End to End Incompetence (with Mallory McMorrow)
01:07:29 Share

Hear that? That's the beginning of a journey powered by the confidence that comes from driving a vehicle so reliable. It's backed by a 10-year, 100,000-mile limited powertrain warranty. Where your journey ends, that's up to you. Visit your local Kia dealer today. Kia. Movement that inspires. See retailer for warranty details. Always drive safely. Limited inventory available.

Hey, pull up a chair. It's Hacks on Tap with David Axelrod and Mike Murphy. You're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again. Nobody was texting war plans, and that's all I have to say about that. John Heilman.

I thought for a second he was talking about you, but apparently he was talking about Jeff Goldberg. That was the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, trying to defend the fact that a top secret conversation was going on on Signal. And they accidentally cut in a reporter, Jeff Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic, who could report on the security. What a mess, huh?

Well, a total mess. And I got to say, I mean, I felt for Jeff Goldberg because he's kind of like, I don't know how I got on this text thread. I got stuck on there. I wondered, is this possibly real? Which is like basically how I feel about every time I get any signal messages from you and Murphy. It was like, how am I involved in this conversation? It was ridiculous. Mallory McMorrow, who's joining us here on the show, she's like, I don't want to exclude. She's the only voice of reason and sanity in this trio. So Mallory, how are you doing over there?

Oh, I'm just watching this. Like, you couldn't write Veep now because life is more ridiculous than anything a fiction writer could come up with. This is insane. Yeah, it's sort of like Veep meets Creep. It's really weird what's going on there. But listen...

Uh, just for those who have been, who haven't been following, let's just say those are living under a rock right now and have no idea what we're talking about. The, the, uh, it was revealed yesterday by Jeff Goldberg in the Atlantic that he was cut in on this, uh, signal chat between the highest ranking national security figures in the government, secretary of defense, secretary of state, national security advisor, CIA director, uh, and, uh,

on Signal, which is an open source, encrypted but open source network, about war planning for this attack on the Houthis, including the actual plans. And it's just like flabbergasting from a number of different sources.

uh, standpoints, uh, Heilman, uh, you know, having been in the government for a couple of years and having been around this, I mean, the idea that this conversation would be going on on signal is, you know, the, the focus of the president and the people around him is, uh,

Well, you know how this reporter got on the chain. I'm actually sort of grateful that he did, because if he hadn't, if they hadn't made that mistake, we wouldn't have known about the bigger gaffe, which is how they're doing business. Right. I mean, look, Goldberg in real time was asked to respond to this. And, you know, knowing Pete Hegseth and the Trump people,

they're, well, they weren't war plans. And Goldberg's like, well, wait a second. I'll tell you what I saw the timing, the military, the weapons packages, the targets, including human targets. I mean, maybe that's not war planning. That's not war planning. I don't know what is. And, and the thing that at the, at the, in the Senate intelligence committee committee meeting this morning where Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe were testifying and got flayed by Democrats on that committee was,

The questions that are raised by this go so far beyond Jeff Goldberg. I believe Steve Witkoff was in Moscow yesterday who was on this chain talking about war planning on signal with Russia.

this group on that platform in Moscow, which is one of the things Michael Bennett brought up today. Like, and he asked Racklip, did you know that the second, that the president's middle Eastern envoy was in Moscow during this? And Racklip's like, I know I did not know that. It's like, you're the head of the CIA. How could you not know? Apparently he was picking up a portrait of Trump, by the way, that, uh, Putin had done to bring back, uh,

Mallory, you're not in the federal government, at least as yet.

but you are a student of government, having spent six years in the Michigan government as a senator there. The thing that worries me, I don't think your constituents are probably going to lose sleep at night because of this, but it does raise a question. You know, Pete Hexeth, who disclosed the war plans on the call, was drafted off the couch of

weekend Fox and Friends because he was a loyalist of the president and looked good on TV in the president's estimation. So what does that mean for the rest of government if that is the standard by which people are being chosen? I mean, what an embarrassment beyond the fact that it's

almost too hilarious to be true. You take a step back and you realize just how incompetent these people are and how dangerous the situation is. The fact that they are texting not only war plans, but doing so in such a callous way to be using emojis, which for anybody in my generation, that's already embarrassing enough as it is. And then talking openly about disdain for Europe, for our constituents and

This is going to impact their everyday lives. They're worried about their safety and security. Alyssa Slotkin, our new senator, said very directly, anybody responsible for this in any other administration would already have been fired and likely be charged. But the fact that in the Trump administration,

They very likely won't be should worry all of us that government is run by a bunch of incompetent, dangerous people who don't take the job seriously. You know, it's Fox News commentator to one of the most powerful men in the entire world. And this is what we see. I mean, John, that's the you know, there was a piece overnight. This gets into the Elon Musk stuff.

Mallory, by the way, used to be a car designer. So she feels, I'm sure, a special kinship with Elon Musk. But the... Oh, don't put that on me. What are we doing?

doing? That seems very unfair. No, no, but what I want to say is there was a piece overnight in the Post, and there are hearings today, I think, for the appointed new director of the Social Security Administration about how the Social Security system is falling apart because of the massive cuts that Musk has made. People can't get their calls answered. Offices are crippled because there's no front office or

And these are the kinds of things that I think waste, fraud, and abuse looks pretty attractive at 20,000 feet. And there's plenty of it in the federal government, and we should go after it. But if you are indiscriminate about it,

People begin to feel that in their lives. And that's when they're this doesn't touch people's lives because thankfully nobody got killed because of these leaks. But but every day, every day things are happening that do touch people's lives. That's a danger for for Trump.

Well, but I just just think about this for a second on the Social Security piece. We have constituents where, you know, if they can't get their phone calls answered, if there's nobody to answer the phone, if they fired all of the people who are staffing the local Social Security office in Clawson in my district.

These are seniors, seniors who may not be the most tech savvy, who are not going to be going on a website to go to a chat bot to get their questions answered. Haven't even gotten to emojis yet. They're not on emojis yet, let alone AI chat bots. And, you know, David, you mentioned that nobody's died from these leaks, but...

these are seniors on a fixed income who depend on social security every single month. And if one payment doesn't come through, they may very well get sick. They may be a medical expense that they can't afford. And this is about life or death for a lot of people.

So, first of all, all this anti-emoji talk, I'm fine. I don't love emojis all that much. But the one with the exploding head is really useful because especially Trump 2.0. Do you have personalized emojis? No. You do, don't you? That's a standard emoji, Axelrod. No, no, but I'm asking you because you strike me as a guy who's very image conscious. You might have your own personal emojis, do you?

I'm not going to comment on that. That's classified. I'm calling Jeff Goldberg right now. I want to find out about that. They asked Tulsi Gabbard in that Senate. They said, were you on a private phone or were you on your personal phone? And she said, I can't comment on that. That's under review. She literally said that. So here's the thing.

You know, David, you're the only one of us who's ever, I think, probably been even in the vicinity of a skiff or inside a skiff at some point, right? So you know a thing about classified communications and how crucial it is. This is, you, I hate to say this, but when you saw a lot of the right-wing media

media people responding to this story last night and said, you know, I think Josh Holly had this through this thing where he said, we may actually even have that sound. Let's play Josh. This is what Josh Holly said about this. And, and I have to admit there's that I, I, I cringed to say it, but, but I think, um,

There's some savvy to this answer. Let's play that Josh Hawley thing. And this is what the leftist media is reduced to. They can't argue with the policies which the American people support. They can't argue with this new demonstration of American strength that is keeping Americans safe at home and abroad. And so now we're griping about who's on a text message and who's not. I mean, come on. Now, I do think that there is some – like this is the point you guys have both been making, which is –

There is this, this is a story that doesn't affect the real lives of real people in a direct way. Okay. Let's just acknowledge that it's not a, it's not the price of gas. It's not the price of eggs. It's not social security checks. It's none of that. So it feels very remote in the way foreign policy often does. And now it's a media story about text threads and who's on signal and who's not on signal. A lot of normal voters are like, just like, leave me alone. But incompetence tends to be a thing that is not, uh,

uh it's not just restricted to signal or to the intelligence community what you see throughout this administration and competence is a general purpose malady and when you have incompetence on something as important as classified communications related to foreign policy you tend to have incompetence that also bleeds over into other areas of government that do affect people in a very direct way yeah like the c you know when you think about public health and

what they do. I mean, we, we've already had the canary in the coal mine with the measles outbreak. Uh, if you're not serious and if you're not, uh, and if you're not, uh, you know, practiced in, uh, following these kinds of things that has implications, uh, you know, we, we, they, they basically run a lot of, a lot of the FBI's counterintelligence and counterterrorism people out, uh,

And they've got, you know, folks in charge who are not, you know, Kash Patel said, well, we're not going to do that.

you know, we shouldn't be doing that. Well, you know, think about that the next time something happens and God forbid that it should, but you know, there's a reason why we didn't have terrorist attacks for a long time because we did a pretty good job of counter terrorism in this country. So there are a lot of implications of this that are not this, but this is a reflection of something, uh, larger. Hey, um, talking about Trump's, uh,

I mean, I do want to give them their due, and I try and look at what they're doing through a political prism. He's picking a lot of fights, Mallory, that are, I think—

That will make your head explode and you're not in your emoji because you're too hip for that. But but in real life, but probably is a shiny object that helps him politically like. And I talked about this last week. He wants this case about the 300 deported people.

immigrants who he says are Venezuelan gang members. He wants to fight with the courts about that because he says, and I'm sure we don't have this tape here, but a million times, I'm trying to get rid of these bad guys and they're trying to stop me. I bet you a lot of people say, yeah, get rid of the bad guys.

I think that's right. You know, nobody, very few people are going to disagree with the fact that we should go after criminals and keep our community safe, period. But we had an incident in Down River, Detroit, just south of Detroit, where a

a legal resident of Michigan, of the United States, a business owner who owns a painting company, was picked up by ICE a block away from his son's school. His son has autism. He had just dropped his son off and was picked up at gunpoint with no rhyme or reason given. And his family hasn't seen him since. That is...

That is terrifying to a local community on a community member who has no criminal record, has never committed a crime in Michigan. And it's just like everything else they're doing right now. There's no rhyme or reason. It's the tech ethos of move fast and break stuff. And you're breaking people's lives. There is rhyme and reason on this. I think that the thing there are two reasons why Trump got elected.

you know, major reasons. One was dealing with the economy and the cost of things, which he hasn't done. And the other is border and immigration, which he is leaning into. And this is, you know, this goes along with all the crap he did about Springfield, Ohio and Aurora, Colorado. And it's a playbook, John. Yeah, it is. And look, but I actually think it's a more devious playbook than that. I think there is the...

There is a larger scheme here, right, which is they want to pick a fight with the judiciary because they have a larger ambition to expand executive power. So if they're going to pick a fight with the judiciary, they're going to pick it on an issue that –

on an issue that's popular, right? Like, let's on an issue where they have a political, it's a twofer for them, right? It seems commonsensical, right? Why throttle the president trying to keep us safe? Yes. And of course, it's a deeply dishonest thing that they're claiming because of course, this judge in the immigration case is not in fact trying to stop the deportation of anybody. He's trying to just give due process to the deport, to those, to the deportees to find out whether there are in fact members of criminal gangs and have there's justification for deporting them or as seems to be the case, looking at some of the evidence, they're

There are people there who have been deported and sent to this hellhole in El Salvador on the basis of a tattoo that someone got confused. And these people are not, in fact, not all. Some of them probably are gang members. We don't know. This is the whole point. We don't know. Right.

That's why you, that's why I have a judicial system. That's why you have a judicial system. So, but that's part of what's going on here is it's, there's the standard playbook, David, to your point about this is a win. This is an issue on which they have the upper hand politically, but they're also pushing this, this much larger and more and more dangerous. I would say more dangerous, more destabilizing to the existing constitutional order agenda with respect to the courts. And we are, you know,

There are people who think we're in a constitutional crisis already, but certainly the notion of the administration openly defying court orders, not just district court judge orders, but ultimately possibly Supreme Court rulings, that is coming.

That is where we're going. Right. That's that's that's that's inevitable. I bet I bet all I bet all about Mallory's book sales on on the fact that they were going to get there before before the end of this calendar year. OK, let's take a break right here for a word from our sponsor. We'll be right back. If you're like me in one crucial respect, your mornings follow a familiar routine. And at the core of that routine is caffeine, coffee.

essential to survival, to waking up, to operating, to getting anything done, to being remotely in my right mind, since it's the one thing that I absolutely need to jumpstart my day because it's the thing that I rely on. I'm dead without it. I need the coffee in my life to be perfect,

So I leveled up my daily coffee routine with Trade. Trade is the number one U.S. specialty coffee marketplace. It brings you fresh coffee from over 50 of the country's top roasters. Trade's experts have taste-tested thousands upon thousands of coffee to curate over 450 amazing roasts. Whether you're new to the coffee game or you know your favorites, they will handpick the perfect

coffee for you. And let me say, I am super grateful to trade coffee because anything that keeps you remotely in your right mind is a benefit to everybody who listens to Hacks on Tap and your friends generally. So,

When talking about trade, take their quiz and in under a minute, they'll match you with your perfect coffee. If that first bag isn't quite right, no problem. Trade will replace it for free until they nail it. And since every bag is roasted to order, you'll taste and smell the difference from your very first cup. And check it out. Trade's prices are on par with grocery store brands, but the quality is next level.

Plus, you're supporting local roasters. So it's, you know, it's a win-win. Right now, Trade is exclusively offering our listeners 40% off on your first order at drinktrade.com slash hacks. That's drinktrade, D-R-I-N-K, T-R-A-D-E dot com slash hacks for 40% off on your first order, drinktrade.com slash hacks. What an offer. ♪

We're going to get to your book, Mallory. You've got 11 copies of it behind you, so I can't help but get the hint. But you wrote a book called Hate Won't Win. And in it, you know, you came to the fore in this country by pushing back in the Michigan State Senate. I think we have a little bit of that speech. So let's take a little bit of that. And I want to ask you about something on the other side.

I am a straight, white, Christian, married, suburban mom. I want my daughter to know that she is loved, supported, and seen for whoever she becomes. I want her to be curious, empathetic, and kind.

People who are different are not the reason that our roads are in bad shape after decades of disinvestment or that health care costs are too high or that teachers are leaving the profession. That speech, and it's about four or five minutes long, became a viral sensation. You've now written a book called Hate Won't Win. At the very moment that we're sitting down here, the president's picked a fight with the governor of Maine,

over trans athletes and says he's going to withhold funding for the state of Maine until she apologizes to him for saying, I'll see you in court. What do you make of that? And then I want to talk about the larger thing on trans athletes,

and that issue and generally the weaponization of social issues by Trump. Yeah, you know, Trump is using a sledgehammer to go after anybody he considers an enemy. And this is a particularly potent issue.

What is true is that throughout history, there's always been a scapegoat and that has changed. But that doesn't impact the cost of living when housing prices have doubled since 2019, when health care costs are too high. And now with what he's doing to mean, that is hurting every resident of that state.

when this is an issue that needs to be handled at the governing body of the sports level. Right now, you know, it's appalling to think about what Republicans are pushing. If they get away with what they're putting forward, it gives the green light to politicians to call for genital examination of girls across the country to play sports. And that should horrify everybody.

Well, the whole thing is kind of absurd. I mean, it is a it obviously has power. They spent a quarter of their advertising budget on this issue for a reason, John. But I think that there have been like 17 cases nationally on this on this issue. I want to Mallory just, I think, gave an answer that was a shrewd and correct way to deal with this and not get into the

a rat hole. And AOC has been on the road with Bernie Sanders, and she did a similar thing here. Let's play that clip, Jeff. Let's take a listen to this. And they will throw out every label and judgment and cultural debate in the book to keep us distracted, folks. This is what the focus on trans kids is all about.

Come on. 1%. 1% of the entire population. If people want to have conversations about that, take it to the NCAA. It doesn't need to be on the floor of the United States Congress.

We need to be taxing the rich on the floor of the United States Congress. We need to be establishing guaranteed health care on the floor of the United States Congress, not erasing American history on the floor of the United States Congress. We need to be passing a living wage on the floor of the United States Congress. You know, I think that you just heard Mallory, you heard AOC.

I think deal with this in the way Democrats should, which is don't go down the rabbit hole. Right. And I think that's become sort of the standard answer for a lot of Democratic politicians. They let the local sports governing bodies deal with this question. And as you both pointed out, it's not a numerically accurate

it's not like the price of eggs, right? It's not like social security. This is not a thing that it cuts. That affects a broad squad of people. But the power of it, David, as you know, there are these issues that become commonplace

um, that become proxies for broader sets of, of questions about values. And, and, and Republicans have been, have been expert at wielding issues in that way to win values, arguments against Democrats. And Mallory, I guess for decades, right. That's, they've been very good at it. Um, uh, they, as you pointed out that it was a big piece of their advertising against Kamala Harris in the last and last campaign in swing States. Um,

So Mallory, here's my question. Here's a way of knowing that this issue, regardless of the relatively small numerical impact of it in the country, is an issue that cuts, is that you see someone like Gavin Newsom –

taking to his podcast and using it in a very conspicuous way to announce, you know, that he's basically on the side of Charlie Kirk on the question of trans rights. Is that a smart strategy? I don't think so. You know, it is letting Republicans define Democrats and define our values when I

I think we should be very direct and very clear that sports should be safe and sports should be fair. And we should not give a green light to politicians or people in schools to abuse girls.

And that's plain and simple. I don't think suddenly changing our tune and mimicking Republicans is the way forward. Well, it was particularly conspicuous because the man's been governor of California for six years and lieutenant governor, I think, for eight. So he had plenty of opportunity to opine on this before now. So it looks a little bit opportunistic to him.

No. To jump in. I am sorry, man. I know the stars are falling out of your eyes here. I know. How dare you? Acting in a political way. Just getting back to just getting back to the tactics, though, the danger, it seems to me the danger for Trump and the opportunity for Democrats here is,

is, uh, is to keep pushing the, the, the issue that people were most, the issues that touch people's lives, starting with cost. What does this have to do with that? What do, what do these fights that he's picking have to do with bringing down the cost of things and improving people's lives? And the combination of that and the decisions that Musk and others are making that are going to complicate it, uh,

complicate the lives of working people are, you know, are a big vulnerability. And the question is how many pyrotechnics will keep people from focusing on it? Right. And David, I go back to the very beginning of this conversation because you said this thing about how Trump was demanding an apology, was attacking the governor of Maine, Janet Mills.

over the trans issue. He's not attacking her over the trans issue. That's the cover story. He's attacking her because she had the gall to disrespect him in the Oval Office. And that raises the political question that I think you're getting at and that I want to toss to Mallory, which is, you know, part of the thing in the first Trump term that eventually turned a lot of persuadable voters in the middle of the electorate off was this notion that Trump's

personal peak, his comportment, his temper tantrums, his

The stuff they never liked about Trump was getting in the way of him pursuing their agenda. Are you starting to see signs of that in Michigan among voters maybe who voted for Trump in 2024 that they're like, oh, God, we're back to this again where this guy is just, you know, he's all about himself. He's not about us anymore. Yeah, we are. And it's not only getting back to that. It is so much worse than the first time around. I think people are appalled.

appalled by the speed at which Donald Trump has given Elon Musk almost unfettered access to the government, somebody who was not elected in any way, shape or form to do this and is destroying people's lives. I've had multiple town halls in my district and usually for a state legislator, we get like five to 12 people. We did one with a state representative. We had more than 200 people come out hacking this store that hosted us. And

And people were just livid. We've had three federal workers come out, one who worked for the VA, one who worked for the NIH, one woman who was too afraid to tell us what department she worked for because she was afraid of retribution, that somehow this would be found out. And there was just a really good focus group done of Michigan Trump voters who said across the board,

We didn't vote for this. We voted because he said he was going to bring our costs down. We voted because he said he was going to make our lives better and fix inflation. What the hell is this? And it's happening much quicker than it did the first time around. So it's creating this opportunity for Democrats. But Democrats have to know how to step in, have to know how to step in on the local level with

community members and lay out a very clear vision for a future that they can be a part of and not just let this moment pass by while continuing to say Donald Trump is bad because that's not enough. And people know that. Yeah. I mean, I think this is so important because the worst message, I mean, first of all, I do think something's happening out there. I, you, you know, 34,000 people for Sanders and AOC and in Denver, for example, the other day and, and,

significant crowds elsewhere. And you see it at town halls all over at Republican and democratic town halls all over. But, uh, you know, the one thing that Trump, there is a lot of nonsense in government. There is a lot of bureaucracy, inertia, corruption by big money to interest. All of that is true. People sense that the government that, you know, you poll and a majority of people say the government's rigged, corrupt and rigged against me. Uh,

Democrats can't be the party of the status quo. Democrats should not fall into that trap. So you're right, Mallory. Democrats have to say, and here's what we should be doing. And here's what we have to be doing. Not let's preserve bureaucracy. Let's make sure that government works in the interest of people.

So, David, here's my question about that because there are a couple issues we got to ask – we got to get to here, which there's obviously this grassroots energy. There's obviously the Bernie AOC thing is indicative of something. The anti-oligarchy, anti-Musk, anti-Doge messaging has a lot of traction among a large part of the party. I'd say not just the hardcore base, but

At the same time, we're watching Trump's moves on the law firms where they're capitulating. His moves on the university system where Columbia University now capitulating. They seem to me – and you could argue Chuck Schumer, a paragon of – without trashing Chuck, but someone who feels like part of an older generation and a more accommodationist generation of Democrats –

in the view of many Democrats, capitulating. How do you, how do you, the politics of confrontation versus the politics of capitulation, you know, when the legal world, the university world, and the Senate Democratic Caucus, there's a very stark contrast here between the two different political approaches. I said last week, and I believe, I think that Schumer had, he did, he may have done the right thing in the worst possible way.

Uh, because I do think that if you gave, if you had a shutdown, it would have given Musk and Trump, uh, more authority to more quickly do what they want to do. So, uh, I'm, uh, you know, I, I, I, do you have some sympathy for Chuck? I got it. Well, very little, but some, uh, because I think he, because he could not have handled it, uh, in a worse way. Uh, but, uh,

What Trump is exposing, Trump has a worldview, right? The worldview is that the world's a jungle. Everything's corrupt. The strong take what they want. The weak fall away. Everybody has a pressure point of self-interest that will ultimately yield to even these high-minded people who say they stand for principle. And he is exposing something here. And there is something that people, they recognize that in government and in politics as well.

I mean, Washington is awash in money. Washington is awash in the power of special interest lobbyists. And it does conspire at times against the interests of working people. And they felt it over time. So Democrats need to be genuine and authentic about that. Mallory McMorrow, you're authentic.

you're genuine. Democrats have to acknowledge their own failures as well as be, and, and, and promote their own big ideas about how do you break this cycle in which working people have been disadvantaged? Well,

Well, and David, I think you hit it on the head, right? It is the status quo is not acceptable. And for too long, people have viewed Democrats as defending government and systems and institutions instead of what those governments and systems and institutions should do and deliver for people. You know, I am a part of the millennial generation. And by and large, we are mentioning this age thing and trying to make us feel bad.

Well, not to make you feel bad, but you know, my, my generation, I graduated, I graduated right into the recession. I had tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt. I wanted to be a car designer in 2008. I don't know if he was, no, it was happening then, but it was not a great time for that. I know it was happening. And I lived in the back of my car. Um, I had no health insurance because the affordable care act hadn't passed yet. Um,

And for people in my generation and younger, don't look at systems as working for them. Can't afford to buy a house, can't afford to start a family, can't pay off student loan debt. So, you know, I look at somebody like Ezra Klein right now, who is gaining a lot of traction on talking about this idea that it's not enough just to have big ideas and build big policies. They have to work.

It has to deliver for people. So my hope is that Democrats get out there, take advantage of this energy and tell people that we must be the party of the new American dream. The idea that you should have safe communities and great schools. You should be able to afford to buy a house at a moment when Donald Trump and Elon Musk are quite literally stealing your tax dollars, cutting your Medicare, your Medicaid, your school funding to give more money to Elon Musk than

This isn't just free tax cuts. It's not money that falls from the sky. It's your tax dollars. But without that vision, people are not going to see themselves in a positive reason to vote for Democrats and they're just going to be stuck. Yeah. I mean, what's remarkable is the president of the United States actually selling Elon Musk's cars on. Exactly. On the front lawn.

He did not sell Tesla. If you go back and watch the tape, he says he was trying to sell Tesla, which I don't really know what that is. But he said Tesla, Tesla. But this is in so many ways, John, this has become, it is kleptocracy.

being transported within a Trojan horse of populism. A hundred percent. And you, you go back to, I will, there's still the, the clip that I still lives in my mind is from that very first, like maybe the second or third day that they had been in office when Trump was asked to

about the appreciating, rapidly appreciating value of his meme coin. And he asked the reporter how much it had appreciated. The reporter said, well, it's up to about $2 billion. And he waved at his cabinet officials who were in the room and said, well, that's petty. That's chump change compared to these guys. That's nothing compared to my... I was like...

Oh, my God. Yeah. Well, they're all going to be from where I from what I can see, they're all going to be a lot or many of them will be certainly that Trump's bail. Right. Can I just add one thing here? And I think this this is important because as a party, as Democrats, I think for too long we've demonized socialism.

success. And yes, we can laugh at that. And Trump has a meme coin. But I think there are enough people in this country who look at somebody like Donald Trump and say, well, he's really successful. I want to be successful, too. Yeah. Well, they had 14 years of television, too. Well, exactly. But we have to be able to have that. Yes, that's no without you, Mallory. You are so right. How many stories do you hear of people saying Donald Trump is going to show me how to

Exactly. How to be successful because that's how he's pitched himself. And I agree with you, but success should be earned and not stolen. Yes, not stolen. Totally. Mallory has to go. I'm shamelessly going to plug her book. She has a new book called Hate Won't Win. Well, I want to know if she's running for Senate. Are you running for Senate or not? You want to make an announcement about that? I was going into a slow... But go ahead. She got a hard out, David. Let's get to it. Well, go ahead, Mallory. Okay.

The book is out today. I haven't been shy about the fact that I am very seriously exploring running for the Senate seat and should have an announcement on an update there very soon. Like how about the next 30 seconds? Not yet. It's a big decision. You haven't been shy. Have you ever been shy? No, no. That's part of your charm. You

You say what you think, which honestly is the most, probably the most important asset you can have in modern politics is just be who you are. Be authentic. Say what you believe. Well, we will dispatch you. I know you've got a real job or two. David, say the title of the book. Say the title of the book again. I think I cut you off before. Hate Won't Win. It's on sale today. It's called Find Your Power and Leave This Place Better Than We Found It.

Mallory McMorrow. And it's a useful handbook on change for people, everyday people who want to try and achieve it. So you can grab that and keep an eye on Mallory. She's making noise out there to good effect. So Mallory, thank you for joining us. And we look forward to having you back. Thanks, David. Thanks, John.

One of the reasons to run for Senate, by the way, if you're in the state Senate now is just be Senator. You don't have to change the, your title will still be Senator. Or your towels or anything. Right. The whole thing. Keep the same business cards. Everything's fine. All right. On that note. Thanks, guys. Bye. Bye. We need to take a quick break right now. We'll be right back with more of Hacks on Tap.

You know, Heilman, hiring shouldn't be a hassle or a drain on your budget. Upwork is your one-stop shop to find, hire, and pay top freelance talent. And we need that from time to time, saving you time and keeping costs in check all in one place.

These guys have more than two decades of experience, the folks at Upwork. They have a simple and ambitious goal to pioneer a better way of working. Companies at every stage turn to Upwork to get things done and find more flexibility in the way that they staff key projects and initiatives by accessing a global marketplace filled with the top talent in IT, web development, AI, design, administrative support, marketing, and more.

Posting a job on Upwork is easy with no cost to join. You can register, browse freelancer profiles, get help drafting a job post, or even book a consultation. From there, you'd connect with freelancers that get you and can easily hire them to take your business to the next level. Upwork makes the entire process easier, simpler, and more affordable and with industry low fees. So just post a job today and hire tomorrow with Upwork. Here's what you got to do. All right. Visit

Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's Upwork, U-P-W-O-R-K.com and post your job for free and connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's Upwork.com, Upwork.com. That's Upwork, U-P-W-O-R-K.com, Upwork.com.

Let's get back to the lawyers, because this is this is really, you know, for those who haven't been following it. Well, really, Trump, because he's doing it by executive order, is going after law firms that have been associated with people who he thinks have conspired against him. Paul Weiss is one of the largest law firms in the country and.

I guess they were defending Jack Smith or working with Jack Smith in some ways. Is that? Yeah. And he and he issued an executive order basically limiting their participation in, you know, canceling security clearances. And I think I don't know if they were the law firm that were, you know, they were prohibited from federal buildings and everything.

He was doing it to a number of them, David. It was almost Perkins Cooney was another. And there was a sign that he was going to go after more. And the basic thing was, we're going to shut you down. We will not do business with you. We will not let you into government buildings. We will not hire graduates. We will not hire anybody from these law firms who ever worked at these law firms. Eventually, he tried to essentially... And basically, well, the

biggest thing is to, we're going to scare your clients away. Yes. And, and scare your clients. Yeah. Yes. I mean, there's a, they're waging. It's part of this multifaceted effort to, uh,

you know, undermine the rule of law in America. I think that's kind of what you're seeing. They said this is part of a larger thing. He just sent over the weekend. They sent a memo to the attorney general saying that she should identify law firms that are, you know, filing what he frivolous lawsuits, i.e. lawsuits that

uh, they object to politically, uh, you know, this is not something that, uh, overtly touches people's everyday lives, but it does touch the life of American, uh, democracy. And I've said many times, you want to know what's going on, go to, go to Hungary and see what happens when, uh, a, uh, aspiring autocrat, uh, autocrat turns, uh, uh,

a functioning democracy into democracy in form only by doing

Yes. And, and yes. And, and look, I mean, this has always been David. That's been my main area of concern is the, the, the, the, what is now quite evident from Pam Bondi's behavior from cash Patel's behavior that the, the department of justice and the FBI are being fully weaponized despite the terrible Orwellian use of Trump says we're going to, we're going to be, we're against the weaponization lawfare.

But that this is, this is the most dangerous thing that we, that we face in a lot of ways. And, and I think that the, the going after the law firms is part and parcel is part and parcel of that. And, and yes, it is, you know, I mean, it's really, it's, it's, it's as, as it's as chilling as anything that's going on right now in terms of not in how it, not the politics of it, how it affects every, every Americans, most of the Americans couldn't care less about what happens to a bunch of fat cat lawyers in Washington. But, but,

It's a relatively novel and kind of insidiously ingenious tactic to take on the law firms in the way that he's taking on, and he's getting them to capitulate. It's not that ingenious. If you are willing to throw out

you know, all rules and laws and norms and every you consider every aspect of federal government, a an extension of your political project, then there's a lot that you can do. I mean, it's just no one has ever done it to this degree. You know, Nixon was child's play.

compared to what we're seeing now. But again, you know, I'll say what I said before. He's also finding people's pressure points. Columbia University surrendered because he threatened $400 million in

in, in, in government funding. And the effect that that has is not just on the universities or the law firms that are involved, but also on other law firms and universities who then examine what they're doing. And so the question is, if you want, if you are someone who's been disadvantaged by what

Trump is doing at social security and you want someone to file a lawsuit, what big law firm is going to take that on without thinking twice about, am I going to, am I going to, you know, fetch one of these executive orders? Look, it's not, it's not coincidental that,

what we've seen in the first, you know, 70 days, whatever it is, has been, it's been noted by a lot of people that the courts and the judicial system has been the bulwark against a lot of Trump's attempts to do things that are arguably illegal in arguably unconstitutional. We've got all these lawsuits, all these injunctions, right? So the, the, the Congress is totally supine to the executive. They're giving up a lot of their institutional and prerogative and,

And the fact that Trump is looking up and seeing that the courts and the legal system is the barrier to him getting what he wants. And so the escalation of the attack on the courts and the legal system is, is continuing, is being amped up in accordance and kind of a natural way. That's he's like, well, this is the only thing that's in the standing in my way right now. So let's go after those guys in an aggressive way. Speaker Johnson today, the media, by the way, and you're litany. Yes. But speaker Johnson, the media can, can fight Trump, but can't stop him. The, like a temporary restraining order can, uh,

Speaker Johnson today started talking about how the way to deal with these district courts that are ruling against Trump is to defund them. And he started talking about how they have Article I responsibilities. We run the federal courts, Speaker Johnson said today. Not exactly fully accurately, but he's like, we're going to start defunding federal district courts. That was something he put on the table today. That's where we're headed.

I guess it's an interesting acknowledgement that they have Article 1 authority because they seem to be wanting to hand it over to the president when it's inconvenient for them to exercise it. But, you know, this thing has become so intense that John Roberts, who is famously reserved about opining on political debates,

Really admonish the president, not by name, for suggesting that the judge who's handling this suit over the Venezuelan migrants be impeached, be impeached, you know, and calling him a radical left person.

you know, lunatic and so on. The danger of this is you're putting a target on the backs of these judges as well. And it has a chilling effect. Speaking of judges, there's a race in Wisconsin next week for a Supreme Court

That is important in many ways. It's one gauge of the temperature of voters in the swingiest of swing states in the country. This is a race that will determine the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. So how it rules on a whole range of issues, including redistricting issues and, you know, a whole range.

range of things that I think are going to have national significance. But it has become an unbelievable war there. He's $12 million, I think, he spent in that race. That's the main point here. But I think he's spending more on his petition drive. $100, $100. It's the same thing he did in Pennsylvania. And this is to, I think it was about

The petition is some sort of repudiation of judges. And the people who signed that petition are 100 percent going to be supporters of Trump and the Republicans.

He did this in Pennsylvania. People in Pennsylvania I know, so they can take the people who sign this petition for whom he pays, to whom he pays $100 each to sign if they're registered voters. Then they cross-match that with people's propensity to vote, particularly in these low turnout elections. And then they go after those people. It is a really, I think, clever and diabolical organizing technique.

clever and diabolical, and also really important to understand that this is part of the reason that really should never be underestimated or downplayed as to why the marriage between Donald Trump and Elon Musk is turning out to be more durable and will be more durable. I'm not saying permanent, but will be more durable than a lot of people have thought all along. It's always been like, well, Trump always breaks up with these people. Their ego gets too big. Look at Steve Bannon. Look at so-and-so. Look at so-and-so.

Elon Musk brings a couple of assets to that relationship that no one has ever brought into a similar relationship with Trump. One of them is just the pure raw dollars that he has to spend in his willingness to spend it on these political causes. There's never been Steve Bannon and have that nobody else has ever had that. And then if you add into that, his control of what has become the largest Twitter house for X from pro MAGA propaganda and disinformation, those two assets are,

are going to cause Donald Trump, already have. I think he would have probably discarded Elon Musk a long time ago if it weren't for those two assets. But with those two assets, they are in together for the long haul. I'm not saying permanently. There'll probably be a break at some point, but it's going to be a lot longer. That relationship's going to be a lot more durable than a lot of people have assumed since they got together. 100%. So Musk is trying to engineer...

the biggest problem facing Republicans just electorally, and that is that a lot of their supporters are infrequent voters.

And the question is, how do you get them out? They solved it in the presidential race to some degree, but it's always easier in a presidential race. Democrats have an advantage in midterm elections, in special elections, because their voters tend to be, you know, more college educated, you know, regular voters and so on. So, you know, this race in Wisconsin has consequences not just for Wisconsin, but

But it has consequences in terms of whether that advantage for Democrats still exists and what Democrats need to do about it. But if the Republican wins that race, I think it's nominally nonpartisan. I don't think they run under a party. I'm not sure about this. But if the Republican wins that race, it will signify that they have through politics,

these schemes and money. Now, there's a lot of money on the Democrat side as well, 70 million total on both sides being played. But this is a big issue, this turnout issue.

It's worth noting that, you know, in our lifetime, not even that long ago, it used to be the opposite, right? We used to say that midterm elections and off-year elections, Republicans had the advantage because older voters would go out. They were the reliable voters, and young voters who were made up a big part of the Democratic coalition didn't show up except in presidential years. Not true anymore. Not true anymore. It's flipped around exactly the opposite. The one thing I will say is that the turnout question in 2026...

um, is going to depend on a lot of factors, but man, given the way the, the way Trump is neglecting and exacerbating the economy right now, I don't care how much money Elon Musk has or how many, uh, diabolical insidious tricks they use to wrap up. Absolutely. Trump's economy is in the shitter.

come this time next year. Republicans are going to follow. Republicans are going to get hosed in big numbers. Yeah, and that's actually, you know, as the Congress makes its decisions, they're in a vice because...

Because, you know, between Trump and Musk, they have primary election concerns. But they have, you know, if they have general election concerns as well, it won't be Speaker Johnson in 2027, you know, at current course and speed if the economy is the way the economy is now. And, you know, Trump needs to deliver on the biggest promise. And so when they're voting on their tax cuts,

And, you know, and they're starting to mess. And their Medicaid cuts at the same time. Right, right. That is really volatile stuff. And if you're a Republican in a swing district...

that is a real concern. Consumer confidence. Consumer confidence is at a catastrophic low all of a sudden. The market is now in official bear market territory. The tariff threats continue to rattle every company, small business, large business, medium-sized business, and all of our allies. This is like a, and Trump seems at least so far to have no inclination to

to back off on any of the policies that he's pursuing that are making the economic situation more volatile. I don't know, David, when he does or doesn't, but it's been pointed out by a lot of people that this is a man who has believed in mercantilism and protectionism and tariffs for his entire life. Maybe he'll back off, but

Well, next week's going to be interesting because he's supposed to announce his universal tariffs on April 2nd. April 2nd, not April 1st, by the way. Yes. But so, you know, and there's reporting that it's going to be...

less sweeping than originally uh so we'll see if that's true uh you know we've heard these things before but you know that only only the most loyal of trumpists uh will argue that those uh that those and even trump has acknowledged that those tariffs could cause prices to go up yes of course even even trump when he says it's just gonna be a little problem just a little thing we all but we can live with it

Okay, then let's take a break right here and we'll be right back. So as you and I know, Heilman, more painfully than most, hair thinning is a very common, very frustrating problem that many men deal with. From stress and nutrition to hormones to lifestyle, so many internal factors affect what you see on the outside. Luckily, Nutrafol is here to help. Tell us about it.

Nutrafol is the number one dermatologist-recommended hair growth supplement brand. It's trusted by over 1.5 million individuals. You get to see thicker, stronger, faster-growing hair with less shedding in just three to six months with Nutrafol. Thinning hair is different for men and women, so a one-size-fits-all approach to hair growth doesn't cut it. Nutrafol has multiple formulas for men like me and women that are tailored to different life stages, such as postpartum or menopause, and lifestyle factors, such as the plant-based lifestyle, so you can get just what you need.

Physician formulated with 100% drug-free ingredients, Nutrafol supports healthy hair growth from within by targeting key root causes of thinning stress, hormones, aging, nutrition, lifestyle, and metabolism through whole body health. Building a hair growth routine is simple. Purchase online, no prescription required.

automated deliveries and free shipping keep you on track. Plus, with a Nutrafol subscription, you can save up to 20%. You'll have access to free naturopathic doctor consults and a Headspace meditation membership is included. Whoa. So start your hair growth journey with Nutrafol for a limited time. Nutrafol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month subscription and free shipping when you go to Nutrafol.com and enter the promo code

Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. Nutrafol.com. That's N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L.com. Promo code HACKS. That's Nutrafol.com. Promo code HACKS. Listener mail.

So Murphy's not here. I will say what he would say if he were. If you have questions for the hacks, send them to hacksontap at gmail.com and we will do our very best to answer them intelligently or at least fake it. And if you want to record your message,

That's even better. And you can do it at this number. 773-389-4471. I'll repeat it because who can remember that? 773-389-4471.

That's for all of you who need your Murphy fix. I was going to say, yeah, Murphy. And are getting it this week, yes. The Murphy bot. So, David, here we have a bunch of mail from our fans this week, but I really like this one question from one of our listeners. His name is Cole, and here's the question. The central tenet of MAGA is that average Americans are getting screwed by elites, right?

What do you think about the idea of running on an anti-corruption platform in 2026, meaning what Democrats should run on an anti-corruption platform in 2026, which would include no congressional stock trading, stiffer penalties for white-collar crimes, campaign finance reform, more constraints on lobbying, and term limits? Attack them, meaning the GOP, the MAGA people, on their own turf. What say you about that idea, David Axelrod? Well, honestly, Cole...

If you listen to me earlier, you'll know that I'm inclined your way. Yeah. I mean, listen, I think that the system has failed. You know, Democrats have done some positive things. I was involved in the Affordable Care Act. I'm very, very proud of that.

But generally the drift of our economy has been negative for people working. A lot of people having to work two and three jobs to support their, just to keep up their standard of living. Young people are having trouble paying off loans and doing all the things they need to and finding meaningful work and that they can build on the American dream.

So I'm all for that. And yes, I think that big money has coagulated our government, has gummed up our government, has stolen our

the initiative from from everyday citizens because our elected representatives are so responsive to it. So I'm for an anti-corruption platform, and that's particularly needed right now because

As I said earlier, we have a kleptocracy that's being wheeled in in a Trojan horse of populism. That's a kind of social populism, but not an economic populism to speak of. So, yeah, I think I just added one addendum to that, which is.

I think that the, the, there's clearly a market in the democratic party and outside the democratic party, uh, for, uh, that kind of a, of a program and with a focus on corruption and anti elite, anti fat cat, et cetera, et cetera.

I just think that for Democrats, that, that, that it, it would be helpful if it were broader than that. And I didn't say that it should be the only thing. No, no, I know. I'm not, I'm not saying you did. I'm just, I'm just, my addendum to this is just to say, you know, a broader reform agenda is,

that is beyond the anti-corruption, but that kind of focuses on how do we fix, um, the economy, the, the social safety net, the education system, everything. So how do we fix these ossified systems so that they yield more, more and better tangible results that affect people in their daily lives? Um,

Those two things go hand in hand. You can have that, that any corruption thing can be part of a broader reform agenda that I think Democrats would be wise to consider. I just think there's so much that Democrats need to consider beyond the short term tactical. How do you deal with Trump? First of all, you know, if, uh,

I wouldn't preclude the idea that if Trump does something worthwhile, that Democrats shouldn't fight it. I mean, that's one thing that just reflects of opposition.

you know, is, is not a very smart strategy, but the bigger thing is, and I've said it a million times here, uh, the democratic party, uh, the party of working people has become, has come to be seen as a party of elites and institutions at a time when people are enraged about elites and institutions with some good reason. And, uh, the, the, uh, you know, some, a lot of the sort of, uh, movement wings of the party, uh,

I don't know if movement's the right word, but a lot of, you know, certainly the donor class of the party lives a different life than the people who the party purports to represent. And so, and, and,

And, you know, focuses on issues that are not the issues that are of concern to everyday people. And I think that the Democratic Party needs to not just think about how to oppose Trump, but how to reconstitute itself in a way that is more authentically a tribune of working people.

Yeah, 100 percent. So Larry wants to know, why is Kamala AWOL? Is she supposed to be the leader of the party or is it I get if she's supposed to be the leader of the party? Why is no one questioning her whereabouts? And would it even help at this point?

Well, Larry, I'd say that the crucial clause in that question is if she's supposed to be the leader of the party, which I think you would have, you would not have a majority of Democrats who think that she is supposed to be the leader of the party right now. I think, you know, David, you know, this is true. You know, losing presidential candidates, it's not that they can never come back, but

But there's usually like a little period of time where both for their good and for the good of the party, they need to kind of go away and fade from view for a little while. I don't think that there is a – I don't hear at least – and this is no disrespect to Kamala Harris, who I think did the best she could in a very difficult circumstance in 2024, but I don't sense that there is –

a huge market right now, a huge yearning to hear from her now. That doesn't mean she doesn't have a future. Um, maybe she has a future. She may run for governor of California. Uh, she, she may run for president again. I'm not foreclosing anything for her in the future, but right now I think probably her best interests politically are served by, uh, by laying low for a little while, um, in the way that a lot of frankly potential, uh,

leaders of the party on the national stage in 2028 and in 2026 are kind of like trying to lay low right now to kind of let the

to kind of realize that they would be kind of, uh, by trying to raise their voices, they'd be doing it in the face of a howling wind right now. And there's not a whole lot of upside for anybody to be trying to go out there and try to, and try to like make a, make a stand in the first hundred days of the Trump administration when the media is naturally going to be focused mainly on Trump. I, first of all, I think she probably will run for governor of California and she's preparing to do that. Uh,

And I'm not sure if she went out there that she wouldn't be a welcome target for Trump, who would like to just keep rerunning the 2020, the 2024 campaign. But I disagree with you that other leaders of the party, I think people agree.

You know, like like Sanders and AOC, I think there are aspects of what's going on right now that part leaders of the party should go after. But they should go after those things that directly affect people's lives. Yes, the the the the perversion of democracy is really, really important. And that needs to be pursued through all the channels that are possible.

Primarily the courts, the Congress, if the Congress...

changes leadership in 2026. But I do think that there are real equities out there for people that need to be, uh, defended. And, you know, I mentioned the social security thing, healthcare, uh, you know, there are things that, that, that, uh, leaders of the democratic party should be out there and, uh, and speaking to every single day, because if you surrender the, uh,

If you surrender the communications, yes, he has a lot of channels through which to communicate. He has reinvigorated the bully pulpit. But that doesn't mean that Democrats don't have means to fire back. And I think the laying back strategy seems to me to be, you know, it's a matter of what you choose to take on. Right.

I guess I'm, I guess I, I, what I really mean is it seems a little early to me to be launching your 2028 presidential campaign campaign. And just, and just to say, and you make a totally correct point. I agree with everything you just said. And I, I'll, I'll cite as we, as we wrap up here, I'll cite one really good example of someone who's, who's doing exactly what you're talking about, which is our, the guest we had with us earlier on the show, Valerie McMorrow, who is a, is a, as far as I'm concerned, a welcome voice anytime, anytime,

And when people ask me about where I think the, you know, about rising stars, young people in the party who are super promising and who I never, who I always want to hear more. There are a lot of them, but I just give her a certain particular props because she is, I think she's... That's why we had her. Yeah, she's a real bright spot in the future of the party. And it was great to have her on the show, but, you know, everyone should read that book. It's just, you know, she's, she's, she...

Look out, look out for, uh, for her in that Michigan center race. I think she'll be very formidable if she decides to run. All right, brother, we've run out of time here, but boy, I'll tell you what, man, we're not going to be having any dearth of stuff to talk about for the next few years here. We will see you soon. I hope. Well, I don't never know when I'm going to be on with you. Yeah. Who knows? Hostile, but Hey, hopefully, you know, sooner than later, but, uh, whenever it comes hostile until then hostile. Bye-bye. See ya.

♪