The "Epstein Shutdown" | Rep. Eric Swalwell

Donald Trump is deploying the U.S. military into American cities. He's trying to rig the outcome of the twenty twenty six elections through unfair maps and restrictive voting laws. He is attacking the very

foundation of American democracy. There is no one fighting harder against what Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress are trying to do to our country than my guest, Eric Swalwell. He's a congressman on the

front lines of this fight. He calls out corruption like he sees it. He defends our voting rights, and most importantly, he exposes Donald Trump for who he is. By the end of this video, we'll explain what's really behind

the Republican chaos strategy, how they're using the Department of Justice to go after their political enemies, and of course, what's up with the Epstein files? But first, subscribe to this channel to stay informed on how you can defend democracy. Congressman Eric Soloway, welcome back to Defending Democracy.

Eric Soloway, Jr.

Thanks, Mark.

Thanks for having me back. Mark Alynson All right. So I had to have you back because here's what we got. We got troops in American cities. We've got Donald Trump indicting his political enemies. We have his effort to force more Republican states into redistricting.

And by the way, the Epstein files are still not released.

And the government shut down.

And the government shut down. So I was going to play dealer's choice with you since you are a regular here. I feel like you should just kick up your feet and make yourself at home. What do you see as right now the biggest of all of these threats?

Well, it's an Epstein shutdown. So I'll merge, you know, number three and five. It's crazy, you know, when you say it out loud, because the truth is is we are not in Washington right now negotiating during this 14th day of the shutdown, the eve of the troops not getting paid, air traffic controllers not getting paid, essential employees not getting paid. 14 days in, we're not in Washington because if we were in Washington, they would have to swear in the 218th signature that would force

the vote on the Epstein files. And there's no other explanation as to why we are not here. This is the fourth shutdown that I've been a part of, unfortunately. And every shutdown, you know, if you keep the members there, it forces a resolution. And Johnson has chosen to bury the Epstein files as deep beneath the earth as possible and protect Donald Trump over negotiating to open up the government and bringing down healthcare insurance costs on the eve of open enrollment. That's the bargain

they've made.

Marc Thiessen Alright, so let's unpack this because for people who don't know, there was a special election in Arizona. And the Democratic candidate won. there was a special election in Arizona. And the Democratic candidate won. It was a heavily Democratic seat. And Mike Johnson, concurrent with that,

has kept the House of Representatives out of session, which is a little odd, as you point out. Because there was a shutdown, and you'd think they'd want the House in session to talk about how to resolve this. And the suspicion, which I share, yours, your belief, that the reason why he isn't bringing people back down to talk about the shutdown is because he's afraid that if he swears in that member, there will then be enough members who have

signed a discharge petition to what, release the Epstein files? Connect all these dots to people who have not been paying that close attention to it.

So Mike Johnson is the Speaker of the House. If he wanted the Epstein files out there, he could issue the subpoena himself. You know that. He could have a vote. He's got the majority. His members could vote for it. Donald Trump has told them not to do this. We know this because Republican members have said the pressure from the White House is intense. So the only way around that is the only way to force any piece of legislation to come

to the floor is if 218 members, which makes up a majority, sign what's called a discharge petition, the worst name of any legislative tool out there, by the way, discharge petition. We have 217 signatures. We will have 218 when this newly elected member of Congress is sworn in. And so it...

And that includes some Republicans, right?

We have four Republicans. And so it renders Johnson powerless because he no longer controls what comes up for a vote. And what Johnson knows is what Republicans have told me privately, which is right now, they are protected from Johnson from having to take this vote. They're fine with that because they know Donald Trump doesn't want this vote. But if they have to take a public vote, they will vote to release the Epstein files because

their constituents are asking them to release the Epstein files. And so Johnson's fear is not that it passes like 218 to 217. His fear is that it passes 350 in support, including most of his members. And my guess, and what one member said to me, it will be a jailbreak. And in Congress speak, that means members will watch how other members are voting until they vote. And then once they

see that enough colleagues are voting for it, they don't want to be on the wrong side of that vote. And so all the pressure Trump and Johnson will have put on them will not be sufficient. And there'll be this jailbreak of votes and it'll be embarrassing to Trump. And then it'll put, you know, the Senate in a position where they will, you know, have to have their own vote on this and it would be probably the same type of outcome. And then what is Trump going to do? Veto, you know, the release of the Epstein files? That's what this is all about.

Okay. So this is fascinating. People need to pay attention to this because this is the kind of insight that the congressman brings to this, which is why I love having him on. He's one of my favorite guests. Because my prognostication in the Senate is that if you have a jailbreak and a big vote in the House, Senate Republicans can't withstand that. It's one thing for them to withstand a 218-217 vote. But the problem is that there are too many Senate Republicans that if essentially Freedom Caucus members start voting, most conservative members start voting for this, it's not politically tenable for the Republicans in the Senate to vote against it. So your point is literally

Mike Johnson has to keep the government shut down as a result?

Michael Green That's exactly the state of play right now. There's no other explanation that makes sense. As I said, in prior shutdowns, whether it was Pelosi as a speaker or John Boehner or Paul Ryan as a speaker, leaders knew that if you had members in Washington, the pressure is on them to strike a deal. The press are in your faces every single time you're around

the House floor. They're asking you, what will you accept? What will you agree to? And right now, Washington is a ghost town. Democrats are in town. I'm in Washington right now. And we have purposely been meeting at the Capitol to show we're ready to work. But I've never seen a shutdown posture like this one. And so I guess, Mark, that's a long way of saying the simplest explanation is the right one. And we have shut down the government to protect Donald Trump and how close he is to the Epstein

files. Marc Thiessen That's unbelievable. All right. So talk to me about what we see going on in American cities right now. You know, we're watching the military being deployed in city after city. This seems to be growing. If you actually go down the list, I went the

other day down a list of all the cities that Donald Trump has said may be next. And it's quite a long list, actually. I had forgotten Oakland was on the list, in California, New York City was on the list.

Where do you think he's going with this?

Well, Mark Benioff just asked the president to add San Francisco to the list. And San Francisco has a reform mayor who has done a great job, I think, of addressing some of the crime issues in the city. But you now have a situation where some Republicans or influencers or donors in his party are trying to outdo each other and add cities to the list. We know when you

take these guys to court, it sets them back. And so Governor Newsom, he had a victory in California over the National Guard being in Los Angeles. Obviously in Portland and in Chicago, we're seeing more sand being thrown in the gear. So what I see is you have to put these guys on their heels. You can't let them do this without a cost. And so take them to court,

slow down their efforts to militarize our cities. Aside from being a violation of the constitution, a gross misuse of our troops and our cities, aside from being a violation of the Constitution, a gross misuse of our troops and our resources, it's also unpopular. In every poll that I've seen, the American people ranging from 55% to 60% disapprove of using our troops in this manner.

Marc Thiessen By the way, I remember Marc Benioff was, he's the founder of Salesforce, right? And he was a big booster of bringing business into San Francisco and was kind of seen as a figure, you know, I don't wanna say he was of the left or of the right, although the perception that people I think had was that he was not a Trumper.

I was in San Francisco over the weekend and many people in the community were shocked and pretty upset that he is calling for this. Again, it's seen as undermining a mayor who's actually trying to address homelessness and drug addiction and crime that had, you know,

been a problem in parts of the city. And so it's almost as if he's trying to get a seat at the table with the billionaire boys club, you know, been a problem in parts of the city. And so it's almost as if he's trying to get a seat at the table with the Billionaire Boys Club, you know, that includes, you know, Zuckerberg and others who have tried to outdo each other to curry favor with Trump. And it's disappointing. It's not needed in San Francisco. It's not needed in any of these cities. I would recommend putting back in place many of the Homeland Security grants

that the president's budget has zeroed out that support local law enforcement.

Talk about that because we don't hear that. All we hear from the Republicans is that they're pro law enforcement. So you're telling me something I haven't heard before.

So we have seen through the big, brutal bill, they zeroed out many of the security grant funding that partners with local and state law enforcement. And in fact, if you care about anti-Semitism, you should care that the president's budget zeroed out funding that went to synagogues and gave them federal resources to protect themselves as they were facing rises in violence, you know, against synagogues and rises and a rise in anti-Semitism in the country. So, no, these

guys are not backing the blue. That's not at all what they're doing. This is more, again, Donald Trump thumping his chest and trying to act tough but not really using the real resources that are there to attack the problems in some of these cities.

Okay. One of the reasons I really wanted to have you on is because the political situation in the country is getting, shall we say, more complicated, right? It started, and you and I talked about it at the time, and you gave really great insight, like I said, one of the reasons I wanted to have you back, about what's going on. We started with Texas, right, and what we saw there

with the redistricting. And that saga is still going on. The map that Republicans wanted to pass, there was just a hearing. We're awaiting a decision to see what happens with that map. And then in California, Gavin Newsom and Democrats,

yourself included, were involved in really fighting back effectively, quite effectively. And there is a ballot initiative that looks like it's going to pass that will redraw the California map. But now we're watching, let's see,

we've got North Carolina Republicans say they want to redraw the map. J.D. Vance is like a frequent flyer to Indiana to try to get them to redraw the map. We have Ron DeSantis in Florida saying he may redraw the map. There's talk, Republicans in Kansas have talked about drawing Shreece Davis's district out to make that.

Missouri, right there. Then Missouri has, thanks, you see this has, God, the list is getting so damn long. Then Missouri has already passed a map and that's being challenged in court. So like, how do you, how do you handicap all of this for people who think,

as I do, that the single most important thing we can do right now to prevent authoritarianism is to take control of Congress? I'll be right back with more of my conversation with Congressman Eric Swalwell in a moment. But, you know, I started Democracy Docket in 2020 to put our democracy in the front and center of everyone's attention.

And now, as Donald Trump weaponizes the Department of Justice and is threatening his political opponents with criminal indictments, well, it's more clear than ever that this fight is on our doorstep. Now, in order for Democracy Docket to do its job of keeping you informed, it needs your help.

For just $10 a month, you can get access to exclusive events, insights from me, and much, much more. You'll also help keep the Democracy Docket website free for everybody. So become a premium member now at the link above or in the description below.

They're not running on their ideas, right? And they passed this big, brutal bill where millions of Americans will lose their healthcare, rural hospitals are already closing. So they don't want to run on that. They don't wanna run on the promise that the president,

you know, would end conflicts on day one, where we see in Russia and Ukraine, that conflict rages on. So they don't have much to run on. They're bankrupt of policies or ideas that will help people. So they're just trying to make it harder for Democrats to win. And yes, it looks like we're on track, we can't take it for granted to pass Prop 50, which would match the five seats

that were passed and taken from us in the Texas RIG districting process. However, if what you just said is true, that would add probably six to 10 seats in the Republican column. It's not undoable. That would mean we would have to win somewhere between 10 and 15 seats in the midterms. In 2018 and 2006, we won double that, more than double that. So we can do it. We can't be deterred. But what we have

to do, and you inspire me to say this because it's true everywhere I go, we have to max out democracy in blue states. We can't say that California is a little bit better than Georgia or Alabama in your voting experience. It has to be a hell of a lot better and more accessible. And so blue state governors and secretaries of state should be doing everything possible to make it as accessible as possible as we go to the midterms. That's the only, you know, counterbalance we can have against what's happening in these red states.

So when you go to red districts, which you do, and I love the fact that you campaign. I've said this to people before. If you want to know how you can give money politically to help win House seats, starting with Eric Swalwell and his political operation, his campaign, and his PAC

is a good place to start because he is out there like literally in all of these other districts, not even not his, like literally elsewhere, trying to make sure that Democrats regain house seats. So you have this experience that is pretty unique of being in, you know, purple districts, probably even you're gonna tell me some more

than purple districts and red districts. What is it that you're hearing from them? Or is it mostly economics? Is it democracy? Is it corruption? You know, I feel like sometimes I sleep on the corruption issues involving this administration, which are pretty dramatic.

Like, what are you hearing?

It's healthcare costs. It's veterans care. I get a lot of veterans who show up wearing their service branch caps, talking about veterans being fired, veteran care, and issues with being able to get someone on the phone to help them because of the doge cuts, the threats that they have made to go

after and chip away at social security benefits, and yes, corruption and rule of law. And this is where I think, Mark, we sometimes fail as Democrats. We would look at a snapshot poll of the day, and corruption and rule of law or democracy would rank, you know, fourth or fifth on the list of concerns because people are talking about what's right in front of them, which is, you know, the cost of living, retirement security. Republicans, they take the issues they value and they talk about those issues and they bump them up as far as what the priority is of those issues for the voters. For Democrats, we value democracy and the rule of law, but we are sometimes leading from the back because we follow or chase whatever the issue of the day is.

Of course, we should be talking about the cost of living. But if we don't have a country where there's a rule of law and we all play by the same rules and your vote doesn't count or it's much harder for you to vote in this country, there's no way we can address the cost of eggs and the president's insane tariff policy. And so we as Democrats, I think, have to make it more of an important issue rather than just chasing whatever the snapshot issue of the day is.

Yeah, I think that's really important. The truth is that most people, this is my opinion, most people have not thought about these issues deeply one way or the other. So a pollster calls them and says, how much do you care about prices? And they say, well, I guess I care a lot about prices. What do you care about democracy?

Well, I care some about democracy, not as much about prices. So they are kind of like being asked these questions really in a vacuum when what the art of politics is, right? What people like you do who are really effective communicators, what all candidates of all parties and persuasions do effectively is they help make sense

of politics for voters, right? They help elevate certain issues and they say, you know, you may not have thought about this thing that's like a really big thing. And then those, as you say that gains salience in the polls and and you know you can't start with asking people what

they think about politics because frankly for a lot of them they don't so let's talk about let's talk about the issue of of the day that seems to be driving most of the democratic messaging, which is health care. And obviously, that is a very important issue. It's an issue that is near and dear to most people. And it

is the one that is, I think, most centrally tied to the democratic position around the government shutdown. I have to be honest with you. I am not a policy wonk. And so I worry that if my eyes glaze over about this a little bit, that the American people's are. So can you just explain in really clear

terms there is notices going out and that's a thing. And then there's like a tax credit or a tax break and that's a thing. Like what exactly is the is the the I know we're going towards a cliff, but what is that cliff? And what is it that Republicans are not doing that we think that they should be doing?

This is entirely about what you and your family will pay for your health insurance every month. And the way health insurance works is the more people who are covered, the less it costs for all of us. And what the Republicans have done through the big brutal bill is they have taken about 15 to 16 million Americans off of their health care. So the pool of people covered has already shrunk and they have taken subsidies that help the poorest and middle class Americans reduce their costs every month. They have

taken those subsidies away. And so you're going to have even fewer people paying for healthcare. So what it means is if you do have healthcare provided through your employer, or if you go to the exchange, it's going to cost 200, 300, 400% more starting on November 1. Democrats are not asking for any new healthcare policy, for any new spending. We are just asking to keep in place. The key word here is keep, not add, but keep in place what was in place last year and for the last 10-plus years.

Marc Thiessen, Jr.: And is this different? I know you and I talked the last time you were on about the fact that they cut Medicaid to give tax breaks to rich people. Is this the same thing as that or is this different than that?

Steven Levy So this is different. So you already start with a pool that's going to be smaller because, as I said, you're going to have 15, 16 million people who are not going to have Medicaid in the next year and beyond. And so you're going to have people who are not covered still using the health care system, which will make all of us pay more. In addition to that, what we call them the Obamacare subsidies that help middle class and poor families still pay for health care,

because the goal is for everybody to be covered. Those subsidies have expired. They need to be renewed and Republicans have not renewed them. and Democrats are saying, we will pass your government funding bill if you put this funding in place so on November 1, when people sign up for their health care, it's not 300, 400% more.

Okay, so I don't mean to be dense about this, but why wouldn't Mike Johnson want that? Because it would seem like this would be a very bad political development for him if people's health care went up as a result of this bill. Like, if I'm the Republicans, I'm like, yes, Democrats, thank you for saving us from ourselves. Like, what is this?

We're giving them the answer to the test, right? We're doing this for them. I think, Mark, that they still have this fantasy that they can undo Obamacare. And this is the way, because this has to be renewed, simply not renewing it is their way to own the libs, keep a long-running promise that they've made to themselves and their supporters, that their supporters don't even want, by the way. Like, Obamacare pulls polls through the roof that they can undo Obamacare.

So it's popular even among Republicans.

It's popular among Republicans. And Tony Fabrizio, Donald Trump's pollster, has been sending around polls to House Republicans saying you will get creamed in the midterms if you do not extend this. I think they ultimately do it, which is what's so frustrating is that, again, we are going to have to bail them out. A lot of people are suffering because of this government shutdown when they're ultimately going to do it anyway. And my prediction to you, Mark,

is that it's Trump who does it, that he's going to undercut Thune and Johnson. The readout that Leader Jeffries has given to us in the caucus is that when he met with Trump, Trump didn't even understand that this was an issue. So I don't even think there's an accurate, like 100% information flow going to the president about what this means. I think at the end of the day, his Achilles heel, and thank God sometimes, is that he wants to be liked. And when he sees as we get closer to open enrollment on November 1, that this is very unpopular,

he undercuts the Senate and House leadership.

Okay, I mentioned at the beginning when we did dealer's choice, one of the topics I wanted to cover with you is essentially the weaponization of the Department of Justice. Like, I have no use for James Comey. I actually think he helped Donald Trump win in 2016, but the indictment against him is an absolute affront

to rule of law. You know, what they did with Letitia James and also an absolute affront to the rule of law. We are watching-

And Schiff isn't, right?

Schiff, it's clear, Schiff is next. Right, I mean, in the Dear Pam, if we go by the Dear Pam social media post that apparently was supposed to be a private message between the president and the attorney general, yes, that would be correct.

But what do you as, from your perch, like what do we do about the fact that the rule of law is just like, particularly in the criminal justice system is being weaponized this way?

It has to be clear to people like Lindsay Halligan. And by the way, if all the reporting is true, she didn't even go to Maine justice to get sign-off on this indictment of Titch James. And for me, it suggests that she's working in this ad hoc way because Trump had already signaled frustration with Bondi, and she may just be working directly with Trump. What we have to make clear to people like Lindsey Halligan is that Democrats are going into the majority.

And get familiar with the witness chair at the Judiciary Committee, because you're not going to be, you know, protected from Donald Trump there. You're going to have to come and answer questions under oath about what you're doing. And also, you should probably get familiar with your state bar, because if it's revealed that you brought a case forward, that you were told you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard that every prosecutor has to follow, then your state bar membership

is also going to be in jeopardy. And just so your viewers know, Mark, and you know this, it's not to get a grand jury indictment, it's more likely than not that you could get a guilty verdict at trial. But that is not the standard that you're held to, to even bring it to the grand jury. That's what the grand jury standard is. The prosecutor standard is you don't even bring that to the grand jury unless you believe you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

And if it's true that there's memos all over the place saying we can't prove any of these cases and that dozens of other attorneys refuse to even take these cases to a grand jury. And oh, by the way, I think she, you know, just by the skin of her teeth was able to get enough votes at the grand jury and some of the counts for Comey were thrown out. She's going to have real problems. And so we may not stop them right now, but I hope we can deter others if they know that

accountability is coming. I've got to end with setting the stakes for people about why I keep having you back on and why I think your work in the electoral space is so important. It's because of how effective you and your colleagues would be in the official space. So talk a little bit about what the world would look different if Democrats, if you had a gavel, if Democrats were in charge. For a lot of us who are not looking for retribution, we're not looking for vengeance, we're just

looking for Congress to assert its authority to hold the president within, you know, the constitutional framework. Talk about why Democrats in charge would be so, such a sea change in that area.

Yeah. Well, first and foremost, it would be a triage, right? First it would be accountability that we're not seeing right now from a Republican Congress. You know, their check on power is, it's vanished. It's not there. It won't be there. And then it's a deterrent, right?

So if you know that there's going to be accountability and you've not yet acted corruptly, you may fear that you would be next or that you would have to answer a subpoena or you would come before Congress. And that's why I think we have to make it clear. I think Hakeem Jeffries has started to be more full-throated about this,

that it's all coming out. Like, we will find out what you did. And I hope it was clean, because if it wasn't clean, you're going to be before Congress explaining that. So on the accountability front, it's accountability and deterrence. And then as far as the power of the purse, we're not going to fund a corrupt government. We're not going to fund a cruel government.

I have talked to many of my colleagues, and I believe, as it relates to ICE, for example, that the masks are coming off. We are not going to fund in the majority a Department of Homeland Security that allows these agents to be masked and unidentified. We don't have that power right now, but that's something we can do immediately when we set the budget with the power of the purse in the majority. Can I flag four races to watch for your viewers?

Yes, please.

Before they happen. On November 4, I call them the fab four for November 4. Obviously, it's Prop 50 in California, passing that to match what happened in Texas.

That's the redistricting one in Texas.

That's the redistricting one.

Okay. Yep. In Pennsylvania, and I know you're tracking this, it's, I believe, three state Supreme Court justices who are up for retention.

Marc Thiessen All of whom are Democrats. There are three

Democrats in the states.

Adam Chapnick And we know what they've tried to do in the past in Pennsylvania, and we know in the midterms and the presidential election in 28 that they would, you know, seek to use MAGA judges to undo election results. And then, of course, in Virginia and New Jersey, two governor's races, Abigail Spanberger, Mikey Sherrill are our candidates. If we sweep those four races, that's momentum. That will not only put in place good people and keep in place good people in government, it'll make sure as we go into the midterms that we get our confidence back.

I think in politics, just like sports, momentum begets momentum. It demoralizes the other side. You will see more retirements from House and Senate Republicans because they will see that this wave is coming. So that's why the work we do between now and November 4 and those four races is so consequential.

Marc Thiessen Can you just, while we're on that topic, you served with both Mikey Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger. So for people who are in New Jersey with the governor's race or in Virginia with the governor's race, can you just say a word about what you know about them?

Dr. Seheult Two tough, smart women. Mikey Sherrill, helicopter pilot, served in combat. And Abigail Spanberger, former CIA officer, served in some of the most dangerous places in the world. They're tough, they're smart. They were in Congress, you know, in 2019 when Speaker Pelosi came into power, they knew how to stand up, you know, to Donald Trump.

As we did that in the House and also passed, you know, an agenda in Congress that put in place background checks, that passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, that got rid of dirty money and dirty maps. We were stymied by our own members in the Senate, but they were part of a historic Congress that really laid out the blueprint for what we can do

the next time we have the White House, the next time we have the White House, the Senate, and the House.