In this I've Had It episode, hosts Jennifer Welch and Josh Welch react to Senator Chris Van Hollen's announced bid for Senate Majority Leader against Chuck Schumer. They discuss the role of corporate PAC money in Democratic politics, arguing that candidates who refused it still won, and they criticize Schumer's public and private positions on Israel.
The hosts also examine Donald Trump's interview with Stephen A. Smith, the Justice Department's handling of threats against Democratic lawmakers, and calls for leaders with incorruptible records.
Listeners will hear the hosts' views on corruption, fundraising and voter accountability, and the action steps they suggest.
In this episode Jennifer Welch, Josh Welch
This transcript of the I've Had It episode on Van Hollen's Senate leadership bid was made with HappyScribe's audio transcription technology.
Ads in this audio differ from the text. Tap the sentence you're hearing to follow along.
Synced: the text now follows the audio.
Breaking news overnight: Chris Van Hollen has officially thrown his hat in the ring to be Senate Majority Leader. Uh, pop this up.
Yes, I am planning to run for the Senate Majority Leader, and let me tell you why: because this is not about any one individual, but it is about answering the call of the American people. We saw a huge outburst of democracy on Election Day—red states, blue states, purple states—and it wasn't only a rejection of Donald Trump and his corruption and his wars and his cruelty; it was also about a call for a larger change: to take on a broken economic system that's rigged in favor of the very wealthy, against working people, and that's fueled by a corrupt political system.
And, Josh, I think this gets to the heart of the matter. Emma Vigeland, I saw a post that she did, like, regarding the House. Was the mess-up on the Hegseth impeachment vote—was that incompetence, or was it corruption?
Yeah.
And I think it's probably more corruption, and that's what he's getting at right here. All of these Chuck Schumer-style Democrats are taking too much corporate PAC money, and they're compromised when it comes to just advocating for the American worker and the American people at large.
I think that's right, and I think that's what John Stewart was alluding to last week when he said, "We need to get rid of this old guard of leadership." And I want to say this: I think that the broader picture here is a lot of this is made possible that he's thrown his name into the ring because of the uprise of the people ever since the election. Otherwise, we would be looking at the status quo. But because everybody was so pissed off and mad, and we saw Schumer, and we thought, "No, we do not want to return to this," it made this possible. And it gives me a small ounce of hope as it relates to Jeffries, because that vote is going to be next week, I think, when they caucus.
So the point of this is: stay loud, stay true to the message, and change does happen. Because, look, now we have someone that's seriously vying against Schumer to become the Majority Leader, and that's helpful.
And we know now that this myth that the Democratic Party has perpetuated onto us for such a long time—"We have to take all this money or we can't compete with Republicans"—we know that's just not true. That a lot of these candidates, the one that had major, major, major money spent against them and didn't take the corporate PAC money, were able to win. Now, these corporate gems will say, "But look at the margins." Well, that's not really apples to apples. When you have $100 million spent against a candidate that didn't take corporate PAC money, and then that candidate still wins by 7 points—I'm talking about Michigan, of course—but here is Chuck Schumer's response to this.
Pop this up. "I welcome any discussion about the future of our caucus and the important work ahead. I'm proud of what we accomplished together—55 seats and counting is an amazing result—and I have the votes to continue serving as Democratic Leader. I look forward to leading our new Democratic Majority and delivering for the American people." My problem with this is there's, you know, video of him talking about the Israel-Palestine thing, and he basically says all of that land is Israel's because it says so in the Torah, and that all of these other people don't believe in the Torah.
And we just can't have a leader that is basing their foreign policy on the scripts of ancient texts. Like, we have to live in 2026. Like, we cannot have foreign policy based on something that was written in a book 4,000 years ago. Like, that's cuckoo. I mean, it's—we are a secular, a secular country. So you can't start the foreign policy from there, because then are you any different from a Christian nationalist at that point? Are you any different from the people who are like, "Oh, Sharia law"?
I mean, we cannot have a Senate Majority Leader that bases his foreign policy on this myth in some ancient book.
I agree. I think the American people agree. I think the voters agree with that. And there's been a huge shift in the public's perception of Israel and the government, specifically of Israel, since '24 even, and back to '20. I mean, it's a different world that we live in. And I don't understand how someone can take money like that and have a position like that that's pro-Israel—Israel first, basically—and then claim that you can lead this party, an all-inclusive party of progressives, of Muslim elected officials, of all people, when you have this allegiance toward this one country, this one section.
And to me, it's not sustainable. And it's just more the same. When you look at Chuck Schumer talk, it sounds like Donald Trump is talking. That's what it sounds like. And his beliefs and his call for the country and his plans don't align with those of the people that voted. And so I think this is a huge progress for the Democrats to have a discussion about who else can lead the senators, who can be the Majority Leader. I think that's big progress.
Yeah, I think that hopefully this fight is a worthy fight and it's one that we can win. Because I just don't think there's a world where the majority of Americans—large majority—we know 88% are concerned about corruption. Well, what corrupts things? Money. Who takes a lot of money from corporate PACs? Chuck Schumer. And when you know, when you look at the whole thing, these 11 people that missed the very important vote of impeaching war criminal, in my opinion, war criminal Pete Hegseth, they were meeting with, like, lobbyists, with, like, donors.
That's the reason they missed it. And Chuck Schumer is in the pockets of big tech, of the Israel lobby, and that equals corruption. And so can we just do something different for once? Can we please not Merrick Garland this thing and incubate a whole Tucker Carlson 2028? Because if we do not have the moral high ground on killing kids in the Democratic Party, you're leaving it wide open for really, really bad actors to come in with this America First thing.
And inside that tent, on the other side, they allow for an America First with a lot of bigotry in it. On our side, we have to say we want Jewish Americans, atheist Americans, Christian Americans, Muslim Americans, Buddhist Americans, I don't give a shit Americans, to have the same fight for them and for a secular country. And let's update the list here of how the Democratic senators are voting. Pop this up. And this is really, really, really important for our listeners, because this is where you can put a pressure campaign on senators that are falling in line with corporations, which is just MAGA lite, or the senators who are listening to the electorate and understanding that we want a non-corrupt government.
There's a bipartisan support. So those of you that are listening, you can go to online and look at where we are. Chuck Schumer has 15 votes. Van Hollen has 3 confirmed, but there are 16 undecided, 11 no statement, and 11 change, no pick yet. And so you have to get to 29 to win. This is something that I just think is existential. I truly believe it is existential. We have to get at least one of the chambers of Congress.
We have to at least get one where somebody isn't in the pockets of all of these lobbyists that also fund MAGA. And I just want to point out, APAC's preferred candidate in 2024 was Donald Trump. They wanted him. They wanted Donald Trump. And now, just like you see all these tech oligarchs are like, "Oh, yeah, we're progressive." This is the era of prostitution politics. And this is such a moment for us, because right now all of these lobbyists, tech and pharma, etc., Israel lobby, they're like, "Okay, who's for sale?"
Chuck Schumer is for sale. He will take the money in. He's taking this huge victory lap right now. Chris Van Hollen is not. Chris Van Hollen is one of the only people that I've heard speak about the American citizens that have been killed in the West Bank. What does Chuck Schumer say about that? "Crickets. Crickets."
Yeah. Do you remember when we reported that Abdul El-Sayed raised $2.5 million in one day in a grassroots campaign with a bunch of $50, $35 donations? When you can deliver a message that resonates with the people, you can raise a lot of money. But what happens is these politicians get elected, like Schumer, and they realize that, "Hey, instead of having to reach out to my voters and message my voters on the issues that they're concerned about, I can take this big, fat check from this one special interest group and not have to do that."
It makes them lazy. It makes them out of touch with their constituents. Because you can funnel that money in without having to do basically any work other than secretly pledge allegiance to a special interest group. And that's—I mean, it just seems like that's what Schumer's done here. He's not out campaigning. He's not raising, getting $35, $50, $75 donations from constituents that care. He's not doing any of that stuff. And that's the problem when you become insulated from your voters, when you're not out speaking to them every day, raising the $25 checks and the $50 checks from people that care where that money means a lot to them, then you become part of the problem.
Then you become lost without understanding the true plight of the voters and what they need. Because you can take $500,000 from a super PAC, you can take a million dollars, and then you just go sell this bullshit to the American people when you get up and talk. You can just both sides it, when in fact you've lost complete touch with the people that sent you there.
I mean, I completely agree. It's just Chuck Schumer was not out on the campaign trail because he would have dragged the candidate down.
Yeah.
You know who was on the campaign trail? Who? Bernie Sanders.
Right.
Relentlessly with his message. And you know what the thing about Bernie Sanders is, or Chris Van Hollen? Their message doesn't change. Chuck Schumer, when he's speaking privately to the Israel lobby, he's going to say, you know, "Bring up the Torah." He's going to bring up, "My number one job is to make sure Israel gets as much money as possible." And then if he were to speak, you know, to go hit the stump, he's not going to say that. So he has two different stories. The same with Hakeem Jeffries. You know, it's, "Who am I talking to?" And that's how I have to change.
Pick politicians, for God's sakes. The leaders need to lead. And they need to lead by saying, "We get it. 88% of Americans are concerned about corruption. Therefore, as the Democratic Party, we're going to put incorruptible people in positions of leadership." It's just not that crazy. And then just here's the stark contrast of the era of prostitution politics. When you start placating to lazy politicians, this is the worst extreme case of it.
Of course, Donald Trump, the laziest person intellectually I've ever seen. Here he is sitting down for an interview with esteemed journalist Stephen A. Smith. Play the clip.
You could run for president again. So could Barack Obama. What would Donald Trump do if he had to square off against Barack Obama for the presidency of the United States?
Well, I got many more votes than he got. And I got many more votes in the states. And I have all the state, you know, most of the state records of the big states. If you take a look at Texas, I have the all-time record. Florida, I have the all-time record.
Are you saying you would beat Obama?
Yeah. I think I'd beat him easily.
Easily.
I think he's highly overrated. Yeah.
Oh, my Lord. How is Barack Obama overrated?
I just think that's just my opinion. I think he's overrated. I didn't think he was a good president. I thought he was a divider.
A divider?
Yeah.
And what would you classify yourself as being?
As a person that brings people together.
It's just—that is just a masterclass in the closing days of an empire. I mean, it's just like, that's the president of the United States sitting there saying this crazy shit to Stephen A. Smith. There's no decorum. There's no—it's all about this stupid schoolyard ego and this obsession he has with Barack Obama. Barack Obama would kick his ass electorally. Everybody knows it. It's just this clown show.
It's just ridiculous. And on the other side, I would just like to have leaders that, you know, that man right there, Donald Trump, he endorsed Chuck Schumer to be leader because they're buddies.
Yeah. This, to me, is everything that's wrong with society, culture today. Stephen A. Smith, who is Black, goes and sits down with a racist president who, let's not forget, just, I think, within the past couple of months, posted AI images of the Obamas as apes. Okay? Stephen A. Smith, do you know that? Are you aware of that? And he goes—and what he's doing by sitting down with him and having a conversation like that is he's normalizing racism.
Donald Trump is a racist. His policies have proven that. His conduct has proven that. Just last week, they put out a Family Guy-style AI animated picture, and in the script, it includes verbiage that Michelle Obama is a man. I mean, you know, we know the Central Park Five when Donald Trump took out an ad against these young Black men that were later exonerated, asking that they receive the death penalty for a crime in New York City in the '80s. I mean, you could go on and on with this stuff.
He's clearly a racist. So when Stephen A. Smith sits down with him and acts like he's going to have a casual conversation about who would be a better president, Obama or Trump, he's normalizing racism. And he covers Black athletes every single day. That's how he makes a living. That's why his contract is as big as it is, off the sweat and work of Black athletes. And then you go to that White House and sit down and talk to Donald Trump as if you're having just a get-together with an old buddy when this is the most racist son of a bitch we've ever had elected in office.
He's normalized it, being a white supremacist, being racist to all groups. And ESPN goes and does that. And that's the biggest reason why I stopped watching ESPN is because of shit like that. He's doing it for clicks. It's all clickbait shit. It's all anything is today. And who's better at this? Who's better at that? Well, in the process of that, the message gets lost, which is stand up for these Black athletes. You don't go normalize this stuff.
You don't go there for clicks or for ratings or views. You take a stand. We covered this not too long ago with Shaquille O'Neal going to Kash Patel's FBI and getting a fake badge. I mean, it's the same thing. Don't forget where you came from and the athletes that you cover. Seriously. I mean, that's how I feel about it.
I think that's very, very, very well said. And the people that just want to go and join the clown show and throw groups that are hurting, that are really hurting, that want people to go fight for them, and you just throw them under the bus and you sit down with him and don't—I mean, if you're going to go sit down with him and you're a journalist, call him out on his racism. Say, "Why the fuck are you falling asleep in the middle of press conferences? Why did you post this ape video?" The whole birth certificate thing was bigoted.
They won't ask him about any of that stuff. It's really grotesque. And then, of course, Josh, you always sound the alarm on what Trump has done to DOJ. And this prevents the rule of law from, you know, sustaining. And the rule of law is everything. It's everything. And it is so intimately connected to affordability and the economy. That's why accountability is so incredibly important. When you turn the courts upside down, you will no longer have an economy.
We will go the way of Russia. And so in this clip, Blanche asked about Trump's threat against lawmakers. Play the clip.
Question. You suggested that Democratic lawmakers could face criminal investigation over statements related to congressional oversight. As we all know, President Trump said that Liz Cheney should go to jail and Adam Schiff should pay the price of prison. He declared Barack Obama guilty of treason. I'm just wondering, what specifically have Democrats said that crosses a criminal line, in your view, that the president's statements don't? And what legal standard are you applying to distinguish the two?
Well, so it's not just members of Congress. It's anybody. Anybody associated with any organization or any congressman, Republican or Democrat, you are allowed. Free speech is allowed. You can be critical of this administration. You can certainly be critical of me and critical of President Trump. But there can come a point when a criticism becomes a threat and then when a threat becomes something criminal.
Josh, unpackage.
Well, and I don't disagree with the last part about what he said. He said there can be a point where a threat becomes something that's unlawful. I mean, and he acknowledges free press. The problem for him is that nobody at any committee or any official has made any sort of threat to the president or to the administration at all. He's just gaslighting. He's trying to act as if they're walking up to this line and they're getting ready to cross it and try to intimidate him. We all know that the House and the Senate and the committees that are formed within them by the Democratic Party have oversight responsibilities.
That's a function, a legitimate legislative function and purpose of these committees. And it doesn't even brush up against it being a crime that they have told them to get lawyers and be prepared to come in and answer questions about all of your corruption and to name the Trump family. That's not a crime. It's all based in truth. I mean, we could pour out numbers of articles, hundreds of articles to show them about what he's going to investigate. It's just gaslighting and intimidation. And he can't list anything that anyone has said or done that would be a crime.
That's all you need to know. Like, this is just garbage, bullshit.
All right. And then here is Oversight Chair Robert Garcia responding. Play the clip.
I mean, the list goes on and on. And Donald Trump is clearly hiding something. To send out this letter to threaten us, to talk to Blanche to back that up, our job is oversight. I mean, it's literally in the Constitution. I mean, the Attorney General has even read the Constitution, apparently, because he doesn't understand that our job is to actually be a check and balance. We are a co-equal branch of government. And so it is crazy that Donald Trump is now going after his enemies. And somebody thinks that's going to stop us. It's only emboldened us more.
You know. All right. So this, ending this episode on that, we need to highlight and appoint fighters in positions of leadership, fighters that are not prostitutes that have one set of things they tell their donors. And they're like, "Oh, yeah, listen. When I go talk to the sheep, I'm going to say X, Y, Z because you know how they are. But don't worry, big fat cat, rich people. I've got your back." We need people, no matter who they are speaking to, have the same message.
And you will see these people on, it doesn't matter where they go. You'll see them go on podcast, on Fox, on MS Now, wherever. And they always have the same message. If you notice Hakeem Jeffries' language shifted, first he goes on Morning Joe. People don't want us to get even because all of his donors are going, "We don't want all that again. Let's just, you know, let's just tone down all the Trump stuff and let's get back to the status quo." There was an outpouring outrage from American citizens that turned out and turned Mississippi Blue for crying out loud that said, "No."
Then all of a sudden, it's, "I'm a badass fighter online." And the same with Schumer. It's the same shit. And so this is a worthy fight. I would much rather Schumer and Hakeem over a Republican any day. My red state trauma informs me that that is better. But why do we have to settle? Settling brought us Donald Trump twice. We cannot merit Garland this moment. We are living in a historical moment right now.
And we must have incorruptible politicians. So action items, flood these senators who have not committed yet. Flood their phones with letters. If you live in the DC area, go put up signs around, "This is existential for our country, for our planet, for our future, for just damn near everything." We have to have incorruptible leaders. All right. That's all we have. Make sure you're subscribed on YouTube. Become a member if you'd like. Hit us up on Substack.
Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts, both the IHIP News and I've Had It, and order my best-selling book, Not Today Fascist. And we will be back later with more news. It's going to be the guys, Charlie and Josh.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen has thrown his hat into the ring against Chuck Schumer.
Get Jennifer’s new book Not Today, Fascists, join our Substack, shop our merch, and more by clicking here: https://linktr.ee/ivehaditpodcast
Follow Us:
I've Had It Podcast: @Ivehaditpodcast
Jennifer Welch: @mizzwelch
Josh Welch: @joshwelch_
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices