Well, it's great to be on. I'm excited. So to start with, I

saw that a few days ago you said on CNN, you think we're not quite there when it comes to a constitutional crisis, but you certainly sounded cautious and at least somewhat concerned that it could certainly go in that direction. We've seen this executive order from the president, which increases the power of the office of the presidency, despite it used to be the case that Republicans said they actually want to limit the power of the president. And everything seems to be backwards with regard to that all of a sudden. Are you closer to this concern about a present and actual constitutional crisis? And if not, what specifically are you sort of looking for before you would say that? Well,

my concerns grow every day. You have, of course, the president this week tweeting out a picture of himself with the crown on. I think it's not real subtle what he's talking about there. You have both the vice president and the president basically saying they don't have to follow the law. And then you also have this horrific situation at the Justice Department where career prosecutors, and these are not exactly members of the resistance. Okay. They were not at the Women's March. I'll put it that way. They are Federalist Society members. They are one of them clerked for Justice Roberts and for Justice Kavanaugh when he was a circuit court judge. And the other one, of course, clerked for Justice Scalia. And they basically resigned. And one of them said, you've got to be if they can find a fool or a coward to file this motion to remove the charges against Eric Adams, that person is not me, he said. That person is not me. And I could not believe how out there these conservative, very conservative lawyers, prosecutors have been in terms of saying this is just wrong. This is wrong under the law, wrong under the Constitution. So, you know, that is what makes you realize this is a mounting, mounting crisis. But I just don't think to say it's a constitutional crisis. Well, that's the moment where, you know, Donald Trump says, no, I'm defying the court order. And that hasn't happened yet. It didn't happen in his first administration. And as we know, he can be a lot of bluster. I also find some solace in the fact that these judges, one on birthright citizenship and that people who were born in America are America. That's what the Constitution says. That case, when the judges have looked at that, that's heading to the Supreme Court. They have upheld judges looking at this, including Trump-appointed judges, have upheld the law. And then there's a number of other cases about freezing the funds or allowing Elon Musk to rifle through data where judges have intervened. And I know that's not solace. When you look at that Supreme Court, I was ardently opposed to many of those justices, but it is the law. And they have consistently through the lower courts been applying that law. So to me, we get to the real constitutional crisis when he refuses to follow the law after a judge has said what he's doing is illegal.

Another acute area of concern is what the newly minted FBI director Kash Patel plans to do. I watched with great interest the minutes that you got to ask questions. I would love for you to give us a little bit of a peek behind the scenes in terms of when you're preparing with your team and you're going to bring up all of these different things that he has previously said, which are there in black and white in the sense that there's either video, there's audio recordings, there's tweets. Do you anticipate that he will play this game of I don't have the quote in front of me. The date is a while ago and using that essentially as an escape hatch from having to deal with the substance. Do you and your team anticipate that that's what he will do? And given that, is it still worth it because he refuses to engage with the substance? What's the strategy? The

strategy is to show America who this person is, knowing that our Republican colleagues have been wimping out on this. They have not been fulfilling their constitutional duty. It says to advise and consent. They've been acquiescing and accepting, in my words, every step of the way, with some exceptions. So the first thing you do in your mind is you say, okay, there are some exceptions. With Kash Patel, this week, when the vote finally happened, the Republicans went lockstep, but not Lisa Murkowski, who tends to be a maverick, and not Susan Collins. If only two more had joined them, we would have defeated Kash Patel. And so my first approach here is I've got to get out things that could potentially get Republican votes. Capitol. And when they testified, you actually said they were lying, that they should be prosecuted for lying, when they told the truth about what had happened when the mob of insurrectionists invaded. I went after the fact that he had said they should close the FBI headquarters down and turn it into a museum. There's a lot of Republicans that think it's good to investigate cyber crime and terrorist activities, all that goes on in the headquarters. I emphasized how he had repeatedly said that the FBI was corrupt, because I think there were a lot of Republicans that know that's not true. And so I went through a number of things he'd done that might not be the things that maybe your listeners or even I would find most appalling about Kash Patel. But I was trying to find some of those sweet spots. And I guess it worked with two people. I

want to ask about them on

the record. Get them on the record. OK, this is so important, because even if you're going to lose and you probably are with these Republicans right now, how they're acting, you know that. So you ask questions to get people on the record to say, no, I'm going to enforce this law. That's actually record evidence in lawsuits. You know, if they don't do a certain thing and it's illegal, then the people that will bring a case are going to be able to point to when they said on the record that they would enforce a law. Or you get them to actually do something because of what they said under oath. So there is a role here that isn't immediately satisfying. Right. Because you end up, the Republicans acquiesce, and I'm sure some of your listeners are like, well, great. Like, what did you do? Well, you've gotten them on the record, and I've found, especially like in antitrust cases, I'm a geek on that. Do a lot of that. When you get this stuff on the record, it's evidenced using cases. And then they feel like maybe I'm going to have to do what I said I do when I was under oath. Do

you think there's a degree to which the couple of senators that say I'm thinking independently? I'm a no on this one. It's sort of a contrived veneer of independence. In this sense, a couple didn't vote for cash Patel and a couple didn't vote here and there. But the totality is cash Patel got in. Hegseth got in. Tulsi got in. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is in. Is it is it a game made to create the appearance of independence, but they don't really get in the way of any nominee?

Now I see why you're so popular, because that is a very smart. I think about it all the time. And sometimes I actually not sure, you know, you don't know. Are they playing a game? Are they not? But it certainly does seem weird that different people. Now, I will say running through it is usually Susan and Lisa who tend to be more independent. But, you know, Mitch joins on one and someone and it's just and then we never get to the magic number of four. And I said to them with Kash Patel and the Judiciary Committee, I'm like, could you just stand up for one of them? Just one of them? Because we have made independent decisions before. People have had to withdraw their names on the Democratic side. And sometimes they don't go for a vote, right? Sometimes they end up having to withdraw their names from consideration. Yes. Objection. And the only one that really happened to in a big way was none other than Matt Gaetz in the last year. But it really does bother me that they're not standing up. And now they're going to have other opportunities to stand up, right, on some of these budget issues and some of this crazy stuff of giving these tax cuts to billionaires when people can't even afford their childcare or can't buy their first house. Those are the things that some of the people that voted for Donald Trump, I know because I had some voters that voted for me and him in the last election, right? Like 10% of them in my state. And they really want you to do something about costs, prescription drugs, all these things. And all signs are from accidentally firing the avian flu frontline workers. That was my favorite of the week, by the way. Oops, now we're going to have to rehire them. Or the 300 people that were watching the nuclear stockpile. Oh, that was a mistake. To the fact that they really haven't everything they've done from the proposed tariffs to the to the workforce issues, some of these things, these are going to bring prices up, not down. So the way I look at it, simply corruptions up, chaos is up. And yes, egg prices. And basically, the cost of living is up. That's what's happened since he's gotten in. Senator,

you've talked a little bit about the limo ride as as we now maybe know it on inauguration day. And you said, you know,

the beast, it was the president's car and

Joe

Biden's car. I hitched a ride. Yes. Joe Biden to the inauguration. And Donald Trump just happened to be in there, too.

Well, it's interesting you frame it that way. And I know that you've said you're not going to betray confidences. And I understand that. But with all of the concern about the way Trump sort of sat hunched over and dejected in the Oval Office as Elon Musk held court, the way that the same thing played out on Fox News where Hannity is deferring to Musk rather than Trump. And it's it's all taking on this very strange kind of perspective. Did the now president in that limo ride to the extent that you're comfortable sharing, did he seem even interested in becoming president again? Because I don't know if it's exhaustion, age, decline or just he'd rather be golfing in Florida. What was your sense of that?

Well, he was I wish the way that he interacted with President Biden and Vice President Harris when we were in the White House, that we're also there for an hour with about 12, 15 of us. Right. Yeah. Speaker. And he was cordial with them. He was cordial with me. I think they would say the same thing. And he we talked about everything from the football game that had been on the night before I brought that up because it was Philadelphia. So I thought President Biden would, you know, he likes it. Um, and, uh, that was a, it was in the snowstorm with LA. I brought up the LA fires cause I thought that was a really important thing to do. I knew that, um, president Trump was into the Olympics. And I thought it's important to talk about the fact that LA has to rise from the ashes here. Um, we talked about a number of other things that they each brought up and, um, he was engaged. And then the minute he got behind that microphone, the minute like we got there, it was like a different thing. He was doing the, you know, going after them, doing the same political thing that you see at the rallies, maybe a little different tone. And it was just, I, I, I think that that's who he is. He does what it what he thinks is going to work with the people that support him instead of being that leader that reaches out beyond those people to try to get do something for the good of this nation. Is

there a real Trump in that case? Because, you know, what I had the privilege in December of meeting with former President Biden in a small group at the White House. And it was exactly the same guy that I had come to know over decades through the media. There was just there was no daylight. It was it was the real guy, which is the real Trump in this sense. I

think the real Trump is what it's sort of don't judge someone by what they say behind, you know, when you're judge them by what their actions are, right? Judge them by their actions. And it's just so unbelievably more coarse than it was even in the first Trump presidency in terms of just making these decisions to let Elon Musk, a billionaire, the richest man in the country, just make these decisions about who's going to get fired. That's one of the things that bothers me. Like if a business comes in and wants to make cuts, this happens all the time, right? It's capitalism. They come in, new CEO, or sold to something, they're going to make some cuts, or they're going to make some changes. And this is true in government as well. So you look at what your purposes are. Do you need a certain division? Do you need a certain job function? What's the merit of a person in the job? And then you make decisions. It's not easy, but you make decisions. And that you can do that on a large scale. Major companies have done this. And yes, they offer buyouts and all those things. But what these guys did is they came in without regard to the job function or the merits of a person and just said, you know what, we're getting rid of all this, all the probationary people, which are the younger people for the most part who've come in or people who've just been promoted. And then they do that. And so, okay, even if you have no empathy for the federal employees, and I'm not saying you, David, but let's just say someone has no, they want to see a change and they want to see, I agree, we can make things more efficient. But what's missing here is you taking some incredibly important job functions or some incredibly high performing employees. And you're just like, no, we don't want you. And so many people go into public service for reasons other than money. Duh. They go in there because they really care about something and they want to use their skills. And so what bothers me just from moving this big ship is you want to have that kind of person in the government that's making these hard decisions or deciding what we're going to do about foreign aid in a country or deciding what we're going to do when someone's benefits gets messed up. And it just bothers me, the coarseness and meanness of that. And Elon Musk just seems to just love it. You know, he's tweeting every day about this. And then what's going to be the effect on people when you get rid of air traffic controllers and you say you don't value their service? Well, I think we know what the effect is going to be on people. Some of this stuff is dangerous. This avian flu issue, I do a lot with ag. You know, this is real. It's spreading into cattle and everything else. And so then they accidentally fire the people working on it. So I think you've got that issue. And then you have to ask yourself why. And I think this is so key, because we can talk about this all we want about Elon Musk did this, Elon Musk did this, Donald Trump letting Elon Musk as well. Well, why are they doing it? Well, right before us is the answer. Their tax plan, which is literally over $2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country, including Elon Musk. So that's what they're looking at. And how do they get the money? They know that with some of their conservatives, they're not just going to add on that much more debt. They're going to add a lot of debt. But they're like, well, we got to make cuts somewhere. So they're making the cuts on the backs of regular people. They should be helping people making it easier, as I said, to buy a new house or get mortgages or child care or pay your rent. There's all these kinds of cool things we could be doing right now on that with algorithms that Elon Musk is well aware of, where people are getting ripped off on their rents. And instead, they're going this direction of let's just take a sledgehammer and let's piss off all our allies and let's go meet with Russia and some kind of weird, you know, Putin shock and awe. And we'll go meet with him and dis Zelensky, who's put his whole country on the line and they're losing people's lives every day to fight for freedom so that the Russians don't march right into a NATO country. And then we're sending our own troops over. All of these things are just just to me, it's not what our country is about. And for the people that did vote for him, and I know, like I said, I share some of the voters. They vote for him because they want to change. They want to bring costs down. It was a change election. I get all that. And we were ready to say, OK, if you guys want to find some common ground on these really gnarly problems of people getting their health care denied and claims denied, we really do want to work with you. But that's not where they're headed at all. They're just trying to dismantle and get a bunch of tax cuts for the wealthiest. And so that's what's been the most, most, I think, for people that voted for him, they're starting to say, even within only a month, they're like, wait a minute, I think one poll showed 66% of American CBS poll that he wasn't doing enough on costs, and that he wasn't doing enough to bring inflation down. And I don't, you know, the fact that they voted for him on that basis, that that makes some sense for them. I didn't agree with it, but I get why they did it. But now they're going to see what he's really up to.

Senator Amy Klobuchar, really appreciate your time. And we will follow all of it and be in touch with you. Thank you so much.