Marc: Secretary Hillary Clinton, welcome back to Defending Democracy.
Secretary Clinton: Thank you so much, Marc Elias. It is always a pleasure to be with you and do anything I can to support the important work you're doing.
Marc: I always start with the proposition that Hillary Clinton was right all along, so that's going to be the theme of this episode. And I want to start with, unfortunately, something you were right about, which is the U.S. Supreme Court. We have seen them rule against independent federal agencies, except for the Federal Reserve Board. In the FTC case involving Rebecca Slaughter, they said that basically, the president can fire whoever he wants, but they tried to carve out something of an exception for the Federal Reserve Board. We saw them rule today against transgender rights. We have seen them rule in various other cases against what seems to be common-sense interpretations.
And even the cases that we agree with — birthright citizenship — it was 6-3, it wasn't 9-0, as many people expected. A case that I was involved in, involving mail-in voting, was 5-4. A case that, honestly, if you'd asked me two years ago, I would have said 7-2 or 9-0. So what do you make of the Supreme Court today?
Secretary Clinton: This is a movement conservative court that was installed for the purpose of turning the clock back on a lot of our rights, but more than that, precedent that had literally stood the test of time in how our government should actually operate with appropriate checks and balances.
I think that their view about this so-called unitary executive, which really is a fancy way of saying the president can do whatever he wants to do, unless we have some qualms, but then we will only apply the qualms if it's a Democratic president, not a Republican president named Trump — I don't think there's any sugarcoating it. This is a court that was hand-selected by the Federalist Society that was intended to do exactly what it's doing. It's shocking when they don't fall in line with Trump. It's shocking when they stand up to him on anything.
But as you rightly say, some of what they do is still splitting the blanket. Why would birthright citizenship be a divided decision, even though it came out allegedly the right way? Look at the mental gymnastics they went through to give the president literally the power that used to be available to a president in the middle of the nineteenth century to hire and fire and influence anybody in the federal government to do whatever the president wants, except for the Federal Reserve Board.
It is a nonsensical stand, and it's almost embarrassing to read, because they know it's nonsensical, but they don't care. And what we've got is a full court attack on fundamental principles of constitutional law, of judicial precedent, of long-standing norms and interpretation. And it truly is turning the clock back. When I voted against Alito, I gave a speech on the Senate floor, and I said that this nominee wants to turn the clock back, not just on the last 50 years, but the last hundred years, on the twentieth century. Corporate power is to be privileged over individual and community power. Money is the god. You have no limits on what you can spend to influence the political system.
It was something that I was worried about, which is why I voted against both Alito and Roberts, for different reasons, but coming out of the same concerns, that this was a concerted effort to fight the battle over rule of law, rights, constitutional interpretation, balance of power, checks and balances, institutional restraint. And it's clear where they stand.
Marc: It’s funny you mention that you took on both Alito and Roberts, because as I recall it, there were a lot of Democrats who were willing to take on Alito, but Roberts charmed a lot of Senate Democrats.
It's now very much in fashion in the Democratic Party to say that someone is a fighter — they fight, they stand up, they take hard fights.
Sometimes recently, that gets conflated with ideology — left, the far left, the center left, whatever it is. It's important for people to understand that your entire career has been to fight against what Republicans and the Tea Party movement at the time, and now the Trump administration, is.
Along the way, you took on the alt-right in a really important speech. Way before people were talking about the crazy online right, you identified it. So can you talk about where you think we are as a party of fighters?
Secretary Clinton: I did have the benefit of seeing and understanding fairly early the very well-organized, well-funded coalition that brought together economic, religious, ideological and partisan interests, starting certainly in the 70s, but it had been brewing for a lot longer than that. It was a coalition of the rejectionists — a movement of not just politics, but of culture and society, that in their view was contrary to their preferred understanding of the American experiment.
And certainly during the 90s, being on the front lines of a lot of the battles against these interests, which led me to say at the end of the decade that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy — which a lot of people thought was an overstatement.
Marc: It turns out it was an understatement. When I say this is the episode about Hillary Clinton always being right, when you said that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy, people jumped all over you. It turns out it was much vaster and more right-wing.
Secretary Clinton: There'd always been radio figures, Father Coughlin and others, who were extremely negative about Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman. And yet in the 90s, we saw the proliferation of media outlets. That's when Fox came on the air. Rush Limbaugh was dominating the radio audiences, and others that were following in his wake. It had been a behind-the-scenes effort to marshal the money to get Justice Powell to write his famous memo about how corporations had to stand up against efforts to undermine corporate power. It was discussed in hotel dining rooms, think tanks that were funded by financial interests on the right. All of that had been going on.
But with the advent of an effective communication strategy to go much further beyond the bounds of right-wing American politics, into the churches, into the Republican Party, into the press in ways that really began to create this broad-based movement — and then, of course, it was obviously exponentially increased with the advent of the internet and the information ecosystem that privileged disinformation, misinformation, and the like.
I saw that happening, and I really did feel like it was an existential political threat. And I saw that there were real coalitions — the Moral Majority, obviously, that was an important part of the merging of the Republican Party with the religious right. I saw how voices that had been attacking or complaining about the politics of FDR, for example, were now joined with the politics of grievance against the culture — the women's movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement.
All of these were rejected by the very forces on the right, but they understood how to weaponize that. Their economic arguments were not going to win the day, but their cultural warfare was quite effective. That was the backdrop of what I was seeing as I was both in the White House and then running for office myself.
Marc: You mentioned one of the topics that I wanted to talk to you about, which is civil rights. In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, a landmark piece of legislation. Throughout the years, you saw Democrats and Republicans support the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. I think you were in the Senate, actually, when it was passed 98-0 in the Senate, so you probably had talks with your colleagues on the Republican side about it.
You saw it reauthorized and signed into law by Richard Nixon, by Ronald Reagan, by George Bush — all Republican presidents. In the Callais case out of Louisiana, the Supreme Court decided that in its view, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the last remaining piece that essentially protects Black voting power — is unconstitutional.
Talk me through how you see this evolution. In 1982, Ronald Reagan was calling the Voting Rights Act the crown jewel of American liberty. How did we get from there to here?
Secretary Clinton: I rank President Johnson's speech promoting the Voting Rights Act as one of the greatest speeches I personally have ever experienced — I remember being glued to our little black-and-white TV watching him make the case for this legislation to protect the voting rights of all Americans, particularly Black and other minority Americans.
That was always a flashpoint for the anti-civil-rights mentality that was not just in the South, but was heavily located in the South. And remember, Johnson said that with the passage of this bill, along with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Democratic Party has lost the South for a generation. Well, it turns out like three or four or five, or maybe infinite generations. He was not in any way naive about the continuing opposition to the very simple proposition of one person, one vote, and establishing the institutional framework to guarantee that. And as you rightly point out, that was — at least at the leadership level of the Republican Party — embraced as a part of the American journey toward a more perfect union.
You're right, I was in the Senate when we voted 98-0 to reauthorize it. I remember that came after literally thousands of pages of evidence — people went to great lengths to provide evidence about continuing discriminatory treatment, both intent and effect. And the evidence was overwhelming. It's not like a little bit here, a little bit there, to the point that 98 of us voted in favor of it, and George W. Bush said he would sign it, which he did.
But I told you I voted against Roberts, and one of the reasons I voted against Roberts was that he was a law clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist, and he wrote a memo about how abominable — that's not the word to use, but that's the intent — the Voting Rights Act was, and how we needed to get beyond it. Naive, but deliberately so — putting on those rose-colored glasses of a post-racial world, which never has existed, never will exist, which is why you need laws and you need institutional frameworks.
It didn't surprise me that when they got a court that Roberts was now in charge of, they brought the laws that could bring this case. For a so-called conservative court, there's nothing conservative about it. And there's certainly nothing conservative about the lack of respect they have for congressional power, for Article I power, which looked at this problem, which studied this problem, which gathered evidence on this problem, and thought the Voting Rights Act was still necessary in order to conduct free and fair elections where everyone would feel that they were heard, their voice was counted, they were represented.
This is part of the very long game that movement conservatives play. They never seem to get discouraged like people on the center-left and left do — like, why didn't you do this, I'm done with you. They play a long game, and they set up the Federalist Society, and they recruit young lawyers, and they place them in Republican administrations. And then they curry their careers to be in the right places at the right times, and they then dominate the court. It's just the reality of the court that we currently have. But the full-scale assault on voting rights, which this court has wielded, is so contrary to reality. There is no doubt in my mind, as we saw what state legislators did to try to destroy majority-Black districts.
It wasn't just their legislative action; I read a lot of reporting about what they were saying: free at last from having to be fair to Black voters and other minority voters, we can do what we want. And pretty soon, we're choosing the voters we want, the voters are not choosing the representatives they want. And all of the half-hearted arguments about how we've advanced beyond that were just put to the lie when you saw what happened in state legislatures, which was gleeful to the point of really stomach-turning, about how they were going to eliminate the voting rights and the representation rights of Black and brown and other voters.
Marc: One of the things that you are sadly an expert in is the weaponization of government. You were targeted by a witch hunt of an independent counsel. In fact, it was so abusive that it actually led to the abolishment of the independent counsel statute on a bipartisan basis.
This was in the 1990s. Later, when you run for president, Donald Trump is leading chants to have you locked up for — it is entirely unclear what, other than that you are running against him for president. You testified in either the House or the Senate for hours upon hours upon hours.
Secretary Clinton: I actually testified in both. This is about Benghazi. Seven congressional committees were very clear that there was nothing there, and they closed their investigations. We actually made some recommendations about how to improve security.
That's when they created the so-called special committee in the House, and the stated purpose was to bring me down, because I left the State Department with a 67% approval rating for the job I've done. And if there were a chance I might run for president, which obviously some people thought I might, then let's bring her down. So create a rump committee and have me testify for, as I recall, 11 hours, and then they walk out of the committee and say there's no there there.
But they're very good at performative politics, and so the very fact that I was testifying for eleven hours puts in the heads of voters — my gosh, it must be some reason why she's testifying for 11 hours. They knew what they were doing. They're good at this.
Marc: I'm sure I have missed five or six other efforts, but I want to ask you — now that we see the Department of Justice just openly going after Tish James in New York, going after James Comey, going after ordinary Americans — what do you make of this?
You said that this is a gross abuse of the system to politicize law enforcement and government against political opponents. Where does Donald Trump seem to be elevating this to a whole other level?
Secretary Clinton: The level of political persecution by the Trump Justice Department, which has really turned into a big personal law firm for him and his allies to go after his perceived political enemies, is a tragic development. I am deeply worried about the hollowing out of the Justice Department. I don't know what they're missing — I have no idea what the Russians, the Chinese and others are doing, what crime syndicates are doing. They don't seem to care, they don't seem to pay much attention to that. They're more interested in going after his perceived enemies. I guess he has an enemies list that would put Nixon's to shame.
The level of corruption, political and financial corruption, is not even being hidden anymore, Marc. It is out in plain view. And perhaps the midterm elections will at least put the Democrats in a position to try to do something about it, but these people are unleashed and unhinged. And it's very difficult to rein them in if you don't have a Justice Department to rein them in. You use state attorneys general, private litigants, but it's very hard to go after this blatant corruption and begin to hold people accountable. But we have to try.
I think Trump is going to double down. I see no indication that even if he loses the House and the Senate in the midterms, that will affect him, because he doesn't care about the law, he doesn't care about complying, and nobody can make him comply. The federal judges who have stopped him from doing certain things are doing all they can, and thankfully, a lot of the judges at the district and appellate court level who have ruled against him have been appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump himself. So that is our only safety valve. Unfortunately, when they rule against Trump and his administration, the Supreme Court puts it on the emergency docket and basically gives them what they want and says we'll get around to the decision on the merits at some future point.
It's been a mixed bag, but the courts are the only check that we currently have. If Congress is under Democratic majority control, I think there's so much to be investigated, and I have urged that it be investigated. This is going to be a huge challenge, because Trump is not going to comply unless he literally is forced to. And it's hard to force him to, because he lies, and he gets out from under obligations, and he says one thing and it's not true, and it's hard to pin him down. And he is just going to continue to govern the way he wants to govern, which is free of any norm, law, constitutional provision, legal admonition. I am very worried. I think winning the midterm elections is not going to be easily translated into the agenda for affordability and the accountability that needs to be pursued.
Marc: I've got to come back to this idea of fighting, and you as a fighter and a role model. You've got to stand up to the bullies. You can't back down, and you've got to realize that when you are on the right side, it is worth fighting.
You and I were both co-defendants in a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump in Florida. He thought he would bring a case in a favorable court and go after you and me and a whole bunch of other people. And instead, he lost, and he lost so badly that his lawyers got sanctioned.
I always point out to people that when Donald Trump sued you and me and others, we didn't say, let's figure out how to settle. We stood up, and we fought. But when you look around, and you see all of these big institutions and people with all of the resources in the world to fight, they could afford to stand up and fight, and instead they capitulate. Do you ever call them and say, hi, this is Hillary Clinton, what are you guys doing?
Secretary Clinton: No, but I have been very disappointed, starting with the law firms — and big kudos to the ones who stood up to Trump, and guess what, they won. I always knew these were winnable cases. I'm a recovering lawyer, and I like a lawyer who fights for me, especially a lawyer who stands up and fights for what's right, regardless of the challenges and the odds. And these law firms — it was just total acquiescence. They thought they could just brush it off, keep going, pay no price. I think they did pay a price, and I think that's very unfortunate.
A lot of the universities were in a more difficult position because they are dependent, in their research and a lot of faculty funding, on the federal government, and when you have a president who doesn't respect science, doesn't care about research, doesn't think that any of it is important, it was a very difficult challenge for them to deal with that. I have more sympathy for them — the idea that you could fight when you were so dependent upon the federal government, it made it harder. And they've been trying to maneuver through it, cut deals, get out from under it, get their funding back.
But the ones that really make me sad are the big corporations — people who are worth a lot more than Donald Trump, people who run major corporations, people who should have the confidence to be able to stand up to him. I always did a little cheer when any one of them did. I remember Costco decided that, I don't know what you think about DEI, but we have a diverse workforce, we have a diverse customer base, we have a diverse supply chain — we like diversity, diversity is good for Costco. And you know what, equity is kind of a good thing too, because we want to treat people in an equitable manner, and we want to be inclusive because that gives us a bigger market. Hooray for Costco. But there were too few of those who said we're not going to be cowed. Too many of them reacted quickly, capitulated — I think they hurt themselves, I think they're still hurting themselves, and it's disappointing.
The media capitulation was of a different sort — it reminded me of the way Putin sent out his oligarchs to try to buy up the media in Europe in order to influence politics, to suborn leaders, to try to get a pro-Russian, pro-Putinism approach. You look at the different institutions and why they did what they did — there might have been slightly different reasons, but the bottom line is that the calculation they made was to go along, and in many cases, abase themselves in order to curry favor with Trump and his associates. It was a very sad spectacle.
Marc: I've got to ask you a couple of questions, putting on your expertise in foreign affairs and former secretary of state hat. I am worried that Bill Pulte is the Director of National Intelligence. I wasn't all that keen on Tulsi Gabbard in that position either. Last I checked, she was hanging out in an evidence truck as ballots were being seized in Fulton County.
Bill Pulte does not seem to be qualified to be the head of national intelligence, and I am worried that we have seen efforts by foreign governments to interfere in our elections, and Bill Pulte does not seem like the kind of guy who's going to stop the interference. What is it that this office does, and should be worried about interference in elections?
Secretary Clinton: You should definitely be worried about everything. This is a naked partisan takeover of the Director of National Intelligence, which was formed following 9/11 to better try to coordinate the various intelligence agencies — the CIA, the NSA, there's like 17 of them — because we missed a lot of signals that we should have paid attention to leading up to 9/11. And it was thought, in this legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security and created the DNI, that this would be a better coordinating mechanism.
There are a lot of problems with it, but it is at the hub of all of our intelligence. The DNI has access to everything that they want to see. I hope there are career and even political appointees in various of the agencies that are slow-walking or refusing to share information with Pulte.
He is manifestly unqualified under the statute to hold that position, I would argue, even in an acting role. They're not going to nominate him, thinking they can avoid the collision with the statutory requirements, but somebody ought to be bringing a lawsuit to test it, to try to enjoin him until the merits are decided as to whether an acting DNI doesn't have to comply with the requirements, which strikes me as another tortured argument that is worth trying to test.
He has just installed as a deputy somebody who's one of these election conspiracy theorists who thinks Trump won in 2020, or even if they don't think it, they say it because that's how they get in good with Trump, and the delusion that he tries to perpetuate on all of us. The bottom line to me is he's very dangerous, he's a loose cannon. We saw what he did trying to go after alleged enemies when he was at the mortgage agency. And I just think it's so deeply insulting to the intelligence community to put someone who, number one, knows nothing, has never had a position where he was exposed to anything with respect to intelligence.
But I am sure they are cheering it in Beijing and Tehran and Moscow and other places, because it's a shambles. It was a shambles under Tulsi Gabbard, who was chasing red herrings as fast as she could pedal, trying to act like that was the real threat to our country. We are facing incredible threats — cyber threats, AI threats, conventional military threats, nuclear weapon threats, biological threats. The list goes on.
And we need the best intelligence we can get, and there's no way that's going to happen with somebody like Pulte in charge over at the DNI. It's not just contemptuous of the intelligence professionals. They're not always right, they make mistakes, but the ones that I've dealt with over many, many years have, by and large, tried to figure out what was happening that could threaten our security, that could go after our electric grid, that could shut down our air traffic control system, that could disrupt our healthcare system, on and on. The threats are pretty real that we have to deal with, and we need smart, dedicated professionals protecting us, and we don't have that.
Marc: I'm going to let you escape without me asking you about 2028, but I'm going to ask you about 2026. I think the midterm elections are essential for democracy.
You now have the luxury of not having to be on the ballot yourself, but watching the field develop, with the history, the experience, and the judgment that comes with it — what's your advice to Democrats? What do you worry about? What do you think they need to do more of?
Secretary Clinton: Well, we're not going to win the majority just by changing who's in the chair in deep-blue districts. And obviously, we've seen a lot of energy go into that. We have to win districts that are currently held by Republicans in order to take back the majority, and we have to win states that are either currently held by Republicans or were and are now open seats in order to win back the Senate.
I am a numbers person — how do we get to the numbers we need to control the House and the Senate?
Because all of this talk about affordability and accountability and everything everybody wants to do, none of it will happen if we don't have the majority. When I was in the Senate for eight years, I was in the majority and in the minority, and it's a lot better being in the majority. I want to see us get to the majority, and that means winning swing districts. A lot of the energy is in the public on the left, with these internecine Democratic fights in blue districts. But what I'm looking at are the candidates that are being nominated that have a chance to win in districts and states that we need to win in order to be successful.
I'm actually very encouraged — I think we have good candidates being nominated that fit the district, that are running good campaigns. And every district, particularly the swing districts, may have a slightly different look to them, because what would play in a swing district in New York may not play in a swing district on the border in Texas or in the valley in California. You do need to have an overall message, which is affordability and accountability, and then you fill in the blanks. But you also need to run as a candidate who can win the votes of a majority of people in your district. And I'm encouraged, but it's a long time between now and November.
I was especially encouraged by the mail-in ballot decision that came out of Mississippi — thank you and your team and everybody, Marc. It's ridiculous that we would be looking at ways of limiting voters, but that's the only way they can win.
They can't win a fair fight in a district or a state, which is why Trump is so obsessed with stealing voter rolls and purging voters and making up ridiculous claims about people not eligible as citizens for voting — that is so vanishingly non-existent it is laughable. But that's his game, because he can't win a fair fight, and his Republican Party, which has become a cult, answering only to him, can't win a fair fight.
Marc: As you look out across the country at the House and Senate races, the governor's races, all of that, it feels to me like Trump has sort of lost some of his grip. He can still swing a small primary electorate, but between the war in Iran and inflation, it doesn't feel like he is leading the Republicans down a successful path.
Secretary Clinton: I think he has become more and more unhinged and more obsessed with what makes him feel strong and powerful. I never thought he cared much about the people, including the people who voted for him and showed up at his rallies, but I think it's gotten a lot worse.
Whatever you think about all of the features of the housing bill, I know that Republicans and Democrats actually worked together and did their jobs in both the Senate and the House, and they came out with a bill that they hope would help to spark more housing around the country.
It's one of the main issues people talk about. He couldn’t care less. He wants to stay in power, not to provide housing for people, not to provide healthcare for people, not to really improve the financial well-being of the average American. He wants to stay in power for the perks. He wants to stay in power for the financial benefits flowing to him and his family. He wants to stay in power to wield unaccountable power against anyone that he considers a political obstacle or an adversary.
It's pretty apparent, and the polling seems to demonstrate that. Obviously, he has no support among Democrats. Those few alleged Democrats who may have voted for him in 2024 have seen the error of their ways and kind of returned — whether they vote for Democrats, I don't know, but they're not going to vote for him or his candidates. The independents, the numbers are very strongly against him — people who may have voted for him, but they didn't vote for the war in Iran, they didn't vote for the corruption tearing down the East Wing of the White House, they didn't vote for him saying things like, I don't care about inflation, I don't care about housing, I don't care literally about you. They didn't vote for their healthcare premiums going up. They didn't vote for any of that.
I think if we get a good turnout, I feel very good about our chances. I also think there is a hardcore — it's about 34, 35% of the electorate — who are literally going to follow him off the cliff. But will they show up? How enthusiastic will they be?
As I look at the elections that we've held in the last year and a half, Democratic turnout is much higher. His contempt for America, for our rule of law, for an agenda that would actually improve the lives of Americans, I think, is so obvious now that people are turning away. And he's doubling down. He's doubling down on his exercise of power in a way that I guess gives him some kind of psychic, narcissistic reward. I don't know what else it does, but he loves tearing things down. He loves going after people. He loves insulting people. He hates answering questions that he finds troublesome. And I think that act is getting old for everybody.
Marc: You recently called for the abolition of the Electoral College, which would be a really good start.
Secretary Clinton: Actually, I called for it in 2000, when I won my Senate race and Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College — that's the first time I said this needs to go, because this is not reflective of one person, one vote, and we shouldn't be hanging on to an anachronism that was designed for slave-owning states.
Marc: You are speaking my language here. Though Joe Biden himself spoke eloquently about democracy issues, I think his administration was way too cautious. It was very tied to norms and tradition and nostalgia for maintaining what was. In the next few years, Democrats are going to have to make some decisions about what to prioritize. I hope they will prioritize democracy issues, but I think that if they do that, they have to take some big swings — they have to go beyond just restoring the Voting Rights Act to what it was in 1965.
But as I've said before, we can do better than a law that was passed in 1965 — we could be more proactive. We can do things like work towards abolishing the Electoral College, which, as you say, is an anachronism at best. It's out — we did away with the state legislatures appointing senators. We certainly could move to a popular system of elections for president.
I wonder if you either have particular ideas, or if you see any energy in this space within the Democratic Party and the center-left and left to reimagine how we can make democracy stronger when we hold power.
Secretary Clinton: Absolutely, and I could not agree with you more. If we don't do that, shame on us. If we don't come up with real protections for voting rights — take a look at the Voting Rights Act, let's reenvision it for the 21st century, as you said. Take a look at popular vote — the popular vote movement is going state by state, and they're getting closer to a 270 electoral number that might feel possible, but let's figure out what legislation in Congress could protect that, so that it's a structure that would be blessed by federal legislation, so that when we reach the number of states we need, so that the states' electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote, it's protected against Supreme Court interference.
I think there is an affirmative agenda that we need to be looking at. I'm totally on board. I would look to you, Marc, and other defenders of democracy — you've been in the trenches, you understand the games they play, you understand how to protect us against those. Let's start working right now. My fear is that we don't play the long game, and we don't play it in a coherent, unified way. I'm sure there are people in the center, center-left, far left, whatever we call ourselves, who are working out what they want to see. But let's get together — there are certain fundamental decisions that have to be made. Democracy is core to that.
Let's get together and figure out how we can be ready on day one when the new Congress is sworn in on January 3rd. Let's be ready with legislation. Let's work with whoever the leaders are going to be to make sure that we do what Project 2025 did. We won't have a White House, but we will have a Congress, and let's not waste that. Now, will Trump veto things? Yeah, but that still sets us up for the debate. It sets us up for action later. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Let's get what we can get past. Let's figure out what the coalitions are to build it. And I don't think there's anything more important than protecting voting rights. So let's get to work on that right now.
➤ Watch the full interview here
.png?upscale=true&height=50&upscale=true&name=Bluesky_Logo-grey%20(2).png){kind=logo}
