Saagar details the shady stock trading of Nancy Pelosi and how politicians use their influence to get rich
speaker pelosi with a big announcement
about her major commitment to fighting
inequality because that’s something she
definitely really really cares about
um here’s the announcement she’s
creating a committee
a select committee in fact on economic
you see there her official press release
on the website and this was actually
something that really jumped down as you
at you as like part of a normal
system that is employed here in
washington to make people
feel like things are happening and make
activists feel like they’re really
engaged in the process but really it’s a
way of sort of stiff-arming their
demands and concerns
yeah it’s all theater here in washington
but this one in particular is something
i call the hamster wheel
right it’s designed to put her most
activist members the members most likely
to cause her problems on this issue
she’s gonna put them on this commission
they are going to run on this hamster
wheel and feel like they’re doing
something really important
when in reality they’re just being kept
uh busy away from the house floor the
only place that actually matters for
actual change on anything
they’re gonna be running on the hamster
wheel of this commission which will
eventually put out a report that no one
will read and it will accomplish nothing
avoid these things like the plague if
you are someone who cares about change
and i say this to conservative activists
i say it out let me say here to
don’t do this yeah well i mean it
reminds me very much
of the biden sanders task forces
that you know was the only thing
that bernie managed to extract from joe
biden before exiting the race that you
knew from the jump like
it didn’t matter who you put on those
committees it didn’t matter how good the
recommendations were that were coming
out of them
like here we are days away from the
biden administration and i’m not hearing
anything about the recommendations that
came out of the task forces
whatsoever what pelosi says in this
press release she says we’re creating
the select committee
to be a resource to the congress to make
to economic fairness access to education
working with the committees of
jurisdiction the select committee will
study and recommend
proposals to make our economy work for
everyone powering american economic
while ensuring that no one is left out
or left behind in the 21st century
all fancy way of saying like like you
they’re gonna study it they’re gonna put
on a report and that’ll be the end of
that so basically your point is here
when you see these committees purporting
to be about
fighting inequality or fighting into
whatever it is left or right
what they’re really doing is putting up
a roadblock putting up like
a sort of obstacle course to jump
through rather than actually taking
issue on that issue
this commission has two goals the first
is to make pelosi look like she’s doing
something and the second
is to distract you know the act the
members who actually want to do
from taking any meaningful action and
this goes back to something we talked
about earlier in the week which is
look the only thing that matters in the
house is action on the house floor
progressive activists can learn a lot
from the freedom caucus who presented
themselves as a political power block
by really only focusing on action on the
house floor they could deliver a block
of votes or they could withhold them
and that is where their power came from
was hanging together on these issues
they didn’t get distracted
by commissions they didn’t get
distracted by other promises because
this is just one
tool political leaderships have to
distract you know their problem members
my favorite one is the and we’ll vote on
that at some point or hey
this bureaucrat will call you or hey can
we just talk about it on the house floor
the only thing that matters at the end
of the day is voting
and the more you can pressure and push
action on that front
the more effective you’re going to be
because as we’ve learned from this whole
2 000 check debacle the thing that they
hate most is going on the record for
anything because it’s a very
very powerful tool and can be used
against them or for them
uh in any number of ways and your point
is so well taken
that progressives really fall prey to
these types of tactics like they really
feel like when they get put on the task
because there’s this like idealism there
of like they’re really listening to my
concerns and they really mean it and
these are my friends how many times we
hear bernie sanders they’re like joe my
friend joe biden you’re like
ugh um so it reminds me of
you know the forced to vote debate
that’s have it happening on the left
right now because on the one hand you
have a faction of people who are saying
we need a vote on this key issue that is
important to us that’s important to the
country in the middle of pandemic
medicare for all like let’s take a vote
and put everybody on their record
and what you’re hearing from at least
some in the progressive wing of the
party here in dc is like
let’s not do the voting that voting
doesn’t really matter that much any
we’re working behind the scenes to get
leadership posts and committees etc etc
and all of that is ultimately just a way
to sort of
make them feel like they’re being heard
make them feel like they have some
sway and influence and power within the
system but ultimately to
crush them and keep them quiet and keep
them from causing trouble
everyone wants to feel like they’re a
cool kid right that’s how this town runs
and these positions you know these
acceptance on these commissions
everything always feels like oh i’m
getting invited to the table
you have to be comfortable not being
invited to the table because it’s the
only way you’re actually going to be
able to force
you know that kind of political action
on the floor which is the
again i’m going to be a broken record on
this but the only thing that matters at
the end of the day
is what you do on the floor it’s voting
so so true rachel
rachel thank you so much for being with
us all week it’s been phenomenal having
um always you have such incredible
insight so thank you so much for that
and happy new year to you my friend
happy new year to you as well
and to all of you risers thanks for
having me sagar will be back next week
to talk about aliens i know there’s a
lot to say
yeah there’s an alien update we missed
an epstein update this week as well
without sauger here so we have been
falling down on the job a little bit
but don’t worry friends because sagar
will be back next week with all of those
important stories and more
we’re going to kick off the new year
with friends of the show chuck rocha
kyle kalinski brown and joy gray and so
many more ben smith is going to join us
to talk about what biden can expect from
the media versus what trump got from the
remember to hit that subscribe button so
you don’t miss any of our videos also
don’t forget to like and share as well
happy new years guys appreciate you all
you made it you survived 2020 on to
American Prospect Executive Editor David Dayen looks at Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s legislative past and how that influences her response to the pandemic.
By Molly Ball
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been right about a lot.
- She was right in the early 1990s, when, as a fierce critic of China’s human rights record,
- she rejected the bipartisan faith that economic liberalization in China would inevitably lead to greater democratization.
- She was right again in 2003 when, as the leader of the House Democrats, she was one of the few party leaders to oppose the war in Iraq.
- She was right during the 2008 primary, when she rejected the entreaties of powerful allies of Hillary Clinton — Harvey Weinstein among them — to get behind a plan to use superdelegates to help Clinton take the Democratic nomination from Barack Obama.
- Pelosi was right throughout Obama’s administration, when she struggled to make the president see that his fetish for bipartisanship was leading him to make pointless concessions to Republicans, who would never negotiate in good faith.
In “Pelosi,” Molly Ball’s admiring and illuminating new biography of the most powerful woman in American politics, there’s a scene where Pelosi expresses her frustration to Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, over Obama’s doomed courtship of Republican support for health care reform. “Does the president not understand the way this game works?” she asks. “He wants to get it done and be beloved, and you can’t have both — which does he want?”
The House speaker would rather get it done. There’s a pattern in Ball’s book. Again and again, Pelosi is dismissed,
- first as a dilettante housewife,
- then as a far-left San Francisco kook,
- finally as an establishment dinosaur — and
- throughout, as a woman.
She perseveres, driven by a steely faith in her own abilities. And more often than not, she is vindicated.
[ Read an excerpt from “Pelosi.” ]
The arc of Ball’s book is one of triumph. Pelosi was born to a prominent Democratic family in Baltimore, but the San Francisco network of influence that led her to Congress was one she built herself. When she entered the House of Representatives in 1987, women were a rarity in the chamber and completely absent from leadership. Sexual harassment and belittlement were constant. Twenty years later, she became the first-ever female House speaker. And in 2019, after regaining the top spot in the chamber, she came to preside over the most diverse Democratic caucus in history, one she did as much as anyone to elect.
For the first time in her public life, Pelosi became an icon, lauded for her unparalleled ability to get under Donald Trump’s skin. In one of her first meetings with the president when she was speaker, she helped goad him into taking public responsibility for an imminent government shutdown. Video of her strolling out of the White House in a chic Max Mara coat, putting on her tortoise shell sunglasses with a sly smile, appeared in countless memes. “It was as if America, after years of fixation on her weaknesses, had suddenly woken up to her strengths,” Ball writes.
For a liberal reading Ball’s book — and I suspect it will largely be liberals who will want to read a shining account of Pelosi’s career — a major question is whether the speaker’s strengths are equal to the severity of the dangers bearing down on our country. Even before coronavirus, many on the left worried that Pelosi wasn’t doing enough to constrain Trump, though she eventually came around to impeaching him. Once the pandemic hit, there was growing alarm among progressives that Democrats, in negotiating rescue packages, didn’t insist on the funding necessary to make the 2020 election secure, which could unfold in the shadow of a pandemic that makes in-person voting life-threatening. Congressional Democrats have leverage, Michael Grunwald wrote in Politico, but “they don’t seem inclined to use that leverage to take on Trump.”
In the past, Pelosi has always seemed to have a plan, even if those sniping from outside couldn’t see it. When it comes to Trump, does she still?
Reading “Pelosi,” it’s hard to know exactly how Pelosi sees the threat that Trump poses. Despite meticulous reporting and multiple interviews with the House speaker, Ball, Time magazine’s national political correspondent, doesn’t penetrate her steely exterior, as she herself acknowledges. Pelosi, Ball writes, “is a private person, and her inner life is fundamentally off limits.” To understand her, we can only look to her record.
Parts of that record should comfort those who fear that Pelosi is going soft. One of the book’s most telling anecdotes involves the late congressman Jack Murtha, a grizzled, conservative Democrat from Pennsylvania. An ex-Marine, Murtha initially supported the Iraq war, but in November 2005 he called a news conference to decry it and demand a six-month timetable for withdrawal. “The war in Iraq is not going as advertised,” he said. “Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk.” It was a turning point in the public’s understanding of the war; as Ball writes, “One analyst later dubbed it the ‘Murthquake,’ and antiwar activists credited Murtha with a seismic shift in the public debate.”
Yet as Murtha became a major face of opposition to the Iraq war, Pelosi remained silent, enraging antiwar activists who believed she’d left Murtha out on a limb. Amy Poehler, playing Pelosi on “Saturday Night Live,” mocked her timidity. “What are the Democrats proposing to counteract all this corruption?” asked Darrell Hammond, playing MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. “That’s easy, Chris. We’re going to do nothing,” Poehler said.
“Pelosi let them criticize her even though she knew the truth: She and Murtha had orchestrated the whole thing, and agreed that it had to look like a one-man crusade,” Ball writes. Both believed his withdrawal proposal would carry greater weight if he didn’t seem to be working with the caucus’s left flank.
Here we see one of the more striking things about Pelosi: She’s willing to advance her policy goals at the expense of her own image. Part of the reason Pelosi has been underestimated is simple sexism, but part is that she genuinely seems to care less about how she’s perceived than about what she can accomplish.
Ball describes the Murtha episode as “an illustration of Pelosi’s theory of public opinion.” Pelosi likes to repeat a quotation from Abraham Lincoln: “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.” It was a line she invoked to explain her reluctance to impeach Trump, infuriating people — myself included — who believed she was following rather than leading. But Ball has made me think we were misunderstanding Pelosi; the speaker was emphasizing the importance of shaping public opinion before acting, not using public opinion as a reason not to act.
So as I read Ball’s book, I kept thinking that maybe Pelosi’s impeachment hesitation had been a put-on, a repeat of the Murtha play. But it appears it wasn’t — she really did hold out until her caucus gave her no choice. Likewise, her willingness to collaborate with Trump, even if it gives him legislative accomplishments to tout, is genuine. Pelosi, Ball writes, thought she could, “as she had with George W. Bush, work with him on goals they shared even as they fiercely opposed each other where they didn’t agree.” She never aspired to lead an all-out campaign against Trump’s authoritarianism.
Pelosi has always been a progressive; until the last few years, the right used her as the ultimate symbol of left-wing extremism. But her relentlessly pragmatic approach to politics is the polar opposite of, say, the Bernie Sanders approach. Pelosi doesn’t begin by asking what kind of world we want. She asks where the votes are. The speaker is, as she herself has said, a master legislator. “If this book has a thesis, it is that you needn’t agree with Nancy Pelosi’s politics to respect her accomplishments and appreciate her historic career,” Ball says. But you can do that and still wonder if, at this moment, her skill at making the system work is enough to check a man happy to destroy it.
Medium-size reform creates the conditions for bigger things.
Recent state elections — the Democratic landslide in Virginia, followed by Democratic gubernatorial victories in Kentucky and Louisiana — have been bad news for Donald Trump.
Among other things, the election results vindicate polls indicating that Trump is historically unpopular. All of these races were in part referendums on Trump, who put a lot of effort into backing his preferred candidates. And in each case voters gave him a clear thumbs down.
Beyond offering a verdict on Trump, however, I’d argue that the state elections offered some guidance on an issue that has divided Democrats, namely health care. What the results suggested to me was the virtue of medium-size reform: incremental enough to have a good chance of being enacted, big enough to provide tangible benefits that voters don’t want taken away.
Remember, there was a third governor’s race, in Mississippi, in which the G.O.P. held on. True, Mississippi is a very red state, which Trump won by 18 points in 2016. But Louisiana and Kentucky are or were, if anything, even redder, with Trump margins of 20 and 30 points respectively. So what made the difference?
Personalities surely mattered. Louisiana’s re-elected John Bel Edwards was widely liked, Kentucky’s defeated Matt Bevin widely disliked. Demography probably also mattered. Urban and especially suburban voters have turned hard against Trump, but rural voters haven’t, at least so far — and Mississippi is one of the few states left with a majority-rural population.
But there’s another difference among the three states. Kentucky and Louisiana took advantage of the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid, leading to steep drops in the number of uninsured residents; Mississippi hasn’t. This meant that voting Democratic in Kentucky and Louisiana meant voting to preserve past policy success, while the same vote in Mississippi was at best about hope for future reform — a much less powerful motivator.
Back in 2010, as Obamacare was about to squeak through Congress, Nancy Pelosi famously declared, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” This line was willfully misrepresented by Republicans (and some reporters who should have known better) as an admission that there was something underhanded about the way the legislation was enacted. What she meant, however, was that voters wouldn’t fully appreciate the A.C.A. until they experienced its benefits in real life.
It took years to get there, but in the end Pelosi was proved right, as health care became a winning issue for Democrats. In the 2018 midterms and in subsequent state elections, voters punished politicians whom they suspected of wanting to undermine key achievements like protection for pre-existing conditions and, yes, Medicaid expansion.
And this political reality has arguably set the stage for further action. At this point, as far as I can tell, all of the contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are calling for a significant expansion of the government’s role in health care, although they differ about how far and how fast to go.
Which brings me to the latest development in intra-Democratic policy disputes: Elizabeth Warren’s proposal for a two-step approach to health reform. Her idea is to start with actions — some requiring no legislation at all, others requiring only a simple Senate majority — that would greatly expand health insurance coverage. These actions would, if successful, deliver tangible benefits to millions.
They would not, however, amount to the full Bernie, eliminating private insurance and going full single-payer. Warren still says that this is her eventual intention, and has laid out a plan to pay for such a system. But any legislative push would wait three years, giving time for voters to see the benefits of the initial changes.
Sanders supporters are, predictably, crying betrayal. For them it’s all or nothing: a commitment to single-payer has to be in the legislation from Day 1.
The trouble with such demands, aside from the strong probability that proposing elimination of private insurance would be a liability in the general election, is that such legislation would almost certainly fail to pass even a Democratic Senate. So all or nothing would, in practice, mean nothing.
But is Warren giving up on Medicare for All? After all, what she’s offering isn’t really a transition plan in the usual sense, since there’s no guarantee that Step 2 would ever happen.
The lesson I take from the politics of Obamacare, however, is that successful health reform, even if incomplete, creates the preconditions for further reform. What looks impossible now might look very different once tens of millions of additional people have actual experience with expanded Medicare, and can compare it with private insurance.
Although I’ve long argued against making Medicare for All a purity test, there is a good case for eventually going single-payer. But the only way that’s going to happen is via something like Warren’s approach: initial reforms that deliver concrete benefits, and maybe provide a steppingstone to something even bigger.
And then there’s the corporate Democrats, who are like, I don’t know, what will Trump
But guys, look, this one is so over the top.
It really got me to question like, do they not wanna dig because folks are gonna find
out things about Democrats.
>> Yes, I think that’s part of it.
I mean, obviously, that’s speculation.
But the fact that they have shied away from possible financial crimes, as aggressively
as they have, really makes you wonder, why do they wanna limit the scope of this investigation?
I mean this argument that they want to keep it simple is a little ridiculous to me because
I think that there are way more issues out there that Trump is involved in that the American
public deserves to know about and he should be held accountable for.
The fact that they are avoiding those incredibly important questions makes me worried and it
also makes me worried that Jerry Nadler, who is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee
was not included in this closed door meeting with Nancy Pelosi.
Now remember, Nadler is the one who had some tension with Pelosi when it came to the question
He wanted impeachment, he was pressuring her on impeachment and she was resisting.
she resisted that more than she’s ever resisted Donald Trump.
Let’s keep it real.
And the fact that he wasn’t included in this meeting makes me worry.
>> So why doesn’t Richard Neal, the head of the House Ways and Means Committee want Donald
He would not ask for his New York state taxes.
What a weird thing.
I mean, there’s just It makes no sense at all.
In this case, Pelosi says, well, if we get another issues will be bogged down on the
courts, what are you talking about?
You’re already investigating those things, and that it’s already in the courts.
There’s like, how would the tax returns issue bring the Ukrainian issue into the courts.
It makes no sense at all.
She’s just saying things that are not only not true but not logically coherent.
So that’s what makes me wonder like, what is going on here?
What are you guys trying to hide?
Why do you not want to look into trump’s businesses under any and all circumstances?
Under the most obvious circumstances?
And I don’t pretend to know why.