferences, different worldviews. And so, I mean, look, it might not make a
lot of sense to us, but people have different opinions on various policies, so I could see
how someone might like Bernie Sanders and then also later support Biden, vice versa. I don’t get it, but-
>>Yeah.>>People are not necessarily super consistent
on the issues. And I wanted to read a quick comment from
our member’s section. Lib says, it’s class warfare, period. I think you’re commenting in regard to this
story and I think you’re right, right? This is about an economic message that resonates
across party lines. That’s the thing about Bernie Sanders that
I think is incredibly powerful. He talks about how this economy is rigged. He talks about the frustrations and the anxieties
of Americans. And we feel it. We feel it every day, even if you have a stable
job and you’re not too worried about where you’re gonna end up at the moment. We see it around us. We see people living on the streets and increase
number of homeless people. We see people who are dying. Hundreds of thousands of people have already
died as a result of the opioid epidemic. Even in my neighborhood, I see people shooting
up heroin. And the homelessness problem is series like
we see poverty all around us and those economic anxieties are real. And while the Robin manuals of the world are
not worried about those things because there are, sitting up on their ivory towers and
they’re not concerned about all this stuff. The vast majority of Americans are and when
they hear a politician in a very intelligent and digestible way explain what’s happening
economically to them and how we can fix it. It’s powerful. It’s much more powerful than Biden getting
angry because someone’s asking him a hard question that he doesn’t like.

Bernie Sanders calls out Trump on Trade

And Mr. Trump has been going all over Ohio, he’s
been going all over America saying I’m Mr. Trump, I’m really concerned about outsourcing. But what the people of Ohio and America should
know is that this great concern of his about outsourcing apparently does not apply to the
companies that he owns. Mr. Trump today is employing people in Bangladesh
at 33 cents an hour. (Boos from audience) Mr. Trump is manufacturing
his clothing lines in Mexico and in China and building his furniture line in Turkey. So I say to Mr. Trump: it’s easy to talk the
talk, start walking the walk. If you are concerned about outsourcing, bring
those jobs back to America. (Crowd cheers)

Bernie Sanders on Iran, health care and Democratic electability

JUDY WOODRUFF: Democratic presidential candidates
have been speaking about Iran as they seek to contrast their foreign policy visions against
that of the current commander in chief. In New York City, former Vice President Joe
Biden said President Trump’s decision to strike out at Qasem Soleimani was dangerously incompetent. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
So the question is, was the reward of removing a bad actor worth the risk of what comes next?
We don’t have evidence to suggest that Trump or anyone around him thought serious about
— seriously about that calculus. JUDY WOODRUFF: Meanwhile, in an interview
with ABC today, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren expressed again her own doubt that
the president made the right move. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), Presidential
Candidate: He is part of a group that our federal government has designated as a terrorist.
The question, though, is, what’s the right response? And the response that Donald Trump
has picked is the most incendiary and has moved us right to the edge of war. JUDY WOODRUFF: And joining us now from Burlington
to discuss the Soleimani attack and more, Democratic presidential candidate and independent
Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders, thank you very much for being
with us again. Let me ask you first about Iran. You have
criticized President Trump for targeting, the killing of General Soleimani. You called
it an assassination. But if the administration is able to produce
hard evidence that he was going to attack Americans, would you then say this was justified? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), Presidential Candidate:
Well, that’s a hypothesis. We haven’t seen that evidence. Frankly, I doubt that evidence
is there. Judy, I — what is going on right now feels
to me exactly what I saw in 2002 and 2003. And that was the lead-up and the justification
for the war in Iraq. I opposed that war vigorously, and it turned
out to be one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the history of the United States.
A war with Iran would likely be even worse. So, I will do all that I can to make sure
that, in this instance and in other instances, we solve international conflict diplomatically,
and that we try to put an end to endless wars. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, you have said that
this was in violation of international law. So, does that mean you believe President Trump
has violated — has committed a war crime? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Look, when you go around
assassinating leadership in governments, you are setting a precedent which says to any
country on Earth, hey, all we got to do is name these people terrorists, call them what
you want, and we can assassinate them. I think the world and this country is sick
and tired of endless wars that have cost us trillions of dollars, while our infrastructure
is collapsing, our health care system is dysfunctional. We have to deal with climate change and invest
heavily in transforming our energy system. Judy, in my view, we do not need to spend
trillions of dollars more in a war. JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quickly, on Iraq, you
have called previously for removing U.S. troops from Iraq. As you know, the Iraqi Parliament has said
U.S. troops should leave. Would you, as president, have U.S. troops pulled out? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Look, I want U.S. troops
out of Iraq. I have wanted that for a long time. But you bring them out in a measured,
intelligent way, working with the Iraqi government and with our international allies. What’s happened here, after the loss of 4,500
American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, trillions of dollars, essentially,
we are being booted out of Iraq. So, do I want to end the war there in Iraq
and bring American troops home? Absolutely. That is what I will do as president. But I don’t — it’s a sad state of affairs
to see, after all of this sacrifice, to see our troops booted out of the country. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator, a couple of questions
on domestic policy. There are polls now that show most voters
would prepare to build on Obamacare, rather than go to a single-payer system, which is
what you advocate. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, depending on the
poll that you look out. The vast majority of people in the Democratic
primaries absolutely support a Medicare for all, single-payer system, because they understand
that, when we are spending twice as much per capita as the people of any other country,
and yet 87 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured, 500,000 people go bankrupt
because of medically related bills, all at the same time as the health care industry
and the drug companies made $100 billion in profit last year, people understand this system
has got to change. And my own view is that, after 100 years of
talk in this country about the need to guarantee health care for all, now is the time to take
on the greed and corruption of the drug companies and the insurance companies, expand Medicare,
and provide a Medicare for all, single-payer system for all. It will cost the average American substantially
less than what he or she is paying today. That is the direction we have got to go in. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, in connection with that,
Senator, you recently acknowledged that a lot of people would lose jobs in a transition
to Medicare for all. You talked just recently about a program to
provide jobs, to provide job training to people who lose their jobs under the program. Are
you guaranteeing that people who lose their jobs under this new system would have a job? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: We have built in a very
generous transition period. One of the reasons we’re spending twice as
much per person as any other country on health care is, we have enormous administrative waste.
We have all kinds of people in the bureaucracy administering thousands of separate health
insurance plans. We need more doctors, nurses, psychologists,
psychiatrists, counselors. We need people to deal with the crisis of opioid addiction.
We don’t need more people just arguing for — representing the insurance companies, telling
us that we’re not covered, when we thought we were. So we have a very generous transition period.
But, at the end of the day, Medicare for all will create more jobs in health care than
we will lose, because, when you open the doors to health care for all Americans, we’re going
to need more practitioners, more people providing health care, not just filling out forms and
having a massive bureaucracy. JUDY WOODRUFF: Something else, Senator. In recent days, you have been saying you don’t
believe Joe Biden can win this election, because you said he would bring a lot of baggage.
You said you don’t think he would create the kind of excitement and energy that’s needed
to defeat President Trump. Are you saying absolutely he would lose to
President Trump? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No. No, no, no, no. I’m
not saying that at all. I think that any of — I happen to believe,
it will not shock you, I am sure, that I am the strongest candidate to beat Trump. But
I think other Democrats, including Joe Biden, can do it as well. But here’s my point. To beat Trump, you’re
going to need a massive voter turnout. And the only way you do that is through a campaign
of energy, of excitement. You have got to bring working people. You have got to bring
young people into the political process. The truth is, as I think most people know,
Joe Biden voted for the war in Iraq. Joe voted disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA and
PNTR, which cost us millions of jobs. Joe voted for a bankruptcy bill which really has
hurt working-class families. Joe was on the floor of the Senate talking
about, in his view, the need to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. I don’t think — I think Trump will have a
field day with that. And I just don’t think that the Biden campaign can create the energy
and the excitement we need to defeat the worst president in the modern history of this country. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, I know you believe you
would win the nomination, but, as you said, if you didn’t, are you prepared to support
Mr. Biden? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely. JUDY WOODRUFF: What about — I want to ask
you about one of the other candidates, though, because you have talked a lot about the billionaire
class. Would you be prepared to support Mike Bloomberg,
if he were the nominee? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I will support — look,
as I have said many time, I think that, in Trump, we have a pathological liar, the leader
of a corrupt administration, a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe. I am — I will support any Democrat who wins
the nomination. Hopefully, I will be supporting myself. JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator Bernie Sanders, joining
us from Burlington, Vermont, thank you very much. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Thank you.

What Is Democratic Socialist vs Social Democrat?

We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two David P here
is a voicemail that came in with a question that clearly is the source of much confusion
in general in the United States. Take a listen. Hey David, I’m Austin. Long time listener. First time calling her. I’m from Pensacola, Florida and I wanted to
get your take on the difference between a democratic socialist and an actual socialist. Uh, thanks for any explanation. Uh, love the show. Have a great day. Okay, good. I know that I’ve talked about this before,
but any opportunity to clear this up is a good one. This is not about my interpretation of democratic
socialist versus social Democrat. The difference is democratic. Socialists are socialists and social Democrats
are not social Democrats. I know that a lot of them don’t like to use
this term. Social Democrats are capitalists who wants
a very well-regulated version of capitalism that takes the wealth created by the capitalist
system, disproportionally for the rich and reallocates it to social programs and government
spending to ensure that no one has a standard of living that goes too low. There are lots of, of comments like, well,
hold on. A lot of democratic socialists aren’t really
advocating for socializing the means of production, but they’re still democratic socialists. Well, no, they’re really not. I mean, okay, we can redefine terms. We can just say the terms have no meaning
anymore. Social Democrats might be socialists and democratic. Socialists might not. Uh, but as defined, um, uh, in the last hundred
years, social Democrats are capitalists and democratic socialists are not. We can play with the definitions. We can change the definitions, but it’s really
important to understand that. Uh, we have a great bonus. Throw 40 you today, tons of stories from my
vacation and a bunch of other, uh, things to discuss with you. Um, become a member in and get instant access
to the bonus [email protected] only two bonus shows bluff in 2019 and then begins it properly. He gets, uh, an election year in just a couple
of days. The David Pakman [email protected] [inaudible].

PBS NewsHour full episode, Jan 6, 2020

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening. I’m Judy Woodruff. On the “NewsHour” tonight: the U.S. vs. Iran.
Mourners gather across Iran to pay respect to the elite general the U.S. killed in an
airstrike, a killing to which Iran’s ambassador to the U.N. tells the “NewsHour” there would
be a serious response. MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI, Iranian Ambassador to
the United Nations: We have to take revenge. When that would happen, how that would happen,
where that would happen, that remains to be seen in the future. JUDY WOODRUFF: Then: new year, same impeachment.
As Congress starts a new session, questions remain open for the president’s impending
Senate trial. And artists in exile: how the City of Light
helps brighten the path for refugees creating work far from home. AHLAM JARBAN, Artist: When we are together,
we speak. We share this story. Keep fighting. It is good to have this place. JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight’s
“PBS NewsHour.” (BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: In Iran today, an outpouring
of grief and cries for vengeance. The U.S. killing of Iran’s best-known military
commander brought out vast crowds in Tehran, as leaders on both sides fired off threats. Foreign affairs correspondent Nick Schifrin
begins our coverage. NICK SCHIFRIN: In a massive show of mourning
and unity, hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets today to grieve a man
they called a martyr. Crowds rallied around trucks carrying the
remains of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, killed in a U.S. airstrike last Friday. EHSAN SHARIF, Mourner: Soleimani wasn’t just
an Iranian champion or a hero. He was a hero of all humanity. NICK SCHIFRIN: Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei led funeral prayers weeping over Soleimani’s body. ZEINAB GHASEMI, University of Tehran: Soleimani’s
assassination has united the country very strongly, in a sense, because he was — he
didn’t belong to any specific political party. NICK SCHIFRIN: Zeinab Ghasemi is a professor
at the University of Tehran. She told us Soleimani’s death had created unity, even among the regime’s
critics. ZEINAB GHASEMI: He was a national hero who
fought ISIS so effectively. And even, like, among my students and colleagues,
those who might be very critical of Iran’s foreign policy, they are very much united
over the issue of Soleimani’s assassination. NICK SCHIFRIN: On Sunday, Iran announced it
would no longer abide by the 2015 nuclear deal’s limits, but it said it would continue
cooperating with international inspectors. Europe is still in the deal, and, today, European
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pushed for a return to diplomacy. URSULA VON DER LEYEN, President, European
Commission (through translator): We are extremely concerned that Iran has announced it no longer
feels bound by the deal. We see escalating violence, and that is why it is so important
to break this developing cycle of violence and find room for diplomacy. NICK SCHIFRIN: As that violence escalated,
U.S. officials tell “PBS NewsHour” that, last Monday, President Trump hosted a National
Security Council meeting in Florida, and his top military and diplomatic advisers cited
intelligence of what they called an imminent threat and pushed a more aggressive option. By Thursday, the Pentagon had a plan. On Friday,
a U.S. drone killed Soleimani outside the Baghdad Airport. Over the weekend, President Trump delivered
a specific threat, tweeting: “Let this serve as a warning that if Iran strikes any Americans
or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites, some at a very high level and important
to Iran and the Iranian culture, and those targets and Iran itself will be hit very fast
and very hard.” International lawyers say targeting cultural
sites would be illegal under international law, but President Trump repeated the threat
on Sunday — quote — “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture
and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And
we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.” The president also threatened Iraq — quote
— “If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge
them sanctions like they have never seen before. It’ll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat
tame.” The president was responding to a nonbinding
Iraqi Parliament resolution passed Sunday calling on the Iraqi government to evict U.S.
troops. MOHAMED AL-HALBOUSI, Iraqi Parliament Speaker
(through translator): The Iraqi government has an obligation to end the presence of all
foreign forces on Iraqi soil and prevent it from using Iraqi land, water, and airspace
for any other reason. NICK SCHIFRIN: The vote leaves the long-term
fate of 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq in limbo. Those troops have been fighting ISIS and training
Iraqi forces. Today, the military said the troops would
be repositioned, but their mission is on hold. In a statement on Sunday, the U.S.-led coalition
said it would pause the fight against ISIS to focus on protecting American troops. Defense officials tell “PBS NewsHour” that
military commands around the world are increasing U.S. forces’ protection as they brace for
a possible Iranian response. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Nick Schifrin. JUDY WOODRUFF: For the Iranian view of this
crisis, I’m joined now by Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations. He is Majid Takht-Ravanchi
from New York City. Mr. Ambassador, welcome back to the “NewsHour.” As you know, the Trump administration, the
United States government is saying it was justified in targeting General Soleimani because,
not only had he killed many Americans; he was responsible for the grievous wounding
of many more, the killing of many Syrians. They say that this was something the Americans
were completely justified in doing. MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI, Iranian Ambassador to
the United Nations: This is fake information that is being provided by the administration. In fact, there is no truth in it. If the administration
has any proof, they have to provide this information to the general public, to the American people. What I can tell you is that General Soleimani
was the champion of fighting ISIS and other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.
And, today, those same terrorists are very happy with what the Americans did to General
Soleimani. They are cheering. They are celebrating the
demise of martyr Soleimani. And all the things that are being said about General Soleimani
is false. JUDY WOODRUFF: The U.S. administration, Mr.
Ambassador, is also saying they have evidence that General Soleimani was planning more attacks
imminently that would have led to the deaths of more Americans. Do you have proof that he wasn’t doing that? MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI: I mean, it is the United
States who should provide the proof. If they have any proof that the threat was
imminent, they should provide this information to the American people. Even the members of
Congress are not satisfied that the — that this information is being relayed to them. And they are not satisfied with the very — that
this so-called imminent threat was being, you know, conveyed to the American people.
So there is no justification for the attack against General Soleimani. It was against
the international law. It was against the violation — it was the violation of sovereignty
and territorial integrity of a U.N. member, namely, Iraq. So there is no justification for that cowardly
attack against General Soleimani. JUDY WOODRUFF: What is your government prepared
to do now? MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI: We have said that we
have to take the necessary measures. We have to take revenge. When that would happen, how
that would happen, where that would happen, that remains to be seen in the future. But what — we have to emphasize the fact
that we are not interested in a war with the United States or with anybody else, that we
are a peaceful country. But, at the same time, we cannot just remain silent. We have to respond
to the general public’s demand in Iran. I’m sure you have seen the footages today,
the funeral, the ceremony in Tehran for General Soleimani. Millions of people were in the
streets in Tehran, and all of them are demanding revenge. We cannot just remain indifferent
to the calls by our public. JUDY WOODRUFF: And what does revenge mean?
What is the goal of that? Is that to go after the U.S. government, to go after the U.S.
military, to go after American citizens, or what? MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI: No, we are — we do
not have any — anything against the American citizens, the people. But that remains to be seen what would be
the reaction from Tehran. As I said, there is — nothing can be said about the timing,
about the place or how this is going to happen, but this is something that will be done. JUDY WOODRUFF: But could it mean the targeting
of an individual? MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI: I’m not in a position
to tell you what exactly Iran will do, but that is something that has to be taken. And this is the demand — as I said, demand
by the Iranian people, that they need something to be done by the government in order to retaliate
the unjust killing of our beloved general. JUDY WOODRUFF: But does your government consider
American officials, U.S. officials, now to be legitimate targets? MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI: As I said, I’m not going
to elaborate on the steps that Iran will take, but, in general terms, there will be revenge
against the killing of General Soleimani. JUDY WOODRUFF: Another question, Mr. Ambassador. Your government has now announced that it
is going to suspend any limits that it had placed on its nuclear weapons production program.
Why are you doing this? And does this literally mean now that your government feels you can
move ahead with producing a nuclear weapon? MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI: No, we are not — we
are not interested in having a nuclear weapon, because we have a very clear, clear-cut religious
edict by our supreme leader prohibiting nuclear weapons. At the same time, there is no place for nuclear
weapons in Iran’s defensive doctrine. Therefore, we do not want to have nuclear weapons. We
are a member of NPT. We have said, in the JCPOA, the nuclear deal, that Iran will not
have nuclear weapons. But, at the same time, JCPOA was a deal. It
was a give-and-take. We have been — we have been doing our part for some time, with almost
nothing in return. Unfortunately, the European partners which were supposed to give us the
benefit of the nuclear deal, they didn’t act in accordance with the deal. If Iran is given the benefits of the deal,
we will go back to the full implementation of it. JUDY WOODRUFF: Ambassador Majid Ravanchi,
the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, thank you very much. MAJID TAKHT-RAVANCHI: Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: And we will have more on Iran
right after the news summary. In the day’s other news: House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi says Democrats will introduce and vote on a war powers resolution on Iran this week.
It requires congressional approval for any further U.S. military action. The resolution is likely to pass the Democratic-controlled
House, but a similar resolution could stall in the Republican-run Senate. The battle over a Senate impeachment trial
of President Trump has taken a new turn. The president’s former National Security Adviser
John Bolton said today that he would testify if he is subpoenaed. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Bolton’s
statement bolsters Democrats’ demands for current and former White House officials to
testify. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Given that Mr.
Bolton’s lawyers have stated he has new and relevant information to share, if any Senate
Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we have requested,
they would make it absolutely clear they’re participating in a cover-up. JUDY WOODRUFF: House Speaker Pelosi has withheld
the articles of impeachment, in an effort to pressure the Senate to call witnesses. But Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
renewed his criticism of that tactic today. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Even with a process
this constitutionally serious, even with tensions rising in the Middle East, House Democrats
are treating impeachment like a political toy, like a political toy, treating their
own effort to remove our commander in chief like some frivolous game. JUDY WOODRUFF: We will return to the impeachment
fight a little later in the program. The U.S. has sent an unspecified number of
additional troops to Kenya after Al-Shabaab fighters killed a U.S. soldier and two American
civilians on Sunday. The group, linked to al Qaeda, stormed the Manda Bay Airfield near
the Kenya-Somalia border. Dark smoke rose during an hours-long siege.
The Pentagon said it doesn’t believe the attack was tied to tensions with Iran. In Afghanistan, U.S. Ambassador John Bass
stepped down today, after serving two years in Kabul. It came amid peace talks with the
Taliban and U.S. tensions with neighboring Iran. The State Department said the move was
part of a normal rotation, but there was no word of a permanent replacement. Wildfire conditions have eased a bit in Australia
after intense weekend heat, but scores of fires continue burning. All told, they have
killed 25 people and hundreds of millions of animals. Dan Rivers of Independent Television News
reports from New South Wales in Australia. DAN RIVERS: Not even a week into 2020, and,
already, this is a year no Australian will forget. This is what they’re dealing with all across
Southeastern Australia. They’re using every asset they have got, planes, helicopters,
fire engines. The fire has ripped through here. This property at the back is gone. We
have just talked to the owner. He’s distraught. He doesn’t know what’s saved and what hasn’t.
His entire life possessions are inside. The wind suddenly veers to the south. The
fire switches direction, and our only way out is now a treacherous gauntlet of fallen
trees and flames. They call Australia the lucky country. Right
now, it feels cursed. Rain has now brought some relief, but the fires might be whipped
up again on Thursday. Cathie Bleicher has come back for the first
time to what’s left of her house. CATHIE BLEICHER, Fire Victim: It’s — because
it’s hard, you know? I mean, it is just a house, at the end of the day, but, when you
see it like this, you know, it’s where you lived. DAN RIVERS: It’s your home. CATHIE BLEICHER: Yes. It’s a home. You make
it a home. DAN RIVERS: It’s not just the human toll which
is still being assessed here. There’s also been a catastrophic ecological price for these
fires, which have ravaged 60,000 kilometers. At the village vet in Milton, they’re trying
to cope with dozens of burnt animals, like this brushtail possum. DR. CARRIE HAWTHORN, Veterinarian: It’s got
significant burns on all its feet, its face. Its ears are crinkled. It’s probably got smoke
inhalation. It’s — it’s in a bad way. DAN RIVERS: Sadly, this young possum didn’t
make it, another victim that has succumbed to Australia’s bushfire crisis. JUDY WOODRUFF: That report from Dan Rivers
of Independent Television News. The Trump administration will now include
asylum seekers from Mexico among those being deported to Guatemala. Reports today say that
they will wait there for their claims to be processed. And the deportees will now include
families. It is part of an agreement signed last year with Guatemala and implemented in
late November. Former movie producer Harvey Weinstein made
ready today to face trial on charges of rape and sexual assault. He arrived at court in
New York using a walker after recent back surgery for a hearing on pretrial motions. Outside, some of Weinstein’s 75 accusers,
and later a defense lawyer, spoke on the eve of jury selection. ROSE MCGOWAN, Actress: The eyes of the world
are on this trial, you know, and women’s hopes and dreams of every time they have been assaulted
and hurt and never had their voices heard, or never had their day in court, because 98
percent of rape convictions do not — rape trials do not end with a conviction for the
predator. DONNA ROTUNNO, Attorney for Harvey Weinstein:
The government doesn’t want our side to have a voice. I think they believe that their side
of this story is the only one that matters and the only one that counts. And that’s what this trial’s for. This trial
is to show the jury, the state of New York and the world that there’s more to this than
they would like everyone to believe. JUDY WOODRUFF: Separately, meanwhile, Weinstein
was indicted in Los Angeles today also on charges of rape and sexual assault. Borden Dairy Company filed for federal bankruptcy
protection today. It is the second major U.S. dairy to take that step in the last two months.
Borden cited rising costs and changing consumption habits. The company was founded in 1857 and
employs 3,300 people nationwide. And on Wall Street, stocks shook off jitters
over Iran to make a modest comeback. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 68 points
to close at 28703. The Nasdaq rose 50 points, and the S&P 500 added 11. Still to come on the “NewsHour”: Senate Leader
McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and the battle over the impeachment trial of President Trump;
our Politics Monday team breaks down the primary race with less than one month before voting
begins; and much more. Now we return to our top story in the ongoing
tensions with Iran. Nick Schifrin is back with a look at where
this stands three days after the killing of General Soleimani. NICK SCHIFRIN: Judy, we look at how the killing
has impacted the region, and specifically Iran, Iraq and the U.S. And we get two views. Ryan Crocker had an almost-40-year career
as an American diplomat. He served as an ambassador to Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, and Lebanon. He’s
now a diplomat in residence at Princeton University. He was unable to make it to a studio tonight
and joins us on the phone. And Narges Bajoghli is a professor of Middle East studies at the
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. She’s the author of “Iran Reframed:
Anxieties of Power in the Islamic Republic.” Welcome to you both. Thanks very much. Welcome
to the “NewsHour.” Narges Bajoghli, let me start with you. We heard from the Iranian ambassador to the
U.N. earlier, Judy’s interview, talking about how he’s blaming European partners for not
delivering enough for them to stay in the nuclear deal. Remind us, is this Iran closing the door on
the nuclear deal? NARGES BAJOGHLI, Johns Hopkins University:
Well, I think it’s important. I actually thought that, after the assassination
of Soleimani, that they would potentially completely pull out of the deal. What they
announced on Sunday was interesting, because they haven’t pulled out of the deal. And what they have decided to do is stay within
the framework of the deal and make it so that as, actually, the ambassador said, if other
parties to the deal come back to the table — he means mostly the United States — and
lift sanctions against Iran, that they would be willing to go back to the full framework
of the JCPOA. The reason that he’s blaming the Europeans,
though, in this is that, once the Trump administration began to impose maximum pressure, and especially
the maximum sanctions against Iran, they were hoping that the Europeans would come to their
aid and relieve some of those sanctions. And even though Europe has done the INSTEX
and tried to create a special-purpose vehicle to get around it, it still has not really
taken off. And so I think that that’s part of the reason that they have been blaming
the Europeans for this. NICK SCHIFRIN: Ambassador Crocker, so, a little
bit of ambiguity in how Iran is approaching this moment when it comes to the nuclear deal.
But what are the implications of their further eroding the commitments that they once agreed
to? RYAN CROCKER, Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq:
I think that if Iran were to pursue its stated desire to pull out of the deal completely
or to start violating all of its terms, they would be making a major strategic mistake. That will alienate the Europeans and many
other countries around the world and serve to isolate Iran, at a time when they have
said they are seeking international support against the United States for the killing
of General Soleimani. So, from an American perspective, if they
want to draw negative attention to them on this important nuclear matter, they’re doing
just the right thing. NICK SCHIFRIN: Narges Bajoghli, in terms of
drawing attention or negative attention, as the ambassador just said, Iran has clearly
been trying to have some positive attention on it accusing the U.S. of an unlawful assassination. And they have been trying to rally their supporters
across the region. What’s the impact of Soleimani’s death on Iran across the region and on Iranian
allies across the region? NARGES BAJOGHLI: Yes, I think the United States
could not have made a bigger mistake as far of the person. The symbol of Soleimani is — what he represented
inside Iran and what he represented to Shia communities across the Middle East, I think,
is something that is extremely important. And that’s one of the reasons, I think, that
other American administrations, when they had the chance, didn’t assassinate Soleimani. But especially since 2013 in the fight against
ISIS, it’s important to remember there was a very large media campaign created in Iran
sort of lionizing Soleimani and his fight against ISIS, because, again, it must be reiterated
that ISIS’ main goal during its fight was to — and one of its main enemies — its main
enemies was the Shia. So Soleimani was seen as this national figure
who stayed above the politics of the country. So, even when Iranians were very much against
the Islamic Republic and against a lot of the policies that the Islamic Republic has
done, he was sort of seen as being above that and protecting the homeland from ISIS coming
in. NICK SCHIFRIN: Ambassador Crocker, Soleimani
did take on ISIS and was seen, of course, as a national figure inside Iran. But the Americans had a very different view
of him, and certainly those American troops. But, also, diplomats who served in Iraq, like
you, had a different view of him, I take it. RYAN CROCKER: The war between Iran and Iraq,
if that’s how we’re styling it, didn’t start with the killing of Qasem Soleimani. It started
ages ago in the early ’80s with his predecessors and their proxies. I was in Lebanon at the time and got to see
up close and personal the bombing of the embassy. I was in it in 1983, again, brought to us
by the — a predecessor of Soleimani and the militia that became Hezbollah. So, General Soleimani, for two decades, has
been heading one of the most lethal operating arms of the state we have ever seen. He has
the blood of hundreds of American troopers in Iraq on his hands. Again, I had to stand at those ramp ceremonies
as we said a final goodbye to dead soldiers. So there’s no question that he was a blood
enemy, if you will. That — all of that said, we have to have
a strategy here. This is a long war. It’s gone on for years. It will go on for years
more at an increased level, I think, after the Soleimani assassination. So the administration has to have a game plan.
And that game plan will need to involve allies, a great deal of strategic patience, the utilization
of some very smart people in the U.S. that know Iran and know how to work with others. None of these are hallmarks of this administration.
So, I worry very much that, while taking a very bad actor off the field is not, in my
view at least, inherently a bad thing, now what? And I’m not seeing any clear answers. NICK SCHIFRIN: Narges Bajoghli, what about
for Iran? Now what? Where do they see this going? And how might they respond? NARGES BAJOGHLI: Yes. Look, a week ago, crowds like we saw the past
two days in Iran were unthinkable, because people were so angry at the state for the
way it had cracked down against protesters in November. What the killing of Soleimani has done is,
it has brought together the population, in addition to not just his assassination, but
also Trump’s tweets about targeting Iranian cultural sites. So, what we do see in this, I think, in the
future? This has been a gift to the survival of the Islamic Republic. I think what we will
see in the future is that the Revolutionary Guard will focus its mission on trying to
get the U.S. forces out of the Middle East. And it now has — and it has rallied forces,
both within Iran and outside of the borders, to do so. NICK SCHIFRIN: And, Ambassador, to you, quickly,
in the time we have left. There have been some fears within administration
officials even that I have talked to, not only fear of unity within Iran, as Narges
Bajoghli just said, but also fear of U.S. troops getting evicted from Iraq because of
this strike. How concerned are you about that? RYAN CROCKER: I think the question of the
U.S. presence in Iraq has a ways to play. The parliamentary resolution was not binding.
And the session was boycotted by most Sunni and Kurdish deputies. There is no unanimity
on the issue of U.S. presence in Iraq, partly because they know how crucial we were to the
eviction of the Islamic State. So, I think it’s time for a pause. Everybody,
take a deep breath and see where we can go with this diplomatically. And I also think
it’s very important for the administration to do what it can to take Iraq out of the
middle. Their president has — the Iraqi president
has… (CROSSTALK) NICK SCHIFRIN: Ambassador, I’m told that — I’m
sorry, Ambassador. I’m sorry to cut you off there, but I’m told we’re out of time. So,
I will just have to thank you there. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Narges Bajoghli,
thank you very much. JUDY WOODRUFF: For two-and-a-half weeks, the
impeachment process against President Trump has remained, for the most part, frozen in
place. Among the open questions, whether the Senate
will hear witness testimony, despite John Bolton’s statement today signaling his willingness
to testify under subpoena, all of this even as Washington grapples with other serious
foreign policy matters, as we have been hearing. Our own Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor
are here to break down where we are right now on so much of this. Hello to both of you. As always, it’s a jam-packed
time for news. Yamiche, I want to start with you. We did learn today that the president’s former
National Security Adviser John Bolton — he put out the statement himself. He said: I’m
willing to testify under subpoena. So, the question is, how much does that matter,
and how much does it affect the call by many Democrats for there to be more witnesses testifying? YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Well, former National Security
Adviser John Bolton saying he’s willing to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate is potentially
a huge development. But it’s potentially, because we’re not sure
if we’re actually going to see John Bolton subpoenaed by the Senate. Of course, this
is a Senate that is controlled by the Republicans. I talked to some Democratic aides today, who
said this puts more pressure on Mitch McConnell to come forward because John Bolton had a
front seat to many of the actions and meetings that led up to the impeachment of President
Trump. But there are Republicans also who say they
would be interested in seeing John Bolton testify, Senator Mitt Romney being one of
them. But he stopped short, as many senators have, of saying that he would vote to subpoena
John Bolton. That said, I want to remind people what John
Bolton might be able to say if he was subpoenaed and testified before the Senate. So here’s
some of the things. First, he objected very strongly to Ukraine
being pushed to investigate Democrats. And he actually told an aide to alert White House
lawyers to say, hey, Gordon Sondland, the European ambassador, and Mick Mulvaney, the
acting chief of staff, they’re trying to get this done. And he said, no, that we shouldn’t
be doing that. He also called to push Ukraine to do these
investigations a — quote — “drug deal” and called Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal
attorney, a hand grenade that would get everyone blown up. The other thing, he met personally with President
Trump sometime in August to try to urge the president personally to withhold — to let
go of this aid and give it to Ukraine. So far — at that moment, he was unsuccessful
in convincing President Trump to do that. But that’s just three things that John Bolton
can be talking about, including much, much more. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Lisa, you have obviously
been talking to people on the Hill. What do we know about when the Senate trial
could start, assuming there’s going to be one, and whether there will be any witnesses? LISA DESJARDINS: Right. Everyone, family members, crew members here
at “NewsHour,” is asking, when will this trial start? And the truth is, we only know one thing.
It will start exactly one day after Speaker Pelosi transmits the articles of impeachment
and the list of House managers. That could happen as soon as this week, if she chooses
to do that. However, Pelosi’s office, talking to them
today — and Yamiche is talking to Democratic aides as well — they do not seem — feeling
like they want to do that this week. They think that this John Bolton news adds to the
pressure to try and push witnesses or an agreement for witnesses before the trial starts. And it’s interesting, Judy. We talk sometimes
about an audience of one, the president. Pelosi has an audience of four, four U.S. senators
who will determine really whether witnesses are testifying or not. There you go, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Maine’s
Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, who Yamiche mentioned, and Cory Gardner. They are all senators who
some have said they’re interested in hearing from John Bolton. They are swing senators.
They say they want more information. But, notably, Judy, they have all said they’re
OK with starting the trial without an agreement on witnesses. That’s what Mitch McConnell
wants. So, it looks like Mitch McConnell has the
cards to start. It’s just a matter of when Nancy Pelosi wants to make her move. JUDY WOODRUFF: OK. We have only got about
45 seconds. LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Big question here, war powers,
conversation about Congress wanting to limit the president’s ability to take military action,
where does that stand? LISA DESJARDINS: There will be a vote in the
House this week that we have to watch closely. It’s not expected to go through the Senate,
but that conversation will be important, a briefing on Wednesday for the Senate. JUDY WOODRUFF: And where does that stand,
from talking to the White House? LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Talking to the White House,
this is really about the president not wanting to be hamstrung by Congress. But there are, of course, some cynical Democrats
that say the president wants people to continue to talk about Iran, because he doesn’t want
people to be talking about the impeachment trial and all the things that have been going
on. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it’s certainly taking
the attention away. LISA DESJARDINS: Forty-five seconds. We did
it. Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: You did it in less than 45. (LAUGHTER) LISA DESJARDINS: Yes. (LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: But you’re right, Yamiche,
in that we’re not talking about impeachment as much as we were. It’s certainly not the
lead tonight. But it’s important. We’re following it. Yamiche Alcindor, Lisa Desjardins, thank you
both. LISA DESJARDINS: You’re welcome. JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us. Coming up on the “NewsHour”: crisis in Caracas
— Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro’s attempt to capture control of the legislature;
plus, Paris’ storied past and present as a haven for immigrant artists. They are some of the gravest questions candidates
have to confront, questions about the use of military force and how and when they would
deploy if they become president. This weekend, the Democrats hoping to unseat
the current commander in chief have been weighing in on his pivotal decision to strike out at
a top Iranian commander. Amna Nawaz begins there. AMNA NAWAZ: In a Democratic primary race dominated
by domestic issues, it was issues of war and peace overseas this weekend that deepened
fault lines in the field. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), Presidential Candidate:
War is the last response to international conflict, not the first. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) AMNA NAWAZ: Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
has been the sharpest critic so far of the Trump-directed airstrike that killed top Iranian
military leader Qasem Soleimani. An Iraq War veteran in Dubuque, Iowa, asked
Sanders how he’d prevent another war in the region as president. Sanders, in warning against future U.S. involvement
in the Middle East, highlighted his own record on these issues. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I not only voted against
the war in Iraq. I helped lead the opposition to the war in Iraq. AMNA NAWAZ: In particular, a difference with
former Vice President Joe Biden. Candidate Biden has been stressing his foreign
policy experience on the campaign trail. In Des Moines this weekend, he claimed that he
opposed the Iraq War — quote — “from the very moment” the Bush administration started
that military campaign. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate:
I opposed what he was doing, and spoke to it. AMNA NAWAZ: But as senator in 2002, Biden
voted for the war in Iraq, voicing his opposition in the years that followed. Biden agreed that Soleimani’s alleged crimes
warranted the U.S. targeting him. Still, Biden questioned the Trump administration’s long-term
Middle East strategy. JOSEPH BIDEN: This is a crisis totally of
Donald Trump’s making. AMNA NAWAZ: Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a
former Naval intelligence officer who served in Afghanistan, took a similar approach. PETE BUTTIGIEG (D), Presidential Candidate:
Now, let’s be clear, Qasem Soleimani was a bad figure. He has American blood on his hands.
None of us should shed a tear for his death. But just because he deserved it doesn’t mean
it was the right strategic move. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA), Presidential
Candidate: We don’t need more war in the Middle East. AMNA NAWAZ: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth
Warren, who walked back her initial strong support for the airstrike, this weekend questioned
its timing. In an NBC interview, she suggested the president
was trying to distract from other issues. SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: We are not safer because
Donald Trump had Soleimani killed. We are much closer to the edge of war. I think the
question people reasonably ask is, next week, Donald Trump faces the start potentially of
an impeachment trial. And why now? I think people are starting to ask, why now did he
do this? AMNA NAWAZ: The new questions about force
and foreign affairs come less than one month before the Iowa caucuses. A new CBS News poll shows a three-way tie
in Iowa among Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg, with Warren lagging in fourth. But she also
got a boost today from a former primary rival: JULIAN CASTRO (D), Former Presidential Candidate:
There’s one candidate I see who’s unafraid to fight like hell. AMNA NAWAZ: An endorsement from former Housing
Secretary Julian Castro, who was the primary field’s only Latino candidate before leaving
the race last week. He is scheduled to join Warren on the trail tomorrow in New York City. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Amna Nawaz. JUDY WOODRUFF: And that brings us to Politics
Monday. Here to analyze all this is Tamara Keith of
NPR and co-host of “The NPR Politics Podcast,” and Lisa Lerer, a politics reporter for The
New York Times. Hello to both of you. It is Politics Monday. But let’s start with the story that, of course,
is headlines everywhere still. It’s still very much our lead, Tam, and that is the president’s
move to strike and kill a leading figure in Iran. From a political standpoint, what does this
tell the American people about the president’s foreign policy, his strategy? Because he’s
someone who was saying, we need to get out of endless wars, even get out of the Middle
East, and yet this move to escalate. How is it being seen? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Well,
and his position on Iran even has been to have every position on Iran. He’s gone from saber-rattling language to
saying that he wants a deal, Iran wants a deal, maybe we can talk. And then this happened. He has truly been
all over the place about foreign entanglements, though one thing is consistent. I went back
over years of his statements. And his general view is that, if America is going to be involved
in foreign wars or other entanglements, that they should get paid for it, essentially,
that America should get the oil, America should get the money. It’s a view that he has toward Iraq policy
and toward Syria and other countries. And that colors — it’s a very transactional view
of foreign policy, and it covers — it colors this as well, these decisions. JUDY WOODRUFF: Does it have an effect on his
standing politically, among voters, do you think? LISA LERER, The New York Times: I think voters
know where he is. They know that he’s run both as someone who
doesn’t — wants to end foreign wars, but also wants to bomb the expletive of ISIS. In fact, I think that ability to move between
those two messages is really a core part of his appeal. He can appeal to two very different
elements of the Republican Party base. So I don’t think this necessarily damages his
standing. But, look, we don’t know how this is all going
to play out. There are a lot of uncertainties here. And what happens next and how the Iranians
respond, how the Middle East is — if that gets — if that conflict gets reshaped, will
matter immensely to his reelection chances. JUDY WOODRUFF: And interesting. At this point, Tam, Republicans seem to be
backing the president. TAMARA KEITH: Right. They split with him on his move to let Turkey
go into Syria and to have an initiative against the Kurds, who are longtime U.S. allies. But,
when it comes to this, having a hard line against Iran is very much in line with Republican
orthodoxy. A lot of President Trump’s foreign policy
is outside of Republican orthodoxy. And that’s why he’s gotten so much pushback on things
like Russia and Syria. But, here, he’s very much in line with the way Republicans have
viewed Iran. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Lisa, let’s talk about
the 2020 Democrats. And we just heard some of that in Amna’s report, where they’re coming
down on this. Is this likely to, in any way, shape — we
are less than a month from the Iowa caucus, first votes — to have an effect on the race,
to reshape this race somehow? LISA LERER: Well, it’s really hard to say,
right, because there is just so much going on. Remember, before we were talking about Iran,
we were talking about impeachment, and we are likely to come back to that this week.
So, these things are moving so quickly. And it — you don’t hear a ton of questions when
you’re out with these candidates about impeachment, about Iran. The questions remain largely what they have
been for the past year or so, which is health care, college — cost of college, climate
change, and electability, which is the main thing for a lot of Democratic voters. But I do think this could strengthen the hand
of two men that have been leading the polls for a while, that have been rising in the
limited data we have since the holidays, which is Joe Biden, who can run very strongly on
his experience in foreign policy, and Senator Bernie Sanders, who’s really staked out ground
as the liberal messenger, sort of the anti-interventionist face of the party. So this could give a boost to either one of
their campaigns. JUDY WOODRUFF: And with distinct, distinct
views on this. LISA LERER: Right. TAMARA KEITH: Right. And one other person who in that recent poll
was up there at the top all sort of tied with the 23 percent, 25 percent, is Pete Buttigieg,
who is an Afghanistan war veteran and has been trying to use this moment to boost himself
and to argue for his electability. JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you make of this Iowa
poll that we were just reporting, that you now have three individuals — no longer Elizabeth
Warren, interestingly. LISA LERER: Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: She’s lost a little bit of
ground there, Tam and Lisa. I mean, what do we make of this? LISA LERER: I think the race remains unbelievably
fluid. You have these three guys at the top. Elizabeth
Warren, while she’s fallen, is still in the mix. Amy Klobuchar, by some accounts, may
be in the mix in Iowa. This is a race that, from that poll — and
a lot can change in a month, of course — could go on for quite awhile. You could have different
winners of that first four early voting states. We’re a month out from Iowa. And, to me, it
remains very unsettled. TAMARA KEITH: Right. And then you have Michael Bloomberg, who’s
invested… LISA LERER: Right. TAMARA KEITH: … just massive amounts of
money, looking past those early states. So if it’s like a — if it isn’t a clear decision
coming out of those early states, then you head into Super Tuesday, when there’s a huge
number of people voting. And you have Michael Bloomberg, who’s invested a lot of money. Now, whether you can actually skip those early
states and not be overtaken by momentum is a very open question. But Republicans, the
Trump campaign is looking at this and just sort of, like, hoping that it turns into this
extended fight. JUDY WOODRUFF: But the Bloomberg ads that
he’s running, which we’re seeing everywhere, because he’s spending millions of dollars,
they’re going after Donald Trump, many of them. LISA LERER: Right. It’s — in some ways, that’s been helpful
for the party, because it allows them get out there and really target Donald Trump at
a time when they have a very sort of messy primary going on. What’s unbelievable about what — Michael
Bloomberg is that we have just never seen anyone spend this much money. If he continues
on this pace, he will have spent, by Super Tuesday, the same amount that Barack Obama
spent in his entire general election on ads. So we don’t know. Traditionally, yes, entering
the race late is a bad idea. But we just don’t know how this is going to play out, because
we haven’t seen it before. And that’s a lot of what we’re seeing in this
race. It’s very unpredictable. JUDY WOODRUFF: Unprecedented. And we should say, Super Tuesday, we all know
when it is. LISA LERER: Right. Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: But it is early March. It’s
just two months from now. And what your point is, he’s spending more
than President Obama spent in the entire campaign year. LISA LERER: Yes. JUDY WOODRUFF: Just a quick note to make here
that I want to point out for our viewers at the end. We did learn today that Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo, in a meeting today with the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, announced
that he is not going to run for Senate in the state of Kansas, something that many Republicans
had been urging him to do, Pat Roberts stepping back from the Senate. So, so much to watch. Thank you both, Lisa
Lerer, Tamara Keith, Politics Monday. Thank you. TAMARA KEITH: You’re welcome. LISA LERER: Thanks. JUDY WOODRUFF: As Venezuela’s steep slide
into economic disaster accelerates, major political upheaval continues to roil the nation. The opposition to President Nicolas Maduro
took another hit in the National Assembly yesterday, and the leading opposition figure
found himself literally on the outside looking in. With support from the Pulitzer Center, special
correspondent Marcia Biggs reports from Caracas. MARCIA BIGGS: Chaos in Venezuela’s National
Assembly for a vote that was supposed to be a foregone conclusion. Lawmakers had gathered for the annual election
of new leadership in Parliament. And the projected favorite? Incumbent Speaker Juan Guaido, who
last year declared the presidency of Nicolas Maduro illegitimate. Invoking the constitution, he claimed his
role as de facto president and won the support of 58 countries around the world, including
the U.S.. But he’s failed to take control of the country.
The vote stalled for hours yesterday, and tempers flared as members of Parliament waited
for Guaido’s arrival as National Guards troops blocked his entrance. Then, without him, a
faction of supporters loyal to Maduro seized the floor. And by a quick show of hands and no formal
vote, they declared a winner. And that’s when the chaos erupted both inside and out. It’s been an incredible scene here. We’re
standing out in front of the National Assembly Palace, where Guaido was just voted out, but
only because he was stuck outside the gate with his supporters, unable to get in to vote,
the National Guard holding him back. Supporters of Guaido rushed the gate, screaming
that the country had become a dictatorship. Guaido himself even tried to jump the fence,
with troops beating him back. Meanwhile, the National Assembly dispersed,
with their newly elected leader, this man, Luis Parra, an opposition member willing to
negotiate with Maduro. The U.S. was quick to condemn the election, but President Maduro
seized on the results. NICOLAS MADURO, Venezuelan President (through
translator): The National Assembly has made a decision, and there is a new leadership
group from the opposition headed by Congressman Luis Parra from the First Justice Party. MARCIA BIGGS: Outside the palace, Maduro’
supporters rallied. But that wasn’t the end. Across town later that evening, Guaido held
his own vote, bringing together enough members of Parliament to garner the 84 votes required
to win reelection. JUAN GUAIDO, Venezuelan Opposition Leader
(through translator): I swear before God, before the Venezuelan people to fulfill this
constitution, the inherent duties of the position of president of the Parliament and interim
president of Venezuela, to enforce the rights of our Venezuelan brothers and sisters. MARCIA BIGGS: Big promises for a country which
yesterday had two competing presidents, now today dueling parliaments as well, and all
this as the country spirals further into a failed state. For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Marcia Biggs in
Caracas. JUDY WOODRUFF: Refugees from the Middle East
and from Africa have been settling in Europe in recent years, igniting anti-immigrant tensions. But one program in Paris is helping some refugees
find a new community in France through art. Jeffrey Brown reports from Paris. It’s part of Canvas, our ongoing arts and
culture coverage. JEFFREY BROWN: Portraits of migration, the
troubles faced along the way, the trauma of making a new home. ABDUL SABOOR, Photographer: I’m from Afghanistan,
but, sometimes, I say from nowhere. (LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: Photographer Abdul Saboor experienced
it himself. In Afghanistan, he says, he worked in transportation for the U.S. Army, but fled
when the Taliban began threatening him and his family. During a harrowing two-year journey, part
of it spent in an abandoned train station in Serbia, he began taking pictures with a
donated camera. ABDUL SABOOR: When I show to the people, I
say, that’s not normal, how we lived there. JEFFREY BROWN: His photographs became a bridge
to overcome language and other barriers and raise awareness about the plight of refugees,
which he continues to do in Paris. ABDUL SABOOR: After the people published the
pictures, and they did some exhibitions, people was asking, what you guys need? And they were
sending some support. And then I say, it’s really important. JEFFREY BROWN: Saboor is one of some 200 refugee
artists from more than 40 countries now getting support from the Agency of Artists in Exile. On our visit to its makeshift building off
the Seine River, an Ethiopian man belted out a traditional song with accompaniment from
this phone. Across the hall, a Yemeni woman used her vast trail of official asylum-seeking
papers, accumulated over two years of navigating France’s legal process, to create an art installation. ARAM TASTEKIN, Actor (through translator):
It was my first week in France and the first day without documents. JEFFREY BROWN: And a Kurdish actor who fled
Turkey practiced a monologue about his first days in Paris. JUDITH DEPAULE, Director, Agency of Artists
in Exile: Can you imagine to leave your country tomorrow and to leave everything? JEFFREY BROWN: Judith Depaule is director
of the studio, which opened in 2017 with funding from the French Ministry of Culture. JUDITH DEPAULE: In the beginning, you are,
like, in the state of shock. JEFFREY BROWN: When you arrive here, you’re
in shock. JUDITH DEPAULE: Right, yes, because nobody
wants you there. It’s difficult. You have to do a lot of papers.
You don’t understand nothing. And it’s like — I don’t know. It’s like a panic. JEFFREY BROWN: Like many countries in the
West in recent years, France has struggled with rising tensions over an influx of refugees. President Emmanuel Macron has sought to criminalize
illegal border crossings, while tightening restrictions on asylum, even as far-right
parties in the country call for more. But France also has a long tradition of being
a sanctuary for artists, including Pablo Picasso and James Baldwin. The idea here was to give
artists a place to connect with one another, to work on and exhibit their crafts, and to
help with all the practical challenges of living as a refugee. ARAM TASTEKIN (through translator): First
of all, they helped us find a place to live. Secondly, they helped us get a work visa,
find a lawyer. Some people needed psychologists, things like that. JEFFREY BROWN: Kurdish actor and drama teacher
Aram Tastekin fled Turkey in late 2017. So, why did you leave Turkey? ARAM TASTEKIN (through translator): Because
it’s complicated living there. I’m a conscientious objector. I am anti-military. I’m an artist
who tries to make art and theater in the Kurdish language, to protect the Kurdish language. But when we make Kurdish art or theater, they
always say it is terrorist propaganda. And that really hurts. How can a language be terrorist
propaganda? JEFFREY BROWN: In 2018, graffiti artist and
painter Ahlam Jarban fled her native Yemen amid its years-long civil war. She says she
faced added persecution for her family’s Somali and Ethiopian roots and for her wanting to
be an artist as a woman. She left everyone and everything behind, and
says she still doesn’t know if it was the right decision. AHLAM JARBAN, Artist: Because, all of us,
we are we are without our families. So we feel lonely. We feel — there is a lot of
problem. But when we are together, when we speak, when
we share this story, it makes us a little less stressed, make us little — keep fighting.
So it is good to have this place. JEFFREY BROWN: This place, though, the Agency
of Artists in Exile, is experiencing its own problems. It depends on Paris’ city government
for free work space, and has already had to move twice. The building we visited is small
and temporary, and the future is uncertain. Director Judith Depaule: JUDITH DEPAULE: To find the place now, it’s
a very real, concrete problem. JEFFREY BROWN: To further make its case and
showcase its artists, the agency recently presented its third annual month-long festival
titled Visions of Exile. Amid the national and even global fights over
immigration, this is a small project. But those being helped think art can change the
way people think. AHLAM JARBAN: Because when they see our artwork,
they don’t see it as a refugee. This see it as artist, and artist make this thing. We do all this journey to be something. We
have hope, and we are human before we come — we are a refugee. JEFFREY BROWN: For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m
Jeffrey Brown in Paris. JUDY WOODRUFF: Wonderful story. And on the “NewsHour” online right now: As
the fires continue to rage in Australia, nonprofit groups are stepping in to help the firefighters,
evacuees and wildlife. Find out how you can support their efforts
at And that’s the “NewsHour” for tonight. I’m
Judy Woodruff. For all of us at the “PBS NewsHour,” thank you, and we’ll see
you soon.

Caller ATTACKS Because David Hasn’t Endorsed Bernie

Let’s go next to, uh, Oh, you know what? Let’s go to Dante from Florida who often has
interesting takes. We haven’t heard from him for a while. Dante is a Bernie supporter who at one point
flirted with supporting tool C but now he is strongly Bernie. Right. Dante? I think this time I’ve got it right. Okay. Uh, I was never really flirting with splitting
pills. The Gabbert I just always liked what she was
doing with the candidate candidacy and the foreign policy issues that she brought up. So I always try to give her some attention
when it’s, when I get the chance. Alright. But you were never considering supporting
her, you were always Bernie then? Yeah, it was always burning. Gotcha. Okay. What’s going on? Dante? Tell me. That was actually, um, something I wanted
to ask you about because I wanted you to clarify your position about not endorsing a candidate
in the primary cause it didn’t really make sense to me. So if you could explain that, what do you want me to explain your reasoning for why you don’t want to support
a candidate or endorse a candidate or which you think it might lead to? Cause I think from the explanation, if I heard
you, you said you don’t want to add to the, the circular firing squad on the left or something
like that by uh, supporting one candidate over the other. Yeah. Listen, I mean I’m nobody, I’m just a guy
who’s analyzing politics. Everybody who watches my show I think understands
my positions. You know, I’ve seen that there has been an
attempt lately to smear me as saying that Bernie and Warren are the same. It’s like, you know, I’ve been clear they’re
not the same. Bernie comes from a far more left place than
Elizabeth Warren. A lot of their policies today are very similar,
but you know, for example, Elizabeth Warren voted in favor of a, a scaling up funding
for the military. Something that I’m against. Bernie voted against it. Like they’re not the same. I’ve been, I’ve been abundantly clear at this
point. I just like, what do, what do we gain my,
by me coming out and saying, I am endorsing this person over that person when the truth
is I’m going to vote for whoever is the eventual democratic nominee. I’m not going to hide who I vote for in the
primary. I mean I’m just, I’m covering the issues and
the candidates. I just don’t see what advantage there is to
me now coming out and saying I’m all about this candidate over that candidate. I mean listen, like it’s no secret. I’ve made it clear. Bernie is to the left of Elizabeth Warren
and I would vote for either of them and I think it’s imperative that we remove Donald
Trump. Like what? What would an endorsement do it? What would you like? Would it make a difference to you if I endorsed
one person or another? Like you’re supporting Bernie, you know that
that’s fine. It’s not really the endorsement part. It’s more that you have a show and I think
it’s important to be crystal clear about it and leave no room for ambiguity in the audience. That brief hand is clearly better. You just a better candidate. It’s not that he does, he’s good on some issues
and he’s better than it was a bit worn or some issues and she’s pretty good on a day. She’s like, it’s not even close. Bernie Sanders. Well, but, but Dante, you understand that
that’s, that’s your opinion, right? But you, you say you, you host a, uh, program
in your social Democrat, and if you’re a social Democrat, it’s not really close. You say that Bernie Sanders is more far, he’s
more left. So by your estimation, that would mean he’s
better cause you, you’re a social Democrats. So you moved the social democratic ideology
of, uh, like social democratic economic reform and not as interventionist foreign policy
and a progressive tax system if the best way to run the country. And Bernie Sanders is more aligned with you
on those issues. So he’s the best candidate. So I guess that’s the point I’m trying to
make is it’s not that I think you should endorse him because of a boost that I think it would
give to Bernie Sanders. I think it’s just important to be clear that
if you’re someone who wants real, like structural change, fundamental change in, in us politics,
revolutionary like a political revolution, it’s not like you can just, Oh, choose either
one and it’ll be basically the same or be close to the same. It’s very busy. Very big difference, but Dante, let me ask you, let me ask you
a question. This is a thought experiment. Okay, so don’t, don’t go crazy and I don’t
want people in the audience to go crazy. Let’s imagine we all agree without placing
a value judgment on anything. We agree Bernie is to the left of war and
it sounds like you and I are on the same page about that, right? You said it and I’m saying it now. Dante, are you still there? You get it? No, but hold on Dante, but what we’re just
starting, I’m just, I’m laying it out for you. You and I both agree. Bernie is to the left Doug Warren, right? Yeah. Okay. Imagine that we became convinced that even
though Bernie is further to the left of Warren, this is hypothetical, that Warren’s policy
is more likely to become a reality for whatever reason. Right. This is hypothetical. Would it then still be just as clear to you
that that we are better off by putting in someone who is further to the left but less
likely to accomplish things? This is just a hypothetical. This is just me saying just because we identify
who’s further left, that’s not all there is to it. Would you agree that there’s some element
there that we would, we would have to consider about that in the hypothetical, but here in the, in the
real world, in the 2020 primary and we can, we can look at their record and we could look
at what they plan on doing. And Bernie Sanders, even though his policies
could with see more radical, he has a better chance of fascinated because he has a actual
plan doing it. Elizabeth Warren, she has not, uh, really
explain how she wants to get any of these things done because she’s not in favor of,
of primary incorporate Democrats like Bernie Sanders. If he’s not, she’s not going to, uh, bust
up the establishment like Bernie Sanders is. He’s not going to, she’s not going to do a
rallies in Joel Mason state when he votes against Medicare for all, like Bernie Sanders
said he would. So Bernie Sanders is bringing grassroots pressure
so he, his policies are better and he has a better chance of passing it. He has a, okay. But again, Dante, that’s, that’s your, you
seem to be mistaking. So I’m trying to have a conversation with
you about what you first brought up, which is just about, you know, the, the, the idea
of whether I should or shouldn’t be endorsing someone, but now you’re just making it, you’re
saying, well, your opinion is a, B, and C about Bernie, but I’m trying to have a different
conversation with you. You know what I mean? I think we’re talking past each other. No, uh, it’s not that I’m, Chris wasn’t your
opinion, you just brought up the fact that it’s, it might not be crystal clear that,
that Bernie Sanders is the best because she might be able to get her. It’s not about best. All right. Listen. Well, Dante, I think the, the takeaway I got
a lot of people holding, so I’m going to let you go. But the takeaway is you think that morally
I should be making an endorsement on the program. No, it’s not more where we, I think that you
should just be clear with the audience and make sure that there’s no room for interpretation. Elizabeth Warren, she’s not going to challenge
the political establishment. I, I believe that. I’ve been clear with that. So my, if you go back Dante, to my first,
see, this is the problem I have that I am being clear, but there’s a lot of propaganda
misstating my position. So for example, if you go back to the first
clip I did about, it’s called something like, there are serious differences between Elizabeth
Warren and Bernie Sanders. The primary thing that I stayed is that although
they’ve come close on policy in 2019 now 2020 Bernie’s approach is of totally read that
the system is broken and you need to change the system at its core. Whereas Elizabeth Warren comes from the camp
of fixing the things about the system that are broken. In my first clip pointing out the differences
between the two of them, I did exactly what you’re pointing out. I haven’t done, I’m not saying you have an identity, but I’m
saying, well you just said it, Dante, that’s you should be clear in, cause that’s,
it’s not just me. Other people who watch your show come with
the same takeaway. All right, well listen, do you know other
people? All right. Dante, point taken. Let’s make it about, let’s make it about you. I appreciate what you’re saying and don’t
worry. You’re going to know who I vote. Vote for that, I promise you. All right, Dante, thank you very much. Let’s take a quick break. If you are holding, don’t hang up because
we will be going right back to the phones after this.