00:00:00
Speaker 1: You never got a call from the President of United States saying, mister Attorney General, I want you to do X, Y and Z. That never happened.
00:00:05
Speaker 2: That never happened. Every generation of Americans is ultimately called upon to defend amoks. It really challenges who we say we are as the United States of Americas.
00:00:14
Speaker 1: This is Gavin Newsom than this is Eric Holder, Eric Calder in his bunker somewhere an undisclosed.
00:00:25
Speaker 2: Location, undisclosed location exactly.
00:00:29
Speaker 1: But yeah, I joke about that. But I mean, mister Attorney General, sir, I'm American citizen, civic leader. How you feeling about the world we're living in. I mean, we're on the eve of another government shut down, which is becoming more and more common, but this one potentially could be very, very different and consequential compared to the prior ones. You're seeing all the weaponization of grievance across the spectrum, DJ and elsewhere. We'll get to Jerry Mandarin and the incredible work you've been doing since twenty seventeen. But honestly, give me a temperature check. How are you feeling about things and where we are at this moment in this country.
00:01:06
Speaker 2: I gotta tell you, I'm I'm extremely worried. And if you would ask me that same question, you know, a year or so ago, even with the possibility of a Trump election, I would not have thought that we'd be in the place that we are now. I mean, when you look at attacks on the First Amendment, you know, Jimmy Kimmel, you look at the the attacks on science, the attacks on universities, you know, attacks on healthcare. I mean, there are a whole range of things that worry me a great deal. The politicization of the Justice Department, as evidenced by you know, the Jim Comy and a whole bunch of boys, but I mean the Jim Comy indictment. I think our sense of who we are as a nation is being challenged, and I think people need to understand that. And I think it's been great that your voice has been a consistent one. And I'm not just saying this. You know, you are well before Trump selection, You've been out there and kind of ringing the bell, and I think people are finally, finally, you know, starting to starting to hear it.
00:02:08
Speaker 1: And I appreciate that and I and I also appreciate your sentiment because I think so many people listening, regardless of their political stripes, I think must be feeling a similar sentiment about the world we're living in. What I mean you, I imagine of all people you because you've seen firsthand, you've been on the inside, You've worked so closely with presidents, and you've you've maintained a deep engagement in this country. You must anticipated Trump two point zero in many respects to you know, represent something, But did you expect it to represent what it has?
00:02:46
Speaker 2: Meaning?
00:02:46
Speaker 1: Is this fire and fury? Is this flooding the zone? Is this russ void? Is this deeper, broader, more impactful than you had anticipated even eight nine months ago?
00:02:57
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think it is, you know I I think it's both deeper and broader, and it has come at a more rapid pace than I think I might have expected. You know, just the thing that I guess I'm most familiar with you look at the Justice Department. I mean the notion that a president, not an attorney general or career people at the Justice Department make a determination as to who should be indicted. And that's what the Jim Comby indictment is all about. I mean, you know, you had a Trump appointee as the US attorney who decided that there was not a case there, so they fired him. Bring in an insurance lawyer who has never tried a criminal case, and she does the president's bidding and brings a case that barely got through a grand jury. You know that notion that a president's making these kinds of determinations, that an Attorney general sees the Justice Department not as the lawyers for the people, but as lawyers for the president. These are all the kinds of things that I would not have expected and worried me. You know, a great deal. This really challenges, it really challenges who we say we are as the United States of America.
00:04:07
Speaker 1: Eric, I'm curious. You know, a lot of people on the other side would would hear that and say, come on, you know, this is the way it's always been. Now it's perhaps a little bit more in the open. Fair's fair, it's tit for tat. We saw that weaponization coming from the last administration. They would go back even to prior administrations. But maybe you could, without breaking confidence, sort of pull us in. I mean, you never got a call from the President of the United States saying, mister Attorney General, I want you to do X, Y and Z. That never happened.
00:04:37
Speaker 2: That never happened. We had what's called a contact policy that describes the people in the White House who can talk to which people in the Justice Department, and was really like two on either side. You know. I had interactions with President Obama. He never ever ever raised with me how he thought the Justice Department should conduct itself in a particular mana. Now on national security matters, that's a different deal there. I was part of the National Security team, and I was just one of many people sitting in the situation room trying to figure out, you know, what is it we could do with regard to drone strikes. But when it came to you know, the criminal law, the enforcement of the anti trust laws, filing civil suits, civil rights, you know, protections, I never ever heard from the President on that. Now, let me tell you just a really quick story. I made the determination not to defend the defensive marriage at doma internal Justice Department determination. I say, we're not going to do it. I was at a Super Bowl party at the White House. We were going to announce this to the world, I guess the following Tuesday, Wednesday, and I told President Obama. Look, I made the determination we're not going to defend DOMA, and I wanted him to know so that he wouldn't read about it in the newspaper. And he said to me, this is at the White House. He said, boy, I'm glad you've made that decision because that's where I wanted to go. But I didn't think it was appropriate for me to share with you what you should do. And that's the truth. And so that gives you a sense of how Barack Obama and Eric Holder thought the Justice Department should interact with the White House fundamentally different than the way Pam Bondy and Donald Trump think there's two institutions should be interacting.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: And when it comes to line staff, when it comes to this career staff that you're frustrated with your governing, your managing, they're not the political staff that the folks that are sort of the clay layer that have been there and they'll be there well beyond your tenure in your respective roles. I mean, how did you manage those disagreements? I mean, obviously, the President, as you noted, fired someone he disagreed with and then installed his own person quite literally, his personal attorney to do his bidding. But what was sort of what's the tradition in terms of how you manage those disagreements in terms of moving or operating in a way that at least is directionally along the lines that you wanted to achieve or proceed. I believe was the right.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you know, I was the head of the Justice Department, and so I had to make ultimate calls. You know. I started my career as a line lawyer, and I think called the Public Integrity Section, it looks at official corruption cases that the Trump administration has just decimated. It used to be about thirty lawyers there. I think they're about four there now. They don't care about official corruption. And we used to say, when I was a line lawyer for twelve years, we used to call the political appointees tourists and said, you know, they come and go, but we're the people who stay. And so when I became came back to the Justice Department as Attorney General, I always wanted to interact with the career folks, but everybody understood that if there was was a disagreement, I as the Attorney General, had the final say. And within the Justice Department, you know, that's fine. None of the career people ever thought that the president had the final say on what the Justice Department was going to do post Watergate. The independence of the Justice Department is something that every administration, I think valued, and that you know, to the consternation sometimes of the people in the White House, when I decided that we were going to look back at how the Bush administration had conducted itself with regard to these enhanced interrogation techniques, A lot of people I knew in the White House didn't want me to do that, and yet I had the independence the ability to do it.
00:08:17
Speaker 1: When you when you reflect on what happened to Comy, reflect perhaps and under different circumstances, what happened to Bolton in relationship to the quote unquote raid on his home. I mean, what's most alarming about those instances? I mean, what was your sort of internal conversation not only with yourself but with others around you as it relates to those actions by this administration.
00:08:46
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, the Komy case is one that we can pretty much understand based on the reporting that the media has done, and there's no case there. I mean, here's the deal. Put a pin in this Jim Comy is not going to be convicted. I mean, the case may not get to trial, the case may get dismissed by the judge after the government presents his case. If it gets to a juror, there's no way he's going to get convicted. So you know, put a pin in that replay this, you know at some point. And so there's that component. And then you have the President in that truth social post where he says kind of dear Pam and basically is telling her to go after you know, Jim Comey, Adam Schiff, Letitia James, and you know all of these things. I mean, no case, direction by the president to bring the case nevertheless, and then the obeisance of the people in the Justice Department to do that which the president wanted to do. Again, Republican as well as democratic administrations, this just doesn't happen. I mean, this is just not normal, folks. We got to understand that this goes is inconsistent with the way in which DOJ's justice departments and attorneys general have you know, conducted themselves.
00:09:56
Speaker 1: With regard to line employees. I mean, there's two trains of people saying people should stand up on principle, resign people should sort of stick it out, because if their voice and their eyes are not there, my gosh, the folks that come behind them could really lock in and institutionalize this aberrant behavior, this normalization of delancy. What where are you on that in terms of the conversations I'm sure you've had with some of those career staff people that you've developed relationships with over time.
00:10:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a really good question. And one of the things my position. You know, everybody's got to make their own determination. When I've been asked that by people, I say, stay around, stick around, because the reality is the people who they'll pick to succeed you will not be nearly as idealistic, will not adhere to the traditions of the Justice Department. And so I'd say, look, you stick around, and if they fire you, you know, there's not much I suppose that you can do. You'll have you know, employment appellet rights, and you go to court to try to get your job back, and that effort is even enhanced by having them fire you as opposed to resign. And so I think you make them push you out as opposed to you deciding that you want to resign.
00:11:08
Speaker 1: I appreciate that perspective. Could not agree more. I think that. I mean, I appreciate the principal stand of saying, I can't be part of an administration that's that's party to this kind of injustice, but at the same time, the consequences of walking away. Let me ask you, as it relates to walking away, it seems that we have a completely supine Congress, that there's no system of checks and balances, that the Majority Speaker Johnson has completely abdicated any oversight as it relates to that, and it relates to this moment as we're talking, we're just quite literally hours away from a midnight deadline on that government shutdown. I mean, vis a vis that, having experienced a little of that, understanding what it means, what it doesn't mean a government shut down. Where are you in terms of where are the Democratic Party should be? Where the leadership of the Democratic Party should position themselves at this moment, Is Jeffries Schumer right to now sort of stand firm on protecting Bombacare and its subsidies or else? Or should we right now be outside knocking on the Oval Office saying, mister President, we still want to negotiate.
00:12:15
Speaker 2: Now, I mean, I think, yeah, we still want to negotiate, but these are this is a principal stand that we're taking. We want to make sure that Medicaid cuts that we're in that big stupid bill are not put into effect, that the Obamacare subsidies you know, will continue, and so healthcare premiums will not rise. No, we've got to stand firm and say, this is who we are, this is who we are as Democrats. We stand with the people, with the interests of the people, not with the special interests. And we're not going to allow you to ram through things that are going to harm the American people, you know, make health care out of put health care out of reach of substantial numbers of people, to folks who qualify for Medicaid, to make it more difficult for them to get healthcare. And this this is a basic kind of governmental governmental thing. And I think the position that they have taken is both principled, it's consistent again with who we say we are as Democrats. And they got a whole firm. They just got a whole firm.
00:13:15
Speaker 1: Where do you play it out? Where do you I mean, you know, this thing the last government shut down under Trump was on the longest that we've experienced the consequences, they felt more intense that we colored the men in the short run, then they sort of unpacked from GDP perspective and getting people back their paychecks, et cetera. Where do you what's your gut in terms of how this plays out?
00:13:39
Speaker 2: I think my gut is that if this goes longer than a week, it's going to be long. I get the feeling that, you know, this, this could end up being, you know, really substantially, really substantial shutdown. And my hope is that you know, russ Vote and you know his people don't use this as an excuse of fire even more federal employees. That adds another dimension to this, you know, to use what is a policy difference to deny people their their right to work and further harm further harm the government. But my sense is that you know, in Trump too, where he's kind of you know, Donald Trump unbound and surrounded by the zealots who make up certainly the White House staff and people in the cabinet, that this is something that could go I think for you know, an extended period of time. But you know, I understand that I still think that Democrats have got to hold firm to the positions that we have taken. This is uh, you know, we're standing up and we're pushing back, and I think that's what the American people, you know, want to see.
00:14:50
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. What I mean, what's your over under? I mean, people, if you game this thing out and we've seen it, it's I appreciate the reference the MV director rus Bot in terms of what he's done, and for those that are not familiar, that's the architect of Project twenty twenty five. He was the only B director people forget in the first Trump administration, but he learned his lessons and now is more unbound and obviously more mersurgical in terms of what he's trying to achieve. And there's a lot of speculation about serious and significant cuts that he's prepared to make in pretty short order, particularly to the workforce. But also in that respect is a tendency now, it seems to me in the Senate, particularly with Leeder Thune, we talk about nuclear options, we talk about the filibuster. Is there a scenario where he moves forward if there's stubbornness and we no longer have that sixty vote threshold on appropriations.
00:15:48
Speaker 2: You know, it's entirely possible. I mean, if they get that directive from the White House. Given the track record of Congress in this administration, it wouldn't surprise me if they made the determination that, all right, we'll just blow up the filibuster all together and then pass this one on, you know, pass put into place, you know what the president wants to do on purely party lines. It would be in some ways shocking but not surprising, you know, I mean, in some ways you always think those two words go together. But it would shock me. But again, based on the way in which this Congress has done everything and I mean everything that you know the President wants them to do, it would wouldn't surprise me.
00:16:33
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'd submit. I mean, I asked the question. I'm curious your opinion, of course, but also it's a question I think we need to ask ourselves because I think that outcome, I would argue, is more likely than unlikely considering I mean those two words you just said, shocking but not surprising, is I mean, if there's there's no phrase probably been more uttered in the last eight months in that phrase. Look, one of the things that was uttered was one of the reasons I wanted to talk to you, and I'm grateful for this opportunity. And that was the words that came out of Donald Trump's mouth when he reached out to Governor Abbott in Texas and he asked for five seats. It's important for folks listening as it relates to midtermer districting and moving forward that Greg Abbott initially was reticent. Greg Abbott expressed not just privately but publicly that he wasn't necessarily convinced it was quote unquote the right thing to do or the timely thing to do. He was quickly disabused of that when Trump circled back, saying, he's uote unquote entitled to those five votes of the rest in Texas's history. But you have a history in this space going back to twenty seventeen as a champion for independent redistricting, and I want to walk back to that and walk back to the reasons why this was so important to you, reason why it was so important then to President Obama, who was a big part of the why you were tasked to do this. At least that's what he asserted to me, that he was the one who directed maybe you could clarify that.
00:18:02
Speaker 2: He's directed me to do a whole bunch of things though the course of the last ten years or so, you know, or this is true, he said, you need to head up the NDRC.
00:18:12
Speaker 1: And so what was the idea give us the origin story of the NDRC.
00:18:16
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, as I was leaving office, he and I sat down and talked about, let's kind of look back and see what is it that we didn't accomplish, and what were the reasons why we were not as successful as we might have been. And we looked at a variety of things, and you know, it really kind of we kind of tried to fall well, why why why, And we really came to the conclusion that jerry mandering was a problem that prevented him from getting in full his agenda, although he had significant accomplishments. And then as we looked more, he said, you know, and a lot of the stuff that's coming out of the states is unpopular and nevertheless gets passed, and that was also as a result of gerrymandering in state legislatures. And so he said, all right, let's go after that problem. And so we formed up the National Democratic Redistricting Committee in January of twenty seventeen. To really promote fairness in the redistricting process, Republicans had put together, through a thing called Project red Map in twenty twenty eleven, jerry manders in a whole variety of states that have endured, endure through the course of that whole decade, and put in place measures at the state level that you know, people didn't like, but nevertheless Republicans did it and didn't suffer any political consequence because of the jerry manders. And then we had a jerrymandered House of Representatives. And if you look when we started out, Democrats had to overperform by about twenty two percent in order to get to fifty to fifty in the House of Representatives. As a result of what we've done, that number is now just about one and a half percent something like that. We can actually, you know, actually handle that. And so we've promoted fairness, and that is fairness has almost been like a weapon for us. We use that word. People like the idea that citizens ought to choose who their representatives are as opposed to politicians picking their voters. And so that's why we have been engaged in this fight.
00:20:10
Speaker 1: Mister Attorney General. So much of what you tried to achieve and pursue in twenty seventeen had a little bit of its origin story. And what happened with the Shelby County decision of the Supreme Court, a five to four decision in twenty thirteen. Remind everybody what happened at the Supreme Court in twenty thirteen.
00:20:29
Speaker 2: Twenty thirteen, the Supreme Court, as you said, in a five to four decision, Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, and he stated very famously in his majority opinion that America has changed, and as a result, they use that as the basis to take from the Justice Department the ability that it had to pre clear changes that states wanted to make when it came to all kinds of electoral things, whether it was how lines were drawn with regard to districts, where polling places should be opened or closed, where voter purges should be allowed. Took away from the Justice Department the ability to challenge states when they tried to do these things, and that has had a really negative impact. We have seen pole closures all around the country. It's one of the reasons why you see long lines in certain states who've seen voter purges that disproportionately occur in communities of color, in places where democrats are perceived to live. A whole range of things has happened since the Shelby County case. It's taken the Justice Department, not off the field, but certainly taken away from the Justice Department a lot of the tools that it once had.
00:21:44
Speaker 1: And so, you know, in an effort to sort of push back, you've been you know, a big party organization is also highlighting some of those purges as it relates to the voting roles, highlighting some of what is just overt voter suppression activities as it relates to reducing the number of pulling options and places, what you know, and it led to a lot of victories. And I think what I'd love to highlight is not just the problem, but some of your success in terms of what your organization has been able to achieve. And I want to get back to Prop fifty. I want to get back to what's happening not just in Texas but across this country at this moment. But talk to me a little bit about what you were able to achieve with the organization in twenty eighteen nineteen twenty, over the course of the last decade or so.
00:22:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you know, if you look at the work that we have done since twenty seventeen, by you know, focusing using a state based strategy, different strategy, you know, depending on the state, By supporting candidates who would stand for fairness, by challenging laws that were put in place or procedures that were being used in a variety of states. By raising the consciousness of people about the importance of fair redistricting, by standing for independent commissions and trying to get those in states wherever we quit and where it's interesting, wherever we tried to he had an independent commission, whether it was a red state or a blue state, people overwhelmingly supported them. We got them in Missouri, we got them in Utah, and then Republican legislatures, you know, did things to the efforts that we had, but the people always supported them. And so that's what we have done, use those different tools, and as a result, we ended up with maps in twenty twenty four that a lot of analysts, as well as The New York Times said produced the fairest maps you know in generations now fairest, but not totally fair. There are still states that are are still jury mannered. If you look at Texas, if you look at Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, there are still places that still are still jury mannered and are still a focus of our work and a big part.
00:23:47
Speaker 1: Of just the jerry mannering. And just to sort of unpack this a little bit more, the racial dimensions cannot be understated or at least even overstated. I mean, so the impacts the black community, Hispanic community, talk a little bit more about how that manifests in many of these different states.
00:24:04
Speaker 2: That's a really important point. This jerrymandering is done on the backs of people of color, and one only has to look at what's going on in Texas. Now they get there, they think five seats. I think they're being a little optimistic, but they get whatever it is they get out of this, this jerry mandering that they're doing at the expense of people of color in largely urban areas, largely Hispanic but African Americans, you knows as well. Uh we see them, you know, breaking up districts in Austin, Texas and San Antonio, enjoying these really weird lines so that you really decrease, dilute the power, the electoral power that communities of color have in Texas. Now they'll try to say this is only partisan, these are only partisan things that we have done, as if that somehow makes it better. You know, we're not we're not racist. We're just doing things, you know, that are inconsistent with our sense of who we are and consistent with our constitution. But it's only on a partisan basis. But if you look, it always almost always comes down to making it more difficult for people of color to vote and then taking away from people of color, communities of color, the political power that they long sought and have tried to hold on to.
00:25:26
Speaker 1: So California is one of those states with an independent redistricting commission. It was a commission that when I was mayor, there was an effort to repeal it that I publicly opposed because long supported the idea of independent redistricting. And it's a point of pride that this state has been one of the leaders. What happened, however, in Texas changed the equation. And I'm curious, just from your prism and your perspective as a champion of independent redistricting as well, what does Texas represent to you? And first, if I could just unpack a deeper question, why do you think President Trump made the phone call to Greg Abbott? Why do you think he even pursued this mid decade redistricting strategy in the first place.
00:26:13
Speaker 2: Well before he picked up the phone, he looked at his desk, picked up some papers that said, these are your polling numbers, mister President, and he made the determination that unless we cheat, unless we come up with more safe Republican seats, we're in real danger of losing our majority in the House of Representatives. And that would really establish a really huge obstacle to doing the kinds of radical things that they have done in the first eight months and want to continue to do over the course of the next next three years or so. And I think that's the thing that generated the call from the President to the governor in Texas. And it's an interesting thing, you know, when he called, when the President called those folks in Georgia and said I need eleven thousands, seven hundred and eighty votes when it came to the twenty twenty election, Republicans in Georgia, you know, Secretary of Saint Raffensburg, a person what I agree with on a whole bunch of stuff. You know, they at least had the guts to say, no, we're not going to do that. Called Greg Abbott, and he expressed some you know, little concern about it at the beginning, but at the end of the day did exactly what it is that you know, the President asked him to do. You know, we've always thought of the California Independent Commission as the gold standard. It's something that as I've campaigned around the country for fairness, I've always pointed to California, and I think the system in California is a great one. But I think the determination that you made and other Democrats in California was exactly the right one. Given what they did in Texas and what they're doing in other states as well. We couldn't simply disarm. We had to respond to that. And what I've said, you know, I've thought about this long and hard before I said, you know, this is something I think we ought to do because I've been fighting. I've been fighting against Jerry Mandarin, either by Democrats or Republics. But I think that what's happening in California makes a great deal of sense. It is something that kind of meets this three part test of mine. It's got to be responsive and so it's certainly responsive to that which happened in Texas. It's got to be responsible. Didn't go crazy, just came up with a way in which you try to come up with additional seats. And it's going to be temporary, you know. I want to get back to this whole fight for fairness and the way in which it's crafted in California, in addition to having the people ultimately vote on it, which is not what happened in Texas. It only will exist until after the next census.
00:28:36
Speaker 1: No, and I appreciate this, and you know, so your your evolution was mine as well as someone that believes in the principle of independent redistrict as well.
00:28:44
Speaker 2: So it wasn't.
00:28:44
Speaker 1: I wasn't an immediate response, frankly was in response to outreach by legislative leaders in Texas that said, weok, hey, California, uh, you know, have our back, and we thought it may be a rhetorical play just to support them and say we're watching, we're paying attention, but realizing the consequences of these five seats and how that can tip the balance and rig the next election. In the twenty twenty six we were able to fashion a process that, as you say, is temporary, transparent and democratic. It's the only maps that are now being presented to the voters themselves. They will decide for themselves in the most transparent way, and in a temporary way that ends, as you suggest, after the twenty eight, eight and thirty and into the thirty two census will revert back to its original form. Again only in response to Texas. But I want to ask you to respond, It's not just Texas, is it, mister Kearny. General, We're seeing this in Missouri just this week. You're seeing activity in Indiana, Conversations that are happening in Florida. There's different conditions and criteria in Ohio and Utah. Maybe you can give us the lay of the land more broadly.
00:29:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you hit just about all the states where this is still being considered. You know, Texas has already done it, Missouri has already done it, but those other states are certainly considering it. And you know Ohio has got to redraw their maps because of a constitutional provision there but the question is what are Ohio Republicans I'm going to do? There is within the Ohio Constitution a prohibition against partisan jury mannering. So we'll see what they do in Ohio. What are they going to do in Kansas? What are they going to do with Florida. There is a whole range of other states where they've made the determination that they're going to really kind of cheat. And that's what it is. You can talk about a whole bunch of different things. It's cheating. They're going to cheat to try to hold on to the majority that they have in the House of Representatives. And it really comes on the basis of fear. They're afraid of the people who they say they want to represent. They're afraid of the legislative agenda that they have tried to put in place. They're afraid of the administrative things that they have done. They're afraid to be held accountable for, you know, taking a whole bunch of good people in a whole variety of government agency around the country and simply told them, you know, get out of here, you're fired. They're afraid of trying to defend that which Elon Musk and his doge Bros.
00:31:09
Speaker 1: Did.
00:31:11
Speaker 2: It's all a political fear is that is driving what it is that they are that they're doing, and it's fundamentally on American and it's unpatriotic, you know, it's it's cheating. But it also goes against that which we do and which makes I think this nation exceptional. We trust the people to make determinations about policy in the direction of the nation, and they want to cut the people out of the process.
00:31:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the de facto eliminated oversight with Congress co equal branch of government. Increasingly, particularly with this utilization of the shadow docket at the Supreme Court. That's another podcast, just the shadow docket and the abuse and use of the shadow docket by the Supreme Court itself. By the way, for those that are wander when I'm talking about that shadow docket is allowed for racial profiling, not just in relationship to the conversation we're having around voting, but racial profiling of people on the basis of their skin color, on the basis of where they congregate, on the basis of their language. That has given Ice free reign to terrorize our diverse communities under no other pretext than is the basis of those simple profiles, and I just never thought i'd hear that in my life, and that was afforded under the shadow docket by the United States Supreme Court. I'm curious, Eric, just the broader issues around voting. I mean, how concerned are you not just around the issues of fairness with this redistricting fight, issues of the vanalyzation of fair and free elections as it relates to what happened with Shelby, but what's happening as well with the National Guard being deployed in American cities. Are you concerned that's also part of a larger agenda that may actually impact, potentially or create a chill around election day as well.
00:33:02
Speaker 2: See, I think you pointed out something that's really important here because I think there's a there's a long term play here. This is you know, it it's cast as something that is anti crime. You know, it's pro public safety does not obviously work. I mean, you know, these people who serve in the National Guard, you know, I admire them, great respect to them, but they're not crime fighters. That's not what they do. But I think this the long play here is to desensitize people to the site of troops on our streets, and I see them. I can see them trying to deploy troops around the twenty sixth election. And again, you don't have to do much, just to just deploy them in certain cities and in certain neighborhoods, and they'll have a chilling effect in certain communities and they hope, they hope, you know, suppress voter participation in those communities. So I think it's actually a long play. I mean, there's an authoritarian component to this that I think is who Donald that that's who Donald Trump is. But I think it's also I think you're correctly pointing out a long term play to help them again another way in which they can cheat when it comes to the twenty sixth election.
00:34:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, I thought it was interesting and people may not be familiar with this. We still have federalized National Guard in the state of California. It's not just a conversation that's being held in Portland or places like Chicago or Memphis for that matter, Washington, d C. It's still the case that we have federalized troops and they were intentionally from my perspective, not well could have been coincidental, but they were announced as extended through election day and to reinforce that Eric. This is important as well for folks. When we announced our efforts on this redistrict Team Proposition fifty, this special election to push back and fight back against Trump's efforts. When we announced it, it was in Little Tokyo in Los Angeles at the Democracy Center, and at the same time we announced it, the Trump administration sent out mass men that surrounded us, surrounded and created that chill, literally intimidating people that were walking into the rally walking event. By the way, that included a dozen representatives from Congress, represent two US Senators, hundreds and hundreds of community leaders, and also for me, was a preview of things to come. You have now the largest domestic police force in the world, arguably particularly with a big, beautiful bill as they describe it, an additional ten thousand potential staff that increasingly appear. And this may not be fair, but I don't think it's deeply unfair or hyperbolic that increasingly appear to have taken an oath of office to Donald Trump and not the Constitution in terms of how they are conducting many of their activities, and that to me would be exhibit a and the conduct that was deeply unbecoming of the men and women of ICE and Border Patrol at that Democracy Center rally.
00:36:08
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think this is the kind of thing that you'd expect to see in a third world country, you'd expect to see in Russia, you know, so called banana republics. I mean, the opposition is holding a meeting to announce a position that it's taking inconsistent with what the power those who are in power and government are taking. And what do they do? They surround, they surround that place, you know, I mean, I mean, people have we need to think about that? What does that mean? And then you end up with an interior police department that is, you know, greatly expanded. Again, that's another authoritarian move. I mean, people, you understand, ICE is going to be substantially larger than the FBI, I mean substantially larger than the FBI, than the DEA. I mean, this is and this is unheard of. ICE. You know has an important job, but they have never been the size that they're going to be. At the conclusion of all the hiring that Trump and Tom Holman want to do, Eric.
00:37:01
Speaker 1: I'm just curious, and you know, I'm sensitive again to your relationship to confidentiality and just the dignity of of your your prior roles and the dignity of the office of citizen that you hold today. But you you must have had some pretty chilling conversations with some of your colleagues, maybe maybe former attorney generals, uh leaders in in in these quote unquote power ministries of the FBI and d O J and UH they're even the I R S. I mean, what what can can you sort of Is there a composite picture you can paint, uh in bipartisan terms and sort of universal terms in American terms of those kind of conversations that you uniquely are positioned to have had conducted.
00:37:50
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think they operate on a couple of levels. One. I talked to a lot of folks who've been in the Justice Department for or law enforcement, federal law enforcement, for FBI, for you know, extended periods of time, and they talk about the stock that they have felt as a result of, you know, the things that they that have been done. Morale is just really you know, it's in the toilet when it comes to you know, federal law law enforcement. Every a lot of people are afraid. I mean, these are people, you know, thinking that they were going to spend their careers, you know, working to support the mission of the Justice Department, the mission of the FBI, regardless of who was the president, who was the Attorney general. And so there there is that. I also talk to people here in Washington, d C. On the political side, and you know what really strikes me is that, you know, you talk to Republicans and they're not in front of the camera. They're just talking to me. We have relationship. And I'm not going to say this's a huge number of people, but they understand that what's going on is wrong, but they are politically afraid to come out and say something against that which this administration wants to do. I thought it was really interesting that Romney in his book when he was talking about, you know, people making up their minds of how they were going to vote when it came to both impeachment and whether or not President Trump would be convicted after January the sixth, and he talked about people being politically afraid on the Republican side, but also being physically afraid for themselves and for their their families. And I also have heard that as well, And so you know, both in terms of the political class as well as you know the career folks at the Justice Department, you know, they're they're dealing with things they didn't have to, they didn't expect to. And the folks on the legislative side have not necessarily shown the degree of courage and independence that that you would hope.
00:39:43
Speaker 1: So just on that as we close, Eric, what you know in terms of the frame around courage, the frame around conviction standing into the void in the absence of leadership and oversight and the kind of accountability to expect with people in positions of power and influence and in the House or Senate and elsewhere. I mean, what, what what? What? What can shape some optimism as we close in terms of what we can do, what we can achieve. Obviously Prop fifty I believe is foundational on that and will sort of jump start the twenty twenty six election and taking back the House of Representatives. But in that spirit, in that space, what can we be doing more of and what gives you some confidence and hope about the future and how we can shape shift things.
00:40:29
Speaker 2: Well, first, I'd say that Prop. Fifty has got to pass. I mean that is kind of a foundation upon which I think this country will regain its sense of it of itself. This is an important, important vote. It's crafted in a way that I think is absolutely responsible, and again it's temporary, so I think that has to pass. What gives me optimism, though, is also a knowledge of our history. You know, if you look at the great social movements in this country, they were launched against overwhelming odds. I mean, you can just go to the Civil rights strugg I mean John Lewis, Martin, Luther King, Diane Nash. They had to think, can we rip down young people, young black people and young white people? Could we rip down a system of American apartheid? And I'm sure they must have had doubts at times, but they fought through those doubts. They showed an unbelievable amount of courage and ultimately were successful. Same thing with women trying to get the right to vote, you know, suffragettes at the beginning of the twentieth century. They showed remarkable courage, pushed through those doubts. And that knowledge of history makes me think that in this awful moment, that we will demonstrate that same courage. Every generation of Americans is ultimately called upon to defend democracy, whether it's on the beaches at Normandy, the fields of Gettysburg. You know, now is our time, and we can't be the first generation of Americans that is unsuccessful in the defense of our democracy. And I'll say this, I say it a lot. You know, Doctor King said that the ark of the mall universe is long, but it bends towards justice. But the deal is, it doesn't bend on its own. It only bends when people like us, like you, governor like me, and like regular American citizens put their hands on that and pull it towards justice. And I think that's what each of us has to ask, you know, what is it that I can do? What is it that I can do to pull that art towards justice to save our democracy and to keep this nation, you know, keep this nation exceptional. I'm optimistic because of that history, that that that I shared, and I think that, you know, optimism breeds engagement, Pessimism breeds resignation, and so I think we can't afford to be pessimistic. We have to be optimistic, and we have to be active, active, and engaged.
00:42:46
Speaker 1: I love it. It's a wonderful way to close. This notion of active not inert citizenship, this notion that we have agency, we can shape the future. It's decisions, not conditions, that will determine our faith and future. Eric Holder, it has been an honor to have you on the podcast. Thanks so much for joining, Thanks for having me
Speaker 1: You never got a call from the President of United States saying, mister Attorney General, I want you to do X, Y and Z. That never happened.
00:00:05
Speaker 2: That never happened. Every generation of Americans is ultimately called upon to defend amoks. It really challenges who we say we are as the United States of Americas.
00:00:14
Speaker 1: This is Gavin Newsom than this is Eric Holder, Eric Calder in his bunker somewhere an undisclosed.
00:00:25
Speaker 2: Location, undisclosed location exactly.
00:00:29
Speaker 1: But yeah, I joke about that. But I mean, mister Attorney General, sir, I'm American citizen, civic leader. How you feeling about the world we're living in. I mean, we're on the eve of another government shut down, which is becoming more and more common, but this one potentially could be very, very different and consequential compared to the prior ones. You're seeing all the weaponization of grievance across the spectrum, DJ and elsewhere. We'll get to Jerry Mandarin and the incredible work you've been doing since twenty seventeen. But honestly, give me a temperature check. How are you feeling about things and where we are at this moment in this country.
00:01:06
Speaker 2: I gotta tell you, I'm I'm extremely worried. And if you would ask me that same question, you know, a year or so ago, even with the possibility of a Trump election, I would not have thought that we'd be in the place that we are now. I mean, when you look at attacks on the First Amendment, you know, Jimmy Kimmel, you look at the the attacks on science, the attacks on universities, you know, attacks on healthcare. I mean, there are a whole range of things that worry me a great deal. The politicization of the Justice Department, as evidenced by you know, the Jim Comy and a whole bunch of boys, but I mean the Jim Comy indictment. I think our sense of who we are as a nation is being challenged, and I think people need to understand that. And I think it's been great that your voice has been a consistent one. And I'm not just saying this. You know, you are well before Trump selection, You've been out there and kind of ringing the bell, and I think people are finally, finally, you know, starting to starting to hear it.
00:02:08
Speaker 1: And I appreciate that and I and I also appreciate your sentiment because I think so many people listening, regardless of their political stripes, I think must be feeling a similar sentiment about the world we're living in. What I mean you, I imagine of all people you because you've seen firsthand, you've been on the inside, You've worked so closely with presidents, and you've you've maintained a deep engagement in this country. You must anticipated Trump two point zero in many respects to you know, represent something, But did you expect it to represent what it has?
00:02:46
Speaker 2: Meaning?
00:02:46
Speaker 1: Is this fire and fury? Is this flooding the zone? Is this russ void? Is this deeper, broader, more impactful than you had anticipated even eight nine months ago?
00:02:57
Speaker 2: Yeah? I think it is, you know I I think it's both deeper and broader, and it has come at a more rapid pace than I think I might have expected. You know, just the thing that I guess I'm most familiar with you look at the Justice Department. I mean the notion that a president, not an attorney general or career people at the Justice Department make a determination as to who should be indicted. And that's what the Jim Comby indictment is all about. I mean, you know, you had a Trump appointee as the US attorney who decided that there was not a case there, so they fired him. Bring in an insurance lawyer who has never tried a criminal case, and she does the president's bidding and brings a case that barely got through a grand jury. You know that notion that a president's making these kinds of determinations, that an Attorney general sees the Justice Department not as the lawyers for the people, but as lawyers for the president. These are all the kinds of things that I would not have expected and worried me. You know, a great deal. This really challenges, it really challenges who we say we are as the United States of America.
00:04:07
Speaker 1: Eric, I'm curious. You know, a lot of people on the other side would would hear that and say, come on, you know, this is the way it's always been. Now it's perhaps a little bit more in the open. Fair's fair, it's tit for tat. We saw that weaponization coming from the last administration. They would go back even to prior administrations. But maybe you could, without breaking confidence, sort of pull us in. I mean, you never got a call from the President of the United States saying, mister Attorney General, I want you to do X, Y and Z. That never happened.
00:04:37
Speaker 2: That never happened. We had what's called a contact policy that describes the people in the White House who can talk to which people in the Justice Department, and was really like two on either side. You know. I had interactions with President Obama. He never ever ever raised with me how he thought the Justice Department should conduct itself in a particular mana. Now on national security matters, that's a different deal there. I was part of the National Security team, and I was just one of many people sitting in the situation room trying to figure out, you know, what is it we could do with regard to drone strikes. But when it came to you know, the criminal law, the enforcement of the anti trust laws, filing civil suits, civil rights, you know, protections, I never ever heard from the President on that. Now, let me tell you just a really quick story. I made the determination not to defend the defensive marriage at doma internal Justice Department determination. I say, we're not going to do it. I was at a Super Bowl party at the White House. We were going to announce this to the world, I guess the following Tuesday, Wednesday, and I told President Obama. Look, I made the determination we're not going to defend DOMA, and I wanted him to know so that he wouldn't read about it in the newspaper. And he said to me, this is at the White House. He said, boy, I'm glad you've made that decision because that's where I wanted to go. But I didn't think it was appropriate for me to share with you what you should do. And that's the truth. And so that gives you a sense of how Barack Obama and Eric Holder thought the Justice Department should interact with the White House fundamentally different than the way Pam Bondy and Donald Trump think there's two institutions should be interacting.
00:06:16
Speaker 1: And when it comes to line staff, when it comes to this career staff that you're frustrated with your governing, your managing, they're not the political staff that the folks that are sort of the clay layer that have been there and they'll be there well beyond your tenure in your respective roles. I mean, how did you manage those disagreements? I mean, obviously, the President, as you noted, fired someone he disagreed with and then installed his own person quite literally, his personal attorney to do his bidding. But what was sort of what's the tradition in terms of how you manage those disagreements in terms of moving or operating in a way that at least is directionally along the lines that you wanted to achieve or proceed. I believe was the right.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you know, I was the head of the Justice Department, and so I had to make ultimate calls. You know. I started my career as a line lawyer, and I think called the Public Integrity Section, it looks at official corruption cases that the Trump administration has just decimated. It used to be about thirty lawyers there. I think they're about four there now. They don't care about official corruption. And we used to say, when I was a line lawyer for twelve years, we used to call the political appointees tourists and said, you know, they come and go, but we're the people who stay. And so when I became came back to the Justice Department as Attorney General, I always wanted to interact with the career folks, but everybody understood that if there was was a disagreement, I as the Attorney General, had the final say. And within the Justice Department, you know, that's fine. None of the career people ever thought that the president had the final say on what the Justice Department was going to do post Watergate. The independence of the Justice Department is something that every administration, I think valued, and that you know, to the consternation sometimes of the people in the White House, when I decided that we were going to look back at how the Bush administration had conducted itself with regard to these enhanced interrogation techniques, A lot of people I knew in the White House didn't want me to do that, and yet I had the independence the ability to do it.
00:08:17
Speaker 1: When you when you reflect on what happened to Comy, reflect perhaps and under different circumstances, what happened to Bolton in relationship to the quote unquote raid on his home. I mean, what's most alarming about those instances? I mean, what was your sort of internal conversation not only with yourself but with others around you as it relates to those actions by this administration.
00:08:46
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, the Komy case is one that we can pretty much understand based on the reporting that the media has done, and there's no case there. I mean, here's the deal. Put a pin in this Jim Comy is not going to be convicted. I mean, the case may not get to trial, the case may get dismissed by the judge after the government presents his case. If it gets to a juror, there's no way he's going to get convicted. So you know, put a pin in that replay this, you know at some point. And so there's that component. And then you have the President in that truth social post where he says kind of dear Pam and basically is telling her to go after you know, Jim Comey, Adam Schiff, Letitia James, and you know all of these things. I mean, no case, direction by the president to bring the case nevertheless, and then the obeisance of the people in the Justice Department to do that which the president wanted to do. Again, Republican as well as democratic administrations, this just doesn't happen. I mean, this is just not normal, folks. We got to understand that this goes is inconsistent with the way in which DOJ's justice departments and attorneys general have you know, conducted themselves.
00:09:56
Speaker 1: With regard to line employees. I mean, there's two trains of people saying people should stand up on principle, resign people should sort of stick it out, because if their voice and their eyes are not there, my gosh, the folks that come behind them could really lock in and institutionalize this aberrant behavior, this normalization of delancy. What where are you on that in terms of the conversations I'm sure you've had with some of those career staff people that you've developed relationships with over time.
00:10:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a really good question. And one of the things my position. You know, everybody's got to make their own determination. When I've been asked that by people, I say, stay around, stick around, because the reality is the people who they'll pick to succeed you will not be nearly as idealistic, will not adhere to the traditions of the Justice Department. And so I'd say, look, you stick around, and if they fire you, you know, there's not much I suppose that you can do. You'll have you know, employment appellet rights, and you go to court to try to get your job back, and that effort is even enhanced by having them fire you as opposed to resign. And so I think you make them push you out as opposed to you deciding that you want to resign.
00:11:08
Speaker 1: I appreciate that perspective. Could not agree more. I think that. I mean, I appreciate the principal stand of saying, I can't be part of an administration that's that's party to this kind of injustice, but at the same time, the consequences of walking away. Let me ask you, as it relates to walking away, it seems that we have a completely supine Congress, that there's no system of checks and balances, that the Majority Speaker Johnson has completely abdicated any oversight as it relates to that, and it relates to this moment as we're talking, we're just quite literally hours away from a midnight deadline on that government shutdown. I mean, vis a vis that, having experienced a little of that, understanding what it means, what it doesn't mean a government shut down. Where are you in terms of where are the Democratic Party should be? Where the leadership of the Democratic Party should position themselves at this moment, Is Jeffries Schumer right to now sort of stand firm on protecting Bombacare and its subsidies or else? Or should we right now be outside knocking on the Oval Office saying, mister President, we still want to negotiate.
00:12:15
Speaker 2: Now, I mean, I think, yeah, we still want to negotiate, but these are this is a principal stand that we're taking. We want to make sure that Medicaid cuts that we're in that big stupid bill are not put into effect, that the Obamacare subsidies you know, will continue, and so healthcare premiums will not rise. No, we've got to stand firm and say, this is who we are, this is who we are as Democrats. We stand with the people, with the interests of the people, not with the special interests. And we're not going to allow you to ram through things that are going to harm the American people, you know, make health care out of put health care out of reach of substantial numbers of people, to folks who qualify for Medicaid, to make it more difficult for them to get healthcare. And this this is a basic kind of governmental governmental thing. And I think the position that they have taken is both principled, it's consistent again with who we say we are as Democrats. And they got a whole firm. They just got a whole firm.
00:13:15
Speaker 1: Where do you play it out? Where do you I mean, you know, this thing the last government shut down under Trump was on the longest that we've experienced the consequences, they felt more intense that we colored the men in the short run, then they sort of unpacked from GDP perspective and getting people back their paychecks, et cetera. Where do you what's your gut in terms of how this plays out?
00:13:39
Speaker 2: I think my gut is that if this goes longer than a week, it's going to be long. I get the feeling that, you know, this, this could end up being, you know, really substantially, really substantial shutdown. And my hope is that you know, russ Vote and you know his people don't use this as an excuse of fire even more federal employees. That adds another dimension to this, you know, to use what is a policy difference to deny people their their right to work and further harm further harm the government. But my sense is that you know, in Trump too, where he's kind of you know, Donald Trump unbound and surrounded by the zealots who make up certainly the White House staff and people in the cabinet, that this is something that could go I think for you know, an extended period of time. But you know, I understand that I still think that Democrats have got to hold firm to the positions that we have taken. This is uh, you know, we're standing up and we're pushing back, and I think that's what the American people, you know, want to see.
00:14:50
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. What I mean, what's your over under? I mean, people, if you game this thing out and we've seen it, it's I appreciate the reference the MV director rus Bot in terms of what he's done, and for those that are not familiar, that's the architect of Project twenty twenty five. He was the only B director people forget in the first Trump administration, but he learned his lessons and now is more unbound and obviously more mersurgical in terms of what he's trying to achieve. And there's a lot of speculation about serious and significant cuts that he's prepared to make in pretty short order, particularly to the workforce. But also in that respect is a tendency now, it seems to me in the Senate, particularly with Leeder Thune, we talk about nuclear options, we talk about the filibuster. Is there a scenario where he moves forward if there's stubbornness and we no longer have that sixty vote threshold on appropriations.
00:15:48
Speaker 2: You know, it's entirely possible. I mean, if they get that directive from the White House. Given the track record of Congress in this administration, it wouldn't surprise me if they made the determination that, all right, we'll just blow up the filibuster all together and then pass this one on, you know, pass put into place, you know what the president wants to do on purely party lines. It would be in some ways shocking but not surprising, you know, I mean, in some ways you always think those two words go together. But it would shock me. But again, based on the way in which this Congress has done everything and I mean everything that you know the President wants them to do, it would wouldn't surprise me.
00:16:33
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'd submit. I mean, I asked the question. I'm curious your opinion, of course, but also it's a question I think we need to ask ourselves because I think that outcome, I would argue, is more likely than unlikely considering I mean those two words you just said, shocking but not surprising, is I mean, if there's there's no phrase probably been more uttered in the last eight months in that phrase. Look, one of the things that was uttered was one of the reasons I wanted to talk to you, and I'm grateful for this opportunity. And that was the words that came out of Donald Trump's mouth when he reached out to Governor Abbott in Texas and he asked for five seats. It's important for folks listening as it relates to midtermer districting and moving forward that Greg Abbott initially was reticent. Greg Abbott expressed not just privately but publicly that he wasn't necessarily convinced it was quote unquote the right thing to do or the timely thing to do. He was quickly disabused of that when Trump circled back, saying, he's uote unquote entitled to those five votes of the rest in Texas's history. But you have a history in this space going back to twenty seventeen as a champion for independent redistricting, and I want to walk back to that and walk back to the reasons why this was so important to you, reason why it was so important then to President Obama, who was a big part of the why you were tasked to do this. At least that's what he asserted to me, that he was the one who directed maybe you could clarify that.
00:18:02
Speaker 2: He's directed me to do a whole bunch of things though the course of the last ten years or so, you know, or this is true, he said, you need to head up the NDRC.
00:18:12
Speaker 1: And so what was the idea give us the origin story of the NDRC.
00:18:16
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, as I was leaving office, he and I sat down and talked about, let's kind of look back and see what is it that we didn't accomplish, and what were the reasons why we were not as successful as we might have been. And we looked at a variety of things, and you know, it really kind of we kind of tried to fall well, why why why, And we really came to the conclusion that jerry mandering was a problem that prevented him from getting in full his agenda, although he had significant accomplishments. And then as we looked more, he said, you know, and a lot of the stuff that's coming out of the states is unpopular and nevertheless gets passed, and that was also as a result of gerrymandering in state legislatures. And so he said, all right, let's go after that problem. And so we formed up the National Democratic Redistricting Committee in January of twenty seventeen. To really promote fairness in the redistricting process, Republicans had put together, through a thing called Project red Map in twenty twenty eleven, jerry manders in a whole variety of states that have endured, endure through the course of that whole decade, and put in place measures at the state level that you know, people didn't like, but nevertheless Republicans did it and didn't suffer any political consequence because of the jerry manders. And then we had a jerrymandered House of Representatives. And if you look when we started out, Democrats had to overperform by about twenty two percent in order to get to fifty to fifty in the House of Representatives. As a result of what we've done, that number is now just about one and a half percent something like that. We can actually, you know, actually handle that. And so we've promoted fairness, and that is fairness has almost been like a weapon for us. We use that word. People like the idea that citizens ought to choose who their representatives are as opposed to politicians picking their voters. And so that's why we have been engaged in this fight.
00:20:10
Speaker 1: Mister Attorney General. So much of what you tried to achieve and pursue in twenty seventeen had a little bit of its origin story. And what happened with the Shelby County decision of the Supreme Court, a five to four decision in twenty thirteen. Remind everybody what happened at the Supreme Court in twenty thirteen.
00:20:29
Speaker 2: Twenty thirteen, the Supreme Court, as you said, in a five to four decision, Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, and he stated very famously in his majority opinion that America has changed, and as a result, they use that as the basis to take from the Justice Department the ability that it had to pre clear changes that states wanted to make when it came to all kinds of electoral things, whether it was how lines were drawn with regard to districts, where polling places should be opened or closed, where voter purges should be allowed. Took away from the Justice Department the ability to challenge states when they tried to do these things, and that has had a really negative impact. We have seen pole closures all around the country. It's one of the reasons why you see long lines in certain states who've seen voter purges that disproportionately occur in communities of color, in places where democrats are perceived to live. A whole range of things has happened since the Shelby County case. It's taken the Justice Department, not off the field, but certainly taken away from the Justice Department a lot of the tools that it once had.
00:21:44
Speaker 1: And so, you know, in an effort to sort of push back, you've been you know, a big party organization is also highlighting some of those purges as it relates to the voting roles, highlighting some of what is just overt voter suppression activities as it relates to reducing the number of pulling options and places, what you know, and it led to a lot of victories. And I think what I'd love to highlight is not just the problem, but some of your success in terms of what your organization has been able to achieve. And I want to get back to Prop fifty. I want to get back to what's happening not just in Texas but across this country at this moment. But talk to me a little bit about what you were able to achieve with the organization in twenty eighteen nineteen twenty, over the course of the last decade or so.
00:22:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, you know, if you look at the work that we have done since twenty seventeen, by you know, focusing using a state based strategy, different strategy, you know, depending on the state, By supporting candidates who would stand for fairness, by challenging laws that were put in place or procedures that were being used in a variety of states. By raising the consciousness of people about the importance of fair redistricting, by standing for independent commissions and trying to get those in states wherever we quit and where it's interesting, wherever we tried to he had an independent commission, whether it was a red state or a blue state, people overwhelmingly supported them. We got them in Missouri, we got them in Utah, and then Republican legislatures, you know, did things to the efforts that we had, but the people always supported them. And so that's what we have done, use those different tools, and as a result, we ended up with maps in twenty twenty four that a lot of analysts, as well as The New York Times said produced the fairest maps you know in generations now fairest, but not totally fair. There are still states that are are still jury mannered. If you look at Texas, if you look at Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, there are still places that still are still jury mannered and are still a focus of our work and a big part.
00:23:47
Speaker 1: Of just the jerry mannering. And just to sort of unpack this a little bit more, the racial dimensions cannot be understated or at least even overstated. I mean, so the impacts the black community, Hispanic community, talk a little bit more about how that manifests in many of these different states.
00:24:04
Speaker 2: That's a really important point. This jerrymandering is done on the backs of people of color, and one only has to look at what's going on in Texas. Now they get there, they think five seats. I think they're being a little optimistic, but they get whatever it is they get out of this, this jerry mandering that they're doing at the expense of people of color in largely urban areas, largely Hispanic but African Americans, you knows as well. Uh we see them, you know, breaking up districts in Austin, Texas and San Antonio, enjoying these really weird lines so that you really decrease, dilute the power, the electoral power that communities of color have in Texas. Now they'll try to say this is only partisan, these are only partisan things that we have done, as if that somehow makes it better. You know, we're not we're not racist. We're just doing things, you know, that are inconsistent with our sense of who we are and consistent with our constitution. But it's only on a partisan basis. But if you look, it always almost always comes down to making it more difficult for people of color to vote and then taking away from people of color, communities of color, the political power that they long sought and have tried to hold on to.
00:25:26
Speaker 1: So California is one of those states with an independent redistricting commission. It was a commission that when I was mayor, there was an effort to repeal it that I publicly opposed because long supported the idea of independent redistricting. And it's a point of pride that this state has been one of the leaders. What happened, however, in Texas changed the equation. And I'm curious, just from your prism and your perspective as a champion of independent redistricting as well, what does Texas represent to you? And first, if I could just unpack a deeper question, why do you think President Trump made the phone call to Greg Abbott? Why do you think he even pursued this mid decade redistricting strategy in the first place.
00:26:13
Speaker 2: Well before he picked up the phone, he looked at his desk, picked up some papers that said, these are your polling numbers, mister President, and he made the determination that unless we cheat, unless we come up with more safe Republican seats, we're in real danger of losing our majority in the House of Representatives. And that would really establish a really huge obstacle to doing the kinds of radical things that they have done in the first eight months and want to continue to do over the course of the next next three years or so. And I think that's the thing that generated the call from the President to the governor in Texas. And it's an interesting thing, you know, when he called, when the President called those folks in Georgia and said I need eleven thousands, seven hundred and eighty votes when it came to the twenty twenty election, Republicans in Georgia, you know, Secretary of Saint Raffensburg, a person what I agree with on a whole bunch of stuff. You know, they at least had the guts to say, no, we're not going to do that. Called Greg Abbott, and he expressed some you know, little concern about it at the beginning, but at the end of the day did exactly what it is that you know, the President asked him to do. You know, we've always thought of the California Independent Commission as the gold standard. It's something that as I've campaigned around the country for fairness, I've always pointed to California, and I think the system in California is a great one. But I think the determination that you made and other Democrats in California was exactly the right one. Given what they did in Texas and what they're doing in other states as well. We couldn't simply disarm. We had to respond to that. And what I've said, you know, I've thought about this long and hard before I said, you know, this is something I think we ought to do because I've been fighting. I've been fighting against Jerry Mandarin, either by Democrats or Republics. But I think that what's happening in California makes a great deal of sense. It is something that kind of meets this three part test of mine. It's got to be responsive and so it's certainly responsive to that which happened in Texas. It's got to be responsible. Didn't go crazy, just came up with a way in which you try to come up with additional seats. And it's going to be temporary, you know. I want to get back to this whole fight for fairness and the way in which it's crafted in California, in addition to having the people ultimately vote on it, which is not what happened in Texas. It only will exist until after the next census.
00:28:36
Speaker 1: No, and I appreciate this, and you know, so your your evolution was mine as well as someone that believes in the principle of independent redistrict as well.
00:28:44
Speaker 2: So it wasn't.
00:28:44
Speaker 1: I wasn't an immediate response, frankly was in response to outreach by legislative leaders in Texas that said, weok, hey, California, uh, you know, have our back, and we thought it may be a rhetorical play just to support them and say we're watching, we're paying attention, but realizing the consequences of these five seats and how that can tip the balance and rig the next election. In the twenty twenty six we were able to fashion a process that, as you say, is temporary, transparent and democratic. It's the only maps that are now being presented to the voters themselves. They will decide for themselves in the most transparent way, and in a temporary way that ends, as you suggest, after the twenty eight, eight and thirty and into the thirty two census will revert back to its original form. Again only in response to Texas. But I want to ask you to respond, It's not just Texas, is it, mister Kearny. General, We're seeing this in Missouri just this week. You're seeing activity in Indiana, Conversations that are happening in Florida. There's different conditions and criteria in Ohio and Utah. Maybe you can give us the lay of the land more broadly.
00:29:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you hit just about all the states where this is still being considered. You know, Texas has already done it, Missouri has already done it, but those other states are certainly considering it. And you know Ohio has got to redraw their maps because of a constitutional provision there but the question is what are Ohio Republicans I'm going to do? There is within the Ohio Constitution a prohibition against partisan jury mannering. So we'll see what they do in Ohio. What are they going to do in Kansas? What are they going to do with Florida. There is a whole range of other states where they've made the determination that they're going to really kind of cheat. And that's what it is. You can talk about a whole bunch of different things. It's cheating. They're going to cheat to try to hold on to the majority that they have in the House of Representatives. And it really comes on the basis of fear. They're afraid of the people who they say they want to represent. They're afraid of the legislative agenda that they have tried to put in place. They're afraid of the administrative things that they have done. They're afraid to be held accountable for, you know, taking a whole bunch of good people in a whole variety of government agency around the country and simply told them, you know, get out of here, you're fired. They're afraid of trying to defend that which Elon Musk and his doge Bros.
00:31:09
Speaker 1: Did.
00:31:11
Speaker 2: It's all a political fear is that is driving what it is that they are that they're doing, and it's fundamentally on American and it's unpatriotic, you know, it's it's cheating. But it also goes against that which we do and which makes I think this nation exceptional. We trust the people to make determinations about policy in the direction of the nation, and they want to cut the people out of the process.
00:31:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the de facto eliminated oversight with Congress co equal branch of government. Increasingly, particularly with this utilization of the shadow docket at the Supreme Court. That's another podcast, just the shadow docket and the abuse and use of the shadow docket by the Supreme Court itself. By the way, for those that are wander when I'm talking about that shadow docket is allowed for racial profiling, not just in relationship to the conversation we're having around voting, but racial profiling of people on the basis of their skin color, on the basis of where they congregate, on the basis of their language. That has given Ice free reign to terrorize our diverse communities under no other pretext than is the basis of those simple profiles, and I just never thought i'd hear that in my life, and that was afforded under the shadow docket by the United States Supreme Court. I'm curious, Eric, just the broader issues around voting. I mean, how concerned are you not just around the issues of fairness with this redistricting fight, issues of the vanalyzation of fair and free elections as it relates to what happened with Shelby, but what's happening as well with the National Guard being deployed in American cities. Are you concerned that's also part of a larger agenda that may actually impact, potentially or create a chill around election day as well.
00:33:02
Speaker 2: See, I think you pointed out something that's really important here because I think there's a there's a long term play here. This is you know, it it's cast as something that is anti crime. You know, it's pro public safety does not obviously work. I mean, you know, these people who serve in the National Guard, you know, I admire them, great respect to them, but they're not crime fighters. That's not what they do. But I think this the long play here is to desensitize people to the site of troops on our streets, and I see them. I can see them trying to deploy troops around the twenty sixth election. And again, you don't have to do much, just to just deploy them in certain cities and in certain neighborhoods, and they'll have a chilling effect in certain communities and they hope, they hope, you know, suppress voter participation in those communities. So I think it's actually a long play. I mean, there's an authoritarian component to this that I think is who Donald that that's who Donald Trump is. But I think it's also I think you're correctly pointing out a long term play to help them again another way in which they can cheat when it comes to the twenty sixth election.
00:34:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, I thought it was interesting and people may not be familiar with this. We still have federalized National Guard in the state of California. It's not just a conversation that's being held in Portland or places like Chicago or Memphis for that matter, Washington, d C. It's still the case that we have federalized troops and they were intentionally from my perspective, not well could have been coincidental, but they were announced as extended through election day and to reinforce that Eric. This is important as well for folks. When we announced our efforts on this redistrict Team Proposition fifty, this special election to push back and fight back against Trump's efforts. When we announced it, it was in Little Tokyo in Los Angeles at the Democracy Center, and at the same time we announced it, the Trump administration sent out mass men that surrounded us, surrounded and created that chill, literally intimidating people that were walking into the rally walking event. By the way, that included a dozen representatives from Congress, represent two US Senators, hundreds and hundreds of community leaders, and also for me, was a preview of things to come. You have now the largest domestic police force in the world, arguably particularly with a big, beautiful bill as they describe it, an additional ten thousand potential staff that increasingly appear. And this may not be fair, but I don't think it's deeply unfair or hyperbolic that increasingly appear to have taken an oath of office to Donald Trump and not the Constitution in terms of how they are conducting many of their activities, and that to me would be exhibit a and the conduct that was deeply unbecoming of the men and women of ICE and Border Patrol at that Democracy Center rally.
00:36:08
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think this is the kind of thing that you'd expect to see in a third world country, you'd expect to see in Russia, you know, so called banana republics. I mean, the opposition is holding a meeting to announce a position that it's taking inconsistent with what the power those who are in power and government are taking. And what do they do? They surround, they surround that place, you know, I mean, I mean, people have we need to think about that? What does that mean? And then you end up with an interior police department that is, you know, greatly expanded. Again, that's another authoritarian move. I mean, people, you understand, ICE is going to be substantially larger than the FBI, I mean substantially larger than the FBI, than the DEA. I mean, this is and this is unheard of. ICE. You know has an important job, but they have never been the size that they're going to be. At the conclusion of all the hiring that Trump and Tom Holman want to do, Eric.
00:37:01
Speaker 1: I'm just curious, and you know, I'm sensitive again to your relationship to confidentiality and just the dignity of of your your prior roles and the dignity of the office of citizen that you hold today. But you you must have had some pretty chilling conversations with some of your colleagues, maybe maybe former attorney generals, uh leaders in in in these quote unquote power ministries of the FBI and d O J and UH they're even the I R S. I mean, what what can can you sort of Is there a composite picture you can paint, uh in bipartisan terms and sort of universal terms in American terms of those kind of conversations that you uniquely are positioned to have had conducted.
00:37:50
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think they operate on a couple of levels. One. I talked to a lot of folks who've been in the Justice Department for or law enforcement, federal law enforcement, for FBI, for you know, extended periods of time, and they talk about the stock that they have felt as a result of, you know, the things that they that have been done. Morale is just really you know, it's in the toilet when it comes to you know, federal law law enforcement. Every a lot of people are afraid. I mean, these are people, you know, thinking that they were going to spend their careers, you know, working to support the mission of the Justice Department, the mission of the FBI, regardless of who was the president, who was the Attorney general. And so there there is that. I also talk to people here in Washington, d C. On the political side, and you know what really strikes me is that, you know, you talk to Republicans and they're not in front of the camera. They're just talking to me. We have relationship. And I'm not going to say this's a huge number of people, but they understand that what's going on is wrong, but they are politically afraid to come out and say something against that which this administration wants to do. I thought it was really interesting that Romney in his book when he was talking about, you know, people making up their minds of how they were going to vote when it came to both impeachment and whether or not President Trump would be convicted after January the sixth, and he talked about people being politically afraid on the Republican side, but also being physically afraid for themselves and for their their families. And I also have heard that as well, And so you know, both in terms of the political class as well as you know the career folks at the Justice Department, you know, they're they're dealing with things they didn't have to, they didn't expect to. And the folks on the legislative side have not necessarily shown the degree of courage and independence that that you would hope.
00:39:43
Speaker 1: So just on that as we close, Eric, what you know in terms of the frame around courage, the frame around conviction standing into the void in the absence of leadership and oversight and the kind of accountability to expect with people in positions of power and influence and in the House or Senate and elsewhere. I mean, what, what what? What? What can shape some optimism as we close in terms of what we can do, what we can achieve. Obviously Prop fifty I believe is foundational on that and will sort of jump start the twenty twenty six election and taking back the House of Representatives. But in that spirit, in that space, what can we be doing more of and what gives you some confidence and hope about the future and how we can shape shift things.
00:40:29
Speaker 2: Well, first, I'd say that Prop. Fifty has got to pass. I mean that is kind of a foundation upon which I think this country will regain its sense of it of itself. This is an important, important vote. It's crafted in a way that I think is absolutely responsible, and again it's temporary, so I think that has to pass. What gives me optimism, though, is also a knowledge of our history. You know, if you look at the great social movements in this country, they were launched against overwhelming odds. I mean, you can just go to the Civil rights strugg I mean John Lewis, Martin, Luther King, Diane Nash. They had to think, can we rip down young people, young black people and young white people? Could we rip down a system of American apartheid? And I'm sure they must have had doubts at times, but they fought through those doubts. They showed an unbelievable amount of courage and ultimately were successful. Same thing with women trying to get the right to vote, you know, suffragettes at the beginning of the twentieth century. They showed remarkable courage, pushed through those doubts. And that knowledge of history makes me think that in this awful moment, that we will demonstrate that same courage. Every generation of Americans is ultimately called upon to defend democracy, whether it's on the beaches at Normandy, the fields of Gettysburg. You know, now is our time, and we can't be the first generation of Americans that is unsuccessful in the defense of our democracy. And I'll say this, I say it a lot. You know, Doctor King said that the ark of the mall universe is long, but it bends towards justice. But the deal is, it doesn't bend on its own. It only bends when people like us, like you, governor like me, and like regular American citizens put their hands on that and pull it towards justice. And I think that's what each of us has to ask, you know, what is it that I can do? What is it that I can do to pull that art towards justice to save our democracy and to keep this nation, you know, keep this nation exceptional. I'm optimistic because of that history, that that that I shared, and I think that, you know, optimism breeds engagement, Pessimism breeds resignation, and so I think we can't afford to be pessimistic. We have to be optimistic, and we have to be active, active, and engaged.
00:42:46
Speaker 1: I love it. It's a wonderful way to close. This notion of active not inert citizenship, this notion that we have agency, we can shape the future. It's decisions, not conditions, that will determine our faith and future. Eric Holder, it has been an honor to have you on the podcast. Thanks so much for joining, Thanks for having me
