MS NOW EXCLUSIVE: Van Hollen will take on Schumer to lead Senate Democrats | FULL VIDEO

Yes, I am planning to run for the Senate majority. leader. And let me tell you why. Because this is not about any one individual, but it is about answering the call. of the American people. We saw a huge outburst of democracy. on Election Day, red states, blue states, purple states. And it wasn't only a rejection of Donald. TRUMP AND HIS CORRUPTION AND HIS. WARS AND HIS CRUELTY. IT WAS ALSO ABOUT A CALL FOR A LARGER CHANGE, TO TAKE ON A BROKEN ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT'S.

RIGGED IN FAVOR OF THE VERY WEALTHY AGAINST WORKING. people, and it's fueled by a corrupt political system. And the call was really to reject the. status quo and to reject business as usual. And to do that, I think we need new leadership. You've as recently a Saturday, you said you weren't planning to do this, but what has changed over the last couple of. days? What's changed was the sense. of how this is a generational.

OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SENATE TO. RESPOND TO THE CALL OF THE. AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR CHANGE. THE SCALE AND SCOPE OF THIS VICTORY, 56 SENATE DEMOCRATIC SEATS, REALLY GIVES US I THINK IT'S NOT JUST A. MANDATE AND THE VOTES TO DO BIG THINGS. BUT IT SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR, WHILE, YOU KNOW, VOTERS HAVE REJECTED THE TRUMP POLICIES, THEY'VE NOT YET HIRED DEMOCRATS. THEY'VE GIVEN US A CHANCE. WE HAVE TO EARN THEIR TRUST. AND MY VIEW IS THAT YOU CAN'T EARN THAT TRUST.

WITH OLD LEADERSHIP. YOU NEED TO MOVE ON TO NEW leadership. So I think a lot of people out there, they did vote for change. They feel that, right? A lot of people who are coming. in have expressed an openness to. different leadership at the top. in the Senate. But for those who are looking at the priorities, and they're wondering what is the difference. between having you as the majority leader. and Chuck Schumer? For people out there who aren't living. in Washington, who aren't attuned to all of the leadership. elections, what's the difference? Sure.

I I think there are a number of differences. One is, I believe that we should use our full. power in the United States Senate to respond. to the calls of the American people. So, for example, the war in Iran. This is an illegal and senseless war. I believe we need to end it now, immediately. We use all our power to do that. That means not one more penny spent. on this war so that we can bring prices. down right away. I mean, gas prices are up diesel prices are. up we're going into a winter where home.

heating oil prices are up we should end. this war and bring down costs now. and what would you do that is different. from how leader Schumer would approach. that particular issue? Well, he hasn't taken a position on this. Well, for people who are, you know, they haven't tuned in to exactly the differences. So tell them the differences. Yeah, look, well, the difference is I believe. we need to be firm. I think that we.

are going to wait till January when we have. the power to do it on December 11th. And so this should not be a finger. in the wind issue. This should not be sort of frittering around. This should not be a question of timidity. We need to answer the call of the American people, end. the war, bring down prices, do it now. Not a penny, not a penny to fuel this war. So it's about funding for the war.

and it's about keeping the Democrats. together once they're in the majority. to oppose any additional funding? That's one example. I mean, that's an example of immediately using the. power that we have, all of the power we have to answer the call. of the American people, which was overwhelming. End the war, bring down costs. And you think that would prompt the president. of the United States? He would be forced to end the war is your point. You think that's the approach that would. force him to end the war. because Congress can't do it unilaterally. Right. Right.

The president would be given a choice, right? Does he say to the American people. that I'm going to shut down the United. States government? Am I going to shut down all the agencies. of the U .S. government to keep the legal war in Iran going. and to keep prices high when we could do it now? So the president would have a choice. He could choose to completely ignore. the will of the American people. and shut down the government. But my view is it's our job to do what we think. is best for the country. There are a number of incoming,

and I want to talk more. about your agenda too here, but there's a lot of. question out there. There's a lot of openness, I should say, from incoming members and existing. members to a difference, a change in leadership at. the top. I want to play for you, though, something that Alyssa Slotkin, Senator Alyssa Slotkin said earlier. this week she did a press conference. with Senator Bernie Sanders. He made clear afterwards he would be. supporting you, but I want to play what she said. AND GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON IT. I THINK WHOEVER WANTS TO RUN.

THIS CAUCUS SHOULD COME. THEY ARE GOING TO GOVERN DIFFERENTLY, WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO IN THE FIRST. 100 DAYS TO PUT MONEY IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS. AND THEN IN PARTICULAR HOW THEY ARE. GOING TO COMMUNICATE. DIFFERENTLY. SO YOU'VE MENTIONED THE WAR. THAT IS ON THE MINDS OF SO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE, SO MANY AMERICANS. THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE AN. IMPACT ON GAS PRICES. THERE'S LOTS OF CONCERNS THAT. AMERICANS HAVE OUT THERE ALSO. ABOUT THE LEVEL OF corruption, right? Also about health care costs. What else would you do that would be different.

from Leader Schumer in terms. of how you would approach the first 100 days? So we need to immediately tackle the issues. you just mentioned. We need to REVERSE THE DAMAGE. FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. WE NEED TO RESTORE THE MEDICAID FUNDING. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE RESTORE THE FOOD AND. NUTRITION PROGRAMS. REPUBLICANS HAD TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH. permanently we need to extend tax credits. for the Affordable Care Act. But we can't stop there, right? We have a completely broken health care system.

It's become profits, not people. And And so my view is we also need, in the first 100 days, to make health care more affordable. for tens of millions of people. We need to immediately make it clear. that nobody's going to pay one penny to. subsidize data centers. We need to rein in AI, mandatory safeguards. protect workers. We need to make sure that we have a livable. minimum wage. And I will also say, and I think it's important, Jan,

on the political side of the equation, we shouldn't have a democratic leader. who is getting involved in picking sides. in open seven Democratic primaries. And we should be focused on defeating Republicans, not getting involved. We have two senators right now. in the United States Senate who wouldn't. be there if the current MAJORITY LEADER. HAD HIS WAY. HE SUPPORTED ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATES IN THE. PRIMARIES.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAINE AND MICHIGAN. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MICHIGAN AND MINNESOTA. YOU'RE ALSO RIGHT ABOUT ME. YOU SAID A LOT OF THINGS THERE, SO LET'S DIG INTO A COUPLE OF THEM. SO YOU THINK AS MAJORITY LEADER, YOU WOULD NOT TAKE SIDES IN PRIMARIES? CERTAINLY NOT IN OPEN PRIMARIES. OKAY. YOU You wouldn't be recruiting your preferred. candidates for primaries. You would let the people pick in those states. I think the Democratic primary voters, the voters in the state should pick, not Washington, D .C. You've also mentioned in the past you've been. very critical of Leader Schumer. and the THE D .S .C., FRANKLY, FOR TAKING.

MONEY FROM APAC, FROM THE CRYPTO INDUSTRY. IF YOU WERE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER, WOULD YOU ALSO NOT TAKE MONEY? WOULD THE D .S .C .C. NOT TAKE MONEY FROM APAC OR FROM THE. CRYPTO INDUSTRY? ARE THERE OTHER RED LINES YOU HAVE ON. THAT FRONT? SO THE TWO races that we talked about, you're right. Leader Schumer sided with the candidate who is. backed by AIPAC and crypto. So my view is we should not have. a democratic leader who's weighing in. in that THAT WAY IN ANY OF THESE RACES. THAT'S SIGNIFICANT, THOUGH. IT IS SIGNIFICANT ALSO THAT YOU'RE.

DECIDING TO JUMP INTO THIS RACE. I SHOULD ALSO NOTE. SO DOES THAT MEAN THERE WOULD. BE NO MONEY TAKEN BY THE. D .S .C .C., FROM APAC, if you were the leader? So. my view is that we shouldn't take any APAC. money at the D .S .C. Okay, just to be clear, I just wanted to be clear. on that. Let's talk about there are a lot of priorities. The American people want a lot to. THERE WOULD BE A LOT ON THE SHOULDERS OF WHOMEVER THE. DEMOCRATIC LEADER IS. ANOTHER ISSUE THEY ARE VERY FOCUSED ON IS HOLDING THE. TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO ACCOUNT,

INVESTIGATIONS. AND THERE'S A LOT A LOT OF CALLS FOR THAT, A LOT OF INTEREST IN THAT. SO AS YOU LOOK TO SOME OF THE. ISSUES THAT THERE HAVE BEEN. CALLS FOR INVESTIGATIONS, TRUMP'S CORRUPTION, THE. IRAN WAR, ICE. WHAT IS AT THE TOP, VERY TOP of your list in. terms. of where you would like to see. investigations prioritize. So, Jen, this is an area where there has to be. coordination between the House and the Senate. and among committees because I think we should. investigate Trump corruption, especially the Trump corruption that has. a direct link to hurting the American people.

in our national security interests. But I also think we should investigate. how we got into this war in Iran, and I also BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE OVERSIGHT. OVER ICE. I MEAN, ICE IS RESPONSIBLE AND. DEPARTMENT OF HOLE OF INSECURITY. FOR KILLING TWO AMERICAN CITIZENS. YET THEY'VE WORKED TO COVER IT UP. THEY FIRST CALLED THEM DOMESTIC TERRORISTS AND. NOW they're covering up. So, yes, we need to shine a spotlight on that. And I do think that we can do. all of that and also make sure.

that we have a strong agenda. for working people. We can walk TALK AND SHOO GUM AT THE SAME TIME. WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO DO FIRST OF THE INVESTIGATIONS? BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT COMMITTEES WORKING ON. DIFFERENT. AREAS OF JURISDICTION BUT THERE. ARE CERTAIN COMMITTEES THAT HAVE. MORE OVERSIGHT POWER, WHERE WOULD YOU WANT THEM. TO FOCUS? SO FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK THE OVERSIGHT. COMMITTEES, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE HOUSE OVERSIGHT. COMMITTEE. AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEES, THEY SHOULD FOCUS ON. TRUMP'S CORRUPTION. AND NOT JUST HIS. PERSONAL CORRUPTION, I MEAN, HE'S MADE $2 BILLION SINCE HE'S BEEN PRESIDENT,

BUT ALSO HOW HE SELLS FAVORS OUT. OF THE OVERALL OFFICE TO HIS BILLIONAIRE BUDDIES. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS. committee can't look into something. like how did we get into the Iran war. So different committees have different. jurisdictions. I do think it's also important. that as we shine a spotlight on corruption, that we make it very clear that our top priorities are. these kitchen table issues. Because this was a populist election, right? This was not right versus left.

This was not moderates or progressives. This was people fed up with a system that stacked. against working people in favor. of the very wealthy. So we really need to keep our eye. on the ball there. There are a number of incoming. members who were elected. from red states who won over 10%, 11 % or more percentage. of Republicans in their state. People like Adam Hamilton, first. Democrat elected in Kansas. since 1932, very significant, who said. if he spends the next two years. doing investigations he would be.

deeply disappointed is how. he phrased it. How do you PREVENT THAT FROM BEING SOMETHING. THAT. IS WEIGHING DOWN THESE NEW MEMBERS. OR OTHERS WHO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT. INVESTIGATIONS TAKING OVER THE AGENDA. OF THE INCOMING DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY? WELL, I AGREE WITH ADAM HAMILTON. WE CANNOT ALLOW the investigations to eclipse. Our main focus, which needs to be on these. kitchen table issues, the things that put more money. in people's pockets, bring down costs, and by the way, deal with the CORRUPTION,

OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT FEEDS. THAT ECONOMIC RIGG SYSTEM. SO I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE OUR. FOCUS. THAT WILL BE OUR LEGISLATIVE FOCUS. BUT YOU CAN ALSO HAVE COMMITTEE. HEARINGS THAT SHINE A SPOTLIGHT. ON THOSE OTHER ISSUES TO HOLD THE. PRESIDENT ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE YOU. DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THEY. CAN GET AWAY WITH ALL THIS WRONGDOING. AND ILLEGAL ACTION GOING FORWARD. I REALLY THINK WE CAN AND MUST DO BOTH. WHAT IS THE DEMOCRATIC LET'S TALK. ABOUT THE NUMBERS HERE. BECAUSE IN ORDER TO, I MEAN, THIS IS A SMALL NUMBER OF VOTES. THAT ANYBODY IS LOOKING FOR WHO IS TRYING TO BE the. Democratic.

majority leader in the Senate, right? You are trying to get the majority of 55, 56 senators, right? So right now, as far as the count we saw. publicly, Chuck Schumer has at AT LEAST 12 SENATORS. WHO HAVE COME OUT PUBLICLY FOR HIM. HE HAS SAID HE'S CONFIDENT HE'LL BE ELECTED, CLEARLY HE THINKS HE HAS THE VOTES, I ASSUME YOU DISAGREE WITH HIS MATH ON THAT, BUT WHY? BECAUSE I'VE TALKED TO. almost every member now, or at least tried to reach. them. And I've gotten feedback from members. of the caucus. And my view is this is very much in flux.

Am I the underdog? Yes. You're talking about an incumbent who uses. the Senate and Democratic caucus. You mentioned some of the new people, you know, one of the things they heard. on the campaign trail led them to say.

they're not going to support our. current majority leader. They're not going to support senator schumer. that was in response to people they were hearing. from in this election have you talked. okay sir i think we need to be listening i've. talked to just yes all of the incoming members. yes i've talked to all the incoming members. and uh look i I THINK, AS THEY SAID TO THEIR. CONSTITUENTS, THERE IS A DESIRE FOR CHANGE, NOT JUST FIGHTING BACK AGAINST THE TRUMP. POLICIES, BUT REALLY CHANGE IN WASHINGTON, D .C., GETTING BEYOND THE.

status quo. And I think that requires new leadership. So you were, just to be clear, you were just announcing right now. that you're running against Chuck Schumer, but you have been making calls. This is how the process works. I should remind everybody. You've got to make calls and see who you're getting. support from. At this AT THIS POINT WE'VE SEEN SENATOR. BERNIE SANDERS CAME OUT AND. SUPPORTED YOU PUBLICLY. HOW MANY OTHER PRIVATE PLEDGES. WHAT DOES OF SUPPORT DO YOU HAVE? WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE. MORE THAN 10? WE HAVE MORE THAN 10. MORE THAN 15? LET ME SAY THIS, We have a lot of people,

but here's the thing about an election like this. As you say, I'm the underdog. A lot of people have not seen. that this is going to be a race for sure yet, right? I told people I was thinking about it. And so now we are opening up the process, right? And now people will have to make a decision one. way or the other. They will have to make a decision one way. for the status quo.

That was part one of my exclusive interview. with Senator Chris Van Hollen, who has just announced that he is running. against Senator Chuck Schumer. for majority leader in the next Congress. And Senator Schumer, I should note, has released a statement in response. He says, quote, I welcome any discussion. about the future of our caucus. and the important work ahead. I'm proud of what we've accomplished together. Fifty five seats and counting is. an amazing result. And I have the votes to continue serving. as Democratic leader. I look forward to leading our new Democratic. majority and delivering for the American people. After a quick break, I'm going to bring you more.

of my exclusive interview with Senator Chris Van. Hollen, including his answer to whether. or not he would support Democrats. impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Todd Blanche, and even President Donald Trump. Stay with us. Let me ask you a little bit mo. about investigations because a loof things, the other thing that's on people's minds are. impeachment, right? We've seen a failed impeachment vote. in the House for Pete Hegseth this week. Hakeem Jeffries, who, of course, you'd be. coordinating with. if you were in this position, said he wants to see that come back up. Would you welcome a trial for Pete Hegseth?

I would. I mean, it would, of course, be on their time if they were supposed to do it, right? So, yes, I wish that that initiative had passed. I mean, Pete Hegseth has committed war crimes. He's lied to the American people. He should never have been a secretary. of defense to begin with. But the answer is yes, I would. What about Todd Blanche? I don't think we can spend all our time right. on impeachments. I think Hegseth is an example. which was a bipartisan example in the House. But I do think Todd Blanche needs to be held.

accountable. I mean, he's the guy that came up. with the idea of using taxpayer dollars. for a slush fund to give to people who. committed crimes on January 6th. And you've seen them corrupting. the judicial process. So, yes, we need to have it shine a spotlight. on exactly what's happening at the Justice. I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY. PRIORITY. I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE A IT'S NOT IN THE. E. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY THINK OBVIOUSLY IF THE HOUSE VOTES. to impeach Todd Blanche, it would go to the Senate. But you don't think that should be a priority?

I don't think that should be a priority. It's not that he has not committed impeachable. offenses. It's how are we going to use our time. at this moment? And I do think, as Adam Hamilton said, we should be focused on these kitchen-table. issues, putting more money in people's pockets, bringing down costs, and going after the corrupt political system that feeds. the rigged. economic system. So what about President Trump? Do you think there should be, would you welcome impeachment proceedings for. him?

I think he has also committed impeachable. offenses. There were two impeachments against Donald Trump. in his first term. So my view is we should not be focused. on that at this point in time. Again, our focus needs to be. on shining a light on his corruption, but then really responding to the call. of the American people. And it was a populist call. It was not right versus. left. It was everybody rejecting Donald Trump's corruption, his wars, his cruelty, giving us a chance.

Now we need to seize that opportunity. There was a headline yesterday. in Politico describing you as the new. darling of the progressive left. I have followed your career for a long time. I know that's not how you started your career. Do you embrace that mantle? I am upset for a year what I'm saying. to you tonight and more actually, that this is not about progressives. or moderates or conservatives. This is much more a populist movement. that unifies people on left and right.

against a rigged economic system, a system that has been rigged. by very rich people and powerful interests. against working people. And to get at that, we need everybody. And that's what this election said. And to get at that, we need to go after a. corrupt political system. because what you have is some of the richest, most powerful people in the world spending gobs. of money in these elections to try to buy. a Congress that will do their bidding. So, for example, we need to get rid of super. PACs.

We need to get rid of secret money. We need to get rid of the Elon Musk. loophole that allows them to try to buy. a Congress while getting billions. of dollars in federal contracts. Those issues are important, and we also need to be. protecting. voter rights so that we have. a democracy that works for people, not for the fat cats. You got a lot on your agenda here, a lot to do. One of the issues you've been outspoken. about that is on the minds of a lot of people is, of course, ICE and the fact that ICE. has. been terrorizing communities. across the country for the last.

two years nearly since Trump retook office. You've said you want to get rid of Trump's ICE, I believe is the phrasing. What does that mean? Does that mean abolishing ICE. or doesn't mean abolishing ICE? No, it means, first of all, defunding ICE. Completely defunded. Two steps here. One is Republicans put aside about $200 billion. for ICE through that reconciliation package. We should claw that back and use it to. help more people afford health care. Then we need to look at ICE through the normal process.

where. we use the power of the purse to. completely rein in their illegal. activities to end this sort of, you know, paratrooper approach. and to put in place very strict. safeguards to protect our constitutional rights. and to prevent this sort of mass deportation. It's one another reason why I think. whether you whether you welcome the mantle. or not, what are the reasons? I think a lot of people in the progressive movement. are excited. about you is that you've been an advocate,

a co-sponsor of Medicare. for all Something that Senator. Bernie Sanders said this week, he'd like to move forward quickly. in the new Congress as leaders. That's something you'd push for and advocate for. So I believe, Jen, at the end of the day, we'd have a better health care system. if we got to Medicare for all. I don't see us getting there all at once. So what does that mean? Number one, we actually need to. increase the benefits. under Medicare. We need to add vision and dental and hearing. Number two, we need to open Medicare.

immediately to. people of a dish more ages. So 55 to 65, we should look at kids. Andy Kim, for example, has a bill for. Medicare for kids, we need to do all that. We also need to look at a public option. within the Affordable Care Act. because we need to end the system where we have. a health care processing system that is. essentially become a money-making operation. Over 30 cents of every health care dollar goes. to administration and profit.

In Medicare, 2 % goes to administration. So do I believe that would be a good end result, I do. But I don't say that we have to get. there right now. I don't think we have the political. ability to do that. But what we can do is improve it right away. Get away from a system that's focused. on profits over patients and put patients first. So it sounds like what you're saying, just to make sure I'm getting this correctly. There are 18 co-sponsors, I should say, of Medicare for All.

That's not nothing. It's not the majority of the caucus, I would say. But But as majority leader, you're not saying the only. way forward. is Medicare for all because that's not. where everybody supports. I'm not saying that exactly. I'm not saying that. As I said, I think that would be a. good end state, but I don't see us getting there. like in the first hundred days. Let me ask you about something else, because you mentioned the elimination. of super packs. I think that's something a lot. of people would love to see, even though Elon Musk just flushed a half a billion. dollars. down the toilet. So there's that. What about corporate pack. money? Is that something that you think the DSCC.

should accept? Look, there's a distinction between what my position is. on those. and I don't take corporate PAC money. But the DSCC, that is something. that I think we'd have to look into. because I want to make these decisions, that kind of decision with the full input. of the Senate Democratic Caucus. That's really important. And I will say one of the reasons people. in the caucus are hungry for change is.

because we don't have a very open, transparent caucus right now. We need more inclusion. We need more transparency. We need more member participation. and meaningful input. And that includes the new members. that are coming in. These are really important new voices. One of the arguments, and I just wanted to play. something. that Senator SENATOR GAYAGO SAID. EARLIER THIS WEEK, YOU MAY HAVE SEEN, BECAUSE ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT IS. BEING MADE BY SOME PEOPLE WHO. ARE SUPPORTING SENATOR SCHUMER. PUBLICALLY IS, HEY, LOOK AT US.

WE'VE GOT 55, MAYBE 56 SEATS AND THIS GUY. BROUGHT US. IT'S NOT A LONG TIME COV FAN. I WANT TO PLAY THIS AND GET YOUR THOUGHTS. I USED TO BE A LONG TIME COV FAN. I USED TO BE A THE MANAGER TAKES TO THE WORLD. SERIES, YOU GIVE HIM ANOTHER CONTRACT AND THIS. HAS BEEN A REALLY GOOD ELECTION CYCLE FOR US. SO HE'S MAKING THE ARGUMENT, LOOK, HE BROUGHT US HERE, He brought us to the game, right? What do you make of that argument?

Well, I think if you look at this election, this was not like a Washington, D .C., orchestrated victory. This was a huge movement AROUND THE COUNTRY. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KEPT. ME HOPEFUL. IN THE LAST TWO YEARS WERE ALL THE. PEOPLE WHO SHOWED UP FOR NO KING'S DAY EVENTS, THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK TO THE STREETS OF. MINNEAPOLIS, THE PEOPLE WHO REFUSED TO SHUT. UP AND GO AWAY WHEN DONALD TRUMP WANTED. THEM TO SHUT UP AND GO AWAY. And on Election Day, they came out in huge. numbers. It wasn't orchestrated from Washington, D .C., or the DSEC.

It was a people-powered movement. That's why we won in places is. like South Carolina. That's why we won in Mississippi. I mean, look, I appreciate the work. of everybody at the DSCC, but the reality is that until the very last minute, the DSEC did not spend money. in South Carolina or Mississippi. And we won governorships. We won state legislatures. This was a huge wave.

Again, I appreciate the work of the people. of the DSEC. I used to chair the DSEC. But I also know from also chairing the DCCC. that you can see big wave elections for. or against you. And yes, you can work at the margins. But in an election like this where you win 56. Democratic seats, this was because of the will. of the American people, not with respect to the DSCC.

It's no secret that you've thought about running. for president. I know you've said your focus. at this point is really thinking. about this race and Senate majority, running for Senate majority leader. And now you've said you're going to be. running for Senate majority leader, which is a significant, very big deal. What do you say to the people who say, well, you're just doing this to raise. your profile to run for president? Yeah. So I was thinking about jumping. into the presidential race and I made. that clear. I now believe that we can collectively. make the biggest difference.

by responding to this huge opportunity. that the people have given us. in the United States Senate with 56 seats, Thank you, Colin. We ran through the gamut. there. So thank you for taking the time. We sure did. You covered a lot of territory. We did. Now you're going to be running. for Senate Majority Leader. You're going to have a very busy couple. of weeks.

I appreciate you coming here. and having a lengthy, thorough conversation with me about all of. But great to be with you. Thank you so much. Thank you.