“Keep your heads up.”

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. On the pod today, our last Thursday pod of the year, our last live pod.

We already recorded a Christmas pod that'll show up next week. Today we're going to have the Senate Minority Whip, Dick Durbin. We're going to talk to him about the Dream Act and the shutdown politics. And we have a top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, my representative, Congressman Adam Schiff.

Stack show today, Dan. I know, it's trying to jam it all before the end of the year. Tommy also has a pod save the world coming out on Friday with Republican foreign policy expert Corey Shockey. She wrote a piece about how the Trump administration's rhetoric on North Korea sounds scarily like the pre-Iraq war rhetoric from the Bush administration, so check that out.

And again, our holiday pod schedule is Tuesday the 26th. We'll have a Christmas mailbag with John, Tommy, and I. And then on New Year's, around New Year's, we're going to have our end of the year retrospective, which will have clips from all of our favorite Pod Save America moments. Isn't that exciting, Dan?

Yeah, that one kind of worries me, because it sort of feels like the robots are taking over the podcast thing. Like, we're going to do a podcast, and I don't have to do anything. We recorded voiceovers on the type of clips that we're going to have on the show, but we haven't heard the clips yet. So it'll be a surprise to us.

It'll be a surprise to us, but we ask people for their favorite moments, so it'll reflect the will of the listeners and tweeters. So there you go. All right, let's get into it, Dan. What a day.

So let's talk about the Donor Relief Act of 2017, which has passed. I think there was an Onion headline set at best yesterday. The headline was, GOP leaders celebrate decisive win over Americans. So with zero Democratic votes or input, Republicans rushed through their $1.5 trillion tax cut in the dead of night.

Here is what everyone got. Corporations got a permanent tax cut of $1 trillion, along with new rules that encourage American companies to move jobs, manufacturing, and profits overseas in order to avoid paying taxes. The populist over at Goldman Sachs released a report on how this would affect the profits of various banks. Wells Fargo would gain $3.7 billion, Bank of America $3.5 billion, City $1.4 billion, J.P.

Morgan $3.3 billion, and Morgan Stanley a measly $833 million. That's just the profits of banks, Dan. Well, Apple. All thanks to the tax cut.

Oh, yeah, Apple. Apple, $47 billion. You know those guys were hurting for cash. I'm glad that Apple is going to get $47 billion in savings.

They needed it. Yes, hire some people in America and make phones with longer-lasting batteries with your money, please. By 2027, 83% of the total benefits in this bill go to the top 1%. That includes a lower tax rate for millionaires and billionaires, a lower tax rate for hedge fund managers and real estate moguls like Donald Trump and Bob Corker, and lower tax rates for inheritances that fall between $11 million and $22 million.

See, what happened is, you know, up to $11 million, you had your inheritance tax-free up until this bill passed. Now, those inheritances between $11 million and $22 million, they get a tax break, too. They don't have to pay taxes on it. That was a critical constituency that I'm glad this bill has taken care of.

You know, so good for them. So what did everyone else get? Not much. Most families, but not all families, will get a temporary tax cut.

Temporary tax cut. But for the middle fifth of the population, this is people earning between $48,000 and $86,000 a year, the average 2018 tax cut amounts to $18 per week. To put this in perspective, foreigners who own U.S. corporate stock will get a bigger tax break from this bill than the entire working and middle-class population Some poll numbers.

The latest NBC Wall Street Journal poll from this week found that only 24% of Americans approved the tax plan. Among rural voters, the support is 28%. Among non-college-educated white voters, the support is 29%. And, get ready for this, only 57% of Trump voters like the bill.

And only 7% of all Americans believe it was designed to benefit the middle class. So Dan, my obvious first question to you. Was this a win for Donald Trump and the Republicans, or what? Huge win.

Huge win. Passing legislation that is deeply unpopular seemed like a great win. I think... That's so many thoughts.

My brain is just moving in a million miles a minute with the anger and frustration that I have. And I almost tried to encourage you to do an imaginary pod with me yesterday so I could just get some of this out in advance because holding in caused me to be an obsessive tweeter. This is way more fun. I know, I know.

Trying to keep the hot takes in is hard. It's a real work. Let's do a couple things here. First, I don't know if it's a political win or not, frankly.

The elections in 2018 will tell us that. History suggests that this is going to hurt more than it helps. I know we can talk about why it is in a minute. But I don't give a shit about the political benefits of it.

I do not care about the Horatio Aldrich story of Paul Ryan, former Tortilla Coast waiter, passing his lifelong ambition to reduce Apple's tax burden by $47 billion. He went from slinging margs at a shitty Mexican restaurant on Capitol Hill Wait for the Netflix series. It'll be inspiring. It'll be wonderful.

I will say, the press coverage of this was not as horrendous as I thought it would be. No, it was quite good with one exception that I would like to talk about. But I think the New York Times, Washington Post, Politico, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Wall Street Journal even, they did a good job of breaking down the facts of this tax bill. They included all kinds of nonpartisan analysis from all kinds of nonpartisan organizations.

And a lot of people say, oh, well, the reason it pulls the law is because Democrats have been lying about the bill. That's bullshit. Like the media has been telling the truth about the bill and still have a bunch of fucking tax experts who aren't part of either party. So just go read the facts of the bill if you want.

I don't care. Democrats actually don't have to spin or exaggerate any of the aspects of this bill. It's all right there. Feel free to go.

Anyone should go feel free to look at the bill themselves and find out what it does. I don't care. Republicans don't want you to read the bill. I would love everyone to read the bill.

I would love everyone to look exactly at what this bill does. I'm happy for people to do that. The other thing the press did was there were a few, and you know who you are people, who did Winners and Losers column talking about which politicians won and lost in this battle. Those people are terrible.

But most people did which Americans won or lost, right? Like which groups of Americans, which corporations did well, is tax cuts for corporations in rich people are unpopular. I know they're unpopular because Donald Trump ran against them in a lot of ways. Here's my message to Paul Ryan and all the other people whining about why this bill is unpopular in the press.

If you do not want to have unpopular policy, do not pass policies that people on a bipartisan basis hate. One quarter of Trump supporters in some polls oppose this bill. Think about fucking that. These are people who believe Donald Trump has saved the economy, defeated us, did nothing wrong with Russia, that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, that Barack Obama is a criminal.

Those people, Sean Hannity viewers, a quarter to a third of those people think this bill is shit. So, raise your hand, people. There's people who believe that Barack Obama wasn't born in America who still hate this tax bill. That's where we're at on this thing.

But you know, Dan, Axios says it's the high note of Donald Trump's presidency and that the media often appraises presidencies and politics through liberal tinted glasses. But the vast majority of the Republican Party like, even love, Donald Trump's policies. That post is Axios doing the equivalent of John Cusack standing outside with a boombox and saying anything. It's just like, please return my calls.

I would like to get together. I just, I don't understand. I don't understand. Here's the one thing I would say to that, which is it is the high point of Trump's presidency.

Yeah, it's pretty sad. There are no other high points. There are none. Like, this is it.

This is the tallest of the seven dwarfs of Trump's policy accomplishments. That is it. So kudos. And if you're not past this, like there's always, if you're going to decide what the highest point is, there's always going to be something no matter how low it is.

And that is this. Congratulations, Republicans. You own the economy. You own this terrible tax bill.

And let's see where it goes from here. Dan, what do you think of the North Korean victory parade at the White House yesterday? Which one are we talking about? Are we talking about the one with the cabinet or the one with the second independent?

Oh, I'm just the cabinet one. I heard that like they were all like praying at Donald Trump. Yeah, it's incredibly uncomfortable. Like nothing wrong with a good prayer, but praying at Donald Trump at a cabinet meeting, like multiple people, Ben Carson and then Mike Pence seems like a little much.

But I was referring to the display outside of the White House where it was like, you know, where Donald Trump was emceeing this parade of Republican politicians just slobbering all over him in a way that I've never seen any legislator slobber over any president, Republican or Democrat ever. Particularly since we know that most of them hate him. And we know that because most of them have made public statements about how he is unfit or racist or immoral. And there they were standing side by side with him because they got their tax cuts and because Lisa Murkowski and Don slash Dan Young because Trump didn't know what his name was, you know, they got oil drilling in the White House and genuflected at Donald Trump are the people that we are theoretically counting on to hold him accountable for his crimes, his corruption and general incompetence.

So if you were waiting on Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell or any of these other people to stand up to Trump, you will be waiting a very long time. Yeah, no, I thought the same thing. Although, you know, there's also the argument that now that they got what they wanted out of him, maybe they don't need him anymore. Nope, that is not.

They have convinced them. Like, Orrin Hatch's speech was unbelievable. What is wrong with him? It was like, I have, even Ronald, some of them were like putting down Ronald Reagan, saying that like Trump was better than Reagan.

They've been genuflecting, you know, to Reagan for decades. Now Donald Trump's their new hero. Donald Trump, many good people on both sides in Charlottesville. That Donald Trump?

Okay, cool. The Republican Party has lost its collective mind. It has. And so this is not, like, so there's, like you raised one theory that we have held on to and many people have asked to is that once Paul Ryan gets the task that he's been dreaming about since his case has been very unfunned parties in college, yet so then he will finally do his duty and fulfill his oath to the Constitution and conduct reasonable checks and balances on the President's United States.

Nope, that is not happening. These people, even Paul Ryan, they listen to Fox News. They are hip in the top. They have Sean Hannity mainlined into their brain and they are addicted to Trump's base.

They're scared shitless of Trump's base, which is why they have, like, let's think about this. This is how much Paul Ryan wants tax cuts. He has coddled racists, Trump, and people in his caucus like Steve King, who is a racist. Every day, every week, Paul Ryan goes along to them and passes them on the back because he wants his vote for tax cuts.

They are covering up crimes and corruption that they know are already bad. They don't even know how bad the ones that they're covering up are. They're doing all that in exchange for tax cuts. But once they have their tax cuts, they're still going to be with Trump.

You don't take that smarmy shit-eating grin thumbs up picture in the Oval Office unless you are in with Trump to the very end. That is who they are now. That is their future. They are Trump.

They've decided they are going to enable Trump through the next two elections. The man just spent the last month campaigning for an alleged child molester. That is their president. The Republican National Committee endorsed and supported the alleged child molester who doesn't believe that Muslims should serve in Congress, who doesn't believe that women should vote, who believes that homosexuality should be illegal.

This is someone that the President of the United States campaigned for and yet they all stood behind him yesterday and patted him on the back and said he was the greatest leader ever. If they really wanted the tax cuts, fine. They get their tax cuts and they could have just shut the fuck up about it. They didn't have to go out there and slobber all over Donald Trump, a man who just went to fucking Pensacola to campaign for an alleged child predator.

It's disgusting. He is their leader. They are fine with it and they own every single thing he does. There was an opportunity for moral courage and they passed on it.

And so for the rest of Paul Ryan's life, whether he's in Congress next year or not, he is going to have to live with the fact that he excused racism, excuse misogyny, defended a man accused of sexual assault by more than a dozen women and is trying to help cover up potential crimes inclusion. That is a life decision that he made and they're all going to win that forever. And it is now incumbent upon us as Democrats to make them pay for these decisions. So the question is, was this inevitable that Democrats had done anything to stop it?

I would say no. Yeah, I mean, Republicans voted for a tax bill that broke many of their promises in polls at 25%, which tells me that they were immune to reason or pressure on this one. I mean, you know, you can go through all of them. Susan Collins is all upset that everyone's saying she got duped by Mitch McConnell and she's telling us all the things she got in this bill and how she made it better.

Susan Collins very clearly said she wouldn't be for a bill that cut the top tax rate for millionaires. This bill does that. She clearly said that if you repeal the individual mandate, the premium spikes would pretty much erase the benefit that people get from their middle class tax cut. She went around and showed her colleagues the calculations on how premium increases would erase the benefit people get from middle class tax cuts.

She cared so much about that and then she just voted for the bill anyway. So like, no, I don't think there's anything Democrats could have done to reason with these people who just clearly said, fuck it, I don't care if I break and I won't vote for it if it does. I'm just going to do it anyway. I don't care that it pulls 25%.

I'm just going to do it anyway. So the only thing we can do is to vote the mind of office. That's it. Yeah, that is exactly right.

There are no Republican heroes with resistance. I appreciate your floor speech, Bob Corker, Jeff Lake, and your near time to interview Bob Corker, but you all got to go and you have to replace with Democrats because this intellectually and morally bankrupt party is doing tremendous damage to this country in service of a dangerously unfit president. And I'm very worked out today. I'm trying to be measured about it.

I really am. But let's say this about the Democrats, the only thing that Democrats can do is tell the country about what Republicans want to do and hope that you can make it so politically unpalatable that they will walk away. And Democrats made it the least politically palatable piece of legislation in the industry. Think about the lies told about Obamacare.

Think about Fox News, the Tea Party town halls, the millions and millions of dollars spent by the insurance industry to make Obamacare unpopular. This tax bill is significantly less popular than the Affordable Care Act. So Democrats did their jobs, but we don't control government. So I don't think grassroots supporters should be angry at Democrats because this bill passed.

I think they should be angry at Republicans and motivated to elect more Democrats. If we win the House back will be because of what grassroots supporters did to make this bill unpopular and to let people know what this bill would do. And so I think that's great. And look, you're right.

I mean, Collins and Murkowski and McCain and some of these people, they're not immune to reason or pressure on any issue. Like, it worked on health care. We should say that and we should give them the benefit of the doubt for that. Like, right, good for Collins, good for Murkowski, good for McCain, good for other people who decided to vote the right way on health care.

But they weren't, they were immune to reason and pressure this time around because Republicans fucking love tax cuts and they saw enough polling presentations and heard enough from donors and heard enough from strategists that if they didn't do anything, it would be worse than if they passed this really shitty bill. And they decided to believe that over their constituents, over the facts, over anything else. So what can you do? You know, you can elect them out of office.

Let's talk about the politics moving forward. You brought to my attention this Washington Post piece by James Homan who said, Republicans are banking on this bill becoming more popular over time as people experience the benefits. They're saying, you know, most people right now believe their taxes are actually going up, but in fact, eight in 10 Americans will pay lower taxes next year. They plan to run a campaign that says, you know, Democrats, one party wants to compete with the president, the other party cut middle-class taxes.

And, you know, their billionaires are going to start running ads about that now. What do you think about this strategy and this belief that they'll be able to make it more popular? Let me address this to someone who told the press, the public, and Democratic members of Congress many times that once the Affordable Care Act became more popular. I was wrong about that.

It is more popular now. It took seven years, but in the short term, it did not because people's views are very hardened. And the fact of the matter is many of the benefits that people experience are going to be so small as to be not noticed. Clearly, Apple's going to be very happy because they're going to get $47 billion and FedEx is going to get $1.5 billion and all these banks are going to be happy.

But the average person is going to get a very small benefit from it. And that is not going to outweigh, they may not even know they do it. So this is the other experience that we had. There are two recent historical examples of this that just belie the argument that once people see more money in their pockets, this is going to help.

Which is in 2001, George Bush passed a huge tax cut. Mineral-class average people overwhelmingly benefiting them. That's a pretty decent tax cut because the one asterisk about that is 9-11 happened a few months after that. So we don't really know exactly what happened, but early indications where it didn't make a huge difference.

And then I know this goes against all conservative fever dreams about the amount of presidency, but the first thing Obama did when he came into office was pass a massive tax cut to juice the economy by cutting people's payroll taxes. What? And I know what happened. He did.

We did that. It was like, it happened. Did you know the recovery act was divided into three parts, Dan? And one of the parts was the tax cuts?

Because I wrote that 45,000 times in speeches for two years. And I don't think this is a critique of how compelling your speech writing was or how persuasive the tax cut they got from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Recovery Act, the stimulus, whatever you want to call it, was bigger than the tax cut they will be receiving from this legislation. Bigger under Obama for the bottom 60%. So if they didn't notice it then when it was bigger than the one it is now, what do you think is going to happen with this bill?

Now, the pushback on this that someone maybe noted contrarian Josh Barrow pointed out was that that happened in a contracting economy. That's true. When other people, when your tax, people were getting a federal tax cut but their city and state taxes were going up at the time and this is an expanding economy. But I think the lesson is still, if you're a betting person, it's not particularly tied to their personal benefit from it.

That's sort of a fallacy of politics. People feel this way about this bill because they think that it is unjust and unfair. And even if they get a tax cut but corporations and millionaires who don't need a tax cut are getting a very big one, that is going to bother them. It wasn't like all those Republicans who got the Obama tax cut were like, well, yeah, I think he was probably born in Kenya and he seems to have some terrorist sympathies but I got a couple hundred bucks in my thing so I'm cool with it.

That's just not how politics works in our very highly polarized tribal age. And I think it's just worth reflecting on the fact that we do live in a moment in a time of great economic anxiety. I don't use the term of excusing racism like Republicans did to justify some of Trump supporters. I mean it in the sense that, look, populism has been emerging on a growing basis since the financial crisis and you saw it in the power of Bernie Sanders' message, right?

And you saw it in Trump's message as much bullshit as it was and that's what he ran on. And the Republicans get into office and their response to the populist fervor spreading across the country is to cut taxes for corporations and hedge fund managers. And you can already see the blowback on this from the right with people like Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson and others all of a sudden discovering that their populist hero just left in place a carry-in-truth loophole which benefits hedge fund managers. And so that is the bigger picture thing that goes much further behind the ads that are going to be run by conservative groups.

The money that is going to end up in people's bank accounts when they know this or not. The ultimate immorality of this bill is something that actually crosses party lines and is why people, why it pulls so terribly. Yeah, so McConnell this morning previewed the type of ad that they're going to be running which is basically what they're going to try to say is maybe $1,300 doesn't seem like much to Joe Manchin but it sure means a lot to the single mom and her kids. And so you can already see this on Twitter too.

Conservatives are like typical out-of-touch liberals. They're poo-poohing $18 a week even though $18 a week could really mean a lot to people and stuff like that. It's like, you know what? Fuck you.

It's not that we don't think that that could mean a lot to people. It's that you just spent a trillion dollars on corporate tax cuts when you could have given a lot more to that single mom and to that family. Like, don't try to pull the liberals are out-of-touch bullshit with this now. It's just, it's so ridiculous.

It's like I was thinking about this looking at some of the tweets from the Republican staffers today. The triumphalism of Republicans who finally got in college for the first time in more than a decade. So, fucking kudos. Welcome to governing.

But it did not have to be this way. people and give it a bigger tax cut to the middle class. Like, that was the point that the Democrats should make. They could have done what Marco Rubio wanted and Mike Lee wanted and actually done a real doubling of the child tax credit and lifted more children out of poverty and it would have cost them like, you know, a fraction of a percent of what they did on the corporate tax cut.

They could have, if you truly believe that what ails the American economy right now is not enough money in the pockets of middle and working class families. If that is your belief, then this is a terrible solution for that. Because you could have done that. You could have spent $1.5 trillion in tax relief for people under a certain income threshold.

Like, that was a choice. And Republicans, like, it is just, it is just so funny that Republicans are even more absurd than we have spent the last seven years, last seven to ten years saying they were. I said that the Republicans by voting for this tax bill have made the argument against Republican economics better than Democrats ever have. They did.

They did an outstanding job of that by passing this bill. Because the other thing is, this tax bill will not be viewed by people in a vacuum. It will be viewed as a contrast to what Republicans didn't do. That they didn't reauthorize the children's health insurance program.

That they didn't do anything to make health insurance less expensive for everyone else. That they didn't do anything for the people of Puerto Rico who are still without power. They didn't do anything about the opioid crisis. They didn't do anything to make education more affordable.

They didn't do anything about stagnant middle class wages or anything to bring back all the coal jobs. They didn't do any of that shit. They just passed the tax cut for corporations. And then they went home.

I'm just sort of amazed by the whole thing. The other thing they're doing is all the Republicans are liberal tiers. I'm sure some of them are going to listen to this and be like, oh, the Obama bros were so upset. Blah, blah, blah.

I'm just sort of amazed. I actually think it's going to be, it is the issue that we're going to run on in 2018 along with their earlier, and I agree. The Democrats could not have stopped this. There was nothing they could have done if Republicans were going to decide to vote for it.

To violate all their own previous statements about what they will and will vote for and vote for this. But the one thing that I, it wouldn't have changed the outcome, but what I think Democrats need is an alternative policy here. Right. And so this is like the response to the ad they want to run against Joe Manchin ever else, which is, yeah, you got a $30 tax cut.

We'll give you another $1,000 for X, Y, and Z. We're going to pay for it by closing the Republican loophole that benefits hedge fund managers or oil companies, whatever it is. There is now a pot of revenue to be used that we can go to to say we're going to raise this tax, we're going to close this loophole, we're going to pay for things that people actually care about. Simply, we have to have something that people are for.

Because absent that, we're going to allow the Republicans to define what it is we're for. Like we spent years, they did not have a plan for a very long time and we spent years explaining what their plan was and defining it. And it's why we won the 2012 election. Now, it has turned out that we were overly generous in our description of how corporatist their plan was.

They're actually even worse than we thought. I mean, if we had said that Republicans would leave open the hedge fund loophole and then cut health care for poor children, the fact checkers would have gone bananas. Turns out, that was right. That's exactly what was going to happen.

Like you can't actually come up with an attack that is unfair for these Republicans when it comes to their economic policy. It is exactly what it is. They have changed nothing and they've actually become more extreme and less compassionate in the years since Reagan, you know, Reagan and Jack Trump brought supply-side economics to the forefront. So I think this point about, you know, what Democrats should propose is a really important one.

You know, there was a New York Magazine story about this talking about some of the things that Democrats could possibly propose and it was saying that even if you only raised, so the corporate rate was at 35%, they cut it to 21%. They said, even if Democrats said, okay, we're going to take it only back up to 25%, which is what Mitt Romney had proposed as a corporate rate cut in the 2012 campaign, which we backed him for. You get $400 billion just from that move. That would be enough to fund a child's tax credit that would lift 3 million kids out of poverty or finance Bernie Sanders' very generous plan for paid family and medical leave.

And that's before we repeal the estate tax provisions, the pass-through provisions, the tax cuts for the wealthy and all that other shit. And we can pay for all of this using the reconciliation budget process that only requires 51 votes and it won't raise the deficit because they already gave us this $1.5 trillion worth of money 2018 and 2020 without having any of the annoying fact-checkers or anyone else screaming about the deficit, which, fuck that at this point. But we'll still stay within the window just by repealing most of the bullshit that they just did. Yeah, it really is.

You know, in 20... Let's say like March of 2021 when Democrats have past paid family leave, you know, free community college, boosted funding for things and are well on their path to Medicare for all, the Republicans will look back to this week as to why that happened. Right. So if you're looking for a...

I know that seems like a long time away and haven't listened to this upcoming policy of the world yet, but hopefully we don't die between now and then in a nuclear standoff. Yeah, no, that's important. But if we make it that far and we are neither dead nor we've slipped into a Venezuela-style authoritarian state, there's some real upside for progressive policies once we win the letters of government back. Yeah.

Keep your heads up, Democrats. Keep your heads up. There are silver linings everywhere here. So don't worry about this.

There are political silver linings and there are substantive policy silver linings from this shit show. Speaking of shit shows, tomorrow the government runs out of money and currently Republicans cannot find enough votes from their fellow Republicans in Congress to keep it open, let alone Democrats. Currently there's a group of House Republicans who don't want to vote for a clean extension of the children's health insurance program with no strings attached. They don't want to vote for bipartisan measures to stabilize Obamacare.

They don't want to vote for a hurricane and wildfire disaster relief package that they view as too expensive. And they don't want to vote for the Dream Act to protect 800,000 young immigrants from being deported. This means that Paul Ryan probably has no choice but to try to pass a short-term funding bill that keeps the government open for another month and kicks all the rest of these fights to January. But even if he does this, Mitch McConnell will need at least eight Democratic votes in the Senate to pass this short-term funding bill.

It seems as if right now Schumer is willing to give McConnell those votes and kick the big fights over Chip, over Obamacare and the Dream Act to January. Dan, what do you think of this strategy? I think it is a massive mistake from the Democrats if they do this. Yeah, it's baffling to me.

Yeah, Pete Rouse, our old boss in the Senate and in the White House, used to say that there's nothing more powerful for United States senators than the smell of jet fumes when it's time to go home. And I think basically people have family vacations that they're set up. They want to go home and spend holidays with their kids and their families, which I totally get. But once we prove we're willing to blink, we are setting ourselves up for government in one-month increments.

So we're going to blink now and then January is going to come and the exact same deal is going to be on the table. And we're going to then say, well, we're going to do it last time because we had to get home and eat some rosturkey. But this time, no, we're going to draw a line and stand and not cross it. The politics are the same whether you do it in December, you do it in January, and you have more leverage if you do it now.

McConnell's not stupid. McConnell is going to sense if we're just bluffing. You know, I mean, like at some point, I'm very annoyed that we've gotten to this point and Democrats aren't standing up now, but I'm willing to believe at least in January. Like January to me is the key moment right here.

Like it's stupid that they gave up their leverage in December for sure, but they can still come back in January and we should all put the pressure on every Democratic senator and everyone should call their Democratic senators and say, do not vote. You cannot vote for a long-term funding bill in January that doesn't include a deal to protect the Dreamers, to protect 800,000 young Americans who will be deported in March. Do not vote for that long-term funding bill unless the Dreamers are taken care of, unless the Children's Health Insurance Program is extended for 9 million children, unless Obamacare bills pass to stabilize Obamacare so that people don't lose their health insurance. And every Senate Democrat should be on record saying that they will not vote for that long-term funding bill in January without all of those protections passing.

That's where I am right now. Yeah, I agree. And I think there are a couple of things that are important contextual setting for this. One is, since the day Trump was inaugurated, the Democratic base, and I don't mean just hardcore participants, I mean people who are motivated by their deep concern for what's happening in this country have done their job like you never possibly could have imagined in an off year.

People marched, they made phone calls, they donated to candidates and districts far from their own, they protested, they called members of Congress, they have gotten on buses and gone to places like Alabama and Virginia and Georgia that knocked doors. And Democrats owe it to those people who are so deeply concerned by what the country is going through and so motivated to change it for the better. They must prove themselves to be worthy of those voters. If they want them to turn out in the off year, if you want to keep that energy going and to walk away on an issue of such fundamental fairness and morality as the DREAM Act would be very disillusioning for those people because you want them to vote for, they have to believe it is worth all the work, all the energy, all the blood, sweat, and tears to change who's in charge of Congress.

And when we walk away from things like this, we send a message that says it really doesn't make that big a difference who's in charge because you're going to get screwed either way. I recognize that we have a lot of Democrats who are in tough states who are up in 2018. We're defending places like North Dakota and Indiana and that's going to be hard. But I promise you the politics, if the view is that fighting for the DREAM Act is bad for you, then you're not going to politics because if you can't win this fight, you can't win any fight.

Uphold this monster that 84% of Americans, including 74% of Republicans, favor protecting. these 800,000 young Americans from deportation. So, like, look, I get it. I get it if you're in a tough state.

I get that no one wants to shut the government down, especially Democrats. No one wants to threaten to shut the government down. But this is a party in the minority right now. And yet, on this issue, we have leverage.

And there is a choice. Either you say, I will not vote for a long-term funding bill until the Dreamers are taken care of and the Children's Health Insurance Program is taken care of. Or you say, I trust the Republicans that they're going to come to the table and do some deal. Because if they don't, then you know what's going to happen?

In March, 800,000 people will be deported from this country. There's 800,000 people who are working in this economy that will have to leave this country. Families torn apart. People who've been here their whole lives.

And basically, what are Democrats going to say? Oh, well, you know, the Republicans promised that they'd give us a vote on this. And I guess the promise just didn't materialize. Trump seemed like he was going to extend the program.

Yeah, maybe he will. Maybe Trump will suddenly extend the program. Maybe Republicans will suddenly put the bill on the floor. But do we trust them after what we've just seen for the last year to do that?

Or do we have to use the leverage we have to say to them, no, no, no, no, no. You're not going to get your way here unless you keep this promise to these dreamers. I think we have to do that. And I get it.

I get that it's not popular to say, multiple Republican senators have said they support it. This is not that hard. And I will say to their credit, congressional Democratic leaders have done a very good job this year. They've had a terrible hand and they played it as best as they possibly could.

They have fought hard. They have protected much of Obamacare. They have called Trump to the carpet on things he's done. They have used what little levers they have on oversight to try to get to the bottom of things like the Russia, the potential conclusion with Russia, have done a good job.

But what I worry about right now is that pre-Alabama, we thought we had nothing to lose. Probably going to take the Senate back, but we were going to throw everything at it. Post-Alabama, all of a sudden, like, oh, maybe we can take it back, so we're going to play not to lose as opposed to play to win. And no one has ever won playing a pre-fed defense.

And that's what this feels like. It's like, oh, no, now we, instead of fighting for what we all agree for and fighting like hell, we're going to start drafting our strategy around what we think is the best thing to win over voters in North Dakota or Indiana. And that's a mistake, not just because that will be deflating to the base, but also because that's a misreading of the politics of the moment. Like, fight hard.

Fighting hard, even if you lose, it's going to be worth more than not fighting at all. Keep your heads up, stiffen your spines, and fight. Clear eyes, full heart. That's what we need Democrats to do right now.

Can't lose or something. Full eyes, clear heart, don't fold. And just, and look, the same thing with the Children's Health Insurance Program, too. There's a lot of, you know, I was arguing with Paul Ryan's communications director, Brendan Buck, on Twitter this morning, as we all were over this chip thing.

Like, don't get confused about what's happening here in the Children's Health Insurance Program. A couple months ago, a clean extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which ensures nine million kids, passed the Senate Finance Committee. And Orrin Hatch, Republican, who just slid over Donald Trump yesterday, and Ron Wyden, Democrat, they put out a press release saying, here we are, we passed a clean extension of the bill, just like, just in a bipartisan way, just like people have forever. And then the House, and the House Republicans decided to pass an extension that said, no, no, no, we're going to pay for this.

We're going to pay, we have to pay for this program by cutting medical benefits elsewhere, by charging some high-income Medicare beneficiaries more, by cutting public health programs and prevention programs, by cutting some Obamacare thing that's going to, like, kick more people off if they don't pay their premiums sometimes. We could kick hundreds of thousands off Obamacare. So we're going to take, we're going to cut medical benefits everywhere else to pay for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which, by the way, would cost $8 billion to extend five years after they just passed $1.5 trillion tax cuts that they didn't fucking pay for at all. So don't let anyone tell you that, like, both sides that are trying, that are screwed up in the political squabbling that is preventing the Children's Health Insurance Program from being extended.

It's not. They could pass a clean extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program tomorrow, and it would get majorities in both houses tomorrow. This is the House Republicans holding it up, as they usually do, because they're trying to get their own priorities in there and not trying to just do what they should be doing. John, I think you're being unfair to the Republicans.

If we just pass a chip with, who is going to teach these poor, sick children the value of hard work and sacrifice? Yeah, maybe someone, maybe someone at one of the banks that just got tens of billions of dollars in profits from this tax bill. Maybe they will teach them. Maybe they will generously give them a bonus someday if they happen to be in their employee.

Apple, with its tax rate, could pay for all the children to have health care and still bring home more than $38 billion. Billion dollars, excuse me. With a B. That is, billion dollars with a B.

Something else. And this does reveal something about Republican psychology, is it is so vindictiveness is their animating philosophy. We can't do it unless someone who needs help has to pay price for it. That's the deal.

Okay, when we come back, we will be talking to Senator Dick Durbin, and then we'll be talking to Representative Adam Schiff. Get road ready with CarQuest Auto Parts. Save now on premium brand name products. Castro Magentex Synthetico L5 liter jugs, $29.97.

Rain-X Summer Breeze washer fluid, 3.78 liter jug, $397. Air-1 diesel exhaust fluid, 9.46 liters, $13.97. Seafoam motor treatment, 473 milliliters, $897. Hit the road with CarQuest for the parts you need.

Visit CarQuest Auto Parts store or CarQuest.ca for more information and full-fire details. Only at participating locations. Notice how some homes sell faster in your neighborhood? It's not luck, it's local know-how.

REMAX agents know their streets, schools, and communities inside and out. And with REMAX, those local pros are everywhere. Which means when you're ready to buy or sell, you'll get trusted neighborhood insight that puts you a step ahead. REMAX, the experts closed home.

Each office independently owned and operated. Get road ready with CarQuest Auto Parts. Save now on premium brand-name products. Castro Magentex Synthetico L5 liter jugs, $29.97.

Rain-X Summer Breeze washer fluid, 3.78 liter jug, $397. Air-1 diesel exhaust fluid, 9.46 liters, $13.97. Seafoam motor treatment, 473 milliliters, $897. Hit the road with CarQuest for the parts you need.

Visit CarQuest Auto Parts store or CarQuest.ca for more information and full-fire details. Only at participating locations. On the pod today, we have Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin. Senator, thanks for joining us.

You bet. So I know how confusing these end-of-the-year spending negotiations can be when you're inside the government, let alone watching as a citizen. Can you give us an update on the current negotiations and let people know what's at stake here? Well, I can tell you as a preliminary that because of the tax effort, the tax bill passed by the Republicans, they put everything on the back shelf.

And so it wasn't until this morning that we actually saw the proposal to end this year's session tomorrow and to return in the middle, early January and start voting again in mid-January on spending. So this is all kind of new to us. I saw this one for the first time at 10.30. Basically what it does is to move things just ahead to January the 19th, 18th and 19th, where we'll face another make-or-break deadline when it comes to a budget for the remaining months and a fiscal year.

So you guys think you'll end up with a clean spending bill, the short-term, that doesn't resolve any of the issues, CHIP, DACA, anything else that's out there? Well, it will temporarily address some of those issues, but only temporarily. CHIP may be a few weeks longer than the community health care clinics and the like. No version from the Republicans yet addresses the DACA issue, the Dreamer issue.

And that is what's holding things up in the House of Representatives. I just got off the phone with Nancy. We talked about where they are. There's going to be a supplemental offered for disaster assistance, and then there's going to be the CR that I just described, a continuing resolution.

She believes that most of the Democrats in the House will vote against that continuing resolution. If the Republicans need Democratic votes, they may not pass it. Senator, if that bill were to come over to the Senate, do you think there are enough Democrats who would vote for it without DACA to allow the government to stay funded for a few weeks? I don't know the answer.

I won't be one of them. I won't be voting for it without some provision in there for DACA or the Dreamers. I haven't done whip-out on my colleagues. Several of them have said publicly that they support the Dream Act, support DACA, but they don't want to see the government shut down.

So I cannot tell you how many votes would be generated among Democrats in the Senate. So, you know, I've been saying this. I'd like to see, you know, a whole bunch of Senate Democrats say we're not going to vote for even a short-term funding bill without a vote on DACA first. But say this goes to January and you're fighting again in January for a long-term spending bill.

Do you think that there will be enough Senate Democrats in January who will say, I'm not voting for a long-term spending bill unless we do something to protect the Dreamers? I think so. And I've heard Leader Schumer express that over and over again. And I'm counting on it.

I can't tell you my depth of feeling on this issue. I introduced the Dream Act 16 years ago. I know these young people probably better than most. And my heart's breaking that we can't fix this problem this month.

Senator, as you pointed out, you have been working on issues related to the Dreamers longer than anyone else. You have tremendous credibility with that community. What would your message be to the 800,000 Dreamers who are both deeply concerned about their own status and also frustrated that the Democrats may let this opportunity pass to call the Republicans bluff on DACA? Well, I've faced them before.

Five years ago when we lost this measure in the Senate by five or six votes, the galleries were filled. They were wearing caps and gowns to deliver the message that they're students who want to be part of America's future. I had to face them afterwards. It was a tearful exchange between us.

And I had to say to them, you know, I'm not giving up on you. Don't give up on us. It's hard to explain to somebody when their life is on the line, when their family is on the line, about the messy nature of American politics and how some things are unpredictable. We thought this week would be the showdown, not on a tax bill, but on the whole question of the budget for the rest of the year.

And the Republicans punted and said, we'll do it in January. Well, how do you explain that to three young Dreamers who got in a car and drove all the way out from Arizona to sleep on the floor of an apartment in Washington and come up to Capitol Hill and beg for their future? That we have to wait four weeks. That is, as you both know, the reality of the political scene in Washington.

But it is hard as heck to sit down with these young people and make them understand that they still have a strong fighting chance as far as I'm concerned. Senator, I know you've been in bipartisan meetings about combining a vote on the Dream Act or something like the Dream Act with some additional security funding, border security funding that the Republicans want. Have you seen the outlines of a deal that you believe Democrats could support or the Republicans insisting on, you know, border wall or bust kind of stuff? Well, the honest answer is no.

There was a presentation by the White House, General Kelly, and people from the Department of Homeland Security this week. But it was, what you might expect, the first offer, the first demand in negotiation. It was the sun, the moon, the stars, and things we would never consider doing. And we basically said to him, for goodness sakes, we're running out of time here.

We have a little over two months left before the President's imposed deadline. Come back to us with something basic and that we might even consider instead of saying you want everything. And they're supposed to return with that message tomorrow. I'm hopeful that it will be constructive, but so far, there have been a handful of Republican senators who have been extremely helpful, but many who are not.

Senator, on ship on the Children's Health Insurance Program, are Democrats going to insist on a clean extension? I know in the House, you know, they're trying to pay for it by cutting medical benefits in other places. Do you think in the Senate you can get a clean extension of ship? I don't know the answer.

I believe they're going back to the same well that's been used over and over again, and that's the Prevention Fund and the Affordable Care Act, which is an important fund, but because, and it was created by Tom Harkin, it was one of his measures in the bill. It's an important fund, but because it isn't a hard money transfer, it's an investment in public health and research. It's been rated over and over again. I think that's where they're headed this time.

But this Prevention Fund, incidentally, is 12% of the budget for the Center for Disease Control. It is a big piece of it, and I think that's where they're headed to buy an extension of time for the health insurance program for kids and the community health center. Senator, this will be a softball question. I was wondering if you could reflect on the fact that Republicans passed just yesterday an unpaid-for $1.5 trillion tax cut mostly benefiting the wealthy corporations, and today you're asking that we pay for health care for poor children by cutting health care spending.

How do we make that argument to the public? This is a clear reflection of the difference between the two political parties. There was a time when people said, you know, there's not a dime's worth of difference. There was a governor from Alabama who used that.

Not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Well, there sure as heck is. Just look at this week. It's a clear example.

The Republican tax measure adds a trillion and a half dollars to our deficit for our kids to pay back. For what? For tax breaks for the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. That's what it comes down to.

And all of these Republican speeches that we've heard, as Congressman Dave Obie used to say, posing for holy pictures about fiscal conservatism, fiscal sanity, and let's do something about the debt and deficit, thrown out the window. First chance they hit to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in America. Then they turn around the next day and we have actual programs that deliver health care to working families across America and they basically say, you know, we just can't afford this unless you want to cut some spending in some other area. What a sharp contrast in terms of values.

What a sharp choice, a clear choice people are going to have in this next election. Senator, thank you for joining us and we will be telling all of our listeners to be in touch with their Democratic senators to let them know to hold firm on making sure that we get a vote on the DREAM Act. I can't tell you how much this means to some of these young people and their families and I think it is just the best issue for us to test the issue of justice and fairness in America. Okay, well thank you and make sure you tell Schumer and the rest of the gang to hold strong on this one.

We're counting on you. Thanks a lot. On the pod today, we are very happy to have back Representative Adam Schiff, my congressman. How are you, Representative?

I'm doing very well and it's great to be on the pod with my constituents. So let's talk about Russia as usual. You recently said that you're worried that Republicans are getting ready to shut down the Russian investigation in the House. What kind of steps are they taking that lead you to that conclusion and what, if anything, can you and other Democrats do about it?

Well, the most obvious sign is they've refused to schedule any witness interviews after December 31st and there are dozens more that we've requested to come before the committee. They've also been departing from investigative best practices in very substantial ways bringing in witnesses before we have the documents to question them on scheduling witnesses out of state. They scheduled two key interviews this week while we are in town for votes on the tax bill and these are witnesses we asked for months ago and scheduled them out of state at a time when members can't be there. It just tells you they're more interested in going through the motions looking like they're conducting a credible investigation than making sure that this is done right and in terms of what we can do about it we are trying to bring public pressure to bear that this investigation needs to go on and it cannot be shut down the way Bannon and the White House have been urging because I think the goal here is shut us down and then try to shut Bob Mueller down.

Congressman, do you think Republicans are doing this because they have seen enough of what's happened so far that they're scared that a continued investigation is going to be bad for the White House? This is a little bit of a layup but I want to control the record on it. I think that they are heeding the calls from the White House and Steve Bannon and others that have been putting great pressure on House Republicans and Senate Republicans as well that they need to have the presence back and they need to not only shut us down but they need to begin investigations of Hillary Clinton as a means of distracting attention and unfortunately these calls are having all too much success in our committee where we on the Democratic side have kept our focus on on the Russian intervention in our election and contacts with the Trump campaign during that pivotal time, the Republican focus has been initially on unmasking, and when that proved to be fruitless, they've now turned their attention to trying to discredit the FBI and to discredit Bob Mueller, so that no matter what the FBI and Bob Mueller find, it can be undermined. And that draws us to a very precarious place in terms of our democracy, when you're undermining institutions because you're afraid of what they're going to find.

And I just think that this is a time when we need people to do their patriotic duty and not put party above all else. But unfortunately, we see all too many of my colleagues in the GOP willing to do the presidential bidding. What do we know about potential collusion so far between Trump, Trump associates, and the Russians? What have you learned through the course of this investigation that you can share publicly?

Well, it learned a great deal, and when I think about the first open hearing that we had in March of this year with James Comey on the opening statement, I mean, at the time, if I had any idea of then what I know now, it would have been a much more powerful statement because, and I can just go into what's on the public record, we now know that in April of last year, the Russians' three intermediaries approached George Papadopoulos, one of the president's few foreign policy advisors, and informed the campaign. They had stolen Democratic Party emails, basically dirt on Hillary Clinton, and intimated they were willing to share and they were willing to play ball with the campaign and was there an interest on the campaign's part in having a relationship. The message back to the Russians was there was very much an interest in having a relationship at the very top levels. There was a subsequent meeting with high levels of the Trump campaign at Trump Tower with the president's son and son-in-law, as well as campaign manager, in which the Russians again dangled dirt on Hillary Clinton, and the campaign again said, we would love it, we'd love to have the help.

And the message that went back to the Kremlin from that meeting was, we'd love to have the help, but what you gave us at that meeting was really disappointing. And bear in mind, at this point, the campaign is on notice that they have much better to offer. When the campaign found out in April that the Russians had Hillary's stolen emails, or the TNC emails, that was before the Clinton campaign was even aware that the Russians had possession of these stolen emails. So you have all these contacts, all this outreach, all these offers of help, the campaign saying they want the help, and then you have the Russians acting to help them, publishing these documents, the WikiLeaks to their own cutouts.

You have the president's son in private secret communication with WikiLeaks. You have advisors like Roger Stone in private communication with Lucifer 2, which was a Russian intelligence cutout. And you have the president himself, then candidate Trump, touting these WikiLeaks to his stolen documents on a daily basis and egging the Russians on to even hack more. That's all now in plain sight.

And so when the president says, no collusion, no collusion, no collusion, you really have to ignore all of this evidence in plain sight. I will say this, it will be up to Bob Mueller whether he thinks that these connections and others amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a conspiracy to violate U.S. election laws. But we need to make sure that he's allowed to finish his investigation, and he's already moved with dramatic speed.

By contrast, the Benghazi investigation, which produced no evidence of wrongdoing on anyone's part except the attackers, lasted three to four years, and in a matter of months, Mueller's returned for indictments. Congressman, beyond just the getting to the bottom of what the Trump campaign did and did not do with relation to the Russians, does shutting down this investigation prematurely make us more vulnerable to a similar attack from the Russians or others in the elections to come? Certainly, because one of the most powerful deterrents to the Russians is exposure. And if the connections between the Russians and the campaign aren't allowed to be exposed to the public, then we're in a much more vulnerable position.

And what puts us in the absolute most vulnerable position, though, is we need to forge a national consensus that if a foreign power like Russia ever intervenes again, we will reject it no matter who it may help or who it may hurt. And the chief impediment getting to that national consensus is the president of the United States who continues to deny whether it even happened or whether the Russians were responsible. It's worse than a deterrent. It's an invitation to the Russians.

Because should they choose to intervene again, and let's say that this time the president calls them out, the Russians can easily say, are these the same intelligence agencies that you said were perpetrating basically a hoax and a witch hunt and couldn't be trusted, and now you're asking us to trust them or asking the world to trust them? So he's undermined our ability to both deter the Russians, to protect ourselves from further Russian or other intervention, and in that way, I think, really weakened our national security. Congressman, there's a Politico story last night that said House Republicans have started to secretly investigate the DOJ and FBI for, quote, improperly and perhaps criminally mishandling the contents of the famous Steele dossier. What do you think about this?

Is there anything to this notion that Republicans and even some of the media have been pushing that, you know, the Steele dossier was, you know, improperly funded, that somehow the FBI's investigation into Trump started because of the dossier or relied heavily on the dossier? What do you think about that? Well, it's clearly an effort by the Republicans to discredit the FBI and discredit Mueller and really just sort of cast doubt on the government. It reminds me of my days as a federal prosecutor when, if the defense had a really bad case, they would try to put the government on trial.

But there are real limits to that, both in terms of its effectiveness as well as the degree at risk of damaging these institutions. They hope, I think, by trying to discredit Christopher Steele or the FBI that they can cast doubt on the whole enterprise of the Russians. But there's no denying the Russians hacked into our institutions. There's no way that the dossier, whether it proves to be completely true or not, can undermine the conclusions of the intelligence agency that the orders came from the top of the Kremlin.

The fact that Mike Flynn just pled guilty to lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador, nothing about the dossier can change that. The fact that the Russians approached the campaign through Papadopoulos and offered these stolen emails, nothing in the dossier or discrediting the FBI is going to change that. These folks have already admitted to lying about it, admitted to these contacts. So there are limits, I think, to this.

But the most pernicious thing is, there are a message to the White House that if you fire Mueller or you fire Rosenstein, you can count on a certain number of the members of Congress to ignore their constitutional duty and essentially lay down. And I think that is a tremendous disservice to the country. Yeah, you know, in my view, I've been thinking, it seems like they might not need to fire Mueller to achieve their goal, which is undermine an investigation to the point where congressional Republicans feel free to ignore even the most explosive findings because of supposed bias. What do you think about that?

Does that concern you? How do you guard against that? Well, I'll tell you what concerns me. First of all, I think it's going to be very hard to undermine Mueller and what Mueller concludes, because an indictment is an indictment.

And if Mueller brings additional indictments, and when they put on these cases to trial, people will see the facts. A lot of this investigation, obviously, is being done behind closed doors. But when these things go to trial and when people are forced to plead guilty, that is very public. So it's going to be, at the end of the day, very hard to undermine Mueller.

What I worry even more about, though, is that they could take action to limit the effectiveness of Mueller's investigation. And they could do that, for example, by putting pressure on Rod Rosenstein to prevent Mueller from looking at things he really needs to look at, like the issue of whether the Russians were laundering money through the Trump Organization, and that is something they're holding over the president's head. There are credible allegations along these lines that need to be investigated. And, you know, we didn't know at the start of this that Mike Flynn and the vice president were lying about these conversations over sanctions with the Russian ambassador.

Now, there's no evidence the vice president did so knowingly, but he did misrepresent the country that, no, we would never have these conversations with the Russian ambassador. It didn't happen. You don't know until you investigate when you have credible allegations. And here, it could be really dangerous to the country if the Russians, in fact, have something they can hold over the head of the president of the United States.

And if they fire Rod Rosenstein and they put someone else in his place, that can confidentially and out of the public eye tell Mueller, you will not look into these issues. You will not follow the money. That could be a more effective way of undermining the investigation. That really worries me.

Is that the main thing that you're worried about in terms of limiting Mueller's investigation into potential money laundering? Are there other steps they're taking to limit that? Or is this just if they fire Rosenstein, that's what you're worried about? Well, I'm worried about how much they're eroding the independence of the Justice Department.

And that could have effects on the scope of Mueller's investigation. It could have effects on whether there's a new unwarranted investigation into Hillary Clinton as the Republicans are pushing. We're already seeing the effects of this pressure on the Justice Department. The Justice Department last week did something inexplicable.

And that is they released the private text messages of two FBI personnel during the pendency of an inspector general investigation. That never happens. That never happens. There's no good reason for it.

There's no excuse for it, except that they're feeling the heat. And if you're going to capitulate in small ways like that, then you're at risk of capitulating in bigger ways. The Justice Department capitulated when the White House said lift the gag rule on this witness in the Uranium 1 investigation so we can rekindle another investigation into Hillary Clinton and take the focus off Donald Trump and his ties with the Russians. These things all undermine the Justice Department.

They undermine the FBI. And the long-term damage to these institutions is something that we also need to be really concerned about. Congressman Schiff, thank you as always for joining us, giving us an update. And good luck to you in keeping this investigation going in the new year.

Well, it's good to be with you. We've been talking about these very serious subjects. I wish you a very good day. And let your local congressman know if you need anything.

I will certainly do so. One day we'll have you on and talk about fun stuff, I promise. Excellent. All right, thank you to Dick Durbin and Adam Schiff for joining us today.

Dan, this is it. This is our final pod of the year. Do you have any thoughts to take people home? Well, think about this.

This time last year, we were tested. Actually, probably WhatsApping back then and trying to come up with a name for this podcast. And I would like to say, were it not for you to come up with Pod Save America at the last possible minute, this podcast would have been a failure. It has a bad name, guys.

It has a bad name. So bad. We dodged a bullet like you would not imagine. So I would like to say thank you to several groups of people, our listeners, for being awesome and making us inspired.

You always come up to us and say, you won't keep us sane. I was like, no, no, you guys have it backwards. You keep us sane because we get to talk about this. And then go meet inspirational people who remind us that politics can still be a force for good.

I want to thank you, John and Tommy, for what you've done to build Kirk Kennedy and to get an amazing thing and be a great platform for this podcast. And thank everyone else for our community who actually does a little work. Well, that's very nice of you, Dan. Thank you.

Thank you for lending your voice and your brilliance every Thursday and all through the touring and just about every day. Thank you, John. This is great. We're basically, this is like the Trump press conference yesterday.

That's right. That's right. That was my original gag. And then I stepped on it because I got to really step to the middle of the listeners.

No, I feel the same way about our listeners. I also feel the same way about the staff at the community. We cannot have assembled a better team and they work tirelessly behind the scenes nonstop way too much. And we're hoping to hire more people next year to alleviate some of the pressure.

I would also like to say to everyone, like, you know, we're ending this year on a note where everyone's like, oh, tax bill. We just got through Alabama. We were so excited. Now we have to deal with this tax thing.

But it's almost, it's a good example for all of us because, you know, I've been saying this all year. What Trump has taught us more than anything else is that democracy is an everyday fight. It is an everyday battle. We can never rest.

I'm sorry about that. I know that might seem tiring. But we have to be in this battle every single day. And we should also take heart for what everyone who's listened to this pod and all the activists and everyone else out there has achieved this year.

I mean, Donald Trump was inaugurated almost a year ago next month. And he had a Republican majority in Congress. And everyone was very worried and very afraid of what might happen. And the way we responded to that inauguration, there was the largest single protest in history with the Women's March.

When he tried to implement the travel ban, people flooded the airports. We won an election in Virginia. We won an unthinkable election in Alabama. Even with the Republican president and Republican Congress, we stopped the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

This tax bill, thanks to our listeners and thanks to all the activists out there, polls at 25%. Donald Trump started the year with an average approval rating of 45.5%. It's now 37.2%. The generic ballot for 2018 has Democrats up by 18 points.

None of that happened by accident. That happened because all of you who are listening and everyone else out there who's been at town hall, who's been protesting outside the Capitol, who's been calling their senators, it's because of you. And if you guys hadn't been involved and fighting and active for this very, very long year, who knows where we'd be right now. And so everyone should feel very proud of what they achieved and they should, you know, relax over the break and then come back in 2018 ready for an even more challenging year because we have an election and it's going to be hell like most elections are and we're going to need every single person to work their ass off.

So rest up now and then keep your heads up and stay in the fight. That's how I'll end it. It's going to feel pretty sweet when we win in November 8th. All right.

Thank you, everyone. And we'll see you next year. Bye, Dan. Happy holidays, everyone.

It's here. The Ford. It's a big deal. Okay.

The Ford. It's a big deal. Oh, guys, just wait. The Ford.