Transcript: Fiasco for Trump as New Revelations Nuke Another Nominee
The following is a lightly edited transcript of the December 3 episode of the
Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.
Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.
The New Yorker has published some extraordinary new revelations about Pete Hegseth, who’s Donald Trump’s nominee for Defense secretary. These include allegations of extreme serial drunkenness, financial mismanagement of a nonprofit he ran, and an alleged episode of him chanting “Kill all Muslims.” This along with the nominations of the highly unqualified Kash Patel as FBI director and Tulsi Gabbard for a top intelligence post raise a question: Do Senate Democrats have what it takes to really make revelations like these stick in upcoming confirmation hearings? We’re chatting today to Tara McGowan, a progressive media executive who frequently urges Democrats to get more serious about fighting the information wars—something that will become even more essential during a second Trump presidency. Thanks so much for coming on, Tara.
Tara McGowan: Thanks, Greg.
Sargent: Pete Hegseth was president of a group called Concerned Veterans for America from 2013 to 2016. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer obtained a whistleblower’s report about his tenure that includes frequent bouts of serious public intoxication and him and his management team sexually pursuing female staffers. One whistleblower email said he used company funds for partying on the road. At one point, he tried to dance with strippers on stage at a strip club, allegedly. His representative denies this stuff. Tara, what do you make of all of it?
McGowan: What do I make of all of it? Well, I definitely wouldn’t have a open container near him at a party or a bar (laughs). I wouldn’t trust him around my girlfriends or my female cousins. You just have to take it from his mother; a letter from his mother to him about how horribly he treats women was leaked.
But despite all of those allegations, which are really, really, really concerning and horrible, he also doesn’t have any of the experience to run the largest department of our federal government, the most well-funded one. Their job is to strategically deploy our armed services to protect our country and protect democracy abroad. We know that a character test is not one that Trump or his allies or his administration has ever cared about, so these allegations are really concerning, but I also don’t want it to get lost in these allegations just how unqualified he also is professionally.
He doesn’t sound like a good guy by all of those merits, if you will, but also he’s deeply unqualified. He is a Fox News host, and he is just a strong ally of Trump, which is the common thread of all of the nominations that Trump has put forward.
Sargent: Yes, speaking of not losing some of the big picture stuff here. For Senate Democrats, you’d think this is a target rich environment. You’ve got Kash Patel, who’s totally unqualified to run the FBI, has publicly talked about wanting to prosecute Trump’s enemies and the media. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence, is an active pusher of pro-Putin talking points. Now the revelations about Hegseth. Senate Democrats really could make a lot out of this at the hearings if that were done well. So what would it look like if it were done well?
McGowan: I hope that they do make a lot of this because what’s probably happening in closed doors amongst Senate Democrats is a conversation of where do they want to channel their most fire in a strategic way to actually be able to knock down one or two of these nominations. There’s probably a lot of calculated conversations happening about where they actually can make some progress and where they need to preserve their energy or their rage so that so it isn’t ineffective. That’s actually the wrong calculation.
It’s certainly not one that Republicans or the right-wing media heed on their own. They take a flood-the-zone approach. There isn’t anything that Democrats do that they don’t like that they don’t make noise about in some way, shape, or form. And that doesn’t seem to really hurt them or muddle the story that reaches the audiences that they intend to reach or even influences the mainstream media.
So while I completely understand from a pragmatic perspective that Senate Democrats won’t be able to cancel all of these appointments—and there are so many that are really, really, really horrifying on their face in terms of what they’ll do—I don’t think that that should preclude them from actually going full force against them in all of the ways that they can communicate so the American people know exactly who Trump and his team are putting forward.
The American people, especially the millions and millions of them that did not vote for this administration—he was not given a mandate with a small margin of victory he had in the battleground states or even the popular vote—would like to see some fight in our leaders and in the Democratic Party.
Sargent: The New Yorker piece quotes Senator Richard Blumenthal, who heads the Armed Services Committee, which will hold the hearing on Hegseth. Blumenthal says some of the right things, pointing out how dangerous it would be to put someone this erratic and unpredictable as head of such a large organization. But then Blumenthal also says, and I thought this was a tell, This shouldn’t be a partisan thing because our national security is at stake. Tara, I get why Blumenthal says that, but it just seems wrong. It seems weirdly apologetic, as if he feels the need to justify making an issue out of revelations that clearly show Hegseth to be wildly unfit. Does that suggest that Democrats still don’t quite have their heads on straight about what’s needed right now, or am I just being uncharitable?
McGowan: No, I don’t think you’re being uncharitable, and I don’t think that it’s specific to Senator Blumenthal, who I have great respect for. I actually think it is doing a massive disservice to what we are all up against—all as in everyone who cares about this country, cares about democracy, and cares about preserving and strengthening rather than dismantling our institutions that protect the most vulnerable of us. And that’s what they exist for in this country.
To be able to say that calling out actual real “unqualifications,” and really terrible character traits and allegations that you wouldn’t want to be of the substitute teachers in your kids’ or the folks that are babysitting your kids is partisan, and by calling a real public fight about these cabinet picks partisan, that’s doing a real disservice. That’s surrendering. That’s really problematic because this isn’t actually about partisanship. The second that you qualify your argument that is based on real hard data and evidence and police reports against a cabinet pick and declare that as partisan, you have made it partisan.
Sargent: Right. In a way, he’s not saying it’s partisan. But by entertaining the possibility that someone would dismiss it that way, he’s conceding too much upfront. He’s too apologetic right at the outset.
McGowan: That’s my biggest fear in general: that Democrats are conceding already. We can’t concede. We need to show a unified front against this administration. And also we need to take them at their word. Every single talking point that was on Democrats’ mouth before Election Day, quoting Trump saying he would be a dictator on day one, these were out of Democrats’ mouths, right? And it was true. These were things that Trump has said. If we are still not taking them at their word, we’re not only conceding, we—we, meaning Democrats that are doing that— are also demonstrating that we don’t have a spine, and we are reinforcing a narrative that a lot of Americans believe, which is that both sides are full of it.
Sargent: If I understand you correctly, Tara, you’re basically saying that they’re making their own previous rhetoric out to be hollow.
McGowan: Yes. Also, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. We know that Trump is going to do everything that he said that he is going to do. We know that there is limited ... This is the only defense I will give Senate Democrats in these cabinet fights: There is little political capital here. If they go full nuclear on every single one of these candidates, they run the risk of pushing some of the Republicans who might be willing to vote against some of these folks away. I understand that pragmatic calculation.
I just also think that we need to see real strength of leadership in the Democrats in Congress because they are the ones who are at the front lines of this fight, which frankly is solely an information war moving forward come January. They do not have power in federal government starting in mid January. So we actually need to know that they are up for this fight, and that they’re not going to concede because these are not people you can negotiate with.
Sargent: Yes, critical point. When you don’t have power, the information wars become even more central. In fact, there’s a broader thing here at stake, and this is something your friend and mine, Simon Rosenberg, has talked about. It’s whether Democrats are able to reimagine their roles as public communicators in a way more in sync with the Trump era. You have some House Democrats who know how to do this or really know how to do it well: Jamie Raskin, Adam Schiff, soon to be California Senator, Eric Swalwell, AOC, Maxwell Frost, I’m probably leaving a few out. Senate Democrats ...
McGowan: Crockett.
Sargent: What’s that?
McGowan: Jasmine [Crockett] in Texas.
Sargent: Yes, absolutely. A hundred percent. Senate Democrats are behind here. What’s your sense of why that is, and what can be done about it? Don’t we need Senate Democrats to learn from some of their House counterparts?
McGowan: We do. I don’t know the exact reason. I have some theories. The seniority rules ethos is much more dominant in the Senate. That does a great disservice. People do fall into line behind leadership more so than in the House, where more people are willing to stand out and understand that the way they can communicate can actually increase their exposure to their message and their platform. And senators, for one, most of them have just been there too long, frankly. They don’t understand the information ecosystem and they don’t know frankly how to leverage it to their or collective advantage. That’s why we desperately need new, younger, and more diverse leadership in the Senate because they do know how to communicate and leverage this power.
Once again, the only real power that they’re going to have is the power of their communications over the next few years. They’ve got to get sharper about it. We didn’t see that in this past election cycle, frankly. We didn’t see that leadership, especially in the Senate, really understands how the world has changed and how people communicate today, and the fact that you need to be authentic. You need to be authentic, you need to be bold, and you need to be really honest.
There is still too much performative communications that happens in the Senate. It might just be the result of folks that have just been there too long and/or taking the lead of the folks that have been there the longest.
Sargent: It sure seems that way. I mean, I wonder whether Adam Schiff joining the Senate Democratic caucus could help. He’s not exactly in the mold of a Maxwell Frost or an AOC—there’s a clear distinction there—but he’s been really one of the best communicators throughout the Trump era, especially at crystallizing in social media–friendly ways why Trump is such a threat to the country. We’re going to need that more and more. Don’t you think Schiff could potentially have a positive influence there?
McGowan: Oh, absolutely. Schiff is a good example of why there isn’t one size fits all to being a good communicator. It really is a bit about being your authentic self. He is steady. He’s a statesman and he is steady, but he is very good at breaking things down and he does convey a lot of trust, which is so important because it doesn’t seem like he’s performing or just sticking to pre-packaged tested talking points. That’s what people want.
He doesn’t have to be out there with his arm raised yelling like Jamie Raskin, who I adore, to also convey a point. We just need more people to step into their power and in their voice—and do it in a way where they’re unified but they’re not all saying the same thing, because that isn’t authentic; that really loses people.
Sargent: That’s a critical point. They have to find their own voices in a way that’s in sync with the era. Let’s talk about some of the opportunities Democrats have right now. Take Pam Bondi, Trump’s pick for attorney general. Senate Democrats could theoretically put up on a screen some of the worst and most violent episodes from the January 6 riots, like attacks on cops, then ask Bondi point-blank: Would you support it if Trump pardoned that guy right there? That’s just an example of what you could do.
The Hegseth thing seems to offer pretty big opportunities, like put up on a screen some of these insane episodes and say, How on earth is this guy qualified to run an organization like this one?
McGowan: Yes, and make it sticky. Democrats actually—not just Democrats, it was bipartisan—during the January 6 hearings were very good at making good content that people want to watch and share. We need Senate Democrats to understand—and many of them do and will, I hope—that they can create moments that do go viral online, that do inform more people of what’s going on by being, again, authentic in their voice and power, but upping the ante a little bit. Be a little theatrical with it while making these points because they have to be visual and they have to be surprising.
Nothing about watching a boring hearing with just back-and-forth Q&A and them basically pleading the fifth in their own ways over and over again is going to actually get any traction. So I do hope that Senate Democrats understand that this is a made-for-TV/TikTok moment and experience, and that they heed that.
Sargent: If I hear one Senate Democrat during these hearings say anything like, My friends on the other side of the aisle, I’ll just absolutely vomit on the spot.
McGowan: What friends? Exactly.
Sargent: Right. If you were to look at it charitably, you could say, OK, maybe Senate Democrats have a somewhat well-founded fear of looking too political. Maybe they think they’re going to provoke a backlash among swing voters. But if you look at the January 6 Committee hearings, those were among the greatest acts of political communication in our lifetimes. They were very well-produced, really well-tailored to the viral era, and they were very goddamn partisan. They indicted a whole party. They put on display for the country what’s so craven about the Republican Party in the Trump era, created moments, drama, and so forth. We should learn from that, shouldn’t we?
McGowan: Yes. Part of it was that it did still have a feeling of nonpartisan of sorts because they had Liz Cheney there. It was really well-designed at that point in time. It really was also about an event and Trump, as opposed to the party. This is trickier because we have a lot of people for very good reasons, if not outdated, who are in these positions of power because they deeply, deeply believe in the role of government and in the way that they conduct business or believe business should be conducted.
The challenge there is that that is not how Republicans play. That is not how Republicans govern anymore. That is certainly not how this administration is going to govern. I used to have this beef sometimes with President Biden, who I deeply respect and think was a tremendous president because always taking the high road does not always lead us where we need to go; in fact, quite the opposite as we’ve seen now. All of the bipartisan bills that were passed, guess what? The fact that they were passed with some Republicans didn’t do Democrats any favors.
Part of that was a communications problem, but part of it was that people actually want to see you fight for things. They want to see you stand for things. I don’t believe that there are bipartisan solutions that are going to get passed under this administration. Democrats don’t have any power in the House, Senate, White House, or Supreme Court moving into next year. There isn’t going to be gridlock, but that means that their sole job is to communicate to the American people in every single way possible what this administration is doing, who’s doing it, and to make it as painful as possible for them so they do less of it. That’s really all they can do.
Sargent: To wrap this up Tara, how should they do that with these Hegseth revelations and everything else we know about Hegseth?
McGowan: They just need to flood the zone. Even if they’re having private conversations to understand where they’re actually going to have more leverage when it comes to the appointments, they need to be publicly flooding the zone and going after every single one of these appointees that is disqualified and just, frankly, not good people and not trustworthy people to lead our institutions. And they need to be relentless about it.
Also, let’s just talk about tactically to do it in ways that are actually going to reach people and that are going to drive engagement, which isn’t going to be just a press release or a statement in a New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal article. That’s not enough. They should be all making videos like AOC does. They should all be talking about this stuff every day. And they should be doing it in a way that is conversational with the American people, not talking point–driven.
I could go on for an hour about the advice that I would give these folks. They haven’t taken it for many years, most of them, but this is what they have to build muscle for because this is truly the only power and authority they have moving forward: to communicate, and make these decisions and these appointments very difficult and painful for this administration so that we get slightly less terrible folks in charge of these agencies.
Sargent: And look, the Hegseth revelations, they are tailor-made for this type of communication. They’re colorful as all hell. They’re jarring. They’re really riveting in a car crash way. They could be doing a lot with this stuff in the formats you’re talking about. Tara McGowan, let’s hope they listen to you this time.
McGowan: Thank you.
Sargent: Folks, make sure to check out some new content we have up at tnr.com: Michael Tomasky arguing that Trump is going to corrupt the Department of Justice so thoroughly that we’ll be entering a world where the rule of law is essentially turned inside out, and James Robins looking at how Joe Biden, of all people, is trashing international law. Tune in to the latest episode of Above Average Intelligence over on the DSR Network featuring Shane Harris of The Atlantic to discuss the national security implications of Trump’s cabinet appointments. We’ll see y’all tomorrow.
You’ve been listening to The Daily Blast with me, your host, Greg Sargent. The Daily Blast is a New Republic podcast and is produced by Riley Fessler and the DSR Network.