¶ Rep. Johnny Olszewski joins the Chuck ToddCast
This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you by Incognate. You know, one of the things we talk a lot about on this podcast is trust, who deserves it and who doesn't. And lately I've been thinking about how much of our personal information is just floating around online. I'm talking about phone numbers, home addresses, emails, even information about your family, all sitting on websites you've probably never
heard of. In the scary part, that information can be used by scammers and identity thieves to piece together enough details to impersonate you, target you, or worse. That's where incognate comes in. Incognate works behind the scenes to track down and remove your personal data from hundreds of websites, things like online directories, people search sites, and even commercial databases that collect and sell your data without your consent.
The process is automated, and because data can pop back up again, incognit keeps monitoring and removing it for you. And one feature I really like its custom removals. If you find something about yourself online that you want eliminated, it's a listing, an old record, or something you just don't want publicly available, you can send incognit the link and a dedicated privacy expert handles the removal for you. It's a great way to reduce your digital footprint and
protect yourself from scams and identity theft. Right now, you
¶ Pardon clause is biggest loophole between democracy & autocracy
can get sixty percent off an annual incognyplan. Just go to incognit dot com, slash Chuck podcast and use the code Chuck podcast. Use the code you get a discal again, that's in cogni dot com slash Chuck podcast and use the code Chuck podcast to get sixty percent off and start taking control of your personal data today. Trust me, I'm constantly working on this for years myself, and here's an opportunity for you to take matters into your own
hands as well. So a few months, a few weeks back, I spent a lot of time talking to you guys here in these and in fact I did a subsetecon about this that I said, you know, at the age of a warm is coming, and the question was just sort of when it would begin, And I used the bipartisan endorsement. The first Republican to endorse my next guest bill, a constitutional amendment that he is proposing. It's a Democratic Congressman Johnny Oldchesky from Baltimore, and it was Don Bacon
became the first Republican to sign on. And it's essentially a pardon nullification constitutional amendment. It uses in some ways the same structure of a congressional override of a presidential veto. It's very similar in its structure. But it was I saw it as an opportunity because this was done in such a way that it didn't feel specifically targeted to one president. We know we've had abuses of the pardon power, but by both this one and the previous one, and
you could argue multiple presidents going forward, going backward. And there's some argue the that the pardon clause in our
¶ Do you have more Republicans on board with the pardon amendment?
constitution is the biggest you might say, loophole there is between a small D democracy and a small A authoritarian UH regime. And so with that, I thought it would be nice to hear from the author of this amendment himself, Congressman Johnny Oh. He says, we can call him Johnny Oh. We'll find out if I'm going to have to start
having a you know, use the code. My my friend Tony Kornheiser, Congressman, loves Johnny O Polo shirts and they advertise on his So maybe at this point people will think it's you advertising.
It's the number one gift I get when I talk to Chambers of congresces, et cetera.
Yeah, it's the has You know they have that third button right that that's what what's what guys like. It's
¶ Pardon amendment is structured like a veto override
like that it's a three button polo rather than sometimes the two button polo. So there is something about you know, it is.
A nice print, a nice constitutional amendment.
Here. There you go. It's a mighty fine constitution you have. There be ashamed, mighty find republican. There be shame if we lose it. All right, Look, I want to bring you on on this, but look we'll talk. I want to talk a lot about sort of how to make congressman Congress functional again. But this is an important step because constitutional You know, I am one of the reasons
¶ Trump's pardons are exceptionally egregious
I'm long term optimistic, even if I'm short term pessimistic about the direction of our republic is that when we've had moments like this before we've used the tools in our toolbox. We haven't done it very often. We need to use them more, but we don't. We're in and around the Civil War, we did in and around Teddy Roosevelt throughout the r we did, and I think we're in one of those periods again. And you update your constitutions, and the same reason why you put a new roof
on your house, you know it. Sometimes you know you realize, oh, it's kind of an old structure that's going to have leaks.
¶ Biden's preemptive pardons for family members were also terrible
We kind of need to put new technology in here. And so the updating of the constitution I think is necessary. But I'm curious where are we Do you have more than Don Bacon on board the parton amendment? And since I've been on here, am I missing a piece of the amendment that you think is important for my listeners and viewers to know. I think you pretty much hit it.
We have a part of it where the petitioning for review is a pretty narrow approach. Twenty members of the House, five members of the Senate can petition for that vote, and so part of it is just by having the ability to review it, our hope is that presidents will
think twice before issuing these egregious pardons. But yeah, it is very much modeled after a veto override, which I thought it was a modest but important step forward to say some of these pardons that really are beyond the pale, especially under this president, are in need of that kind of reform. And so I appreciate Don stepping on and really stepping into this in a moment where we're so polarized.
But that's why we structured that way. And I think that as a new member of Congress, having someone who's a veteran who really I think understands the institution and why this is important. We are now actually this week, we're going to be opening up for co sponsors, and so we're hoping to see Democrats and Republicans alike join.
I know it's going to be harder because I think people view it as going after President Trump, and in some ways like his have been especially worse in my opinion, But as you as you point out, I think the.
Preemptive partons were terrible. I mean, there's really no defending the preemptive partons and what he did. And and I might have empathy for Tony Fauci on a personal level,
¶ Pardon power is a loophole right out of a monarchy
Lis Chainey in a personal level, there's no doubt there there could be attempts. But what really set me off about those pardons were they where they get out of jail free cards for his family members. That felt like, what are you doing to prevent what you think the next president is going to do? You just gave him precedent to do it with his own family m And.
I suspect he will and.
What will he say when he does it, just like the previous psident.
That's right, absolutely, And I think this is part of the larger issue. This is one of many places where I think Americans are so frustrated with all of us because the wealthy and the well connected and those who are in power or are privileged or getting away with you know, literally crimes I don't want to say murder, but like they're getting away with pretty serious crimes. They're
lining their pockets, and everybody else is getting crushed. And so I think it's pastime, especially in this space, to look at the Constitution and say this is you can drive a truck through this loophole.
¶ Congress wanted to curb pardon power after Nixon, but it stalled
I like to think that.
Our founders had some better sense, that the better angels of those who were presidents would not have abused it.
In these ways. But here we are.
And you know, I'm a Democrat who can say that presidents I didn't Clinton others also abuse this whether it was Clinton's half brother.
Do you do any research on this as to why, I mean, what are my favorite I find the pardon I inclusion in the Constitution one of the biggest head scratchers, Like if I could go into a time machine, because here's a group of men and it was obviously we know it was all men who were so concerned about a monarchy and about preventing a monarch as the leader of our country that they wrote this pretty incredible document that has stood the test of time but created a
loophole right out of a monarchy. And it is one of those how the heck did this get into the Constitution in the first place.
It's pretty wild considering all the checks and balances that are otherwise written into the Constitution. I mean, they were so deliberate about, to your point, preventing a return of the monarchy, and I think that they would be surprised by the amount of presidential authority being exhibited today. Generally, I think that the inclinations of those founding fathers were actually have as strong legislative branch that could sort of
help dictate and set the pace for our governance. So I did not go that far back in terms of my history on the pardon, but I was intrigued to learn that there actually was a very similar amendment put forward following the pardon of Richard Nixon, almost exactly the
¶ We need people to believe in the institution of congress again
same in terms of a twoth thing that happened.
To It installed, obviously, but like, why did you get no? But did you get some understanding? Who stalled it? Why did it stall? This was a not a super majority of Democratic majorities, but pretty close in seventy six and seventy eight.
My sense is that it ended up not being bipartisan, which is why we were so deliberate starting this out. I didn't want to drop this, this legislation, this constitutional amendment until we had a Republican on board, And you know, having Don agreed to do this was a game changer. And it's really open doors to my Republican colleagues at a time where it's really hard for us to have
conversations about anything. But I like to think that both he and I approach our work in a way where we may have pretty strong philosophical differences on any number of issues, but that we treat each other in our colleagues with some decency and respect, and that we can approach this issue with the seriousness that it deserves, and we're hopeful that, if not under this Congress, that in a subsequent Congress, we actually do get this done, because this is more than just I mean, I want to
¶ Should a pardon board be created similar to those at the state level?
see this done.
Beyond right, I assume your goal is you'll introduce this, assuming the voters of Baltimore send you back, that you will do this every Congress until you get us right.
Yeah, And I think it's one of many reforms that we should be looking at. I mean, the fact that we can't get a decent stockband passed, for example, is sort of beyond beyond me. These are things that are supported by eighty percent of the voters out there, Republicans and Democrats alike. And so I'm I'm a firm believer that one of the things we have to do, whether it's as Democrats or as members of Congress, is have
people believe in the institution again. And that's sort of holding ourselves to a higher standard and living that standard a little bit. So this is one place where I had a chance and step and lead.
And sort of know. It is a modest I mean, I'll just be honest, It is a somewhat modest proposal. I you know, I don't know if one individual should have this kind of power. And whether you thought of creating a pardon board, you know, that might be made up of the two most senior justices, the Attorney General, maybe the chairs of the Senate Judiciary and House Judiciary. Whatever you could create, we could just in the same way we have the Gang of Eight for intel briefings
that administration. You know, you could put together a pardon board where you would just like anything. I mean, I think plenty of states have taken the power away from the governor, created these boards with the governor having ultimate sort of thumbs up, thumbs down sign off. Essentially they
will sign off or they won't sign off. Did you think about adding that or were you fearing that was too complicated that it would sort of sort of take the eye off of the focal of the focal point here, which is just putting a check on his part and power.
Part of it with simplicity and aligns with the check that already exists in Congress on other bills where there's
¶ What's the strategy for getting the pardon amendment passed?
a conflict between the two branches. And frankly, the other piece is most other boards. I guess it depends on the state, but you sort of get into the questions of does the governor or the president still have the ultimate authority? And if they do for me, it doesn't actually address the problem. And if they don't over the board, then I think it could have been more challenging to get Republicans on board to this idea, especially under this trank.
I'm just going to be real, under this administration, taking away the decision making of the president is not something that is looked favorly by colleagues in the Republican Party right now.
So when I think about the history of tough things that need bipartisan support to get through, it's amazing how
¶ Nobody in congress thinks the proposal is a bad idea
often they happen in the month of December. Right, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed the month after the twenty ten mid terms. And I remember, if somebody told you Democrats just got shellacked in the twenty ten mid terms, you know what they're successfully going to do next. They're going to repeal Don't as, Don't Tell. And nobody would have seen a company. Now, was it paired up with solidifying
the Bush tax cut? Yes, right, there was, certainly, you know, this is this is what what we expect Congress to do right, a little bit here, a little bit there, and that's how that's how compromise happens, and that's how progress happens. This screams December vote to me, meaning you know if you could attach it to a must pass bill that you would see you know, do you have a strategy yet in your head of how you want to get this passed? Or right now? Is it? If you build it, they will come mindset.
Speaking at this point, it's building the coalition and helping to tell the story about why this is important, why it's needed, why it's not a partisan a proposal. But I will say I actually I love the idea of this being a December gift to the American people. So I think that that's something that as we're you know, as we're having the conversations, people are well, at least say that's.
A great idea. We have to we have to do something about. Yeah, let me ask this. Have you had anybody say well, that's a terrible idea. And here's why.
No, if anything, it's I can't sign on that because right, and so I think, to your point, right.
No, what do you say it's a bad idea? They're just deciding whether they want to put their name.
On it, because what we've seen is indefensible.
Right.
You can't defend Juan Orlando Hernandez pardon in Honduras. You can't defend the cz crypto con artists who gave millions of dollars to the Trunk cryptocurrency. You can't defend the pardon shopping industry where people are now paying upwards of half a million a million dollars to seek a pardon from people closer.
It's just it's indefensible.
And so it's more a question of like, I don't
¶ We haven't passed a meaningful amendment since JFK assassination
I'm not worried about it passing if it's giving a vote, it's just the function of right. How do we find a legislative vehicle or pathway to make sure this actually.
Gets I mean, look, the reason I look at December is sort of you're probably an opportune time is if the House is going to change hands and there is going to be some cleanup, they're going to want to get some votes out the door before they lose their majority, and they want to be able to say that that you know, you know, maybe that's when you get the
stock band, right. That's where you could picture how those that have survived want to be able to say, hey, we we hear you, we heard the message, and this is a way to respond. I mean it's like, look,
¶ Repairing the democracy transcends partisan politics
I'm just I will confess. I just want to see I want to see this work. We need to prove that we can use constitutional amendment. I do think there's a lot of people who feel powerless at the moment that they look at the democracy and they think it's rigged and I have no say in this. Yep, the thought that a constitutional that Congress could propose a constitutional amendment, it passes the House and the Senate, and it then
heads to the state legislatures. I mean it's you know, civics one oh one, right, Like how an amendment becomes comes to be would be a healthy exercise because it's one of those things once we once we teach the country had a fish, I think they'll keep trying to fish. Just you know, that'd be nice to actually person in me.
Yeah, it'd be nice to actually see what I told my kids in ninth grade government class when I was a teacher before I got into politics, that yes, this stuff actually works and this is how things happened. Because that has not been my experience in the past.
We really haven't passed a meaningful constitutional amendment, arguably since the Kennedy assassination with the twenty fifth Amendment, Right that that was a meaningful Oh we have a what if
¶ What should Democrats prioritize if they retake the house majority?
the president had lived? Right? That was that to me was at least responding to something. Hey, we hadn't dealt with this, and perhaps we ought to deal with this scenario. We really haven't had a meaningful one since then and it worked. Well, that's close to sixty years now. I know we've had a few things on pay raise and lowering the age from twenty one eighteen, but to me, this wasn't a dealing with something that was structurally broken inside the republic.
Well, and your point, I think people want to have something to believe in again and to say this is something that transcends our parties and politics and that we can look at our structures and how we function.
As a nation.
And I would love to give that hope to I
¶ If impeachable offenses exist, pursue them, but focus on voters' needs
think a very weary, a weary.
Nation right now. This episode of the Check podcast is brought to you by Soul. So if you love that end of the day unwind but hate the hangover, Soul's out of office is for you. These sparkling THHC drinks and gummies give you the same relaxed social feeling without the alcohol, without the calories, and without the crash. Soul is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be
fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THCHC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. They're best selling out of office gummies. We're designed to provide a mild, relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation. With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to fit your vibe. So also has a variety of products specifically designed to help you get a better night's rest, including their top selling Sleepy Gummies,
a fan favorite for deep restorers. Sleep Look. I have made no secret. I am a believer in this stuff, in cannabis and hemp derived. I do not partake in alcohol. For the most part, I think this stuff is a lot safer than alcohol, a lot less addictive than alcohol. And yes, I have to say I love these drinks. It is the glass of wine and you know after work, that's what this is. So no hangover and no excess calories like this. I'm a big fan, So bring on
the good vibes and treat yourself to sold today. Right now, Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order. Go to getsoul dot com and use the word podcast. That's getsol dot com promo code podcast for thirty percent off.
And yes, I too, am a customer. You said something else a few moments ago that I'm more skeptical frankly that that is going to be easy to prove, and that is that you can prove to the country that Congress can you know, be a independent branch of government again. And you know, if Democrats get the House back, you know, some people are going to think they've got a mandate to go impeach Trump, and some are going to say they have a mandate to just simply oppose all things Trump.
¶ The current congress is one of the least productive ever
And some will say, no, we have a mandate to make Congress a functional branch again. The problem is, and you know, I'm just speaking reality, your own caucus probably is divided in three like this now, which is you know, what what should be the focus, you know, what it takes to create more belief in the independence of the legislative branch, which might not be in the best interests of the hardcore base of the Democratic Party. So how do you navigate that?
The same way I think about all this is it's sort of the I approach politics as a Maslow's hierarchy and as a party and as a institution. We should be focusing on addressing people's base needs first, and as we were saying earlier, I feel like we've failed at that miserably. Cost of living was supposed to be the number. You know, day one, President Trump that he would address it. Any number of my colleagues and I ran on lowering
the cost of living. And I always say, if people can't put food on the table and provide for a roof over their head, they don't really care about any of the other issues. And so I think that we can hold the president accountable, and if there are impeachable offenses, we can look at pursuing that. But we have to also provide for Americans, whether it's a fair wage, whether
it's addressing the healthcare crisis that is. You know, I think the average maryland is paying four thousand dollars more a year if they're still in the Affordable Care Act. But we have to also, I guess what I'm trying to is like prove that we can govern with integrity.
And so whether it's the millions of files that still haven't been released on Epstein, whether it's the insider stock trading, the constitutional it's all these things that make people feel like from a policy perspective, they see people getting rich off of these debts on war in Iran. They see members of Congress trading stock and becoming millionaires while we're serving.
And then we're cutting food benefits, we're making healthcare more expensive, we're not addressing the housing costs that people are experiencing. And so I think just delivering, delivering on those basic needs, doing so in a way that has some level of ethics and integrity, I think provides the space that if you were operating in good faith, you can then and
¶ Both parties propose unpassable messaging bills
also do this impeachment or whatever else needs to happen.
As Democrats, Look, what you say seems pretty rational and normal, and yet that isn't what ends up being what people hear and they see coming out of Congress, right, I mean, it gets partisan quickly, and it's going to be even harder if you guys take control immediately there's going to be a presidential campaign starting, and that is always even harder on, you know, especially if you were the majority in the House and you've got a bunch of people
running around Iowa, South Carolina with Democrats next there in the name going Washington's terrible and dysfunctional. Congress doesn't know what it's doing. You know, it will like create this weird negative feedback loop that I think is going to be quite hard to navigate, you know. And oh, by the way, you're still dealing with potentially a runaway executive branch.
I mean, right now, it is Shrewe are dysfunctional. This is one of the least productive congresses I think in the history of Congress. What I tell people is that at the end of the day, Congress is an institution that is made up of people. And maybe this is me being a little pollyannish as a new member and someone who hasn't been jaded by decades of service, But at the end of the day, I don't think any
one person is beyond redemption. And so if you have an institution full of people, you have to believe that the institution isn't beyond redemption, it can also change, and so I come at it as someone who, like my predecessor, Doug Ruebersberger, was a local executive before coming here, and I had a split counsel. We had four Democrats, we had three Republicans. We passed gun safety legislation, we passed
¶ The minority is rarely treated well by the majority
police reform, we passed balanced budgets. We both cut cut spending and found new ways to raise revenue. I mean, it was just there's a way to do it.
Well. It's funny, though, you're actually in the minority in the House, aren't you of executives serving in the legislative branch? Right, there's a few more executives in the Senate, right, a few more former governors.
And I think we'd be stronger if there were more of us, can't.
Right, I mean, I'm trying to think. You know, you've got uh uh, you've got Carlos Simnez, who's the former mayor of Miami Dade County. You've you've got your county exact Mecardo greg Stanton, that's right, Stanton, Mary mayor of Phoenix. It is. You know, it's funny. Anybody who spent time as a mayor right knows you can't be an ideologue, you know. And to me, I know, county exact county judge in some states, you know, but it's essentially we call it our county mayor is a mayor in Florida.
Here it's a county executive. I know Texas it's a judge, right, which gets really confusing, but I mean it is. You know, it's easy to be a partisan when all you have to do is legislate, isn't it.
Yeah, governing is hard and if you want to find I think the other challenge is is too is these chambers constantly are shifting back and forth, and we can we can like we can play this game where it's constantly we win and then we just sort of like bash away everything the last group did and then we build something and they take it.
Well, look at HR I think about this, and I don't think you were there for HR one, but you had Democrats who had there like Christmas Tree wish lists when it came to what they how they would like to see our voting rules. Well, guess what. The Republicans came in and they have their wish list of and neither one is reality based, right, They're both some things seem reasonable, and some things seem a bit aspirational right
on eich side. And whenever I hear somebody say well, it's all of it or nothing that, I'm like, oh, you're not interested in passing any legislation then, right. I mean, if Republicans were serious about voter ID, then they'd only make it about voter ID, and I promise you they'd
¶ Democrats can compromise on policy but not core values
probably get it past. Yes, I think there's forty percent of the Democratic caucus. I would probably vote for vote ID, and once I got that, I it might be all of everybody. You know, we built somehow of that stuff works, yep. And if Democrats have just simply wanted to guarantee a minimum standard for early access to voting, and that's all
they wanted, they would have gotten bipartisan support for that. Right, you know, the inability somehow to you know, go find the slice of bread that everybody wants and let's let's share it.
Well, those are those solutions that are sustainable, right because you forced that compromise and that consensus, and they don't ask forever. Necessarily, sometimes you'll have a big package that will undo it. But I think by and large the decisions are better and they're more sustainable when you take that approach. There's another suit as opposed to President Trump voting today by mail in Florida.
Rules for thee not for me. But here's another challenge I think you guys are going to have if you get control the House. Is I take it at that
¶ Depending on the members, there may be space for compromise
as a minority, you don't feel like the majority has treated you very well? Do you feel that way?
Very fair assessment, right, with the exception of especially my Small Business Committee Roger Williams.
Maybe it's the baseball.
Connection because he's the coach of the Republican team and I play for the Democrats, but we've passed like three bipartisan bills out of that committee.
Everybody loves small business. It's a reminder, right, there's certain
¶ R's willing to compromise are most likely to lose their primary
there are certain committees that can get stuff done. Agg has usually been one that also can get stuff done on a bipart.
But you generally know we have not been treated very well by by the majority here.
Because I say that, because it then becomes really hard to then say, oh, no, we're unlike how you treated us. We're going to treat you better. Because the golden rule. Everybody lives by the golden rule in politics and and but they always live at it, live on it more defensively than offensively. I mean, well you did this to me, so I'm going to do it to you. Right everything is. It's more biblical Old Testament, Biblical justice. Right eye for an eye. That's not going to solve the longer term
problem of Congress's dysfunctional dysfunctionality. And yet you and I
¶ Partisan redistricting + partisan elections leads to bad outcomes
both know leadership will get a lot of grief if you know, from the base and maybe from donors if if they don't punish the other side. Here's how it gets described. Let me get it. You're trying. This is not a simple question to answer, and maybe this is a better way to deal with this debate. There are some that argue that, hey, when Democrats have power, they
ought to use their power. Look at how those guys use They have power because of a three vote majority, but they behave like they have a sixty vote majority. We should behave the same way. Do you feel that I think that's why they're losing so bad.
It's because of they're both but acting like a sixty but they're not incorporating what I think are oftentimes good democratic ideas which might win support on some legislation, and they're allowing themselves to go so extreme, particularly with this president's or of dictating the terms of what they're pursuing, and they're not sort of showing any of that independence.
So I actually I'm going to be controlling here. I think if Democrats and we shouldn't compromise our values, I think we can compromise about compromising what our core values are as Democrats. But if we're willing to at least on a good number of items in good faith, say, okay, Republicans, if you have an idea that is worth listening to, for example, and it can win win your support to help you know, move this piece of legislation forward, we'll
hear you out. I mean, my frustration going to rules any number of times has basically been if if Virginia Fox the chair, who's actually a very nice person. We don't agree on anything, but we've gotten to know each other, but she's the only one there there's even a conversation.
It's sort of any ideas the Speaker's committee for a reason, and.
It operates that way. But again, like things don't you've you've covered this and been around this a lot more. I just I just really think that there is there is a crop of new members, especially in the Democratic side, but also some Republicans I think, who see a different
way forward. And so I think depending on who comes in and replaces the members who are departing, there might be I think some space for maybe not a one to eighty degree turn right, but but just maybe like a thirty degree turn towards.
Well, all right, let me make I I appreciate your optimism on that, but let's be realistic. The Republicans that are likely to lose are the ones that are like your co sponsor and the pardon bill Don Bacon, right, these are the ones you know, it is it is the It is those that are not hardcore MEGA that
are more likely to lose. And that so you may have fewer Republicans in the House next year, but by percentage in devotion to MEGA, you may have a greater majority of MEGA adherents and so and that, Look, this is due to this redistricting fiasco, which which you know, I don't see why more redistricting in blue states makes this better.
¶ Seriously concerned about certification of the 2028 election
You couple partisan redistricting with partisan elections. That's what you're going to get, right, Like, and so that's that's I think a much harder reform is. I think that people will defend those systems more than say the pardon situation that we open with. But yeah, like and I think you actually may see more progressive Democrats coming in in addition to the crop right who are.
Not going to be interested. I mean, look, I've talked to plenty of progressive who says I want my own Donald Trump. That you know, it's sort of if we're going to live, if if if the world is ends justifies the means, all right, then let's go get our version of Donald Trump. Look, I obviously don't think that that's the idea. But when you live in a reactionary
¶ Worried that Speaker Johnson will mess with the 2026 result?
political environment, which is the one I think we're living in in the moment, it's almost inevitable we're going to see a version of this.
It's a good chance that we're going to see that. Right, I think that there's a But the most important thing is someone who can win.
And so I don't know that.
Elections are unique to the candidate, the circumstance, timing, and so you're going to certainly I think see candidates in that vein. Yeah, the obviously I think it might do better in the respective primaries. But I think also, at least for Democrats, I think we are coming to a reckoning where it's like, if we don't win, none of it matters.
Right, So, and I hear you know, look, you and I I'm guessing, even if it's Baltimore, you've seen the redistricting ads that Obama's the spokesperson for quite a bit. I'm sure, right, if you've watched the NCAA tournament, I feel like I've seen it. You know, I'm seeing Barack Obama as much as I'm seeing Rick Patino on my screen at the moment. And it is hard. You know, you sit there and you're like, okay, hey, in order to create fairness with Texas, we're going to have to be unfair in Virginia.
Right.
And look, Maryland has contemplated this, and you've got some Democrats in the state legislature, like, you know what, they're worried about the long term consequences. I'm empathetic to the fight fire with fire mindset, I get it right. And if you do believe right, there are some you know, Gavenusen says it out loud, and maybe I'll you know, he believes if Democrats don't win the House this year,
there won't be a fair twenty twenty eight election. Now I don't happen to believe that, but I respect people that believe that, Like you know, I might be wrong and they may be right. Where are you on that level of concern.
I'm deeply concerned about the efforts with like the Save Act, for example. I do think that the Senate's going to probably, if not narrow, stay the same, and so I think it's going to be hard, at least as as envisioned to pass what they're trying to get through. I am actually concerned about, having lived through it and having seen it, I'm actually concerned about the certification. So I am concerned
¶ Government has resources to make lives better if not for partisanship
and obviously working to help elect a Democratic majority in twenty twenty six, but knowing that the House and Senate have to certify the elections in twenty twenty eight, I think having at least one of those chambers be a Democratic majority is actually the thing that I'm more interested in, so that we have hopefully a fair free count and we don't have any shenanigans around contesting the election results.
And are you confident that this House, you know, the House Republicans. I've had, you know, some the House Republicans will still have the majority in December when elections get certified. And people don't really fully realize this, but Congress can decide, ultimately decide whether a House race is yeah, yeah, it's actually not something that's done by the state. What's your level of concern that Speaker is going to get involved after the election.
As we sit here today, I don't think the Speaker is spotting to do that. I think that having led a local election agency and partnered with election like they do incredible work at the state and local levels to run these elections, and overturning and challenging an election is a pretty big step.
And look, last time Congress did it, one could argue it's what created New Kingridge. You can go back in history. It's called the it's an incident. It's referred to as the Bloody Eighth. It was an Indiana eighth Congressional district in eighty six. Within a year later, Democrats overturned the recount the House Administration Committee and at the UH and set the candidate that had lost the recount, and it was arguably I've had people say you know when did
this polarization begin. And some will argue that that was the moment that gave life to New Gingridge and when you give he was the backbencher ready to throw bombs at the time, Well, I look, I My level of concern on that is only if it's a really tight margin, right if we if we're looking at if we're looking at three seats again, but this time it's three seats on your side instead of the other side, then yeah,
¶ Congress has passed almost no meaningful legislation
I think every I think everything's a knife fight. If it's a twenty seat gap, I don't see it.
Well, the seat gap and the margins of the elections themselves. I think if it's if it's a three seat gap but Democrats are Republicans have blown you know, we're one fifteen points in those elections, it's harder, I think to justify. And yeah, I'm learning a lot as a as a new member here about sort of the ways in which we govern ourselves.
And thens do you miss Do you miss being in local government?
There are parts of this job that I enjoy and I choose to focus on them. I definitely miss getting things done. I mean that was that was the thing.
Every day.
It was like we and this is why I like I'm in politics. Every day was a chance to make
somebody's life better. Yeah, and if we what's frustrating is I know the resources this government has and the tools at our disposal, and if we actually channeled them in a way that was targeted and thoughtful and productive, it would be I mean, we could transform We have transformed this country before, right, you know, RAO, interstate highways, clean drinking, Like, There's so much we could do, but instead we're yelling
at each other on social media. And it's I think that's that's what's really unfortunate about all of it.
This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from Frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, artisonal pastries, and fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box, and a new protein box. I will tell you I have done the gluten free box. I have done it a second time. I have also used the code the
¶ Congress needs to come together and ban bipartisan gerrymandering
todcast code. To use the promo code podcast at checkout, you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It is hard to find good glas and free bread. It is fantastic. They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this. There is nothing like having an artesian bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade meals with Wildgrain. I obviously highly recommend it.
It is worth giving wild Green to try. Right now, Wildgrain is offering my listeners thirty dollars off your first box plus free croissants for life. Come on when you go to wildgrain dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today. That's thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants for life. When you visit wildgrain dot com slash podcast or simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This is a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code.
I think sometimes, you know, in reporting, it's I've always thought it was really important to change beats. Now I never did, and but having a fresh set of eyes joined me on any beat was always helpful. You know what, what have I gotten used to that isn't normal? But I'm treating as normal. So you're a fresh set of eyes. What is Congress treat as normal that You're like, w TF? What I mean? This? This is insanity. Give me a few things like that. We already talked about the stock trading.
I think you can look through any number of the ethics reports that are at least now public that in any other environment, even what's already publicly made available would lead to lead to the dismissal of members.
Just very out.
Again, it's this disconnect, and this is why people are like, you can get away with anything if you're elected, or if you're rich, or if you're you know, well connected. But meanwhile, I can't pay my damn ortgage, right, I
¶ No appetite in congress for uncapping size of house, talk of rank choice voting
can't find a job, and so like that's.
The what the heck is is all of this like.
Good good for me, not for not for thee or if you're you know, if you know the presence people, you can get a part.
And if and I have to say like.
Both is as like a kid who grew up in like a steel town that shut down, Like I feel that, and.
It's it's frustrating.
It's hard to see because there are I think there are so many good people who are there for the right reasons.
But all that's let me let me ask you this is it is the following statement true that ninety percent of the work you do in Congress, there's ninety percent agreement on nine of the work that we do. I don't think so currently. No, you think it's that you think that what we're fighting over is more than ten percent of these days. And I look at it not.
You can look the numbers of suspension bills that we pass every week, right, So like if you look at it from a pure bill number perspective, yes, but I think about all of the in my opinion, the terrible things that were put into reconciliation, the debt increase, the healthcare changes that are taking away of food supports, the
¶ If Hakeem Jeffries becomes speaker, he needs to focus on affordability
transfer of tax cuts to the wealthiest of the country, and those are like I weigh though so much more heavily in terms of like big things, things that are impactful to this country that like renaming a post office. I can't sort of give the same I got you wait, so like in terms of like number of bills. Sure, in terms of like impact or the magnitude of the issues, not so much.
Well, that's it is because there is such a What I try to convey to folks outside of Washington is that you know, there's the stuff that gets the most attention is still only ten percent of the of say there's two Washington's. There's like a Washington that's consistently having to get things done enough to let everything function. And then there's the performance art political theater of Washington. And I feel like the House of Representatives, those that have
¶ The numbers aren't there to advance an impeachment inquiry
whose names are the most famous are the ones that do the least.
I think there's a lot of truth to that. And that's a choice, right. I think at the end of the day, you get you to choose, like do you want to try to get stuff done or or do you try to go viral?
All right, let me get at a couple of things here. The redistricting in Maryland is something that you were supportive of politically, but glad it didn't happen, or do you think it should have happened.
I think it reinforces why we should be doing national reforms. I mean, if Republicans and Democrats and we both yell at each other about how terrible as in all the states, then like, let's again, let's come together and do something bipartisan and roll it back out everywhere.
You know, you have a simple way to solve this, to potentially mitigate this issue. So my reform obsession is something that Congress regularly did until nineteen twenty, which was expand the size of the House. And you know, because of a fight between the two parties about how much we should reapportion and how many new seats should be added to Congress, in nineteen thirty they shut it down.
Four thirty five became the number, and we went from you went from representing one per three hundred and fifty thousand to now one per eight hundred and it's on its way to one two a million. And that was not the founder's intent. And the bigger these congressional districts are ironically the easier it is to use a faction to win them, right, and if you actually narrowed them, and if you had more of them, you know, essentially
we went back to one per three fifty. And I think you could do this as constitutional amendment if you wanted to, and sort of mandate that the House had to expand make sure that no congressional district was bigger
¶ We need restraints on this president and future presidents
than point oh three percent of the population, which is the math that would get you to about one per four hundred thousand. That you may not need the gerrymander, you know. And look, it would fix the electoral college discrepancies because it would raise the numerator right, and you would have less likelihood. There'd still be a chance that the popular vote and the electoral college would go differently, but it's like a one percent chance, not where we
¶ Thoughts on Wes Moore running for president?
are now, which is somewhere in that ten to fifteen percent range, which is destabilizing to the democracy. It just is I think we all can you have a series eve enough elections in a row or the majorities, you know, then people lose faith. I mean we've seen that in Israel's dealing with this. The majority hasn't been that government hasn't been a majority government in thirty years, you know,
and you sort of see what happens. There any appetite inside the House to uncap the House as the as us dorky kids who would like to who would like to see this happen?
Call it, uh nothing that I've I've heard. I hear more rumblings about things like rain choice voting. Frankly, and that's mostly from the Democratic side of the House. I haven't really heard much appetite other than folks who have been impacted on the Republican resist by the raddiction who who.
Well, that's been the dirty little secret is that the people that hate this the most are the actual members
¶ What's "electability" going to mean in 2028?
of the US House, Like they're literally be treated like ponds in this game again between Trump and the Democrats.
Right, yeah, and look, and so I understand like why Democrats punched back, why there was a response, but I tried to lean back into like I was ready drunk anywhere.
But it's it's.
A chance for us all to say, we've all said this is wrong. We've said's wrong. In Texas, we said wrong, you know, Democrats criticized Texas, Republicans critics a California. So then we agree. So let's do something about it. Oh yall, eventually least not yet. What's your advice to came Jeffries if you become speaker, keep it, keep it simple, focus on that kitchen table, you know. Let's let's raise wages. Let's provide opportunities for people to find jobs or get trained for jobs.
Let's lower costs through ending tariffs.
Let's make healthcare more affordable by pushing the ACA Tax Credit extension.
And let's let's lead with our values. Let's lead with integrity.
Let's let's pass the Pardon Integrity Act, and let's fix the pardons. Let's band stock trading by members of Congress. Six or seven things that people understand and get. Let's try to put it on the president's desk and let him.
Say, Now, what's interesting there is you didn't say anything about impeachment or account. It doesn't sound like you'd like to see that be a top priority.
Okay, Look, I voted to advance the articles of impeachment this term against this pressent. I think you certainly have done any number of things that are are worthy of impeachment, and so I'm prepared to do that.
I'm prepared to hold.
This president accountable at the end of the day. I also understand math, and so even if we impeach the president in the House, I don't see the numbers or.
The math changing in the Senate. And so maybe it's an important Well, that's a question, you know. It's funny. I had this conversation with George Conway, who's running for Congress, on this issue, which in some ways I appreciate the honesty about it, right and the transparency. Right. What mandate do you want? Here's the mandate I want you voters decide whether you give it to me. There's two schools
of thought here on a third impeachment right. One school says you have to show you're you're going to try to hold them accountable, because you've got to send a message to the next president and the next person that may hold office. Another says, if you shoot the if you go for the if you shoot the king again and miss again, have you made it where that tool in the toolbox is no longer a usable tool? I can? I can, I can argue both sides of this. If you made me do it, where do you fall I fall on?
I want to actually have accountability where we can, and so part of the reason why I think taken the House is so important is really the oversight hearings and the subpoenas that we can do and actually getting information out to the public that makes it harder for this president to keep operating in what I think are often lawless ways and passing the legislation that, in my opinion, for example, is the common sense reforms to ice that
are both best practice and that are overwhelmingly supported by Americans. And so I'm not opposed to impeachment. In fact, was affirmatively for it. But I think at the end of the day, accountability means that we're changing what's happening in people's lives, and we're changing the restraints on this president and future presidents, and so I'm for whatever does That is sort of my focus in all of this.
All right, let me get you out of here. On Wes Moore for president, he has said he's not running for president in twenty twenty eight, and I think it's actually true. He is currently not running for president in twenty twenty yes, that I'm aware of. If he chooses to run in twenty twenty eight, is there any hesitation in your part to endorse him.
I'm looking forward to broad coalition of I think exceptional Democrats that we have. I am not pre committing to endorse any of them, look forward to seeing what they all have to offer for America. The Governor's been a great partner here in Maryland. I think he would be a viable candidate should he changed from now to striking
the now part of the answer. But I think that, especially in this moment, that Democrats need to put all of our voices forward and I think have a robust discussion about what the future of our party is going to be, who's best equipped to lead us? And I think it'd be great to have Governor more be part of that conversation, but not at a point where I would be endorsing any particular candidate at this point.
What does what does electability mean to you? How do you define it? If that's going to be quite the debate in twenty twenty eight? Who's electable? And what's electability? I mean? And obviously it's true at senses. Who can win?
I think I think it's someone who has policies that resonate with the American people and someone who can be cool and fun.
And I feel like that's one of the places where Democrats. I do think there's got to be a little bit of a personality test here.
Yeah, I think we've fallen fat flat on our faces as Democrats. We've lost the sort of swagger and the coolness of our presidential candidates.
But it just it hasn't and it's Cleton and Obama had their own level of cool when they were in office.
Even Biden the first time, you know, the aviators in the ice cream it was, it was a little bit of a swagger and a thing. And so figuring out as a party, how we get back to having both someone with the right policies, who can I think speak to those working interesting.
So you really think the Democrats need to find what one what the kids might call it, the main character they need to find. They need to find, you know, I find my one of my favorite lines during the twenty twenty presidential debates was from Michael Bennett and he said, you know, if you elect me president, you may go three weeks without hearing from me. And I thought, hey, there's I like that. But I realized I'm not I'm
not the maturity I think. So the point is is you're saying that is not what you think the country is going to be looking for. Is is somebody to be a character, a sort of Gerald Ford and I say that, show me some.
Show me some rids man like as as as my daughter and her friends would say, Yeah, I think you have to be able. You can have the best vision and ideas in the world. But if you can't and then and look, Trump is a hell of a salesman. He puts on a hell of a show. I don't agree with most of his policies. I think they're garbage for this country, but he puts on a great show. And he did it at the State of the Union, right, didn't didn't talk about a ran at all, but the
show and the spectacle was impressive. And so we need I think we need someone who both can speak to our values and touch our hearts, but also can do it in a way that people are like, Yeah, let's.
Go Coivers and Johnny Olcheskey, how'd I do? Not getting it? Okay? Johnny? Oh, it's I think man, you got it? Johnny Oh, I mean it's going to be you ever run for state wide office that you definitely have to be Johnny Oh, that's easy on the bumper sticker, right, I.
Think that's it. That's the sticker. Now we're gonna just make the transition.
Well, I enjoyed this, joyed getting to know you. Likewise, let's see if the uh you're gonna is the Are the Oriols going to make Camden Yards a hot ticket again? Uh?
Ti Alonso was a great free agent pick up. The fact that we optioned Dean Kramer to the Miners tells me that we have a starting rotation that actually looks pretty good this year. So I'm a big fan of our new ownership team.
Uh yeah, No, I'm jealous. I wish he bought the Nets. I was I was hoping that that David. I was like, no, no, no, no no, he took Baltimore and we lost David Rubinstein.
But you're right, you do have a good owner, a great owner, great team. Oriol Park is quintessential like the new era. So yeah, I'm always big. Also, like, it's hard to be Johnny Oh and.
Not be for the O's. So you got to be for the O's, right, you know, you never know who, right? So uh yeah, I can to see the black and orange Johnny O hats there for you. So Anyway, Congress didn't great to get to know you. Thank you, I appreciate it. H.