Stopping the Steal with Eric Holder
Pod Save America · 25 Oct 2026
Source: https://audioboom.com/posts/8968588
Transcript: https://podcasts.opennash.com/shows/pod-save-america/stopping-the-steal-with-eric-holder-0a967f/ (via OpenNash Podcasts, machine-generated)

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Alex Wagner. Today I'm joined by Eric Holder, former attorney general under President Obama and chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. We sat down to talk about something that is on a lot of our minds right now, namely how Trump and his allies might try to delegitimize the results of the midterms. Or, you know, just go ahead and steal them. A G Holder has been keeping close tabs on all of this.

He's even hosted war games at his law offices where experts work through ways to push back against election interference. We broke down the many ways Trump is trying to screw with the midterms by weaponizing the Department of Justice and sowing doubt and confusion wherever he can. Plus, we talked about Holder's work on the front lines, fighting against the GOP's gerrymandering efforts. It was a great conversation. There were plenty of four letter words, and we're gonna get to all of that in a minute.

But before we do, guys, I am going live on election night. You can come join me and all of your favorite hosts, all of them, on the Pod Save America and Runaway Country YouTube channels. We're gonna be live nine p. m. Eastern, six p. m. Pacific on election night. Do not scroll through election results alone. Come join us. And before those midterms arrive, you should also check out Long Play, Crooked's latest limited series, hosted by my friends Jen Palmieri and Aaron Haynes.

And they are covering what Democrats are doing to become competitive in the South once again. Okay, on to the show. Attorney General Eric Holder, welcome to Pod Save America. It's a great pleasure to have you on the program. And I know I am speaking to you while you are on the road in Michigan. So let's just first start there. How are the vibes?

Vibes are good, I think on the ground. I I think the attacks against, uh, you know, Abdul El Sayed have fallen, um, on deaf ears. Uh, my sense, as I've gone around, uh, the place here in Detroit and other parts of of Michigan, is that people are really kind of focused on core issues. You know, they're concerned about the fact that gas prices are too high, people are concerned about, um, you know, the war in Iran.

But interestingly, I think something that's broken through is corruption. Um, people have really kind of focused on, um, corruption and are tying it, tying corruption to, um, their own economic plight. And it's interesting, cause that's what happened in Hungary. Um, you know, and so I'm,

I was on the ground, I was there. And it's that economic malaise or unf, you know, economic uncertainty and angst. Coupled with a government that is clearly completely unconcerned with the welfare of its citizens and mostly focused on self-enrichment.

yeah, and I think that's, uh, as an issue broken through, and, uh, to a certain extent, not as much here in in Michigan as in other places. Um, people are concerned about the state of our democracy. Michigan's interesting because, um, we were successful here in unwinding a really bad gerrymander. And so, at least at the state and local level, they're not as concerned, uh, as, for instance, in Ohio, people are still concerned about a a pretty vicious gerrymander that they're dealing with, uh, dealing with there.

Well, we're gonna get into all of that because I I'm eager to hear sort of how you're thinking about this election, the safety of, um, you know, the sanctity of the voting process and the extraordinary measures the Trump administration is doing is taking to undermine confidence. So just like, let me start with a clip that I think sent a chill down many people's spines, certainly freaked me out. The attorney general, Todd Blanche, uh, speaking yesterday, I guess, on his way somewhere.

But let's let's let's just play. Let's play the sound first, and I'll get your thoughts on the other side.

Any, uh, action from the Justice Department in terms of certification process of states? Is there any scenario in which DOJ would weigh in on the that certification process or try to block states from certifying?

I I mean, is there any scenario? Yes, of course, there's scenarios that we could all come up with hypothetically, and, you know, some doomsday scenario, for example, right? So I don't think it's proper to, um, to make any kind of conclusory statements about what's gonna happen in the future, cause I have no idea what's gonna happen in the future. It is not DOJ's intention to, and it's never our intention to improperly interfere with elections or the state confirmation process or certification process.

But, you know, to say that there's no circumstances that we would ever do that, of course, I'm not gonna say that, but it am I planning my days around, um, the election to be somewhere to not certify? Of course, not. No, not at all.

Mm. Um, Attorney General Holder, you've been the attorney general, you've run the Justice Department. What's the right way to answer that question?

Well, you know, it's an interesting thing. I mean, in in some ways, that answer could be viewed as a benign, a fairly benign one. If the person making that statement had not already done things to indicate that the Justice Department does want to interfere with the electoral process. And so, uh, I, I don't take Todd Blanche at his word there. Um, yeah, he may not be, I don't know, he said something about I'm not. May not be spending all my waking hours thinking about this, but, um, my concern is that they might be thinking about this during some other part of of the day.

Um, you know, it's, um, they they don't come into this, as we say in the law, with clean hands. Um, you know, they've done a variety of of things, uh, that are not directly electorally related, but all kind of designed to make people be concerned about whether or not the system is gonna be fair. You know, high profile, um, indictments brought in a time period, uh, when the Justice Department does not normally, um, do overt, um, things in terms of either investigations or indictments, just throwing a whole bunch of things out there.

And we also know that, you know, Donald Trump thinks that every election that he loses, uh, whether he loses or his party loses, is filled with fraud. So we know we're gonna, we're gonna hear that. And that could be the basis for, you know, some kind of Justice Department, um, action. So it it's something that I think we have to be concerned about, but it's also something I want to assure people, you know, reassure and assure people that we've been anticipating.

And, um, you know, we're gonna be ready to handle whatever it is that they throw at us.

What keeps you up at night when you think about the DOJ and it being run by Todd Blanche? And Todd Blanche saying openly that it's really an administrative tool for this president vis-a-vis the election?

Well, the fact that the Justice Department is simply an arm of the White House, uh, simply an arm of the pol- of the political component of the the White House, gives me a great deal of concern. I mean, the Justice Department has huge amounts of power, um, both in, you know, dealing with, um, the electoral system, dealing with people involved in the electoral system, um, jailing people, threatening people, indicting people. And, you know, up until this administration, and certainly post Watergate, you know, we always had the view that the Justice Department acted independently of the White House, did not act in a political way.

And this under Republican as well as Democratic, you know, administrations. And, um, I'm concerned that this Justice Department i is simply an arm of the, uh, of the RNC and and of and of the White House.

I mean, I guess, like, it's so hugely powerful, and it has been so perverted under this administration, and that perversion shows no sign of stopping. I know that you have been running, uh, war games tabletop exercises focused on protecting protecting election integrity. And I know you can't get into the specifics of that stuff, nor would I want you to. Don't give up the strategy here on how to combat election interference. But broadly, can you give me a sense of what kinds of threats you guys are focused on?

Like, is there is there, uh, you know, how do you think about what's potentially on the horizon?

Well, we've tried to imagine, you know, a a whole variety of things, um, you know, rejections of ballots that are, uh, you know, legitimately cast, um, seizure of ballots that might have already been cast and are in the the system. Um, you know, ways in which the military might be deployed, um, you know, or statements given that ice might be, you know, in certain neighborhoods, you know. Tried to anticipate all those kinds of things, uh, to make sure that we're in a position to, uh, you know, respond to it.

I mean, questions of certification. Um, I mean, what I will say, like with regard to certification, we already have, you know, court filings, uh, that have been prepared. And you just got to fill in, you know, what, what's the district? Where? Where's where's this thing gonna go? So that we can get the courts

so you're ready.

involved, yeah, get the courts involved as quickly as as possible. Um, you know, we've done tabletop, I've done tabletop exercises, you know, on the hill, um, with with senators, uh, on on the hill. Uh, I've been in touch with, uh, Joe Morelli, a congressman from, um, from New York, who's kind of been designated by leader Jeffries to to take the lead on these issues. Hillary Clinton and I did, um, did a a a tabletop exercise, um, at my l- uh, my law firm's office with a a whole bunch of activist groups and, um, people in in in civil society.

Uh, complete with, you know, people playing television anchors up on screens that we had. But just

I'm available if you ever need someone to role play that I'm happy to to well, I I come

that would have made it more realistic, you know? d more But that's what we tried terrifying. to do. We tried to make it realistic, you know, while we were in the process of doing something, something would come up on the screen and say, we have unconfirmed reports that, you know, fill in the blank. And then the question was, Well, how do we respond? how do we respond to that? I mean, the the the one thing that I think people need to take from, I hope, our interaction is that, yeah, they're gonna try things.

Um, we're prepared to meet what it is they're gonna do. But in some ways, the best antidote to anything that they do is to have huge numbers of people come out and vote. Um, because that can actually crush any efforts that they have to subvert the system.

I gotta ask you, you know, when you I hear you say I, I was doing tabletop exercises at my law firm with Hillary Clinton. And it's like, if you told Eric, I mean, first of all, how does that feel? And like, if you were, if you could talk to the Eric Holder of 2015 and say, there's gonna be a time when you and Hillary Clinton are going to have to run tabletop exercises. To prepare a strategy to respond to the Trump administration, the federal government weaponizing agencies to meddle in an American election.

I mean, I, I, I'm not saying this to scare people, but I it is just worth a B to just get I how? L- like, can you b- can you believe this is the place we're in now?

No, that's a very legitimate question. I mean, you know, if you had told me that you're gonna be doing tabletop exercise and exercises, uh, and the subject matter is gonna be, uh, you know, somebody fooling around with our electoral system. I said, Well, yeah, I I can see that. And so w- I say, all right, we w- we're dealing with what the Iranians might be doing, what the Chinese might be doing, what the Russians might be doing.

But what, what? What we were focused on is what the United States government might be doing. And if you had told me that a few years ago, I'd have said, Well, it's time for a drug test. I mean, there's no, you know, that's we don't do things like that in the United States. But nevertheless, that's where we are, which doesn't mean that the Russians, Chinese and Iranians, especially the Iranians now, aren't going to try to try to do things.

But you have to add to that list, you know, unfortunately, sadly, um, maddeningly, um, you know, it makes me angry to have to say this, that we have to deal with what the possibilities are from the government of the United States of America. I mean, you know, we're 250 years old, and we have never faced anything like this before. And this is, uh, this is it's a sad, uh, it's a sad thing.

it's just unbelievable. I believe the actual clinical term is Unfuckingbelievable, that this is what we're, that we are our own greatest threat, right? Just The the for the record, calls it.

I I did not be. I was not the first one to drop an F bomb here. So, you know, I'm We always well,

knew it was gonna be me, though, didn't we? First, we're looking forward to whenever you choose to drop the f bomb. And I'm gonna give you plenty of opportunities to do so. Beginning with, like, I just a as a as, like, for the person who is the foremost l- lawyer in the country and understands well the constitution and the legal system of this country. I I gotta get your thoughts on some of the stuff that's happened just in the last week on that front vis-a-vis election integrity and election meddling.

So Trump has sent Department of Homeland Security officials on the hunt to find phantom non-citizen voters. Again, this is not a phenomenon that happens. It is largely cooked up by the Trump administration as an excuse to in meddle with the elections. It is a part all part of something they're calling the unlawful voter initiative. Now, last Wednesday, a federal judge significantly limited what DHS agents can do as part of this initiative, basically calling what they're doing voter intimidation.

But the judge didn't end the effort entirely. How concerned are you about the way in which DHS is weaponizing itself and its agents to go out there and scare people ahead of the vote?

well, I'm worried about it. Not because they're gonna find anything that's substantive in nature, but just the fact that they are. It's announced that they're out there and that they're doing things. And even if a judge slaps them down and tells them not to do it, they've put it into the ether that, you know, DHS is out there. Um, and in certain communities, the notion that DHS is out doing things, um, in one regard, puts people at risk in other ways.

People who live in, you know, mixed households with people who are documented and people who are undocumented. Uh, you know, makes you a little reluctant if you do have the right to, as a citizen, to cast a ballot, to maybe walk out and and and, you know, go to a a a polling place. If you know that, you know the DHS is out there and and out there and about, or some component of DHS is out there.

So that's something that gives me, um, that gives me concern, and there's also a reason why people, I think, really, in this, in this environment, need to. Uh, we we've said this a lot, and it's funny because I've been getting it back from voters as we've been. I've just been going as I've been going around the country, as I've been telling people, you know, make a plan. And I've heard from people unprompted say, Well, I made a plan and I'm gonna be voting in this way.

Uh, I'm gonna be, I'm gonna fill out my ballot, I'm gonna drop it off ahead of time, which I think makes a great deal of of sense. Um, we've seen interesting statistics that show that there's been a kind of a drop off in the number of mail ballots that have been cast. But an increase in the number of people who have, um, voted in person. But early, and I think that is a that's a pretty good sign.

do you have a, like, a piece of advice on a strategy on that? I mean, I know Rick Hasen from UCLA is saying that, you know, his advice is for people who can't send in their ballot, uh, to use, or who, yeah, who can't send in their ballot early. To to use either a government drop box if it's available, or to drop off the ballot at an official polling location rather than putting it in the mail via USPS.

I mean, first of all, again, like, I can't believe we now have to strategize around mail in balloting and that Trump has stoked this much fear and anxiety about the process. But like, what would you advise people?

No, I, I would agree with, uh, you know, with with the professor, I think that's the appropriate thing to do. You know, I I think the the US. mails themselves are gonna be fine. But if you look at what's happening in North Carolina, where they impose these new strict rules about for mail-in ballots, you know, you have to put your ballot in an envelope, seal it, and then put it in another envelope that actually gets mailed, and that has to be sealed.

And they are rejecting ballots because that internal, um, envelope is has not been sealed, you know? And it's kind of like, w- what's what's the point of, okay, you know, that that's a minor technicality, but it's not an indication that an that the the ballot has has been in some ways, um, you know, tampered with. And so a way to avoid that is to, as the professor said, you know, fill out your ballot ahead of time.

Look at, uh, you know, the early voting, um, days that are available, find your your polling place, and then march it down to a an official place that will accept, um, a ballot that can be handed in, um, and and and do it, uh, and and do it that way.

This podcast is sponsored by Squarespace. Squarespace is the all-in-one website platform designed to elevate your online presence and drive your success. Squarespace provides all the tools you need to promote and get paid for your services in one platform. Whether you offer consultations, events, or other experiences, Squarespace can help you grow your business. Squarespace offers a complete library of professionally designed and award-winning website templates with options for every use and category. No matter where you start, your website is flexible to what you need, with intuitive drag-and-drop editing, beautiful styling options, unrivaled visual design effects, and more ways to list what you offer.

No experience required. Every dream needs a domain Find the perfect domain for your business at one fair, all-inclusive price with no hidden fees or add-ons. Every Squarespace domain comes with advanced privacy and security tools included to ensure your domain remains online and protected. Bring your vision to life with integrated website building, professional email, and more. Don't wait to claim your name. Invest in your dream domain today. Head to Squarespace dot com for a free trial, and when you're ready to launch, go to Squarespace dot com slash crooked to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain.

That's Squarespace dot com slash crooked. Pod Save America is brought to you by the NPR Politics podcast. The midterms are coming up fast, and keeping track of everything happening in Washington can get overwhelming. If you love Pod Save America, think of the NPR Politics podcast as your daily briefing. Every weekday morning, they break down the biggest stories shaping the political landscape in 15 minutes or less. Right now, NPR Politics has its eye on the issues that actually affect your life, the high cost of housing, healthcare, ice and immigration.

They talk about America's role in the world, our growing debt, plus how all of it might impact the coming elections. There's no doom scrolling, just a clear, focused summary for you to declutter the chaos. It's a team of experienced political journalists who talk like your smart friends, giving you calm, straight talk instead of hyperbole. They offer clarity without judgment, offering a better understanding of how the balance of power might shift without stressing you out. I'm a big fan of the NPR Politics podcast.

I've been listening for many, many years now. It is part of my daily consumption of news, which, you know, we're all just inhaling these days. Highly recommend it. Listen now to the NPR Politics podcast and the NPR app, or wherever you get your podcasts.

It just makes me angry, you know, that it's that we now have to. We have been made to feel like the process is rigged against democracy, and that is so poisonous and so nefarious for the for the long term. I mean, give me your thoughts on this, um, effort on the part of the feds to involve themselves in California. Well, it's the state, the state run state run elections, right? The the incredibly by using once again an incredibly flawed and sloppy process, maybe even illegal.

The Department of Homeland Security identified 20,000 likely non-citizen voters in California and a further 17,000 voting records that are potentially tied to non-citizens. Um, and the DOJ is demanding that these 20,000 ballots, once cast, be segregated away from the other ballots once the counting begins. Now we know that California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, is fighting this in court. But, like, is there any legal precedent for the federal government to involve itself in the state process to count votes?

No, I mean, th- they're just, you know, they're just making this shit up. I mean, that's that's just the reality. Um, you know, um, and so one of our responses to this has to be that we're gonna fight back, you know, you know, uh, legally and in every other way that we possibly can. To understand that they're trying to undermine, um, the greatest democracy that has ever existed, you know, on this planet. And be mad about that, be angry about that.

And, you know, Rob Bonda's a good attorney general, I'm sure he will, you know, do things effectively there. And what they're trying to do here is consistent with what they tried to do in, I guess, Nevada, when they tried to come up with a I think it was 17,000 number, was it

it was, I think it was like 19, 805, and then that number got whittled down to 185, and then ultimately it was zero. All the people were citizens that they had flagged. Once you look under the hood, there's nothing there.

exactly? You start off at 19, 800 or whatever. I was gonna give them, just say, say 17,000, all right, 19, 800. But t- But by the time you whittle it down, th- you get, uh, you get a goose egg zero. And I suspect that's what's gonna happen, uh, you know, in California as well. And even to the extent that you find problematic things, you're you're talking about numbers that are so small that they're inconsequential and certainly not election changing.

Um, but again, again, it's all about casting doubt out there about the legitimacy of the system and trying to discourage people, put fear in people not to participate, or discourage people by making them think that the system itself simply is not on the up and up, that the system is, uh, is rigged. And garen- I guarantee you this, it's gonna be a good day for for Democrats on November the 3rd, when the counting is done. And I guarantee you that we're gonna hear Donald Trump and his minions talking about all the fraud that went in and how Martians were voting.

Um, you know, they'll, they'll, you know, extra planet, extra planetary people will be will be part of, you know, of the voting thing. And certainly in in a more realistic way, uh, they'll be, well, realistic in, uh, in what they say, but not in. In fact, they'll be talking about, as they term them, illegal aliens who have cast, who have cast ballots, and there's there's gonna be no no proof of that.

I mean, they still think Nest thermostats were involved in the 2020 election. So, like, truly, sky's the limit in terms of the conspiracy theories that are sure to hatch on November 4th.

And again, it's an infinitesimally small number of people, um, who are here, and, you know, maybe on work permits or or whatever. And, you know, they've been, uh, they're legal permanent residents, but they're not citizens and who cast ballots. And people sometimes registered at the same time that they got a driver's license, and they didn't even know that they registered, so that's one and another one, another. You talk to a lot of people and they're kind of like, uh, m, again, relative, you choose, very small number of people say, Well, I thought I could.

They made made a mistake. It wasn't like I was here to try to defraud the system. But again, the numbers are so small that it doesn't warrant the kind of attention that this administration is giving. I mean, the Brennan Center, I think, has that famous thing where they say, you know, you're more likely to be hit by lightning than to cast a an in-person fraudulent ballot. Um, that's, you know, that's kind of what we're talking about.

right. And the likelihood of a Martian casting a fraudulent ballot is even smaller. I digress. Are you worried about the Supreme Court, about this stuff landing on Don Roberts doorstep? Like the the, you know, the the lower courts have been pretty unanimous, like, they're just they're saying what you're saying, you guys are making this shit up, like, good luck on that. The Constitution does not allow for this, but I don't place a I mean, I am very skeptical about the Roberts court.

Because, you know, every now and again, they'll remember how to read and look at the 14th Amendment, for example, and understand that birthright citizenship is right there in black and white. But, like a lot of times, they freestyle. I mean, do you worry about this ending up with a court that's been really perverted by partisan interests?

I have kind of a mixed answer to that. I'm not worried about what ultimately comes out of the court, cause I think you find five votes for the court to do the right thing, but the court will find five, six votes, whatever it is. Um, on matters that are really nine zips, you know, yeah, they did the right thing on birthright citizenship. I mean, that was a slam dunk, easy case that probably they shouldn't have taken, and that should have ended up with nine at a nine zero vote.

And I guess it was six three or something, or six three, maybe five four, how you interpret, you know, Kavanaugh's vote, um, which is a kind of a frightening, a frightening thing. I think your your your statement, though, is right that in terms of those courts where we'll go first, United States district courts, um, United States appellate courts. We've not had any problems and done quite well in state courts, um, a as well. And that's another thing that people need to understand that, you know, is when we're talking about elections, those are things that are uniquely designed by our constitution to be run state by state.

And so the state courts play an important role. One of the reasons why the campaigning I'm doing here is for state Supreme Court justices in in Michigan, um, o Ohio, as well as in North Carolina, and we've done well in in in state courts. Um, but, uh, you know, there's another thing about the practice of this Supreme Court, the use of the shadow docket. Something that I would decry, but in this instance, allows for the court to make some relatively rapid determinations about a lot of fallacious stuff that will be, uh, put into the system or set about the system by the Trump administration.

And so it could allow for some rapid, uh, decisions in that regard. And that's one of the things that that we try to focus on when we look at the litigation component of this. How can we do things as quickly as we can? We can't be held up, you know, for months, or or

like the presidential immunity, uh, case, which right, or took conveniently a really long time.

exactly, or or for weeks. I mean, there are deadlines that have to be met, and so things have to be filed right away, uh, considered on an expedited basis, moved up the court system to the extent that that is necessary, you know, as quickly as possible. And so, um, we've taken all that into consideration about, uh, you know, how we're gonna, how we're gonna, uh, compose our our our litigation strategy.

That is really heartening. That's actually incredibly great. I think I didn't realize that you guy, I mean, obviously you are, cause you're the experts. But it's very heartening to hear that you're taking in con- into consideration the speed with which the court has moved and needs to move in something like, you know, uh, election interference. This is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes, laying out the landscape as he sees it.

I would divide the risk into three parts. There's election day itself, where, you know, the president might try to stop actually voters from going to vote in states that are very sensitive, you know, where there might be close races. Uh, then there's after election day, when he's certainly gonna say that the results are corrupt. But, you know, at least at that point, the ballots will be secure and not in some warehouse of the Department of Homeland Security.

Uh, and then we're gonna watch that period of time between November and January, and we've seen this movie before, right? Last time it was Giuliani standing in front of Four Seasons landscaping and ridiculous lawsuits, all of which were thrown out of court. Uh, and then, yes, there is that moment, uh, where I work in the House of Representatives, there is that moment when we convene, uh, and the clerk of the House of Representatives calls us to order and there's a quorum call.

And and in all three of those moments, uh, there's no reason to believe that the president isn't gonna try to suggest that it's corrupt. And that Mike Pence should do that, it won't be Mike Pence this time, but that, you know, Speaker Johnson should do the right thing, or whatever it'll be.

Okay, so he's talking about the before, during and after the elections, right? What is the right way is? Is this the strategy Democrats and people who care about democracy should use, like telegraphing ahead and dismissing the inevitable, uh, you know, conspiracy theories? What is the best way to talk about these threats in a way that doesn't stoke fear among the public and make them feel like their votes won't count? But also preemptively neutralizes any ridiculous arguments Trump and his allies will make about why ballots need to be seized or the vote was fraudulent.

Yeah, we do have to find that sweet spot so that we are putting out there that which we are concerned about. So that people get, I guess, desensitized to the impact that, you know, things that Trump or his minions, um, might say in terms of, you know, what some foreign country, uh, has done, or just things about fraud more generally. But not be, um, alarmist and and say things in such a way that people get either freaked out and decide again not to participate, or concerned about what their their their s their, you know, their individual safety might be if they're gonna be approaching, um, you know, a a ballot, uh, area where they think something negative could happen to

them. And so I I think, you know, it's incumbent upon us to be, um, responsible, to share facts with people, um, and say, you know, this is what's you're likely, this is what you're likely to hear. We got this, we got, um, and so, and and really emphasize again to people that the the the great likelihood is that, you know, you're gonna be able to just cast your ballot, make that plan, cast your ballot. Your ballot is gonna be, you know, counted appropriately.

And that if we have a huge number of people turn out that, and, you know, and the margins of victories for for Democrats is is really, really large. Um, there's not an awful lot that they're gonna be able to do. They can talk a about a a about a lot of stuff, but, you know, a lot of we just kind of dismiss 90 of what it is they say anyway. They can talk about it, but there's not much they're gonna be able to do.

I mean, when it comes to things like certification, I mean, a lot of that stuff is just kinda by rote. Um, you know, if you have, if you are a candidate and you think that something has happened, well, yeah, you go there. There are methods by which you can, you know, raise concerns. But when you get to the certification stage, um, that is really just a question of, you know, a a group of people, kinda almost like checking boxes.

And, you know, history shows that when it comes to certification, um, you know, most of the time, either through courts, uh, or people who are trying to fool around with the certification process, getting outvoted by other people who are on, uh, the board. Or the person who is pushing some kind of, you know, certification problem, you know, simply gives up that the history the sur- around certification is really not a problem. When it comes to the house, um, yeah, and whether or not, you know, the the clerk in in the house will, the clerk in the house has a huge amount of power, huge amount of well, yeah, power,

I do wanna talk about that because, uh, we all we're all old enough to remember January 6th and the certification process. I don't wanna I want you to go back to that point because that there, that's where I think we have a lot of PTSD. Um, it's not the same certification process, right? Um, and the clerk of the house, it's not Speaker Johnson that's involved in this, it's the clerk of the house. Uh, Kevin McCumber, I believe, is his name.

Um, he's the one that basically dots the dots, the i's and crosses the t's as far as certifying the election, right?

right? And by all accounts, in talking to, uh, Democrats, uh, you know, Democratic congressmen, have great faith in the current clerk of the house. And so I think if he is in place, I think we're gonna be just fine. Uh, a tell would be if, for some reason, Johnson tries to replace the clerk of the house, um, sometime, you know, after the election, uh, between the election and the, and, you know, the swearing in of new members, that would be of concern to me.

But in terms of where we stand right now, um, I, I think we're okay. But again, that's another one of those things, and I won't talk about this one too much, but that's another one of those things that we have talked about. All right,

you have. I mean, Do you have, like Kevin McCumber, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you t-shirts that we should all be wearing ahead of January 3rd?

well, there's there's not only that, but we've also thought, well, suppose the clerk who we have faith in, uh, and I'm not sure that that's the guy's name, but I'll, I'll defer to you on that.

is, it is.

I i if, if the guy who's who we have faith in i is replaced, then then what happens? And s we've already kinda gained that out and also thought about, wha- what happens in the Senate if they try to do things there as well.

Can I ask a question? Like, legally speaking, is there anything to be done if Speaker Johnson tries to appoint a different clerk? Like, is there an answer to that, like that you can share? I mean, I like, what? I'm not asking you for your strategy, but just is that legal for him to do that?

Let's just say we got this.

Okay, this is like, you know what this is like? I think what I'm hearing from you is like, we should think about, like Trump's election, meddling strategies, the way we think about preparing for a long car ride with a toddler. It's like, the toddler's gonna throw shit, the toddler may poop in his pants, the toddler may scream the entire time. But you're gonna get there, you're gonna make it.

Yeah, and I think that's, I think, I hope that's the message that people get. Um, you know, they are, I'd say, creatively evil, and, you know, they're everything that we have thought about, you know, there there may be some things that we have not, um, actually contemplated and come up with a a, you know, a plan for. But I think we're also we have in place, you know, a a real bunch of nimble folks, um, who are prepared, adequately resourced, um, and, uh, and nationwide, um, you know, in in scope, uh.

We're prepared to deal with, uh, anything that they throw at us. And at the end of the day, they may end up doing nothing more than uttering threats. Um, and and we'll see that all the plans that we have made. Well, were not unnecessary, but were go that may go unused, um, but and and I hope that that, in fact, is the case. But I hope that people will also understand, w- if we're on the other side of this and everything went just fine, that people won't say, well, look, all Democrats were just making stuff up.

There was nothing to worry about. Because even on the basis there's always 2028, 2028, even on the basis of what they've done so far, you can see that they're trying to fool around with the system.

Pod Save America is brought to you by Helix. It's cozy season, which means everyone is staying in bed just a little longer these days. They are are the longer nights and occasional sick days making you realize your mattress could use an upgrade. If so, go with Helix The best Love Helix mattresses.

I sleep on one every night.

Multiple Helix mattresses over the years, we've been reading for them and no complaints yet. In fact, love them. They're

the best.

super comfy, and Helix will custom build your mattress based on your sleep needs. You just have to take the 2 minute Helix Sleep Quiz to determine your best fit. They deliver your mattress right to your door with free shipping in the US. And you can rest easy with seamless returns and exchanges and 365 night sleep trial, part of their Happy with Helix guarantee.

The only way left they could help me get a better night's sleep is if they come and take the phone out of my fucking hand, you know?

Hm, try that Helix, just They try an idea.

that. What mattress is that?

Helix is the most awarded mattress brand for a reason, tested and reviewed by experts like Forbes and Wired. Go to helixsleep dot com slash crooked for 20 off site-wide. That's helixsleep dot com slash crooked for 20 off site-wide. Helixsleep dot com slash crooked.

This is FBI director Kash Patel speaking to Senator Peter Welch at a hearing last month. I wanna get your thoughts and then I wanna play it, and then we'll get your thoughts on the other side.

We have an election crimes community coordinator in all 56 field offices, so you bet we're gonna have them there and manning the post for election interference matters. Wait, I thought you weren't gonna be sending people to the polls. When did you hear that? It's just another lie. When you answered, Mr. Blumenthal, Nope, so you are sending a you are sending PAs to the polls. Election Do you pledge that you will not in any to interfere way interfere in the will of the American people when they go to the polls in November?

I pledge unequivocally that I will not participate in your charade of lies?

Okay, Attorney General Holder, what does the law say about having armed federal officers from agencies like the FBI or DHS at polling places?

Can't do it. I mean, you know, n- no, no FBI agent should be at a polling place on this unless there is some predicate. And I I'm, I can't even imagine what the predicate would be, some kind of predicate for that person to be there. Um, the notion that you have armed agents, you know, people from the military near, uh, polling places prohibited by law, you know, federal law, state law, um, and this this notion that somehow or other, uh, Patel is gonna, uh, who?

Let let let's make this clear, the most unqualified FBI director of all time, um, you know, joining Pete Hegseth and, and, you know, Robert Kennedy, I mean, uh, you know, for as most unqualified in their their positions as well. And we don't have enough time for me to go through all the ones who are the most unqualified of all time.

It's hard to pick a number one. They're all s such clowns. But anyway,

So th- there's no basis for, uh, no legal basis for, in fact, it violates the law, uh, for, um, the the FBI to, I I guess, willy-nilly, have armed FBI agents outside of polling places. That's y- you simply, you know, you simply can't do that. And that's one of those things, all right, let's let's get straight into court, you know? Get the necessary testimony from people who are at polling place A in state, uh, you know, state B, and get that information to, uh, a court and have the court say FBI agent, get your ass away from the polling places.

get your ass away from the polling places is something we should all just practice saying that in the mirror That's a that's several times.

a le- that's a legal term, actually. Um, that's

It's good to know this is why, this is why you were the attorney general and I wasn't. I wanna get back to sort of post-election chicanery, but just a couple more things about election day proper. Um, in a complete perversion of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, the DOJ is sending over one zero zero zero election monitors to all 50 states, which is, I think, three times the number, it's three times the number of watchers it sent out during the last midterms.

Just to be clear here, in normal times, what does an election monitor do?

Election monitors have routinely been sent out by the Justice Department simply to go to those places where you are concerned. There might be some problems, some attempts to, you know, disenfranchise people, have a negative impact on people's ability to cast a ballot. And th- they just go and and and observe, um, you know, so they're talking about, I guess, three, as you said, three times as many. And I don't think they're going out there with that benign intent that I described before.

And it has be has been used by Republican as well as Democratic, um, Justice Departments, or Democratic and Republican Attorneys General. Um, but, uh, you also have to keep in mind, and this is one of those things, you get a thousand people. Oh, well, this, well, this is a nation of 330 million people. Uh, it's true, you know, 50 states out of the there's, I don't, I. I saw some statistics, there's hundreds of thousands of polling places, so a thousand people, um, even with, you know, negative intent, don't really have a an awful lot of ability to sway, um, to sway elections.

But nevertheless, um, that is something that we have planned for. What is what are the what are these folks gonna be doing? Are they doing that which the federal law, the Voting Rights Act, allows them to do, and other federal laws allows them to do? Or are they exceeding, um, you know, what their, what that legal mandate is, and if they do, then what is our, um, you know, what should our response be?

right. The intent is nefarious, the execution is ham-handed, as usual with the Trump administration, which doesn't mean we excuse it away or look the other way. But don't let it, don't let it scare the shit out of you, which is No, we, the point.

yeah, exactly. We've gotta take them, you know, extremely seriously. I mean, they could bungle their way into something that is potentially effective. Um, you know, I, I don't think all the great planning that they do will necessarily take them there. Um, but the possibility exists that they could come up with something that, in an unplanned way, um, proves to help, uh, what, what it is they're trying to ultimately do.

Are you worried about him invoking the Insurrection Act, or, you know, otherwise declaring like a national emergency? I mean, how far do you think he can go with that sort of scenario on voting day?

I mean, that really is kind of the the outer reaches of of the kinds of things that, um, that I that I think we have to be concerned about. Because that really is, you're using powers there that have never been used before in peacetime and with regard to in in an electoral setting. Um, but again, kinds of things that we have thought about and prepared to, you know, litigate and figure out ways in which we can push back on.

But that would be a a real indication that, uh, they're going all out. Um,

well, and it would be like a a real confirmation that he's totally demented. I mean, w- we, we. We have these like discrete confirmations every day, but that would just be that that would suggest, I mean, it's just another it. It takes us into terra incognito as far as this president and this administration.

well, yeah, but we've had people around him, you know, who've publicly said, you know, the president should have, or a, or should, you know, declare, invoke the Insurrection Act, deploy, um, troops. And, you know, that has not happened. Trump has not indicated that that's something he's going to do. But again, if that is something that we have to confront, um, you know, we're ready to to to deal with it.

I know we talked about the the sort of house certification of the election, but what about, like, uh, in terms of the post-election day scenarios that could be problematic? What about if a state or local official just refuses to certify votes they don't like, for s refuses to certify results they don't like? What happens then?

Well, again, history shows that that's not an effective thing. And then one thing I will have people understand, there's this thing called a a writ of mandamus. Uh, which means you go to a court and you tell the you argue with, make your arguments before a court, and have the court order, um, the state official to do that which he or she is sworn to do, simply do their jobs. And so I'm not. This is not revealing any kind of huge, you know, tactical thing that we're we're considering.

But, you know, writs of mandamus, um, are are things that, in that scenario, uh, would be one of the tools that we would try to use to make sure that that person, uh, is doing his job, his or her job. But the other thing is that people need to understand something that the American people play a role in that as well. You know, the office of that person who is not certifying a l- an election, there's a building someplace where those people are.

And so, you know, I, if people go to that building, raise their voices. And I mean, I want people to gather peacefully and not do anything that it that is violent in nature. But, you know, have d placards, posters and and yelling, certify that election, certify that election. And you got thousands of people doing that. Um, that is a legitimate First Amendment, um, activity on the part of those protesters, and I think it's a righteous thing, uh, it's a righteous thing to do.

So, yeah, while we're in court, having people out there protesting in that way, hopefully getting covered by the media, just adds more pressure on that person to do what they are sworn, um, to do.

that's a really great piece of advice. Because I think there's a sense of not helplessness, but that so much of the post-election landscape unfolds behind closed doors, and that people's voices, um, really, very much matter in in these moments. And

Well, you know, and I think we need to gather lessons from what we've been doing at the at the National Democratic Redistricting Committee in dismantling those gerrymanders. Um, you know, Trump's plan to add, you know, five seats in Texas and try to, you know, get all these gerrymandered new, um, members of the House of Representatives. That didn't, that thing didn't fail, it was dismantled, um, because of things that we did in court, but importantly, because people, if you look at states like Georgia and South Carolina, protested outside of their state legislatures and those legislatures, which were prepared to do gerrymandering as Trump asked them to do.

They backed off of it. Doesn't mean that they're not gonna come back and try to do it next year. But at least in this attempt, um, because the people, uh, expressed themselves, and the people who are the politicians understood that there could be a political consequence for them doing something inconsistent with what the people wanted to do. Uh, you know, they backed off. So the American people, you know, we are are slow to rouse, but boy, when we get focused on something, we can be a mighty force.

And this is time, you know, everything's gotta be, is gonna be compressed here, so we can't be slow to rouse. We gotta get quick to rouse and then really focus, um, all the power that the American people have on anybody who tries to, uh, fool around with the electoral system.

well, that's a case in point. I mean, just go look and find out where your local elections office is, know who's running the elections at your state and local level, you know, be aware and know know that you have lovers, right? Anybody who's listening to this has power. And so, um, there may be you may be called upon to use it if you care about democracy.

Pod Save America is brought to you by Simply Safe. The aftermath of a break-in isn't just about what was stolen, it's about the loss of a sense of safety in your own home. Simply Safe prevents that before it happens. The moment someone sets foot on your property, a live, US. based agent steps in. Smart AI cameras monitor for potential threats and notify Simply Safe's live agents. The agent intervenes in under 30 seconds, speaking through the camera to stop an intruder in their tracks and calls for urgent 911 dispatch when it's needed most.

You know, those agents won't be asleep like the dog you can potentially hear snoring during this advertisement. Here are some of our CEO's favorite features. The app is easy to use, allowing her to arm or disarm the system directly on her phone from anywhere. If she's ever unsure if she locked her door, she can check in the app and lock it from from there, giving her peace of mind that her home is always secure. She can even monitor the cameras from the app to check in with family or friends as they arrive.

Join the more than 6 million people who entrust Simply Safe with their home security right now. Save 60 off with professional monitoring when you visit Simplesafe dot com slash crooked. That's Simplesafe dot com slash crooked. And when you order, please write in Pod Save America in the checkout survey. It lets them know we sent you and really helps to support the show. Simply Safe ahead of crime in real time.

We, you know, we talked about, uh, Kash Patel, we talked about Todd Blanche. But I kinda wonder, w- what you sort of see as the greatest peril in terms of the office of the director of National Intelligence? Because we know that former ODNI chief Tulsi Gabbard was part of the raid on the Fulton County offices in Georgia, where the FBI seized the 2020 ballots because Donald Trump cannot let a thing go. Um, her office seized voting machines in Puerto Rico as well.

Um, Jay Clayton, the man who was confirmed to the position after Gabbard, uh, after a short stint from Bill Pulte, but Jay Clayton now holds that office. He's the man that could not say in his confirmation hearings that Joe Biden won the election. He said that he had been certified the winner, but wouldn't say he actually won the election. Um, he's now in that office. How cool, like, how are you thinking about the office, the director of National Intelligence, as a cudgel that Trump may use in post-election shenanigans?

Well, that is, I, I gotta give him some some credit there. That is kind of the height of creativity. I mean, the notion that OD and I would somehow be involved in the seizure of ballots cast by Americans in the United States of America. It's kind of like, What the hell are you all doing here? I mean, you know, Tulsi, you look good in a a flak jacket or whatever she had on, I suppose. Um, and I guess Clayton would look good in one, All right, uh, as well.

all right, that's I don't, I generous, that's generous, don't, you know? Well, all right, I'm trying to be generous and funny, but maybe she didn't look good at all. What

funny, yes, generous. We don't need to be generous, but but go ahead.

what I mean, what's OD and I doing here? Uh, uh, um, you know,

Nobody knows.

uh, exactly. And so, you know, Clayton, uh, you know, has, uh, maybe has had had, uh, a fairly good reputation, um, uh, until I think recently. Although you you start to probe a little bit and I've talked to people in the in the Southern District of New York, and they, you know, say, well, he's, he was always been political. You know, they, they, th- there's, there's some cracks in that, I think, reputation of his. But I would hope that, um, there, there's, there's some degree of sanity, decency, um, I in him, uh, such that if he were ordered to do something, um, using the powers that he has, as re relatively small number of people, um, but so the int-

uh. But the intelligence community, or the leader of the intelligence community, um, being involved in that, which is a strictly, uh, domestic issue, um, it would be of great concern. Now, to try to say that, well, OD and I is involved in this because the Iranians and the Chinese and the Russians have somehow done something, um, you know, there is, I guess, some greater degree of legitimacy to OD and I being involved. But the notion that OD and I is going and seizing ballots in Fulton County in Georgia is kind of like, wait a minute, what for an election?

That was, you know, five, six years ago. Um, that makes, uh, that makes no, no, no sense. But again, something that we have, you know, looked at and tried to figure out a way to to, you know, to counteract, um. But I will say that is kind of on the periphery of the of on the list of possible things we think we have to, we have to worry about. But it's there, it's there.

it's there because Tulsi Gabbard put it there. Let's hope it was just like trying to make Daddy happy by, like, resurrecting 2020 conspiracy theories. And, you know, he loves nothing than to have feast on that in between watching himself on Fox News. But but th- you know, the the strategy that he's tried to exploit before, which has worked, insofar as it really made people question the integrity of the 2020 election, was exploit. The the time between when the votes are cast and when the en results are announced.

And I'm thinking this year of the state of Alaska, right, where there is a key Senate race between Mary Peltola and Dan Sullivan. Alaska takes a while to get its results because ballots literally have to come in from the wilderness. I think dog sleds are used in parts of the state, and there's ranked choice voting, which sort of slows down the counting process as well. It seems like a prime opportunity for conspiracists to cry foul. The, uh, like, balance of power in the Senate could come down to a single seat.

I mean, how are, how are you think? I mean, we, we've, we talk. I think most people who understand how ballot counting works realize that, like, sometimes it takes a couple days. Trump really, really tries to bastardize that interregnum period, that liminal space, to his own advantage. Like, how should, how should we be talking about that? How should we be thinking about what is almost sure to be a strategy in the coming midterms?

Yeah, I mean, that that's something again that we have to be talking about before the election. You know, it's gonna take some time to count ballots in Alaska, traditionally it takes some time to cast ballots, to count ballots. Um, in in in California, you know, and the fact that, you know, uh, you have a a vote that indicates one thing in, uh, Atlanta at eleven a at eleven p. m. but might be different at four a.

m. Because you're counting votes that come from various counties, um, you know, within, uh, around Atlanta. I mean, these are all the kinds of things that we have to talk about ahead of time so that people understand that gaps in time between the casting of a ballot and getting a result are expected. And it not it, it's not an indication of, uh, of fraud, uh, it, it's simply the way in which the system operates. You know, like you said, in in Alaska, we're talking about the largest state in the country and having to get, you know, ballots from a whole variety of places that are really, really far away from where the ultimate counting I is done, or where the

ballots have to be ultimately placed. California is a is a huge state, um, it cities, urban centers have huge numbers of ballots to count as opposed to rural areas. And so therefore it, you know, you think about that well, it's gonna got a huge number of ballots, rural areas we have fewer numbers of ballots. Well, it might take longer then in the place where you've got a greater number of of ballots. We gotta, you know, we gotta put some, uh, some some logic out there for people to understand, sensitize them to, um, what has happened in the past and how it has taken time, some in some places, to to count ballots, but it's not an indication of fraud.

And, um, it it we should not be in a place where we're responding to that which Trump says, although we Gotta do that. We should be talking about this ahead of time to try to, um, in in some ways, make the arguments that he will ultimately make, um, you know, weaker.

That's like a note to all media, like, prepare Audiences for slow returns in P states like Alaska. Speaking of Alaska, we have some breaking news as we're recording this on Friday afternoon. Um, the AP is reporting that the Trump administration has now filed a lawsuit to block certification of the Senate race in Alaska if Republican Senator Dan Sullivan loses the contest while another candidate with the same name, Dan Sullivan, is on the ballot. For people who haven't been following this, Dan J.

Sullivan, who goes by the name Dan Sullivan, was among the top four finishers after the August eighteenth primary. And on Tuesday, he moved into the November matchup, which is ranked choice, as we talked about. Sullivan, this Dan Sullivan, is not the same as the Senator Dan Sullivan. They have the same name. Uh, this Sullivan is a retired teacher from the island community of Petersburg in Alaska, and he sued for a spot on the ballot and succeeded in that lawsuit after a judge invalidated a decision by the top state elections official who said he had fi- filed his candidacy with an intent to confuse voters and basically siphon away votes from Republican Senator Dan Sullivan.

So now the Trump administration is saying, well, if Republican Senator Dan Sullivan loses this critical Senate race while I imposter Dan Sullivan is on the ballot, then we are not gonna certify the election results. This is setting up a real showdown here. Um, I know this is all happening in real time, so first of all, what's your reaction to that?

Well, I mean, you know, the fact that, and for lack of a better term, imposter Dan Sullivan is on the ballot, that was something that the Alaska courts made a determination that his name should be on the ballot. Now, personally, I mean, this is just me, Eric Holder speaking. I I'd rather that it was simply the real Dan Sullivan, um, uh, against the Democratic candidate who I think is was was a wonderful candidate candidate, Mary Peltola.

I I I'd rather just have that, that that battle. But, imposter Dan Sullivan is on, um, the ballot and legitimately there, as decided by the Alaska courts. And so, the notion that I I'm not sure what the basis therefore you'd have for not certifying the election, um, if somehow you say, well, Senator Dan Sullivan would have won, but for the presence of the other Dan Sullivan's name being on the ballot. I mean, I don't you know, okay, what's the you're not happy with that?

Um, I don't think it's necessarily best practices. Um, on the other hand, you know, the guy we're calling imposter Dan Sullivan, I mean, if he's done all the things that he had to do in order to get on the ballot, requ- got the requisite number of signatures, you know, paid the filing fees or whatever it is you have to do to get on the ballot. I mean, who am I to say that, you know, he shouldn't be there?

Dan I mean,

J. Sullivan, we'll call him Dan J. J. Sullivan.

Okay, Dan J, instead of imposter Dan. Dan J. Yeah, Dan Cause it's his Dan.

Name too, right? It's my fault. I put it into the the water supply. But, I mean,

Yeah, yeah, let's be clear Like About that, Dan J. I only used imposter because that's What, you know, what

That's what I said. The Just as a point of clarification.

We want to give you more respect, bro, okay?

Yes, we wanna give you more respect, Dan J. Sullivan. Although, I mean, I worry that, I mean, it's all pretense, right? It's just pretense for the administration to say, Well, see, we told you they're just up to no good tricks. Like, we can't we need to have another election. We need to have a special election. I mean, I like the federal, like, the federal government, can they issue a preemptive lawsuit to block certification? Like, that that how does that work?

I don't see how you can. There's nothing to certify. You know, I mean, they're Looking for some kind of d what we call a declaratory judgment, which is where you ask a court to rule on something before it actually occurs, um, for a variety of reasons. They're hard. Those things are hard to get. Um, w- when you so you're gonna try to s I I don't, I just don't understand how this would work, how you would get a court to say we're not gonna certify an election because of the mere existence of Dan Jay, um, or do are the do they wait until after the election, try to figure out what the margin of victory is for the Democratic Candidate,

you know, substitute Dan Jays number, do all the math, um, and even there, again, Dan J is on the ballot, um, legitimately, as determined by the Alaska courts. So I I don't see how that I don't I just don't see how that works.

Okay. To be continued on that front. I we we haven't talked about the sort of like elephant in the room, both in terms of the work that you do on a daily basis and one of the most sort of determinative decisions this administration made to order states, Republican states, to redraw congressional districts, gerrymander congressional districts in, uh, off years, um, not after census, uh, which is taken every ten years. We're looking at and I sit here, you know, not trying to count chickens before they hatch, but it really looks like the Democrats are gonna win the House, um, based on the catastrophic mismanagement of this administration and the Republican Party in Congress.

Um, do you think, like, sitting where we are today, that the Republican strategy, shepherded through by Donald Trump to pervert congressional mes- congressional maps, was a failure?

It was, uh, a failure, but it didn't fall of its own weight. It failed because we dismantled it, because we beat them. Um, you know, at one point, Steve Bannon was saying, Yeah, we're gonna do this, and we're gonna get as many as twenty-one seats. Our best guess now is that they will that their maximum number is five, the I More likely number is between zero and two. So, yeah, It certainly has it certainly has failed, and it was because Democrats, uh, said and this is something I think we need to keep, this attitude is something we need to keep in mind as we look towards, um, the electoral process.

You know, Trump goes out there and says, Get me five seats, and then he goes to other places, you know, Democrats could have clutched their pearls, um, I Could have an op-ed or something, um, I could come on MS now and say, you know, Oh, this is terrible, this is awful. But we decided that, um, you know, A, we were pissed off and that we were gonna use that righteous anger of ours to take Action and be as tough, um, but but in a righteous way, a as, um, as as Republicans were were tough in in an almost evil way.

And so we fought back and filed lawsuits that were successful in Missouri and in Utah, um, was on, you know, talking to Governor Newsom about what California might do in response to what Texas did. And, um, I certainly agreed with what he proposed, especially given the fact that the people in California had the ability to vote on whether Or not they It was a voter Wanted to

Approved redistricting.

Right, whether or not they wanted to, you know, adjust their maps and do so on a temporary basis, only until after the next census. And so, you know, we used our mapping tools to kind of analyze what it is that they were doing and realized that at a in a fundamental way, even at the beginning, we thought, this is they're not even looking at Texas. They based that on the 2024 turnout, you know, And if you look at that

Mistakes were made.

Right, I mean, and w- we you could tell right away. They weren't gonna get five, um, seats in in in Texas. And given, you know, the failures that they've had in policy and with the war in Iran, the rise in in in gas and diesel prices, you know, they're even in a worse

The ice death squads killing people in their Fathers in, you know, Houston, Texas, and shooting people in Austin, Texas. It's really not been a great strategy to keep Latino men in your corner, but I digress.

And it can't be forgotten that this move by them was, uh, the ultimate indication of weakness. They knew that in a fair fight, they simply couldn't win. And so, you know, because of, you know, tax cuts that went to people who didn't need them, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, rises in gas prices, the corruption that just infests this, um, this administration, they had to come up with ways in which they could put their finger on the scale.

But, um, you know, we at the NDRC, along with a a whole bunch of people, uh, you know, our allies and people acting independently of us, we just we just whipped their asses. That that's exactly what happened.

That's the clinical legal term for it.

That's right.

Ass whipping.

Well, that's another that's another legal term, right?

Yeah, it's good that I'm fluent in that kind of legalese. Um, l- let me ask you, though, because they have lost this battle, but it doesn't feel like the war is over, right?

It's not. Like, It's not.

So, are we stuck in an inevitable cycle of partisan gerrymandering for the foreseeable future? Because it's hard to imagine that Democrats look at what California did and don't try and duplicate that ahead of 2028 or another cycle and say, we will go to the people with this. We will try and do this in as both uh, in an above board fashion insofar as that's even possible. But, like, we're not gonna sit idly by as Republicans continue to pervert democracy, um, we're gonna try and rebalance it on the left.

Yeah, we've gotta stop this race to the bottom. Um, and as I said in, I guess, the statement or op-ed that I wrote, I guess, when California was talking about, uh, doing what they did, I said, you know, we have to, you know, s we have to preserve our democracy now in order to to to save it ultimately. And so we've gotta, in the short term, respond to whatever, um, Republicans do. And you're right, it's not gonna be over.

I mean, in lame duck sessions, they will try to do things. I'd look at Georgia and Texas, especially next year in 2027, they'll try to go back to Indiana, is my guess, uh, Mississippi, you know, there'll be o- other states, South Carolina, where they'll try to do things in 2027. And I think Democrats will have to respond there. But the e- at the end of the day, um, I'm hoping that we will have a Democratic trifecta after the 2028 election, uh, Democratic president, Democratic House, Democratic Senate.

And at that point, we have to simply use that power to pass, um, a bill that bans partisan gerrymandering, That bans, um, mid-cycle, um, redistricting. Uh, I think this is a piece of legislation maybe oughta just stand alone. If it means, you know, adjusting the filibuster, I think we need to do that. American people were appalled by what they have seen since Trump took that, you know, that walk to the helicopter and and talked about those five seats in Texas.

I mean, you know, I've been at NDRC since 2017 trying to raise people's consciousness about the the pernicious impact of, uh, of gerrymandering on our democracy. And Trump did more for that cause than What he or ordered in Texas and then in other other other states. I mean, people get it now in a way that they did not, uh, they did not before. And so I think that, uh, you know, I I actually think that if Democrats take the House this year, you know, put up a bill that bans partisan gerrymandering, that bans mid-cycle redistricting, not likely that's something that that Trump would, um, would would would sign.

But let's put people on the record. Let's put people on the record. Do you stand for that which happened in 2026? Are you for allowing politicians to pick their voters as opposed to citizens of this country choosing who their representatives ought to be? Make people go on on go on the record. And, um, and then ultimately, as I said, with a trifecta, to just put that into, uh, put that into law.

I wanna close out on something that you just said cause I think it's a really important point is as much as democracy and the integrity of our elections feels like it's under assault, Trump has done more to educate the American public on for even the term gerrymandering was not something that was co- co- part of common conversation even like five years ago, right? State Supreme Courts, you're out there stumping for state Supreme Court nominees. People now understand the essential role these courts play in a host of, uh, democratic functions.

There is more fluency around the the court system and the legal system, the certification process. I mean, the Trump years have been dark, but they've also been an incredible lesson in civics. And if anything, we can hopefully come out of this chapter with a greater understanding of the importance of democracy, not just in presidential election years, but in terms of citizen engagement, in terms of local and state representation, in terms of just understanding the basic, you know, the the how a bill becomes a law, the basic mechanics of democracy.

And that's amazing, right? Like, I in some ways, I I don't mean to sound like Pollyannish about it, but that's like, power is returned once you are, uh, have the knowledge, and this has been, wow, an incredible education at the very least, right?

See, I don't think you're being Pollyannish at all. In fact, I think that's a really good assessment of what this whole thing is gonna boil down to. I mean, I think the American people are more aware of the way in which the system works. I think they're gonna come to understand, uh, in a really dramatic way, the power that, um, that we have and our ability to shape, um, how our system is used i is more acute now than it was before.

You know, I always say this, you know, every generation of Americans is ultimately called upon to defend democracy. You know, we had to end the sin of slavery, uh, that enhanced our democracy. Women fought for the right to vote, that enhanced our democracy. Um, as Roosevelt said, you know, we sent, uh, the pride of our nation across seas to fight fascism, and that, in essence, was to preserve and enhance our democracy. Black kids and white kids, you know, went south to join, um, a civil rights movement that exists that was that existed in in in the South, uh, and that was all about a a variety of things, but chiefly, and people tend to forget this, chiefly about the right

to vote, and that was about enhancing our democracy. Well, now this is our generation's time. This is our time to stand up and to defend our democracy. And I think the American people, an educated American people, are up to that challenge. And I think it's it's gonna be a bumpy two years. These last two Trump years are gonna be bumpy, and they're gonna be outrageous that we're gonna have to, we're gonna have to deal with. But I think, um, it's gonna be less outrageous and less damaging as a result of the fact that the American people are engaged in this battle in ways that they were not, let's say, at the beginning of, uh, even this even this year.

And once they see the results of, uh, their involvement, as I think you're going to with the results of the 2026 midterms at both the state and federal levels, um, they'll they'll understand, in a in a really stark way, um, the impact of that, uh, of that power, of their knowledge, uh, and of their involvement. And I don't think I'm being Pollyannish, Pollyannish here as well. I I think this is really just a good assessment of, um, of where this country stands.

And again, I think about some things we did at NDRC in trying to use our grassroots component, you know, we have a multi-component thing, but use that grassroots component of our, um, in in our arsenal and the ability to get people, um, to demonstrations, again, peacefully, nonviolently, but exercising their First Amendment rights. Um, it was easy to get people, um, engaged once they understood, you know, kind of what was at stake, and it had an impact, and it had an impact.

And I think that's the, uh, that's the America that is, that's that's I think I think America really at its best.

You know what? I didn't know if we were gonna end on a high note with all the four-letter words and cursing and ass whippings that we doled I did not Out today.

Drop the f-bomb just for the record, just for the record.

You still have time. We have, like, one more minute, but anyway, I won't put the pressure on you. You've already done so much for the country. Attorney General Eric Holder, it's really a privilege to have you on Pod Save America. We're so thankful for not just your time, but the extraordinary efforts you're you're making. Um, we all benefit from them. So, thanks for your time. Thanks for being you. Um, thanks for joining me today.

All right, thanks for having me. And you, American people, I've talked a lot of good stuff about just get out there, vote, get involved, make sure that we use the power that we have. We can do this.

We can fucking do this.

You said it.

Thanks again to former Attorney General Eric Holder. If you love today's episode, do check out my show, Runaway Country. This week, I dove deep into the main Senate race with a local journalist covering that story from the ground up, and I broke down the latest polling with Nate Silver, a host of Still Counting right here on the Crooked Network and, of course, The Silver Bulletin on Substack. Tommy, love it. John, we'll be back with you on Tuesday.

Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin, McKenna Roberts, and Michael Goldsmith, with Reed Churlin, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroot, Ben Hefcoat, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, Kenny Moffett, Adam Lippert, Joseph Dutra, Desmond Taylor, Dan Farrow, David Tolls, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.