Ask a Pol politics

Who?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) — Vice-Ranking Member, Oversight Committee

LISTEN: Laslo & Ocasio-Cortez

Ask a Pol asks:

What are your priorities for oversight in the new year?

Key AOC:

“I think we should be going after corporations,” Ocasio-Cortez tells Ask a Pol. “We need to be going after corruption. Also, of course, there’s an incoming Trump administration that’s been bought out the wazoo, so we have to highlight that.”

ICYMI — this interview first appeared in Raw Story

Caught our ear:

“I think a lot of it has to do with using our bully pulpit to ring the alarm and let the American people know what's going on,” Ocasio-Cortez tells us. “I feel like we have so much leverage where we can do that much more thoroughly and much more expansively.”

Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), slightly edited for clarity.

TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

SCENE: After voting on the floor of the US House of Representatives, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and two of her aides are walking back to her office via the underground tunnel from the US Capitol to the house Office Buildings across the street.

Matt Laslo: “How are you ma’am?”

Ocasio-Cortez: “How’s it going?”

ML: “Living the dream.”

AOC: “That’s great.”

ML: “What do you think the focus of your party needs to be in the new year when it comes to oversight, etc?”

AOC: “I think we should be going after corporations.”

ML: “Yeah?”

AOC: “We need to be going after corruption. Also, of course, there’s an incoming Trump administration that’s been bought out the wazoo, so we have to highlight that.”

ML: “Yeah? But then as the minority party that’s a little harder.”

AOC: “It is, it is, but I think we've demonstrated this term, even being in the minority, we've been able to thoroughly dismantle a lot of the Republican initiative and really take the wind out of their sails and build new momentum.”

Every bit helps! Consider chipping in to support our independent journalism —Venmo, PayPal, Cash App — or just buy us a beer!

ML: “It’s interesting though that you did lead with corporations and that stuff — that was kinda missing from a lot of Democrats this campaign cycle.”

AOC: “I think so, and I think that we shouldn't be afraid to lean into the sources of a lot of people's economic pain, and we need to be forthright and we need to be forward and assertive about the fact that inflation doesn't come from anywhere, it's corporations that are trying to squeeze Americans for every dime that they've got in their pockets.”

ML: “And now how worried are you that we’re seeing all, like, the billionaire class become part of [Trump’s] cabinet?”

AOC: “Oh, of course, very, very. And what we’re seeing at the Los Angeles Times and the takeover of media, it's extremely concerning.”

ML: “And how do you combat that, because, like, with Elon Musk is out here promoting DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency], but that’s not a part of the government.”

AOC: “I think that there are areas where they do intersect. And I think a lot of it has to do with using our bully pulpit to ring the alarm and let the American people know what's going on.”

ML: “Yeah?”

AOC: “I feel like we have so much leverage where we can do that much more thoroughly and much more expansively.”

ML: “Yeah. I’ll be watchin.”

AOC: “Thank you.”

ML: “Have a good weekend.”

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.askapolpolitics.com/subscribe

Who?

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) — Ranking Member (ie, top Democrat), House Oversight Committee

LISTEN: Laslo & Raskin

Ask a Pol asks:

Why do you want to be the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and not the Oversight Committee come the New Year? Is all the action gonna be in Judiciary?

Key Raskin:

“Oh, I think it's going to be all over the place,” Rep. Jamie Raskin exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “The assault on the federal workforce and the professional civil service are likely to be headquartered in Oversight, but the attack on the Justice Department, the FBI and the rule of law are going to be centered in the Judiciary Committee.”

ICYMI — Laslo’s interview first appeared in Raw Story

Caught our ear:

“They have been attacking the Department of Justice for ‘lawfare’ and for partisan ‘weaponization’ as preparation for implementing their own plans to do precisely that,” Raskin tells us. “They want to make it seem as if it's somehow normal and bipartisan. It's not. You know, you cannot find an example of — well, you really can't find an example of any president, with the potential exception of Richard Nixon, who directed the Department of Justice to engage in criminal investigations and prosecutions targeting his political foes.”

Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), slightly edited for clarity.

TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Jamie Raskin

SCENE: After waiting for Raskin to finish an interview with a colleague just off the floor of the US House of Representatives, Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo then joins Raskin for his elevator ride to the underground tunnel connecting the Capitol to the House Office Buildings across the street.

Jamie Raskin: “Hey, how goes it?”

Matt Laslo: “Living the dream.”

JR: “Good.”

Raskin laughs.

JR: “Good.”

ML: “I’m kinda curious why you think the action’s going to be in Judiciary [Committee] and not Oversight [Committee] come the New Year?”

JR: “Oh, I think it's going to be all over the place. The assault on the federal workforce and the professional civil service are likely to be headquartered in Oversight, but the attack on the Justice Department, the FBI and the rule of law are going to be centered in the Judiciary Committee.”

Elevator doors open to Capitol basement.

Every bit helps! Consider chipping in to support our independent journalism —Venmo, PayPal, Cash App — or just buy us a beer!

JR: “So it's like they tell the little kids in soccer, ‘don't bunch, spread out’ — we need people everywhere, you know, defending constitutional institutions and principles.”

ML: “And especially when it comes to their focus on the FBI and DOJ, how worried are you by what you — like the rhetoric that's become metastasized almost.”

JR: “The problem is that I've not heard of any agenda other than instrumentalizing the Department of Justice and the FBI for purposes of political retaliation and revenge. You know, that's not generally advanced as a proper principle for US government.”

ML: “Yeah?”

JR: “I mean, and it's a sign of how far the discourse has shifted that this has become normalized.”

ML: “Yeah? Just, like [Trump’s FBI nominee] Kash Patel — a name that I didn't even know a couple months ago…”

JR: “Yeah.”

ML: “…like does he worry you, particularly?”

JR: “He's somebody who embodies the ethos of using the government as a partisan and political instrument for the will of the President. Again, that's a massive departure from decades of understanding that the President does not get involved in particular cases.”

ML: “Yeah?”

JR: “And we have to try to uphold that traditional understanding as much as we can.”

ML: “Does it almost feel like they're becoming the rhetoric that they decry?”

JR: “Bingo.”

ML: “Like, they’ve become the ‘lawfare’ party.”

JR: “Well, you know, they have been attacking the Department of Justice for ‘lawfare’ and for partisan ‘weaponization’ as preparation for their own — for implementing their own plans to do precisely that.”

ML: “Yeah?”

JR: “You know, they want to make it seem as if it's somehow normal and bipartisan. It's not. You know, you cannot find an example of — well, you really can't find an example of any president, with the potential exception of Richard Nixon, who directed the Department of Justice to engage in criminal investigations and prosecutions targeting his political foes.”

ML: “Yeah?”

JR: “Umm...”

ML: “Now the role in the minority, as the Ranking Member, how does that change things? I mean, it's a lot different than being in the majority…”

JR: “Yes.”

ML: “…so you’ll be playing defense, but you see it as kind of offensive defense?”

JR: “Well…”

ML:“Or defensive offense?”

JR: “Yeah. I mean, I hope that we're going to be advancing a strong vision of what it means to live in a free and democratic society, and that means playing defense against authoritarian maneuvers and violations of people's rights…”

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.askapolpolitics.com/subscribe

Who?

Rep. John Larson (D-CT)

LISTEN: Laslo & Larson

Ask a Pol asks:

How would you rate this Republican-led 118th Congress?

Key Larson: 

“I don't think they've accomplished an awful lot,” Rep. John Larson exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “A lot of hearings and not much — not much by way of getting things done.”

ICYMI — Interview first included in Matt Laslo’s Raw Story feature, “Dysfunction on display: Republicans complain Speaker Johnson is no Pelosi”

Caught our ear:

“You can see that within the context of their own caucus. And I think that's what's happened. They're struggling to pull things together,” Larson tells us. “You can go all the way back to [former Speaker] John Boehner and the Tea Party and when this all started to happen, now even become more solidified under [GOP presidential candidate] Trump because he places a whole other set of parameters around what they can do, and, you know, threatens people with consequences.”

Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Rep. John Larson (D-CT), slightly edited for clarity.

TRANSCRIPT: Rep. John Larson

SCENE: Former high school history teacher and current Congressman John Larson is making his way to the US Capitol via an underground tunnel when Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo runs into him and asks him to grade the 118th Congress.

John Larson: “How are you doing?”

Matt Laslo: “How would you rate this Congress?”

Rep. Larson laughs.

JL: “I don’t.”

ML: “Right?”

JL: “You know, they don't — I don't think they've accomplished an awful lot, so it's — you know, a lot of — a lot of hearings and not much — not much by way of getting things done. Especially on the Ways and Means Committee, especially, I think, [Ways and Means Ranking Dem Richard] Neil goes into a whole list of things.”

ML: “How — like, how do they make a pitch to the American public that ‘We can govern, send us back,’ when they can't even fund the government?”

JL: “I don't think they're — I don't think they're overly concerned about governance. They don't see that as — they think — they try to wrap it in around the notion that, you know, that government that governs least governs best. Right?”

ML: “Yeah?”

JL: “They have taken out meaning of it.”

ML: “Right?”

JL: “So you can see that within the context of their own caucus. And I think that's what's happened. They're struggling to pull things together. You can go all the way back to [former Speaker] John Boehner and the Tea Party and when this all started to happen, now even become more solidified under [GOP presidential candidate] Trump because he places a whole other set of parameters around what they can do, and, you know, threatens people with consequences, and apparently, not knowing their caucus that well, but there's enough of them in their caucus to make a difference or at least — and you can tell that it's rattling a number of their own members. So, hopefully, I mean, the Congress also goes through these changes, you know, over time. So, but…”

ML: “It feels like this...”

JL: “It's hard to see on this [House Ways and Means] committee, for example, the oldest continuous, one of the largest, how little was done.”

ML: “It almost feels like that's given rise to conspiracies cause that’s what they can agree on.”

JL: “Well, so it's why, you know, everyone both on the committee and off says, ‘I never miss an opportunity to say yes.’ And so why aren't we voting on Social Security?”

ML: “Yeah?”

JL: “Why aren't we — I mean, it's only been 53 years since Congress has done anything.”

ML: “Yeah?”

JL: “I mean, it's an embarrassment.”

ML: “Good talking to you. Have a good one, sir.”

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.askapolpolitics.com/subscribe

Who?

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)

LISTEN: Laslo & LaMalfa

Ask a Pol asks:

What is your pitch to voters for this election, given that the 118th Congress has been historically unproductive?

Key LaMalfa: 

“After these two years? I'm having a hard time,” Rep. Doug LaMalfa exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “I've been really cynical lately.”

ICYMI — Interview first included in Matt Laslo’s Raw Story feature, “Dysfunction on display: Republicans complain Speaker Johnson is no Pelosi”

On some Republican colleagues and voters:

“When you ask the initial question like, ‘How do you go about bragging on that?’ I can't brag on that, you know? But I can say all the bad things we blocked that would have happened had the Dems been in the majority,” LaMalfa tells us. “And we passed some good bills here and there, and we've kept the place going. I think we've curbed spending to a degree that would not have happened otherwise so we will put some breaks on some things here. But is that — you know, do people wanna hear putting breaks on things or do they want to hear great new things?”

Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), slightly edited for clarity.

TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Doug LaMalfa

SCENE: Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo interviews Rep. Doug LaMalfa as he makes his way to a vote on the floor of the US House of Representatives via an underground tunnel.

Matt Laslo: “Do you know — how do you — what's your pitch to voters?”

Doug LaMalfa: “Would you get on this side?”

ML: “Yeah, yeah. What's your pitch to voters?”

DL: “Pitch to voters?”

ML: “Send me back…”

DL: “Not a good one.”

ML: “Send me back so I can not...”

DL: “After these two years?”

ML: “…fund the government. Yeah.”

DL: “I'm having a hard time.”

ML: “Why is that?”

DL: “You've seen this — are we recording?”

ML: “Yeah.”

DL: “Okay. So I'll have to zip it some up.”

Laslo laughs.

DL: “(inaudible) your turn for it, but it ends in a show.”

ML: “Yeah?”

Laslo laughs.

DL: “Okay.”

ML: “But what — do you blame it on...”

DL: “I mean, Republicans are basically have been — our majority has been stoppers.”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “As far as home run policy, we passed some good bills, but they — you know, nothing's in the Senate.”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “Yeah.”

ML: “So do you think the problem is that the Senate's been Democrats? Or...”

DL: “That's always a problem, isn't it?”

ML: “But this time it seems like many members of your party...”

DL: “The Senate is always a stopper for our stuff, you know. Even when we have the majority, they can't get 60 [votes] very often. So it has to use maneuvers like you know, re… — for budgeting. Reconsidering? What do you call it?”

ML: “Reconciliation.”

DL: “Reconciliation, there's a word, yeah. Reconciliation. So…”

ML: “How disappointing is it that you guys can't even get the GOP on the same...”

DL: “Very. We screwed around getting rid of the speaker. Thank you, appreciate it.”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “Yeah, so we wasted a few days in the beginning on that and about a month in the middle of it. Yeah, it's a problem. And then, you know, our — the package the other day, we had a CR with a SAVE Act in it.”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “And our folks on the — well, a lot of the people that write from — or comment from the right say, now that it's out, ‘Oh, [Speaker] Mike Johnson is a traitor because he took it out.’ Like no, hey, we passed the bill as a standalone in July or so. We had it included, and about 10-11 of us couldn't vote for it.”

Subscribe for FREE.

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “I gotta get this vote down.”

ML: “Cool.”

Rep. LaMalfa checks in on status of House vote.

DL: “The vote has closed.”

ML: “Did they?”

DL: “Yeah.”

ML: “What?”

DL: “There’s two more. Hey, let's catch up.”

ML: “There's still a lot of lawmakers coming in this home.”

DL: “Yeah, they freaking closed it.”

ML: “Weird.”

DL: “There was 200 when I left the office and so that's usually enough.”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “I mean, I've been, you know, finding the number, right?”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “And when it's down to 100, I've been getting in trouble.”

ML: “Oh, I know.”

DL: “Now I got pinched on 200.”

ML: “See, I always tell my interns, I'm like, ‘Never keep a lawmaker from their vote because then they're never going to talk to you again.’”

DL: “Well, you know, it's our own discipline. We have to walk faster until you know. And you walked with me, so anyway.”

ML: “Yeah. I'm sorry about that.”

DL: “No, you didn't do it.”

ML: “Yeah, it's strange. So how do you guys — is this growing pains for the party? Naturally happens historically? Or…?”

DL: “No, I think this is kind of extraordinary.”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “Because, you know, we might have our battles where we usually have come together. This goes back to the state legislature when I was there, and here. And now it's like, you know, you got certain guys that are gonna be like (??Mikey and the like??). They universally hate everything, you know? And so that means we don't really have a working majority on the stuff, you know, like the appropriations bills. When I was preaching at home like, ‘Hey, this term, we're gonna do the appropriations bills, and we're gonna do it right. We're gonna get them out and we'll send them to the Senate and we're going to have a real debate and a real, you know, process.’ And so we got about seven of them out during McCarthy [speakership] and the committee has moved them out but they haven't all moved across the floor of the 12. I mean, I think we'll do one or two more after that since. And just, well, hell, man, what?”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “So I've been really cynical lately.”

ML: “So, how do you — and like the young guard, they're not listening to...?”

DL: “The who?”

ML: “The younger members or newer members?”

DL: “Oh I wouldn't put it on age.”

ML: “Yeah.”

DL: “I would put it more on some philosophical issue of this sort of guys.”

ML: “How do you — do you think this election will shake that up and give you guys a better working majority? Or...?”

DL: “Well, there will be at least some slight modifications. There's a couple of our guys that aren't coming back and stuff like that. But, you know, unless we add a lot to our majority and there's a pretty big lineup change amongst us, it's probably, you know, it could look similar next time, but...”

Ask a Pol politics is a reader-supported publication.

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “…but if we blow the majority, like we blow the CR here, you know.”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “The shutdown doesn't accrue well on the Republican side no matter what. It seems like there was one a few years ago when Trump was still in and it was the [Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer shutdown and it stayed where it was.”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: ”But it's always our fault no matter what we put across, you know, we put across reasonable bills and, you know, I don't know — same reason about the SAVE Act that was a bill we passed already so. And 11 or so of our guys wouldn't go for it, because they had the CR and we're like, “What the hell do you want?’”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “You know? And there's people out there, as I was saying, there's people out there tweeting or commenting like, ‘[Speaker] Mike [Johnson] took it out, you know, and just passing the spending bill.’ We did, we just — did you see we just tried last week?”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “We just tried, and it's maybe the same folks who you think are the heroes for this, didn't vote for it, so you shot down those. We could’ve at least golfed it over to the Senate and they would have had to deal with it, or strip it out, or something, and send it back and then okay, then that'll be a terrible bill you can all vote against, right?”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “A hundred Republicans will vote for it and a hundred Democrats, or whatever we need. And then we go, you know. We released this — and in some sense of reality it is a bit of an exercise because, you know, the Senate's not gonna vote for it and you know the president won't vote for it.”

ML: “Yeah?”

DL: “So do we demonstrate that we are for that or — and we did, we've done it twice: put the bill on the floor, passed the bill by itself in committee, and so we've demonstrated — we've demonstrated the Dems are not for the SAVE Act. So, but last week, it’s also eleven or so Republicans weren't either and that was that narrow piece we needed to at least move the bill and continue the discussion in the Senate. So, that's what my frustrations are about. You know, when you ask the initial question like, ‘How do you go about bragging on that?’ I can't brag on that, you know? But I can say all the bad things we blocked that would have happened had the Dems been in the majority. And we passed some good bills here and there, and we've kept the place going. I think we've curbed spending to a degree that would not have happened otherwise so we will put some breaks on some things here. But is that — you know, do people wanna hear putting breaks on things or do they want to hear great new things? You know, that's what…”

ML: “Right?”

DL: “Especially the voters that we're trying to talk to right now in this presidential. You know, you got the two — 35% on each side, 40% — whatever. But you wanna see, okay, who are these — who are these joy voters, what are they gonna wanna to hear? ‘Republicans put the breaks on things’? Or do they wanna hear aspirations and things like that. Like, you know, [Dem presidential candidate] Kamala [Harris] talks about it. If you want to get some of these voters, you have to say, ‘Well, here's the positive things we're doing,’ you know, here's some of the things we've done, and that's a little harder to grasp in this malaise, or muddle, or whatever you wanna call what's been going on.”

ML: “But it seems like a lot of these members aren't running on ‘Reelect us because what we did in Congress.’ Their message…”

DL: “Is what?”

ML: “…deviates.”

DL: “What do you hear?”

ML: “Well, for some, they're pushing conspiracies.”

DL: “Conspiracies? Of what?”

ML: “You know [Rep.] Matt Gaetz says there's five assassination teams roving around the US?”

DL: “Oh, I don’t.”

ML: “He says one's Iranian, one's Ukrainian, and one's Pakistani.”

DL: “For Trump, or for everybody?”

ML: “I think for Trump, but…”

DL: “Well, I mean, in a way, there probably are people harboring those ideas. But are these five set teams that are, you know, trying to line up and playing cards, you know. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there that would be on that team that would generically, you know.”

ML: “Good chatting.”

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.askapolpolitics.com/subscribe

Who?

Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN)

LISTEN: Laslo & Smith

Ask a Pol asks:

What do you make of the recent New York Times reporting that Chief Justice John Roberts deftly worked in the background to steer pro-Trump Jan. 6, 2021 Supreme Court rulings on presidential immunity and appearing on the ballot?

Key Smith: 

“It’s interesting how there's sort of this story out there that Roberts was like the moderator and the mediator. And the story would suggest that he, you know — that's not really necessarily the case,” Sen. Tina Smith exclusively tells Ask a Pol. 

ICYMI — Laslo’s full reporting on the Roberts Court

This interview was first included in Matt Laslo’s Raw Story feature, “From moderate to manipulator: Behind the unmasking of Chief Justice John Roberts”

Expanding size of Supreme Court:

You’re one of only three senators who support Sen. Ed Markey’s (D-MA) bill to expand the size of the Court — in the wake of this reporting, have any of your other colleagues approached you about that effort?

“No, I haven't heard it,” Smith tells us.

Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN), slightly edited for clarity.

TRANSCRIPT: Sen. Tina Smith

SCENE: As Sen. Smith makes her way to a Senate vote via the Capitol basement, Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo asks about Supreme Court politics.

Matt Laslo: Catch this New York Times “article on John Roberts and the Court about him sending memos and him kind of being the center of…”

Tina Smith: “I mean, I glanced at it, but I didn't read it really carefully to tell you the God's truth.”

Sen. Smith laughs.

ML: “Fair, fair, fair. You've got a day job.”

TS: “Yeah, I know.”

ML: “You shouldn't be reading articles anyways.”

TS: “Yeah.”

Sen. Smith laughs.

ML: “But it's interesting because it seems like he interfered in the immunity case…”

TS: “Yeah, I did see that, and it's interesting how — it’s interesting how there's sort of this story out there that Roberts was, like, the moderator and the mediator. And the story would suggest that he, you know — that's not really necessarily the case.”

ML: “Have any of your colleagues approached you about the [Sen. Ed] Markey bill to expand the size of the Court in the wake of that or — yeah?”

TS: “No, I haven't heard it. I think people are, you know — there's a lot of conversation about the Court and the challenges with the Court. But I don't — you know, I think we're so right now, honestly, everybody is just so focused on trying to figure out how to get through this next week and a half and…”

ML: “It's interesting, cause [Vice President] Kamala Harris and [Democratic VP candidate Tim] Walz, they get painted as wanting to expand the size of the Court when they haven't, but it’s — do you think the party is gonna have a broader debate about this?”

TS: “I would guess that, you know, once we get through this election and we have a better understanding of, like, where the, like, kinda what the landscape is, then, yeah, we'll talk more about it.”

ML: “I'll be listening.”

TS: “Okay, thank you.”

ML: “Have a good one, ma'am.”

Laslo sees Sen. Peter Welch.

ML: “Look at this young man…”

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.askapolpolitics.com/subscribe

Who?

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) — former Senate Republican Whip

LISTEN: Laslo & Cornyn

Ask a Pol asks:

Have you seen the recent New York Times article about Chief Justice John Roberts and his influence on the Jan. 6 cases? The left is now saying he’s not the centrist they thought he was.

Key Cornyn: 

[Supreme Court Justice from 1990 to 2009] “David Souter wasn't the guy that Republicans thought he would be either, so I don't find anything particularly remarkable about that,” Sen. John Cornyn exclusively told Ask a Pol. 

ICYMI — parts of this interview first appeared in Laslo’s Raw Story feature on Chief Justice Roberts

Caught our ear:

“I wouldn't be taking advice from members of Congress on how to do my job if I was him,” Cornyn told us.

Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), slightly edited for clarity.

TRANSCRIPT: Sen. John Cornyn

SCENE: Sen. Cornyn’s walking past the trams underneath the US Capitol when Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo briefly catches up with him.

Matt Laslo: “Hey, did you catch that New York Times piece on Justice Roberts and the immunity case and some of other J6 cases?”

John Cornyn: “I think I saw the headline, that’s about all.”

ML: “Cause now, I guess, the left is saying he’s not the centrist that they painted him as…”

JC: “He’s got lifetime tenure.”

ML: “Yeah.”

Laslo chuckles.

JC: [SCOTUS Justice from 1990 to 2009] “David Souter wasn't the guy that Republicans thought he would be either, so I don't find anything particularly remarkable about that.”

ML: “Cause they would probably say that he's wading in too much on some of these cases. Like, you respect him?”

JC: “You know, I wouldn't be taking advice from members of Congress on how to do my job if I was him either.”

ML: “Fair, fair, fair. Have a good one, sir.”

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.askapolpolitics.com/subscribe

Who?

US Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland — Member, Pueblo of Laguna

LISTEN: Laslo & Haaland

Ask a Pol asks:

How important is President Biden’s apology for Indian boarding school policy?

Key Haaland: 

“I didn't realize how much [this policy] affected my life — right — until I got a little bit older. And so, this is important,” Sec. Deb Haaland exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “It's, you know, her story, my mom's story, the people who we heard, the hundreds of people we heard from on our road to healing over that one year, when we traveled to so many communities, they — I hope they feel seen. I hope they feel heard by the President of the United States. And it is a big deal.”

Any meaningful steps by Biden?

How can the US federal government actually show these tribes that this is as the big deal that you're making it out to be?

“He made, for starters, made tribal consultation a top priority for his administration. And that wasn't just for the Department of the Interior, who has the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education. It was for his entire administration, every Cabinet member was instructed to make tribal consultation a top priority,” Haaland tells us. “The president's Investing in America agenda has moved $45 billion toward Indian country. This is like once-in-a-generation investments for renewable energy, for landscape restoration, for, you know, Indian schools, tribally-run schools. These are big investments that we have been able to make in that, you know, and this is all because of the President.”

Sheehy and his questionable comments?

GOP candidate Tim Sheehy made some questionable comments about Native Americans. Any response?

“When people say really offensive things like that, they lack a knowledge of the history of our people,” Haaland told us. “You know, our history is complicated. It's complex. It has many different eras, right? We started with contact 500 years ago when Europeans came here. We went through eras of genocide and we went through eras of land stealing and then assimilation policies. And I mean, it's just, you know, we have lived through so much.”

Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Sec. Deb Haaland, slightly edited for clarity.

TRANSCRIPT: Sec. Deb Haaland

SCENE: Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo used to cover US Interior Sec. Deb Haaland when she was representing New Mexico in the US House of Representatives, and he’s a longtime correspondent for National Native News.

Deb Haaland: “Hello.”

Matt Laslo: “Hey, how are you, ma'am?”

DH: “I'm good, how are you doing?”

ML: “We miss you on Capitol Hill.”

DH: “Oh, thank you, you're too kind.”

ML: “But because I only have seven minutes if I ask good questions and five if I don't, I'm gonna hop right in.”

DH: “Okay.”

ML: “So how important is this? Just knowing the history of, you know, since — yeah, just knowing America's history with boarding schools. I went to a boarding school, but not one of these. How important is the president's apology?”

DH: “Oh my gosh, I am — I mean, I never thought I would see this in my lifetime, right? You know, decades ago when I was sitting at my grandmother's kitchen table and talking to her about boarding schools, you know, she wasn't — she didn't tell me everything, right? I knew there was more to what she was telling me. She was at a Catholic boarding school. It was, you know, 125 miles away from her home, but it might have been, you know, it could have been a thousand miles because her dad only had a horse and wagon, right? He couldn't visit her every day. He only in fact was — she told me he was able to only visit her twice during the five years that she was there. This — her time there, her dad's time at boarding school, that affected my life.

“that affected my life”

“And I didn't realize how much it affected my life — right — until I got a little bit older. And so, this is important. It's, you know, her story, my mom's story, the people who we heard, the hundreds of people we heard from on our road to healing over that one year, when we traveled to so many communities, they — I hope they feel seen. I hope they feel heard by the President of the United States. And it is a big deal.”

ML: “And that's the thing, talking to so many members of tribes, leaders of tribal nations, like — and apology is one thing — how is the US federal government can actually show these tribes that this is as the big deal that you're making it out to be?”

DH: “Indeed. Well, I would like to just kinda start, when the president was sworn into office, right? He made, for starters, made tribal consultation a top priority for his administration. And that wasn't just for the Department of the Interior, who has the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education. It was for his entire administration, every Cabinet member was instructed to make tribal consultation a top priority. So we have worked very hard in that. The president also restarted the White House Council on Native American Affairs. He restarted the Tribal Nations Summits. None of those things happened under the previous administration. So here we are, the president's Investing in America agenda has moved $45 billion toward Indian Country. This is like once-in-a-generation investments for renewable energy, for landscape restoration, for, you know, Indian schools, tribally-run schools. These are big investments that we have been able to make in that, you know, and this is all because of the President. So in a way, he has already lived up to his commitments to Indian country. And this acknowledgement and apology regarding the boarding schools, it is — it is, I mean, it's not the start of something, right? It's part of what the president has meant to do in his commitments to Indian Country.”

ML: “And I've covered the Tribal Conference since the Obama administration — and then there was that lag where they weren't there — how important has it been to rekindle those relationships and to give tribes, you know, that seat back at the table? And what do we risk losing if that goes away?”

DH: “Well, I mean, we are — you know, my hope is that tribes have solidified their — have solidified their standing, right? I want the tribes, regardless of who is in office anytime in the future, I want the Indian tribes to say, ‘we are not going back to that place, right? We are here and you're going to listen to us.’ It's, it is — you know, I started this Secretary's Tribal Advisory Committee for the first time here in this department. And we have roadmaps to how any administration can form their own tribe, you know, stack — Secretary's Tribal Advisory Committees. We have roadmaps on how the tribal nation summits are organized and done. So that I am hoping that the tribes recognize that this is their time. This is a new era for them. And I hope that they will continue to assert their place at the table.”

ML: “And now, what do you say are the state of tribal relations? Like we've heard certain politicians refer to, you know — call them drunken Indians. Like, what do you make of that?”

DH: “Well, I mean, I know that there will always be a certain amount of ignorance out there with respect to tribal nations. You know, when people say really offensive things like that, they lack a knowledge of the history of our people. You know, our history is complicated. It's complex. It has many different eras, right? We started with contact 500 years ago when Europeans came here. We went through eras of genocide and we went through eras of land stealing and then assimilation policies. And I mean, it's just, you know, we have lived through so much. And if anyone stopped to think about how we have persevered through all of those eras starting 500 years ago….

“we started with contact 500 years ago when Europeans came here”

“…not to mention the fact that ancestors like mine were building cities with millions of pounds of stone and mortar in the desert, right? I mean, we have lived through so much, and all I can say is that I hope that people who say things like that will educate themselves because that will — if they're running for office, they need to be educated so that they can be effective leaders for their constituents. That aside, I am incredibly committed myself, and I have been throughout my life to honor the legacy of my ancestors and here at the Department to honor the legacy of everyone's ancestors. That's my job and I am proud to do it. And I'm so honored to be a part of this administration, one who sees people, one who cares about every community in this country and a president who is a president for all people. It's really it's been an honor for me.”

Portions of this interview first aired on National Native News and, simultaneously, at Raw Story via The LCB — Ask a Pol founder Matt Laslo’s regionally-focused national wire service...

ML: “And here we have the President of the United States using his words, issuing an apology, you know, apologizing. And then we have other people not apologizing for certain remarks like ‘drunken Indians.’ How important is the heft of an apology from the federal government?”

DH: “Well, of course — you know, what I can say is, you know, I pretty much said it all about everything that President Biden has stood for and everything that he has done. Yes, it's going — you know, it's a very special time. It's a new era for Indian Country and our country. President Biden, if you've read any of his statements — or proclamations on Indigenous People's Day throughout this term, you will see that he values and honors everything that Indian Country has given to the United States, right? This was all Indian land at one time.

“This was all Indian land at one time” — Interior Sec. Haaland to Ask a Pol politics

“And bit by bit, you know, we — yes, our ancestors have sacrificed, but I can say that every indigenous person I know, they're proud to be American. They're proud to be a part of this country. They want to — they want to help. They want to move our country forward in every way possible. They serve in the military, they serve in the federal government, they run for office in their home states and communities. These are, you know, we have people in Indian country who are in every way working to make our country a better place. And that is completely in line with what President Biden wants to do as well. So I think it's a really awesome day and I am so proud to be a part of it.”

ML: “And now, you know, critics are going to say, the President's announcing this in Arizona, it's an election year — is this politics?”

DH: “I mean, they can say what they want. The President's apology is real. And it's heartfelt and it's meaningful and it will mean something to the people there, it will mean something to anyone who listens to it. So, I just — I am, as I said before, it's a wonderful day to be indigenous and I'm really proud to be by the President's side for this most important day.”

ML: “Have you interacted with PERC [Property and Environment Research Center] much or at all? I'm just curious about the effort to privatize federal and tribal lands.”

DH: “No, I don't know anything about that.”

ML: “Yeah? Interesting. Yeah? They just came on my radar. And then real quick...”

“Would you like to ask a different question?”

— Sec. Deb Haaland to Matt Laslo —

DH: “So I’m here at the Department of the Interior, right? We are working to manage federal lands, and I'll just say that we have, you know, we're responsible here to uphold the trust and treaty obligations of our nation's 574 federally recognized tribes. And that is a — that's a charge that we take very seriously. So treaties never expire, you know, tribes deserve a seat at the table. We're gonna do all we can to make sure that we continue to commit to that mission. And, you know, we have 90 days left in this administration and we're gonna all work as hard as we can to get as much done as we can.”

ML: “And, you know, I can't ask you about politics, but just having…”

Press handler: “Matt, I know you're gonna have to ask the question over again — but I just, this has got to be the last one just, so you know.”

ML: “But just real quick, what has Sen. Tester — as a former chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee what has he meant to Indian Country?”

DH: “Would you like to ask a different question, Matt?”

Laslo laughs.

ML: “Yes, ma'am.”

DH: “Because I can't speak for him. So that's probably a question for him.”

ML: “Yep. And I'll ask it to him. I got a random one for you. Have UAPs ever come up in tribal discussions or Cabinet meetings?”

“treaties never expire”

DH: “No. I don't know what that is either.”

ML: “That's the new term for UFOs, but I figured that'd be your response.”

Press handler: “Okay, Matt. Thanks so much.”

ML: “Preciate y'all. Have a good one, Secretary.”

DH: “Bye, bye now.”

ML: “Cheers.”

Andrey Beregovskiy contributed to this article.

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.askapolpolitics.com/subscribe

Who?

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) — former select Jan. 6 committee member

LISTEN: Laslo & Raskin

Ask a Pol asks:

Are you worried about the redux of Bush v. Gore-like constitutional crisis after the 2024 election?

Key Raskin: 

“The Democrats have two main objectives, and one is to go out and win the election and the second is to defend the election,” Rep. Jamie Raskin exclusively tells Ask a Pol. 

ICYMI — Lawler & other Repubs vow to certify results

Caught our ear:

“We understand that Donald Trump thinks he's on a winning streak in the Supreme Court,” Raskin tells us. “Undoubtedly, he thinks that the Supreme Court will save him from the fact that he doesn't have anything remotely resembling a real presidential campaign.”

Interview first included in Matt Laslo’s Raw Story feature, “Dems fear Mike Johnson has laid the groundwork for a nightmare scenario on Jan. 6, 2025”

Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), slightly edited for clarity.

Subscribe for FREE!*

*…or take advantage of our VIP exclusives for paid supporters!

TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Jamie Raskin

SCENE: Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo runs into Rep. Jamie Raskin on the steps of the Capitol after he cast one of his last votes ahead of November’s elections.

Matt Laslo: “Are you worried about a return of Bush v. Gore, or Bush v. Gore redux?”

Jamie Raskin: “I mean, you know, Democrats have two main objectives, and one is to go out and win the election and the second is to defend the election.”

ML: “Uh-huh?”

JR: “And we understand that Donald Trump thinks he's on a winning streak in the Supreme Court — the justices he named overturned abortion rights in Roe v. Wade. They pulled a rabbit out of a hat and invented a new doctrine of presidential immunity from prosecution. And undoubtedly, he thinks that the Supreme Court will save him from the fact that he doesn't have anything remotely resembling a real presidential campaign.”

A few reporters had been waiting in the wings for Laslo to finish interviewing Raskin.

ML: “I’ll leave you to my colleagues.”

Reporter: “Mr. Raskin!”

ML: “Thank you, sir.”

Andrey Beregovskiy contributed to this report.

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.askapolpolitics.com/subscribe

Who?

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY)

LISTEN: Laslo & Lawler

Ask a Pol asks:

Are you worried about secure voting in the 2024 election?

Key Lawler: 

“But the reality over the long haul is that our elections are secure,” Rep. Mike Lawler tells the congressional press corps. “I think, obviously, in 2020, you had issues in certain states where governors by executive fiat or the courts were overriding the legislature and state constitution. And obviously, that shouldn't happen.”

ICYMI — Lofgren: Speaker Johnson making wacky claims

Subscribe for FREE!*

*But don’t miss our VIP exclusives for paid supporters!

Caught our ear:

“At the end of the day, this will be determined by the American people, I’m confident in that,” Lawler says. “I will respect the results no matter who wins, and I will certify the election.”

Interview first included in Matt Laslo’s Raw Story feature, “Dems fear Mike Johnson has laid the groundwork for a nightmare scenario on Jan. 6, 2025”

Below find a rough transcript of this interview with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), slightly edited for clarity.

TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Mike Lawler

SCENE: A gaggle of reporters pepper Rep. Mike Lawler with questions on the Capitol steps after he cast one of his last votes ahead of November’s elections.

Mike Lawler: “But I do think our elections, by and large, are secure, but there are some setbacks. For instance, two years ago, the Democrats tried to run somebody against me who happened to actually live in New Jersey and voted in New Jersey and New York at the same time. And we had all the information, presented it, that candidate quickly withdrew.”

Reporter: “And the physical security?”

Mike Lawler: “No, it does happen. But the reality over the long haul is that our elections are secure. I think, obviously, in 2020, you had issues in certain states where governors by executive fiat or the courts were overriding the legislature and state constitution, and obviously, that shouldn't happen and they should abide by their election laws throughout the country. But at the end of the day, this will be determined by the American people, I’m confident in that. And I will respect the results no matter who wins and I will certify the election.”

Andrey Beregovskiy contributed to this report.

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.askapolpolitics.com/subscribe

Who?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) — former select Jan. 6 committee member

LISTEN: Laslo & Lofgren

Ask a Pol asks:

If they’re able to maintain their majority in the House of Representatives, are you nervous that House Speaker Mike Johnson and Republicans won’t certify the election if Kamala Harris wins?

Key Lofgren: 

“I don't want to say ‘nervous.’ I am mindful that a majority of the Republicans voted to overturn the election,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren exclusively tells Ask a Pol. “That's kind of a chilling fact for the American constitutional system.”

Caught our ear:

“I'm prepared to vote to certify the winner, whoever it is,” Lofgren tells us of this November’s elections.

Interview first included in Matt Laslo’s Raw Story feature, “Dems fear Mike Johnson has laid the groundwork for a nightmare scenario on Jan. 6, 2025”

Below find a rough transcript of Ask a Pol’s exclusive interview with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), slightly edited for clarity.

Subscriptions are FREE!*

*But you don’t wanna miss our VIP exclusives for paid supporters!

TRANSCRIPT: Rep. Zoe Lofgren

SCENE: Rep. Zoe Lofgren was making her way to the US Capitol from an underground tunnel when Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo caught up with her.

Matt Laslo: “Do you have any fear about internal House politics if Republicans maintain the majority and Speaker Johnson...”

Zoe Lofgren: “Well, as you know, we did revise the Electoral Count Act to prevent mischief.”

ML: “Yeah?”

ZL: “But all laws envision people abiding by them.”

ML: “Yeah? That's delicately put. So are you nervous because...”

Laslo laughs.

ICYMI — Bennie Thompson says Trump’s lying about Pelosi

ZL: “Well, I don't want to say ‘nervous.’ I am mindful that a majority of the Republicans voted to overturn the election.”

ML: “Yeah?”

ZL: “That's kind of a chilling fact for the American constitutional system.”

Lofgren and Laslo walk through large groups of Capitol visitors.

ML: “They seem to — pardon — and now are kinda setting it up to say that, even Speaker Johnson, kinda setting it up to say that this was stolen if Trump loses.”

ZL: “Which is honestly delusional.”

ML: “Yeah? But then, with this Supreme Court…”

ZL: “Well, let's just say the law is clear…”

ML: “Yeah?”

ZL: “And I'm prepared to vote to certify the winner, whoever it is.”

ML: “Yeah? Cause you swore an oath.”

ZL: “That's exactly right.”

ML: “Preciate you, ma'am.”

Andrey Beregovskiy contributed to this report.

Content posted at AskaPol.com is copyrighted. Use our original content to move the story forward. And, please, link to us.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.askapolpolitics.com/subscribe