Transcript of Michigan's Primary Drama, the DOJ's Next Boss, and Hillary Clinton Co-Hosts

Support for the show comes from Odoo. Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow none of them speak to each other. That's where Odoo comes in. An all-in-one business management software that brings every part of your business together, from sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try for free today at odoo.com/pivot. That's O-D-O-O.com/pivot.

Powders, pills, plunges. Everywhere you look, there seems to be a new wellness trend.

We all want to feel good. And if there's a way to feel better, I think, wouldn't you want to try it?

I would.

What's the cost of being well?

And why are we so obsessed with it in the first place? That's this week on Explain It to Me. Find episodes every Sunday wherever you get where you get your podcasts.

Ah, buying a home. Smart move or overrated adult milestone? I'm Vivian, your HBFF and your favorite Wall Street girly. And on this episode of Net Worth and Chill, I'm joined by Zillow's home trends expert Amanda Pendleton to break down when renting actually wins, the hidden costs buyers forget, and what to do if you want to buy a home but you don't have that 20% down. The old rules of real estate Yeah, they don't apply anymore. If you wanna learn how to buy or rent in this economy, give this episode a listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com/yourrichbff.

No one's putting Hillary in the corner.

Not me. Nope.

No way. Hi everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher, and once again, it's time for Scott Free August. That's right. Scott Free August has begun. And in honor of that, I have a very special guest as our first guest co-host. I brought in Scott Galloway's hero, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Welcome, Madam Secretary.

Oh, it's great to be here. I didn't know this was officially Scott Free August.

Yeah, you're the kickoff. You're gonna kick my ass.

Yeah, I'm excited. Wherever you are, Scott, have a great August.

We are very excited to have you here. You're one of my heroes too. And we've had some good times recently. Then you just went to the Liberty game. How did that go?

Oh my God. Well, you know, because you've been there. It is the most exciting and fun experience. I mean, honestly, the way that arena, you know, Barclays in Brooklyn lights up with the Liberty. And of course, Ellie the elephant, who is, naughty and fun.

Did you mind the naughtiness?

No.

Wow.

Not at all. No, not at all. She was shaking her tail at me the whole time. I loved it.

The crowd loved you, by the way. Let me just say.

Oh, well, I love the crowd. I mean, this, you know, going to a Liberty game in the summer in New York, people are in a good mood. They're happy. They're, you know, they cheered literally everything. I mean, If the referee walked, you know, onto the court, they'd cheer. They were just in such a good mood. So—

Yeah, absolutely.

I would like to bottle that and make sure that it's available year round.

It does make you feel better. How do you feel about like women's sports becoming— because it really is hugely popular suddenly in women's basketball, and there's a lot of controversy surrounding it, obviously. Recently, MAGA's all upset if Caitlin Clark doesn't say something about trans people. It's gotten really political too.

Yeah. Well, I think that kind of shows that it's succeeding. I mean, it's really broken through into people's consciousness because, I mean, I obviously can remember when there was nothing. Maybe roller derby was like the closest to professional women's sports that I can remember. And I loved sports growing up. And I was lucky enough to go to a public school that we played sports, but only intramural, only in physical education. There were no inner school teams. And the rules Sports for girls were often different. I played half-court basketball, which those of you of a certain age, although it's coming back in some places, 6 people on a team, not 5, and 3 on each side of the center court line. And it was just a, it was a disappointment in a way because I think a lot of girls that I knew loved sports. They could swim. And if they were like really, really good, You know, maybe someday the Olympics, but that was such a small number. And then thanks, you know, to Title IX and passing legislation which really made a difference and required schools to offer equal opportunities, you know, it took a long time to get fully embedded.

What were you good at as a sport? What was your, like, attitude?

I was good at softball. I was okay at half-court basketball. I never could have You know, I probably, I would never have made a school team in either, but I love sports and I played sports all summer long with my brothers and the kids in the neighborhood when I was growing up. And it really made a big difference when girls who were much better than me and more dedicated to sports got a chance to compete. And thanks to the, you know, the National Women's Soccer Team, they really put themselves out there on the equal pay demand. And, you know, and they opened the door. And now there are now leagues, softball leagues that are being professionalized. As I said, I heard just recently there's some kind of half-court basketball thing that is reviving. So I think you're gonna see more and more of it, but you're also seeing pushback like we're seeing on anything affecting, you know, women in the public eye. So we have to continue to, you know, push and defend.

Yeah, they're kind of trying to make these racial beefs, they're trying to make trans beefs, you know, they're trying to sort of enter controversy into something that's actually very joyful if you've spent any time in any of these things.

It is joyful. I mean, I would encourage anybody, you know, my husband watches all, you know, watches both men's and women's basketball, and I watch some of it as well. But there is just a feeling, and my friends told me this, you told me this, and others told me, just go to a game. You will have a sport experience. I've been to women's soccer games, but being in an arena with a crowd that is so enthusiastic. And it was just an amazing time.

And a naughty elephant. And a naughty elephant.

A naughty elephant. I wish it had been a donkey, but it was a naughty elephant.

Oh my God. Naughty elephant. Okay. That might turn around the Democratic Party.

You think so?

Let me—

what—

yeah, no. Question: What have you done the rest of the summer? What are you up to?

I've done a lot of traveling with my family. Going out west, went to Wyoming with my daughter and her husband and the 3 grandkids, had a great time, visited some friends in Montana. Obviously, the American West is just awesome.

Yeah. Did you get out to the Dakotas? Do you want to be on Mount Rushmore? Do you think you should be on Mount Rushmore?

I was just thinking. Not only do I not want to be on Mount Rushmore, I don't think anybody else should be added to Mount Rushmore. But it's quite a sculptural feat. I mean, when you do get there—

It is.

I know.

I know. Giant heads on the side of this mountain. Now, I'm also told that kind of similar to the reflecting pool, screwing with it could possibly bring the whole thing down.

Oh no, the face is gonna fall off.

I'm just predicting that there may be conversations happening some places that, you know, Washington, Southern Florida, about trying to figure out how to shoehorn another head into that. I don't think that's a good idea.

Nobody does except one person. But can I ask you a question really quickly about the reflecting pool? How have you felt about that? What's happening?

Well, I— well, first of all, if you go through the chronology, it's really clear what happened. You know, they hired a guy who didn't know what he was doing, and he did what he didn't know. And the result is, you know, the algae center of the universe. And, you know, I think even Jeanine Pirro says, "I can't prove this case." Now, she went in guns a-blazing into the Oval Office, I read, and basically said to the president, "It's not my fault. It's his fault," and points to the Interior Secretary, which has some truth to it. I mean, she's a US Attorney. She's not the Interior Secretary. She doesn't run the National Park Service. She didn't give the contract to the pool contractor who didn't know what he was doing. And so she survived. She actually had good arguments on her side, and she was unafraid to make them. But it's just another example of the absurd world in which we are living, that you've got the President of the United States obsessing over a failed pool job, a construction job gone wrong that he oversaw. Just like what he's doing now on the South Lawn, tearing it up for the helicopter landing zone.

I mean, honestly, the guy is so out of it right now, unhinged. Obsessed and focused on all the wrong things. You know, maybe we should be happy he's messing around with the reflecting pool and, you know, nothing— not starting another war somewhere else.

Yeah.

Can I— We're gonna get into some news in a second, but first, did you like the East Wing? Did you want a ballroom ever?

I never really thought about it. You know what we did, and it was a temporary solution, everybody did it. If you— had too many guests coming, it would be either outside or you'd put up a tent. Now, I'm not against the idea of a ballroom. I'm against this ballroom. I'm against the process that— well, the fact there was no process that created this, you know, carbuncle on the side of the White House, which I think is so unfortunate looking. So I don't know. The next president's gonna have a, big decision. What do you do with the half-finished, you know, ballroom?

What would you do?

You know, I don't know. I mean, the idea of tearing it down is— and we don't know really what's going on underneath it. You know, under the, you know, several floors down under the White House, there are, um, you know, security, secret rooms, I assume, infrastructures. There are, you know, safe rooms. If you remember after 9/11, there's a picture of Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney in a room, a very, you know, kind of crowded-looking room. That is under the White House. So I don't know what they're doing down there. So you'd have to figure that out too.

Yeah.

But I think there'll have to be some— you'll probably have to take down the arch, which he is determined to put up, which I think is just a terrible idea. I think we'll have to worry about the reflecting pool because it's not going to be fixed by the time he leaves, assuming he leaves. So there's going to be a long list. I'm making a list for the next Congress.

Are you making a list? Are you going to de-gold the horses?

De-gold the horses, take down—

Have you seen him up close?

Yeah, I saw a picture.

I saw a picture. Feels like Saddam Hussein.

It is like—

You know what?

That's a very— You know, when I was in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein. I had meetings. I was then a senator. I had meetings in some of his palaces, and they were quite reminiscent of what we are seeing in our own White House. It's just insane, this, you know.

Is that hard for you to watch, or just, you're like, I'll take down the gold?

It's sad. You know what? It's sad to me. It's sad that it's so tackied up, and it is It's a reflection of, you know, his narcissistic personality and his need to feel important, including sticking gold embellishments all over the walls of the Oval Office. I mean, I was in the Oval Office, you know, under— oh gosh, I think Carter, you know, Bill, obviously.

You know that house.

Obama, Biden, et cetera. And I'm looking at what he's doing to it. And this is a man who can't concentrate. This is a man whose mind apparently goes to, where can I add more gold instead of how do I get out of Iran without looking like the loser that I am? How do I begin to, you know, deal with AI, which is a serious threat to our security, our labor force, and so much else? His mind is about what are these things that reflect my need to appear important. And so that's what he spends his time on.

Well, we can always take it down, right? We can always take it down anyway.

That's on my list for the next 2 elections.

You should be the secretary of taking down the gold.

Wouldn't that be a good idea? Secretary of cleaning it up. Thicc cleaning up.

Oh my, they would lose their mind. Anyway, well, it's already gone. Let's talk, let's move to the Democrats. As we tape, progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed has narrowly won Michigan's Democratic Senate primary, defeating moderate Representative Hailey Stevens in one of the party's most watched races. The race has been widely viewed as a test of Democratic Party's direction, pitting the progressives against the establishment. Representative Hailey Stevens' side spent over $64 million in ads in the race, while El-Sayed spent $7.1 million. El-Sayed is backed by Bernie Sanders and AOC, will face Republican Mike Rogers in the general election that could help determine the control of the Senate. How much should Democrats read into these results? It was very close, which is closer than people thought.

Well, I think you have to look at both the candidates and the messages and the support that each had. I know Haley, she was a terrific member of Congress. She was a really effective member of Obama's Auto Recovery Task Force. She's a doer. She's a doer, but she's not a modern politician. I mean, she is not somebody who has mastered the art of video and performance online. And I think part of the lesson is that's what people are looking for, or at least half the people, 'cause as you said, it was absolutely skin tight. The election wasn't even called until just recently this morning. And so I think we're living in an era where because of people's, you know, attention spans and their obsession with their screens, they're looking for, a candidate, regardless of almost where that candidate might stand or their positioning, but who first and foremost they can relate to through the screen. How does that person come across? And I'm just hoping that the people who come across well on the screen are also people who can produce results, because that's not always the same thing. But that's what the evolution of, you know, political contests now is.

Pointing us towards. So—

Is it more than just the screen? Because I mean, look, being good at podcasts isn't going to get you elected, right? Exactly. You have to have that skill as you had to have various skills over the years. But there's this whole idea that there's this sort of struggle within the Democratic Party. And I think of my own son who lives in Michigan. He just liked what he had to say. Right. And there's also a throw the bums out thing. I think he was impacted by the money. He was sort of like, what's with that? And I— and he wanted to be able to articulate it without being like, I don't like AIPAC. 'Elon' slash anybody coming in. And he wanted to be able to articulate that without being called antisemitic or whatever it happens to be. He just was— there was something else happening.

Well, that was going to be my second point. I think that the message was very powerful. And, you know, people are fed up. They want to see results. They want to see government working for them. That's those who voted for Trump. That's what they thought they were getting. And so I do think that the message, which is very clear, Medicare for All, get money out of politics, and the fact that she was an incumbent, all of that worked to the advantage of El-Sayed. So I think it was a confluence of his skills, his presentation skills, which I think are pretty obvious, not an incumbent. He also had pretty broad name recognition because he had run against Gretchen Whitmer. He wasn't totally new to the, uh, to the state or to the voters, uh, and his, his message was, uh, a very clear, simple, straightforward, you know, Medicare for All, get money out of politics, um, and also, you know, I, uh, I think there was, you know, some questioning on the part of people like, really, I just want to try something different. I'm just not happy with where we are.

I'm not asking you for advice, but what should Democrats do about this sort of— and the right is really taking advantage of this. It's the progressive left, communists. Those are powerful words. But how do you— to me, you just say we have a lot of people. We have a lot of different people in different states. What's the image? Very different from Mickey Sherrill, very different from Amy Klobuchar, very different from, you know, that kind of thing, or Gretchen Whitmer even. How do you Do you think it is a wake-up call or just a, like, we evolve and we change kind of thing?

Yeah, no, look, I think there's no doubt that, you know, the Republican Party is the Trump cult and the Democratic Party is a bigger tent. You know, we do have a broad cross-section of people, what they believe, what their experiences are. I think that's an advantage, but we also have to win general elections. And so how we pivot and get behind the candidate in Michigan so that we can beat, you know, the Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. That's going to require a lot of outreach and a lot of willingness on the part of the, you know, the winning candidate and his supporters to know that they need the people that they were vilifying online, in person. I mean, the kind of things that were said about Haley, her supporters, you know, there were a lot of really nasty personal attacks, uh, in this—

you're familiar with— you're familiar with it.

And, and, you know, one thing that we haven't yet seen, uh, enough of is that when the progressives, the left, whatever we want to call, you know, candidates, um, on that side of the, uh, the Democratic Party, when they lose, they often don't support the, uh, candidate that has been nominated. You know, there was a lot of reluctance to support Kamala Harris. There was a lot of reluctance to support me when when I got the nomination. So it can't be a one-way street. You know, if we're gonna have a fair election as there was in Michigan and somebody comes out ahead, a little bit ahead, but needs to get a huge percentage of the voters that voted for Haley, they're gonna have to be willing to, you know, get into a conversation that brings those people over.

Back over, right, yeah.

You're not gonna convince Republican voters in Michigan. And the, and the real fight will be how, how do we make sure that people who voted for Haley feel comfortable voting for, uh, Abdul El-Sayed? And how do we get independents to feel comfortable? And you can see that it's not just about Michigan, but the Republican messaging is communist, socialist. It's going to be a very, uh, effective attack. And so people And we on the left have to be prepared to answer that and to be effective at answering it.

Do you think communist is an effective attack in 2026?

Well, all I know is that's the attack that Trump is leading with. And I assume they've tested it. And I assume that they have reason to believe that it's effective or they wouldn't be beating the drum on it. Because now it's not just him. Vance has done it. Others are doing it. They are trying to, you know, bring back scare tactics. About our candidates. And, you know, it didn't work in New York. Mamdani was elected and there was a lot of money spent against him. But again, when you have an effective candidate on the left, it still is going to be a close race on our side. So then how do these candidates who win, whether they're the, you know, candidate that's the more conventional, so-called moderate candidate, although really moderate compared to what? Not compared to Republicans. They're very much on the social justice redistribution side of the ledger. But if they are going to have to pivot to support the candidate on the progressive left side, they're going to need to feel they're welcome. They're going to need to feel that, yeah, a lot of people like your son voted for him. They liked the message, but other people voted on different grounds.

Israel played a role in this. Election, as we know. AIPAC played a role, as we know. So there's going to have to be, um, you know, on both sides, an understanding. Look, we got to work together. We're not going to beat Republicans by being divided.

What's the message against Rogers?

That he's a, you know, he's a Trump candidate, that he's going to show up and he's going to, you know, vote for the Republican agenda. He's going to vote for Trump. And how well has that worked for you? I mean, even the people in Michigan who voted for Trump Is that what they voted for? Did they vote for the war in Iran? Did they vote for corruption unlike we've ever seen before? Did they vote for tearing down the East Wing of the White House? I mean, there's a long list.

So there's a long list, right?

He, he can't— he doesn't have much maneuver room or Trump will denounce him. Although Trump, you know, can't go too far because he needs— he wants him to win. Um, but, you know, Mike Rogers is not a, you know, clone of Trump. He's not a, a certified cult member. So I think it has to be a two-way attack, pin Trump on him, but also force him to have to decide whether to separate from Trump, right? Undermines Republican enthusiasm for those who are, you know, the true believers of Trump, right?

Well, one of the ways they did it is midterms approach. We're seeing an impact of the redistricting wars. The Democratic path to retaking the House has narrowed according to Cook Political Report thanks to newly redrawn maps across 10 states. The number of competitive swing seats has dropped from 87 to 77. Democrats need to win at least 57 of 77 seats to take back the House. And meanwhile, Maryland Democrats are trying to fight back. Lawmakers put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that could open the door to redrawing the state's congressional maps. But even if voters approve, the new maps wouldn't take effect until 2028. So talk a little bit about the gerrymandering for the upcoming. You're the first person who said, I'm a little worried, to me. And I picked my head up. Huh. That's interesting.

Yeah. No, no, no. Look, the Republicans You got to give them credit. They know what they're doing. They, they have to, uh, try to narrow the electorate in order to elect their candidates. And they're, they're purging voters. They're, they're waging all these lawsuits trying to get a hold of voter rolls. They are trying to intimidate voters. They're trying to undermine confidence in the election. They know exactly what they're doing. And one of their most effective strategies is what they've done with gerrymandering and redistricting over the last years. Republicans have no doubt about what's at stake. They could care less about good government. They could care less about trying to figure out how we create an optimum environment for even more people to vote and feel their vote was counted. That's not what they're interested in. They're interested in winning, holding power, and then inflicting their values on all the rest of us. So the Democrats for years— and, you know, there was a big movement. We wanted to go to nonpartisan redistricting. We wanted to make sure that, you know, people felt that they could vote in primaries or do what's called jungle voting so they could vote for both Democrats and Republicans at the same time.

We did all of this in the name of good government, expanding the electorate, all the right things. Meanwhile, the Republicans on the other side of the aisle were doing everything they could to create a map that they would dominate. And they did it. So it wasn't enough for them what they'd already done. Then Trump was looking for more votes because he knew that the midterms would likely be bad for him. So that's when he called, you know, Abbott in Texas. And, you know, I'm really happy that Gavin Newsom was one of the first to say, we're fighting back. We're not going to sit here and be treated like chumps. You know, we're for good government, you're for power, and you're gonna dominate us for the foreseeable future. We're not gonna live in that world. So we have fought them to sort of a draw, but they ended up with an advantage. And there were a couple of states that resisted Trump until he literally picked candidates to beat the state legislators who thought it wasn't the right thing to do. So they are still on the march to do everything they can to advantage themselves.

Our effort in Maryland fell short because a Democratic, I think, Speaker of the House or Senate Pro Tem leader was against it. So Wes Moore couldn't get it out of the legislature. So he's trying to take it to a vote of the people. We saw what happened in Virginia where they went to the extraordinary lengths of getting a new map that they submitted to the voters. You didn't see Abbott doing that in Texas. They just drew the lines and told people to fall in line. When Virginia was overturned, that would've given us, if it hadn't been overturned on what I thought was a kind of a procedural, you know, red herring, but they did it. So we lost those potential seats. So this is gonna be a real fight.

So you're more worried, you were expressing more worry. Most people think it's gonna be a slam dunk.

Well, I'm always worried. I think we will still win, but I don't know how big our margin will be.

Which needs to be, the margin's important.

It does, it does. Big enough to accommodate our big tent and also to drive an agenda in the House. And I still think, like I say, I still think we're going to win. I still think that, you know, the efforts that were made for us to fight back, you know, did give us some advantage. I think maybe we'll even see some surprises in the Texas redistricting because I'm not sure they did as good a job redistricting because of the way they cut up Black districts. But then along comes the Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act. And so all all of a sudden that gave states that wanted to limit Black representation another bite at the apple, so to speak.

And it didn't work in Missouri.

It didn't work in Louisiana. Yeah, right. And it worked probably in Alabama. And so, you know, that— so they never stop. I guess my point is they're not interested in free and fair elections.

Yeah. So very briefly, for the Senate, most people think that Democrats will not take the Senate, But what is your prediction?

I think we still have a 50-50 shot. I mean, it really comes down to Michigan and Maine. Can the new candidate in Maine beat Susan Collins? You know, she has a remarkable staying power in Maine.

Speaking of carbuncles. Yeah.

I mean, the— Farnicle. The Maine voters have voted for her while they voted for Democratic presidents, Democratic governors, and Democratic members of Congress. He seems to be really vigorously trying. And unlike the problems that we had with the first candidate, he seems to be in, I hope, the stretch to be able to compete all the way. No surprises. And then back to Michigan, we'll see. We'll see whether And it's the best year for somebody like al-Saeed to be running. It's the best year because, you know, Trump is so unpopular.

It's—

his popularity, I think, is down to 33%. So he will have the advantage of running against a Republican when Republican and the Republican brand is not in—

in—

especially with the war— war drama.

Yeah. And a lot of people I talk to about Iran, Kara, say that We're not going to be out of it by the election. It's going to linger, uh, over, uh, this country, uh, and cause problems in the economy. And just about any way Trump now tries to get out of it, he's going to look like a loser, which I think our candidates can then add to their messaging against Republicans.

Yeah. All right, Madam Secretary, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, Todd Blanch gets closer to becoming Trump's new attorney general.

Support for Pivot comes from Anthropic. Finding your flow at work can be a challenge, especially if you don't have the proper tools. The good news? Claude is here to help you out at every stage, getting you through the small nitty-gritty and helping you look at the big picture. Claude is the AI for minds that don't stop at good enough. It's a collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow and thinks with you. Whether you're debugging code at midnight or strategizing your next business move, Cloud extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter. You can delegate tasks of all sizes, from tedious bug fixes and new feature ideas, and then handle other work while Cloud runs in the background. Cloud has checkpoints that let you save progress and roll back any previous state instantly. Plus, you can set up workflows to run on a schedule, such as daily reports, weekly summaries, and recurring data pulls. All of this can help with your day-to-day operations. Operations. For problems worth solving, get started with Claude at claude.ai/pivot. That's claude.ai/pivot. And check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today's episode. claude.ai/pivot. Support for the show comes from Rippling.

Imagine you just found out your sales team is at risk of missing quota. No need to panic, just ask Rippling AI. Since it's built on your real-time people and business data, Rippling AI can pull metrics from Rippling and Salesforce into a meeting-ready dashboard showing quota attainment, headcount trajectory, and monthly revenue to quota by region. In seconds, you can see exactly what's behind your quota risk and fix it before it's missed. Question answered, action taken, crisis averted. So when you have critical business questions that need answers, don't just file a ticket and wait weeks for an outdated report, describe what you need and have Rippling AI build it instantly from your live people and business data. Whether it's a dashboard with detailed charts or automated workflows with the right triggers, conditions, and approvals. Ready to rule your business? Head to rippling.ai/pivot to get the only AI built to give you full visibility and take complex actions across your entire organization. That's R-I-P-P-L-I-N-G.ai/pivot.

Pivot.

Sign up for exclusive access today.

Hi everybody, it's Megan Rapinoe. I've been thinking a lot about this one question I've been asked over and over. A question about the choices I've made, the colors of my hair, the things in the world I've spoken about, and the things that I haven't. I've heard this question asked so many different ways, but it always came down to, Why are you like this? And as you know, there's no simple answer because people are not simple. We're messy and complicated and contradictory and layered. So on my new show, I'm sitting down with the ultimate disruptors, the athletes, the artists, the activists, and the architects of our culture who looked at the way things were and asked, why do we do it like this? And can we do it differently? My hope is to give us a little more space to that question and to the person on the other side of the mic, not to tell us their answer or read from their script, but to take us on their journey. Check out my new show, Why Are You Like This, on YouTube, or listen in your favorite podcast app. New episodes drop every Thursday.

Madam Secretary, we're back with more news. Senate Republicans advanced Todd Blanchard's nomination for Attorney General after he committed, uh, to killing Trump's Anti-Weaponization Fund. Republican Senators John Cornyn and Tom Tillis dropped their opposition after Blanche put in writing the fund would not move forward. Democrats argued that changes aren't legally enforceable and warned the fund could be revived in the future. Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12 to 10 along party lines to send Blanche's nomination to the full Senate, where Republicans hold 53 seats. However, with Senator Mitch McConnell expected to miss the vote, Blanche can afford to lose only 2 Republican senators, and Susan Collins has already said she'll vote no. And great news, Blanche told faith leaders that He's planning to roll back abortion access. That's not great news for women, even in states that have laws protecting it, making Dobbs permanent in every state. How much do you think the Justice Department changes under Blanche compared to the last several months? And how likely is the anti-weaponization fund resurfaces in another form? Now, a lot of people say if you didn't get Blanche, you just keep him there as acting, and what's the difference? Or I'll put someone worse in.

Thoughts?

Although it's gone from bad to worse from Pam Bondi.

Well, look, I think— Todd Blanch has proven himself to be a total sycophant in every way. I mean, he had a fairly robust legal career before he began representing Trump, and he is all in. He's not the Attorney General of the United States. He is the personal lawyer of Donald Trump presiding over the Department of Justice.

And what they—

She pointed out by accident in that Freudian slip of all time.

I know, and what they've done to the Justice Department, I don't think most people who are not lawyers or don't follow this closely realize what the perversion of justice means. You know, I've heard you and Scott talking about what are the real pillars of the American success, our political success, but especially our economic success over, you know, 250 years. Well, part of that was, you know, look, with exceptions, a rule of law, a Justice Department that we thought was, you know, mostly on the level, uh, a, a legal system with judges who were more interested in following the law than currying favor, uh, to the president who appointed, uh, them. That is a key to whether or not we have a confidence in our economic system as well as our political system. So What they've done to destroy confidence in the justice system has far-reaching implications. It's not just about Trump trying to get immunity from having his taxes, uh, ever audited. You know, I've been in politics for a long time. I've been audited more times than I can remember. You know what, that's part of the way that you show that there's nothing to hide and you show that you have confidence in our legal system.

Trump doesn't want to be accountable to anybody, and he now has an attorney general who is a, you know, absolute implementer of whatever grunt or grievance, uh, that, you know, Trump puts forth. And I think, I think Todd Blanchard is extremely dangerous. And the idea that you would say what he said about abortion when allegedly the Dobbs decision was to put it back in the states— that was never their final goal. They always intended to go from returning it to the states to try to prevent the states like Kansas, a surprising red state that consistently votes to keep abortion out of politics, to give women the choice to make what is best for them and their families. They don't want that. They, they want a uniform national, uh, set of, you know, criminal penalties and rules. And Todd Blanch is going to deliver for them, uh, the best he can.

How can he do that in I don't know.

I don't know what he means by that. I think what he means is they're going to try to, uh, with the—

because abortions are up, numbers of abortions are up.

That's the irony. If you really wanted abortions to fall, which I've been working for since the '90s, I've been working to decrease teen pregnancy, working to, you know, make abortions not necessary by providing, you know, contraception to people, uh, at an affordable, uh, way so that they could, you know, make decisions when they felt ready to make decisions, doing more education. Education so that people, particularly young people, knew what was at stake. I mean, there's a lot of things you could do. But if you're going to treat women like they're disposable commodities and they should be barefoot and in the kitchen, you're going to get more abortions because— and they're going to be either legal abortions in the states where they are still available, or they're going to be back alley abortions. And anybody who has studied history or knows anything about this understands it, right?

So do you think he could bring back the Anti-Weaponization Fund? It seems, it seems to stick in Trump's craw quite a bit.

Well, I, I think they will try to re-imagine the weaponization fund and call it something else and bring it back because Trump wants to reward his, uh, insurgents, uh, particularly from January 6th, but, you know, others who have stuck with him despite, uh, all the evidence to the contrary. They want to finalize this immunity from, uh, auditing, which I don't see how they can do that, and I think that can be reversed. So I think he's gonna— he has a checklist, he has the Trump checklist, he's going to go down it, right?

Would you apply for the Anti-Weaponization Fund?

Well, I don't think I'd be eligible under their definition. Oh, but I would, uh, you know, certainly, uh, you know, uh, consider it if they're going to take care of, you know, the, the crazies on the right who, uh, tried to upset our election and were beating police officers, which is absolutely disgraceful.

So do you— but do you, do you think he'll drop this? There's only a limited time he has.

I think they're waiting to see what happens in the midterm. I think a lot of this will wait till after the midterms, and I think it's going to be likely that Trump is even more out of control after the midterms. And let's, let's assume from my perspective the best happens. We take back the House, we take back the He's not going to work with them. He's going to do everything he can to undermine them. He's going to instruct people who work for him not to respond to inquiries or even subpoenas. He's going to be in a big standoff with the Congress, and he's going to be using executive orders and whatever power he has from the presidency to pursue his agenda. I think he'll be pardoning a lot more corrupt people. You know, you look at the list of the pardons that he's given, it's a total transactional exchange. You or somebody on your behalf gives me money. I don't care if you've cheated, you know, elderly people in nursing homes, which one of the people that he pardoned did, uh, to great cost to them, and you owe them billions of dollars in, uh, compensation.

I'm gonna, I'm gonna take the money and just erase that. And I think a Democrat— Democrats can run against some of those pardons. Most people have no idea idea what he has done.

What he's given out. Yeah.

And what he's taken for it. I mean, the amount of money that he's taken for it.

Right. No, it is coin-operated.

It is coin-operated.

It is coin-operated.

Cybercoin-operated too.

Hyper, whatever. Like stick any money in. Or you get a, you give money and you get a contract with the government. That's the other one.

Yeah, to fix the reflecting pool, whatever it is.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah. I bet you could fix the reflecting pool anyway.

I bet I know, I'd know where to go to get the right people.

It's true. You know a pool guy, right? Right? Yeah, I do. I know a pool guy. As we record this, but speaking of water, US and Iran are reportedly closing in on an interim agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. I think, I feel like it's Groundhog Day here. We've heard that before. Similar deals and arrangements have been made only to collapse when attacks resumed. Trump said Tuesday night that a lot of progress has been made, though that came a day after he warned Iran could face decapitation if it failed to reach a deal, which he said before he was gonna bomb them back to last Sunday or whatever. We're now in the 6 months of this war that was supposed to last for a couple of weeks. Do you have— Talk a little bit about this. And I'm going to make you repeat something I've had you repeat several times, but what do you think is happening here? And do you have any confidence in this latest deal?

Well, I don't have any confidence that it's a good deal, but it may be the best deal Trump can get because he doesn't really understand. I mean, he approved of a ceasefire agreement a few months ago that was a terrible deal for the United States and the region and international shipping and, you know, the list goes on. So he really doesn't understand what is happening and what the stakes can be. So as I understand this latest attempt at a deal, it would result in fees being charged to at least some category of container ships going through the Strait of Hormuz. It would be a, quote, a service fee. Now, that has never been applied prior to this ill-conceived war that Trump embarked on. So that's a definite loss. The loss is that what used to be free, free navigation, a commercial sea lane that was open to everybody, is now going to be an in effect taxed by Oman and Iran. That's the first loss. Second loss is, you know, Iran still has ballistic missiles. It still is producing deadly drones. It is still attacking shipping, and it is still encouraging at least its proxy, the Houthis, to attack.

And they went so far as literally to attack a ship in Egyptian waters. So what happened to the destruction of their ability to launch ballistic missiles? Well, what did happen? So to launch deadly drones, that's a third loss. The leadership, yeah, he got rid of the people who were at the top, but the infrastructure prevailed. So you now have probably a more militaristic government structure that the, you know, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps dominates, and the clerics have been somewhat weakened. Weakened but are still useful to keep the regime in place. So that's a third loss. And I think the fourth loss is that a lot of our allies have watched this in total confusion. I mean, the lack of strategy, the lack of effective implementation, the lack of results that were trumpeted as what was going to be achieved. And people are going to not just start, they have started hedging their bets. I mean, how are you going to look at the United States, at least so long as Trump is there, uh, with any kind of confidence, uh, at all? So I think it's, it's a major loss, not just for Trump, sadly, but for the United States.

So two things: if he called you and said, Hillary, I want you to get in here and fix this me, what would you do? And secondly, you said something, you said Putin's in it in a way, Netanyahu's in it in a way.

Yeah. It's called the domain of loss. So let me talk about that first and then I'll answer the question about if he were to call me or somebody were to ask me what to do that had any authority. So the domain of loss is a psychological concept and it applies to human behavior. When you think you're losing, and this is why casinos make so much money and why gambling makes so much money in general, the likelihood is you will double down, you know, until something happens that you either run outta money or you are kicked out of the casino because you can't pay your debts, whatever it might be. Well, the domain of loss is a concept that applies much more generally to our behaviors. And for leaders, It's the description of how they double down on losing hands. So in today's world, Putin is doubling down. He's going to inflict as much punishment as he can on Ukraine because they won't quit. They won't, you know, lie down and die the way that he wants them to. Trump is going to continue to, you know, rant and rave. He's gonna go after his enemies.

He's doubling, he keeps threatening Betty double down on Iran. Maybe we'll get out of this, maybe we won't. And the same thing with Netanyahu. I mean, he's in the domain of loss. So he has to keep fighting in order to preserve his political, in his mind, his political chances. And it's a psychological description of behavior that I have found very useful. So let's say somebody called and said, "How do we get out of this?" Well, I think you have to broaden the decision makers. One of the problems with Trump is he has a very narrow band of people that he relies on to negotiate everything. And, you know, after a while, that just doesn't work. I mean, even if they were the most accomplished negotiators, diplomats, whatever, you know, it's the same people you're sending everywhere. It just doesn't make the impact and it doesn't have the staying power that patient diplomacy requires. So who has the most to gain from getting the strait open, getting this war over? Well, obviously the Gulf region does, but so does India and so does China and so does Japan. And, you know, people who depend upon oil that is either coming from Iran or coming from the region that needs to go through the Strait of Hormuz.

And I would have them be playing a very active role I would be basically persuading the Iranians to back down from charging fees, which is only going to make their costs go up as oil is transported to them. I would be looking for ways to try to get them personally engaged with the Gulf so that the Gulf Arabs would be similarly sending that message. Why are you raising all of our costs? This is not good for us. It may be in the short term, a tactic, but it's not going to be a long-term strategy. So it would be to expand the base of people that are interacting with Iran and to make it clear that Iran has some stake in getting this over, getting the strait open, and being open to negotiations on its nuclear program, which I think is going to be extremely hard. I told you once, Kara, I started the nuclear negotiations back in 2011, After we got a Security Council resolution that imposed global sanctions on Iran, which had never happened before. And then, you know, I worked with the Gulf, particularly with Oman, which is now a major player in what happens going forward.

And we began secret negotiations, very small group of Americans and Iranians to test whether they would be willing to negotiate seriously about their nuclear program.

Program.

And eventually we ended up with an agreement and people say, "Oh, it didn't go far enough." Well, it's hard. Doing negotiations is hard. And we've seen the alternative. We've tried to bomb their nuclear program out of existence.

We haven't decapitated them.

We have not. We decapitated, but we haven't ended the regime or its ambitions.

Right. And it continues to be so. What do you think his next move will be?

I think it depends upon his mood. I mean, yeah, he is the most impulsive, moodiest president. It depends upon how he's feeling, how he's being treated, what is being said about him. You know, the Iranians have played him, sadly, very effectively, because every time he says there's an agreement, they say, we're not negotiating, we're not— we don't know what you're talking about, right?

Yeah, they fuck with him.

So if he be quiet and try to figure out how to get a better deal than it seems like the one that is being offered could be, maybe he can get himself out of this in, you know, a couple of weeks. Otherwise, it's going to be a ping pong game. You know, he's going to get upset. He's going to attack. And we're running out of munitions. We're running out of missiles.

Sexual bombs, yeah.

And one of the great tragedies of this unnecessary, not well-planned war in Iran is that we should have been doing more to help Ukraine to defend itself against Russia. They've run out of Patriot missiles. They can't defend against Russia's missiles. Putin is just angry and determined to just beat them into submission, kill as many civilians as possible. It's not going to break the Ukrainians, but it's unnecessary, cost of human life.

So where we could have had a win, where we could have had a win there.

Yeah, we could have literally, we could have helped the Ukrainians end the Ukrainian war by maybe helping them defend themselves.

And he would have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize.

I think, you know, I'm the one, I said this months ago. I said if he got an honorable peace with Ukraine, they don't have to give up any property. They can go back to running their country. I'd nominate him for the Peace Prize. But he's more interested in his relationship with Putin. I don't know. I don't know all the reasons for that, but you know, he wants Putin's favor even more than he wants a Nobel Peace Prize.

You would nominate him. Can you tell the— I don't know if you're willing to tell this story, but that picture of you and Obama laughing, which is the second meme that's taken off, what precisely were you telling him right then when you were laughing for people to— it's so funny.

Well, you know, I was sitting behind him at the opening of their, you know, very impressive Obama Presidential Center in Chicago.— and I hope people get to go visit and come visit our presidential center. I mean, presidential centers really try to tell the history that Trump and others don't want you to hear. So we were sitting there, I was sitting behind him, and Michelle Obama was giving this incredibly clever speech touting all of Barack's many accomplishments. And then, you know, she got to, "And of course, you received a Nobel Peace Prize." And I burst into laughter.

After.

He started to giggle. Um, I poked him in the back and I said, oh my God, I am sure Trump is watching this. He thinks he's now in the third circle of hell. I mean, the way that, uh, she just tweaked him about the Nobel Peace Prize, and he goes, yeah, I hope he is. It was great.

So the two of you had that moment. Do you like your little memes, your little Obama memes?

I do, I do. I mean, it's fun for me because It was, you know, I never know what might become a meme. I'm just out there living my life, and all of a sudden there's a meme. But the first meme was with me in sunglasses looking at my BlackBerry, I think, 100 years ago.

Like, "Fuck you." That was the fuck you meme.

On a plane, yeah. And two young men did that meme, and I thought it was so funny, I invited them to the State Department so that I could meet them so we could take a picture. I said, "Here, we'll have a real picture." So, yeah, I get a kick out of it.

You get a lot of memes.

I have a lot of memes.

Yeah.

Some are good, some are not so good, but you know, it's kind of, it kind of goes with, you know, the life that I lead.

Yeah. I like the one of Trump looming behind you memes.

Oh my God. That was so bizarre. You know, people still talk to me about that. I mean, I literally—

It was disturbing. I wish you had turned around and said, "What are you doing?" Yeah.

You know, I've thought about that 100,000 times, as you might guess. And it's true. It was— I was thinking about it in real time because he's looming over me and— 'Cause he's tall.

People don't realize how big he is.

And he's tall and he's bulky and, you know, he's got a big, you know, physical presence. And so, I'm thinking to myself, as I'm also trying to answer your questions, I'm thinking, "Okay, if I turn on him and say, 'What are you doing?' or 'Back off,' does that look like I can't handle him? Does that look like I am rattled? Does that look like I, you know, am a woman who shouldn't be in the Oval Office?" office. If I ignore it, how does that approach— how do people feel that that is communicating? So I ignored it. I mean, that was what I eventually decided to do because I didn't want to look either like I was being made to be nervous. I think he was trying to actually provoke something out of me.

Yeah, he was.

Yeah, he was. And I wasn't going to give him that. But in retrospect, there could have been some great stuff. Yeah. Good pushback.

Yeah, what the fuck, you creep? Yeah, exactly.

Back off, you creep.

Back off, you creep. All right, Matt and Sergey, let's go on a quick break. We'll be right back.

If there's anything we've heard about this entire summer, no matter where we go or who we talk to, it's about gas prices.

I want to show you something. Look at these gas prices.

It's ridiculous.

I don't drive as much.

I think they're just skyrocketing day in, day out.

Gas prices are up since Donald Trump started his war with Iran. But how much does a little pain at the pump actually affect people's vote?

Who is telling the truth?

Uh-huh.

And who is going to represent us and do something about it?

And if gas is still near $4 a gallon come November, is it game over for Donald Trump and the Republicans?

The most important is you can't deny the reality that Americans feel. People see what they're paying, you know, Trump trying to not recognize what people are struggling with and then to ignore the severity of it is just not a winning strategy.

That's this week on America Actually. Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Presidential races are always messy, but 2028 is shaping shaping up to be our messiest presidential campaign yet. There are a ton of names that are rumored to be thinking about throwing their hat in the ring. All righty, here we got Trump, we got Kamala Harris, we have Marjorie Taylor Greene. So this week on America Actually, I wanted to hold a little fantasy draft. Of course, we gotta have AOC on the list and stud George Clooney. And to do that, I want to invite two of the messiest people I know. Vox journalist and podcast host Kara Swisher.

Let me tell you, uh-huh, he has the charm of a Cybertruck.

And independent journalist and political commentator Don Lemon.

This could go really fast because I got boom boom boom boom boom, and I'm sure Kara's the same way.

I'm Estet Hernton, and this is America Actually. Catch us every Saturday on YouTube or wherever you get your podcast.

Lenin.

Democratic socialists keep winning primary races. In Michigan, Abdulla Saeed, not in from the DSA but endorsed by them just won a fiercely fought Senate primary. President Trump appears worried enough about the DSA to have started conflating some things.

I would be the greatest communist in history. I'd be right up— free rent for the rest of your life. What they don't say is that you'll be living in squalor in 12 months.

The Trump administration has raised the specter of the far left in various ways during Trump's second term, but the recent arrest of an American communist in Spain— what year is it?— at the request of the American government is a more concrete step. Coming up on Today Explained from Vox: Real communist threat or new Red Scare? Today Explained drops every weekday.

Okay, Madam Secretary, we're back. Big picture question for you: what's the biggest story that isn't getting enough attention?

I think it's how we're going to govern AI. I mean, there's attention being given to it, Kara, but there's no real action. You know, this government, other governments are wringing their hands. They know that we are heading into a totally unknown world. If I were able to wave a magic wand, I would be having literally a huge diplomatic effort with experts and, you know, really other people from different parts of the economy besides AI, literally working on treaties and covenants and rules and standards and basically bring the world together against, you know, the tech companies because, you know, there's no way to deal with what is coming at us us unless we have some kind of global response. And that's just not happening. I mean, there are conversations, you know, the CEOs were in Washington yesterday talking to Trump, but, you know, he wants to take pieces of their equity. He doesn't want to govern in any effective way about what they're producing other than things that might be totally scary to national security. But I just feel like there needs to be some global effort to try to get ahead of this insofar as possible.

So far, I suppose this is the story. I think data centers are the proxy politically.

I do too.

People's worries about it.

Can you blame people? I mean, these big hulking concrete buildings that make all kinds of noise and suck up water and get put onto your grid and maybe raise your prices. I mean, these questions need to be looked at. I mean, I was approving of Kathy Hochul when she put on a moratorium. Let's figure out what this means before just willy-nilly going ahead. So I think people's instincts who are showing up at city council and county commissions and all kinds of political forums to say, "No, we don't want this," or at least tell us what we're getting and how to make sure that it's not going to be harmful. I think people have a good instinct about that. About this.

Yeah, mayor of Lansing was telling— he had a good deal and the people wouldn't accept it because they're so angry at it. You know, you can't even do a good deal. That was—

yeah, but I mean, we don't really— does the mayor of Lansing really know what a good deal is? Wouldn't it be good if we took a hard look at our very creaky grid and said, here are things you have to do in order to buttress the grid? I mean, yeah, yeah. So a good deal—

it's bigger. Local people shouldn't be stuck.

It's too big. It's too big. And the issues are national and even Global.

Yeah, absolutely. I yelled at Tony Blinken at a dinner many years ago saying we have to have global AI standards. And he just— not.

From local to global, right?

Global. I said it's global. It's a global issue.

Yeah.

All right.

Moving on. What are the most— 3 most important qualities a Democratic presidential candidate needs to have in 2028?

That he or she can win the Electoral College. That is the only quality. And because we don't know what's going to appeal to the electorate.

Demonstrate.

Uh, will the Democratic primary voters, uh, want a relief after Trump, a counterpoint to Trump? Will they want a fighter, somebody who is just, you know, fists up all the time? We don't know. So seeing who gets through the Democratic primary, uh, is right now going to be a rumble.

There's a lot—

it's totally unpredictable. But then you got to be able to win. And it's, from my personal experience, you You don't— that doesn't mean getting more votes. It means winning the Electoral College. And that is hard for Democrats. And it's something that a lot of Democratic primary voters are understandably not thinking about. You know, I'm going to vote for who I like. I'm going to vote for who's expressing my anger. I'm going to vote for, you know, the person that, you know, I think can be the best fighter. All of that's great. But somewhere in the back of your mind, you need to say, can this person win the Electoral College? And at the end of the day, if we're going to win, that's what matters.

That's what matters. That's all that matters. It's not whether it's a man or a woman or—

No, no. I don't think we should be preemptively disqualifying anybody. Let everybody get out and compete and see who emerges. And I hope it's somebody who can be a good president, not just win, but can also, going into office, be prepared, like we were talking about earlier, Clean up, fix things. You know, there's gonna be so much to fix. I mean, first, you know, get rid of all of the holdovers. Do not let anybody hang around in some small office somewhere who can literally subvert your program and you don't even know that person's there. And I will predict that, you know, Trump and his minions are gonna try to, you know—

Good people.

They're gonna try to move people from political appointments to so-called civil service appointments, although they're trying to destroy the civil service. So people are going to have to be really searching to make sure that they are not going to be literally subverted from within the government.

That's a really good point. That's a really smart point. Is there, very quickly, is there any Republican candidate you're looking at that you think is trouble?

No, I mean, obviously everybody's talking about, you know, Vance and Rubio. I don't know, but I think there'll be a lot of Republicans running running. The real question is, what will Trump do to try to hold on to power, right? Will he stay? You know, he, he, when he goes around putting that, you know, third term hat on, you always have to take Trump at his tell. You know, this is a tell. He would love to serve a third term, or at least he'd love to have the power of a third term if he can install somebody, uh, as the, you know, that's a point, president that he controls. And so who's he going to pick? Who's he going to be, uh, behind? And is he looking for an opportunity to try to upend that election? You know, he's acted like he didn't care about the midterms, but he has $400 million sitting in a super PAC, right? And he's got his buddies like Elon and others have said they're going to spend whatever it takes to try to prevent the Democrats from winning in the midterm. So is he going to be very active, spend a lot of money to try to prevent the Democrats from winning or keep their margin at a very small number and then just basically do everything he can to undermine them?

Is he going to want the contrast of a Democratic Congress that he can play off against? I mean, I don't know what game theory is about the upcoming elections, but I do know he doesn't want to give up power. So what is he going to do? Is it a proxy? Is it him? Does he figure out some bizarre way to get Todd Blanch, the Attorney General, to side with him? The 5 of the Supreme Court justices that are, you know, movement conservatives to side with him? Who knows? But I think we have to watch all of that.

Well, that means, you know, Obama can run Bill can—

Well, and that's what we've been joking. We say, okay, so Obama can go for a third term. My husband go for a third term. I mean, you know, okay, if you're gonna go for third terms, let's look at everybody who's eligible.

Yeah, let's do it. Oh, but he would like lose his mind. He would lose his mind. Although it would be amusing in a different universe. All right, we're gonna do a few rapid fire questions for you that are more fun for you. All right, what TV show are you watching right now?

Well, I'm about to watch the new season of Ted Lasso. So I love Ted Lasso. And Jason Sudeikis and Hannah Waddington and—

Waddingham.

It's Waddingham, actually.

Waddingham, right. And cast members were at the Liberty game when I was there because this season he is convinced to coach a woman's team. So I am really excited about— I think it starts tonight or tomorrow. I mean, it's going to It's gonna be a lot of fun. And we need, we need some, you know, some positive good feeling going on again.

Yeah.

He's there a lot, Jason. I ran into him at the Liberty game. Yeah, he's always there.

Yeah, I had a great conversation with him. He's really excited about this season.

Speaking of Hannah, did you see Ride or Die? It kind of reminds me of you, Hillary.

I haven't, no. But she is amazing. I really— She is. I like her.

She's a tall drink of water.

Yeah, she is a tall drink of water, but she is so much fun. She has a great sense of humor.

Watch Ride or Die. Okay, I got Ride or Die.

I'm writing it down. Writing it down.

Ride or Die. You will love it. It's so funny. I finished it last night. All right. You're the grandmother of 3. What do your grandkids call you, and what's your favorite thing you do with them? I see you're wearing a necklace with your granddaughter's name, actually.

Yeah.

Well, I— also my grandsons. All 3 of them are on this, this little necklace. Um, they call me Grandma, and I just like doing anything with them. I like, you know, hanging out with them. I like swimming. I like hiking. I like watching funny television shows with them or whatever they're interested in. I like reading with them. I mean, literally any time I get to spend with them is, you know, just a delight for me. It is the only experience in life that is not overrated. It is really worth waiting for.

Do they know who you are? Do they know? Do they have a sense of who you are?

I think, you know, they— I remember My grandson found a book in his school library that was about me, one of these little paperback books about my life. And he checked it out and he brought it home and he said, "You have a book about you." So I think they know that their grandfather was president. I think they know, you know, that I was a senator and secretary of state. I'm not sure they fully grasp it, but they find it somewhat confounding. Like, "When did this happen to you? What did you do?" You do.

Right. Absolutely. So Bowen Yang is the latest star to step into the role of Mary Todd Lincoln. Speaking of—

He'd be good at that role.

Yeah. In Oh Mary. If asked, would you serve?

No. No. No.

Yeah.

Okay.

I mean, the amount of physical comedy that Mary does. Wow. Yeah. I'd have to work out for a year in order to get ready.

Okay. Well, you're looking good, by the way. Well, thank you. I always play myself on TV. In movies, but you've had a lot of people portray you over the years. Who's your favorite Hillary Clinton?

I really don't have one, you know, because I try not to watch them. So I've never seen anybody portray me.

No, so you don't have a favorite? I guess it would be Kate McKinnon, right? Because you did appear with her.

Well, you know, to be— I was thinking of the more dramatic presentation. I loved Kate McKinnon. I love her as a person, and I thought she did a great job as me.

So you don't watch any of the other Hillary Clintons? Hillary Clintons. I couldn't resist.

I don't.

One of the Murdochs told me he didn't watch Succession. I didn't believe him. I didn't believe him.

I bet they did, or else they had somebody watch and summarize it for them.

He didn't watch any of them. There's a lot. I've watched all your Hillary Clintons.

Well, so who's your favorite Hillary Clinton?

Emma Thompson. It's not my favorite movie, but I thought Emma Thompson was good.

Well, she's a terrific actress. Yep.

I would say she did a good job. She sort of issued— that's okay.

I'll put that on the list for, you know, I'll watch it in the next decade my life.

Can I watch it with you? No, I don't want to be awkward.

Sure, we can hang out. I like popcorn, little bit of butter, not too much.

Let's go with Kate McKinnon on that one. All right, Madam Secretary, one more quick break. We'll be back for predictions.

This week, two of the most important people in Google's AI division left their jobs. Depending on who you are, that's either really terrible news for Google's whole AI project or a sign that AI may be closer to something truly world-changing than we even thought. This week on The Vergecast, we're dissecting what's going on at Google DeepMind and whether we truly are in the foothills of the singularity. All that plus the state of the no-screen wearable, what's going on with open weight models, and much more. All that on The Vergecast, wherever you get podcasts. Yes.

Okay, we're back. Do you have a prediction for us?

Yes, I do predict that we will take, uh, back the House. I predict that even with all of the obstacles. And I predict we have a slightly better than 50-50 chance to take back the Senate even with all of the obstacles.

All right, that's a good prediction. I'm going to make a very brief prediction. Um, David Ellison, um, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times saying Democratic state AGs are fighting him in court because of false perception about his politics. I I don't really care. I don't like the essay very much. But the antitrust trial is what he wanted to start in November, and Paramount did. The judge set for March. I think there's gonna be a settlement. There has to be. This is economic, starting to get economic.

What do you think will be in the settlement? Do you have any thoughts on that?

I don't know. I don't know. It depends on, I think Bonta, Rob Bonta has played this rather well and will probably be governor of California at some point. I mean, I think he thinks he's done.

Well, he's been a good attorney general, and I like that. Kim?

Um, I think he surprised them. I thought they were arrogant. And I think, um, I don't know, maybe spinning off the cable networks, spinning off CNN. It's hard because if they get rid of CNN, there's the big— they make a lot of money from CNN right now.

Really? They make money from CNN?

They do. $700 million. It's profitable. So they need the money because of the $880 billion in debt. It's a real financial— even as people as rich as the Allisons, they're going to have to give up a lot of money to own something that they may not want So you think there'll be a settlement between now and the start of a trial in March?

Yeah.

Wouldn't you?

You're a lawyer. Well, I think— doesn't he have a breakup fee or a delay fee? Yeah.

There's a delay fee and a breakup fee.

Yeah, the delay fee. I think the delay fee starts in October. So, I mean, he's going to be paying a lot of money because he can't close the deal. So there may be economic reasons.

Yeah, it's $1.2 billion by the trial itself. And then there's a $7 $1.7 billion per GPY. But that's not a lot of money to them, but it is, it is a lot of money given Oracle stock has declined rather precipitously. And there may be an, as you note, an AI shakeout. So we'll see. That's, I think they're gonna have to settle. Yeah.

Well, I am worried about the AI, you know, shakeup. I'm worried about the debt. I'm worried about all of that, which is kind of why I want to see some legitimate effort taken to kind of figure out how to normalize or regularize this market. Get people to—

like it because the polling is terrible. The polling—

Yeah.

Well, people are scared. You know, they're scared they're going to lose their jobs. They're scared that it's going to take over the world. I mean, so either people are just going to live with this fear and we're going to just go full speed ahead into whatever the future is, or we're going to try to at least have a process that might make a difference. That's what I'm for.

Yeah. There could be a real stock decline, which will hurt everybody. And of course, probably hurt Trump more than anybody if you think about it, because he's sort of put his whole lot in with AI in a way that feels corrupt, I guess.

Well, I think, you know, you mentioned the data centers, and one of the candidates— well, my friend, you know, Sherrod Brown, who's running in Ohio, he's now calling his opponent the face of data centers in Ohio because he's been all in on data centers. So the political issues are going to get played out one way or the other, but at the end of the day, we still need some kind of governance mechanism, some kind kind of, you know—

That is correct.

Evaluation of the upsides and downsides, some restraint on what they can and should do or not. So that's my hope.

Such common sense, Hillary Clinton.

Oh, I know. I'm so out of date. You might have been a good president. I'm so old-fashioned. I mean, truly, really, I'm just a walking anachronism, you know?

Yeah, you are.

I believe in all of these things that I still think would work if people actually paid attention.

Yeah.

Well, Hillary, it's time for you to start to speak up more. And as you know, I think that anyway, um, uh, we all— we need all the good ideas we can get in this country going forward.

I think, well, we're both going to have to get out there and, and talk as much common sense as we can.

No one's putting— no one's putting Hillary in the corner.

Not me.

Anyway, nope, no way. Anyway, you've been wonderful. Um, I really appreciate it, but I just want to know— we want to to hear from you listeners how you like this. Send us your questions about business, tech, or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com/pivot to submit a question for the show, or call 855-51-PIVOT. Okay, that's the show. Thanks for listening to Pivots and Scot-Free August. Hillary, I think you've done an amazing job. Be sure to like and subscribe to our YouTube channel. We'll be back next week. And again, thank you so much for joining us, Madam Secretary.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Kara.

Today's show was produced by Lara Neyman, Zoe Marcus, Taylor Griffin, and Todd Wiseman. Ernie Enderdot engineered this episode. Episode. Thanks also to Kate Gallagher and Brad Sylvester. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of podcasts. Make sure to follow Pivot on your favorite podcast platform. Thanks for listening to Pivot from Vox Media. We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Hillary Clinton 2028.