 Hello everyone. I am here with Representative Ro Khanna of California's 17th Congressional District. He's a Justice Democrat and he is also the National Campaign Co-Chair for Bernie Sanders 2020 Presidential Campaign. Congressman Khanna, thank you so much for coming on the program. Thank you. It's my second time and I appreciate you're having me back on. Well, thank you so much for reaching out. Let me just say something about you. Unlike pretty much every other politician and human being for that matter, when you are criticized, your first instinct is not to shut down. You always engage with people and you don't just talk to people who have very large platforms on social media and YouTube. Like you individually engage with people on Twitter who you don't know, who may not even be in your district. So I truly find that so commendable because most people do not do that. And of course what I'm referring to for viewers who don't know is the BDS vote that occurred on July 23rd. This is House Resolution 246. So first of all, thank you for your willingness to engage with people. I appreciate that. I know we're going to have some tough questions and I welcome that. But my view is it's a huge public trust to be a member of Congress. It's an extraordinary privilege and you should be open to criticism. You should be open to people pointing out your weaknesses. I don't think any human being has a monopoly on the truth and it makes me better and often makes me think of an issue differently. So I actually genuinely welcome criticism. As long as it's somewhat civil and not someone cursing out or being obnoxious, I think it's very helpful. Absolutely. I totally agree. And I think that the overall point that's important is that we are all on the same side and our allies in Congress, they're not going to do things that we always agree with 100% of the time. But when there are these disagreements, I think it's incredibly constructive to really hash them out. And basically even if we can't agree, at least understand where the individual is coming from. So just before we get into the BDS vote, I just want to get my audience caught up. This is the vote on July 23rd. This is House Resolution 246, where the House voted to condemn BDS. In that same day, the House passed 1837, which is another APAC endorsed resolution, which authorizes an additional $1 billion increase to Israel for five years over the next five years. That is, for the US War Reserve stockpile, it gives Donald Trump the ability to essentially unilaterally transfer over additional weapons to Israel. There's no stipulations when it comes to human rights. So there's that as well as the BDS vote. So my audience knows where I stand on this. So I just wanted you to be able to kind of give us your take and why you voted to condemn BDS. Sure. I'll answer the direct question on BDS, but first let me just put into broader context where I stand on the Israel-Palestine relationship. I have called for an end to any new settlement. I've been opposed to demolition of any villages and have written a number of letters calling for Israel to stop the demolition of villages, and I will be leaving another letter soon about that issue. And I have been for lifting the blockade in Gaza to allow for humanitarian aid and economic activity. I also have not supported any effort to penalize or criminalize BDS. So there are a number of laws and resolutions. I think Rubio had one and floating around in the Senate that would actually make it a crime or make it a penalty to do that. What I did vote for is a resolution that I disagreed with BDS as a tactic to get peace in the Middle East. And the reason I did that is one, I think it was it's overbroad to boycott the entire state of Israel. I mean, you're not even targeting settlements. You're targeting the entire state. And I, you know, just like I actually, I'm not for usually sanctions. I've been against sanctioning people in Venezuela. Why would, why would we publish collectively an entire country? I also think it's somewhat selective. Why do Israel and not the oppression of the Uyghurs in China, a million people who are being oppressed or Saudi Arabia, where there's huge oppression in the Yemen War. So I think there is absolutely suffering and abuses with the Palestinians. But I don't think that calls for the boycott of an entire country. And finally, I think culturally, I mean, when you walk under the House floor, the first statue you see overlooking the entire house is Moses, the lawmaker. And I just think that culturally recognizing the relationship with Israel and then moving them into a direction, a more progressive direction, a direction of human rights and direction of peace is a more effective strategy to get to the goal of a two straight solution and a Palestinian state. So let me ask you this, because I don't, I don't agree with what you said, but I can, I can understand your position. And I think that some of your points, you know, in terms of why single out Israel, I think that that is persuasive to a lot of people. But this is what I would like to know. If not BDS, you know, this is a Palestinian led peaceful movement. If not BDS, what can we do to put pressure on Israel to end this occupation, to actually get peace, to get them to recognize Palestinian human rights? Because it seems like BDS is really the one thing that has gotten the attention of US lawmakers of, you know, the Netanyahu government. So this seems like it can work. So I mean, if you're against BDS, what do you think we're able to do as US citizens as allies to the Palestinian people to stop the suffering, essentially? Well, I'm not sure it has worked. I mean, I would argue that Netanyahu has committed more abuses and been more destructive to peace than probably any other of his recent predecessors. And now partly I think the Trump administration has enabled that. But I don't think you can argue that the situation start with the BDS movement has led to a more peaceful outcome. Maybe one day it will. But certainly the facts on the ground don't suggest to me right now that it's achieved the end. I think what has achieved ends in the past has been when presidents, whether it was Dwight Eisenhower, going back to the crisis with the side I put in, Ronald Reagan or George Bush Sr., or Bill Clinton at all different times, they said that whether it was conditional loans or certain forms of United States assistance, they said, look, we reserve the right to suspend that. We reserve the right to block that if you don't comply with the framework that the United States has set forward. And if that's not a novel idea that something American presidents have done, going back as I said to Eisenhower, and so I would say that you need a president who will articulate a clear vision, stop the settlement growth, get to the peace table, lift the blockade and the demolitions, and be willing to leverage our extraordinary role there to get that done. Well, when it comes to the effectiveness of BDS, I think that you can argue that it has been effective in some ways and it hasn't been effective in others. But I think that what really is important about this is the Palestinian people, they modeled this after the apartheid boycott in South Africa. And even though that wasn't necessarily in and of itself the one thing, the one catalyst that ended apartheid, it was a crucial tool to ending oppression. So I just feel like when we are emphasizing peace, peaceful resistance, BDS is essentially the one tool that Palestinians have. So if we essentially take that away from them and we tell American allies that they also shouldn't participate in that and there may be penalties in the United States, then I just don't feel like there's much that we're leaving in terms of actually putting pressure on Israel who is the occupier and there's this imbalance of power. So it feels as if the situation is already hopeless, but when you remove BDS, when you have U.S. lawmakers voting to condemn it and in some instances criminalize it in multiple states, it just feels like we're in this never-ending hopeless situation where this will always be the status quo. Now, I don't think that you and I will see eye to eye when it comes to the issue of BDS, but there is one area where I think that we can kind of put our disagreements to rest and it was something that you said with regard to the criminalization. So individually, you disagree with BDS. However, you did state that you are against the criminalization of BDS, is that correct? The criminalization or civil fines, I'm against any statutory penalty for engaging in BDS. I have no desire nor do I think it's appropriate for the United States government to interfere with what any citizen wants to do in their protests. I just think as a lawmaker whose goal ultimately is to try to see a resolution, a peace in that area, that I may have a different perspective than a citizen in a different sense of where I think will be most effective for the peace process. People may disagree with me, but that's my personal opinion, but I certainly don't think I have the right or we have the right as a state to penalize people for engaging in protests. And I refuse, last term, I never cosponsored or supported the BDS bills that APEC was supporting that a number of many other of my colleagues if you go look at who all supported those bills, there were a lot of people who supported the penalty or criminalization of BDS. I never did. And that really, it does make a difference. We don't have to necessarily agree, but so long as you are using your power and platform as a lawmaker to not criminalize it, that is important. So let me ask you this. Since you are against the criminalization, can we count on your support for House Resolution 496? This is sponsored by Ilhan Omar, and this quote affirms that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. This is something that actually after Tulsi Gabbard and Ayanna Presley had voted with you to condemn BDS, they signed on to this bill. So can we count on you to do the same? I am not co-sponsored that bill for the simple reason that I think it's self-evident. I mean, I don't I don't know why we need to affirm the right that's constitutionally protected. I support the principle. I support. And what you can count on me on is that I will never in my public career vote to criminalize or penalize a boycott against any country, including our own. But I think that's a violation of the Constitution, and I think a law is redundant. I told that to Ilhan when she asked me about it. And it is like I agree with you, it is self-evident. And this really is something that we shouldn't have to do. We shouldn't have to affirm that U.S. citizens have the right to protest and engage in political activity that the government may or may not deem as inappropriate. But unfortunately, that's not the reality currently when we have 25 plus states that actually penalize people who don't sign these anti BDS Israeli loyalty pledges. I mean, there's a Texas school teacher who was fired and she's now suing because she was forced to either sign a loyalty pledge to Israel or lose her job. So I feel like at this day and age, when lawmakers are voting to condemn BDS, it really is important to affirm that support. So I'm hoping that you're not entirely, you know, your mind is made up here. I'll take another look at the initial reason I haven't. And because other people have asked me, I just think it's a it's a constitutional principle. And I guess I don't see what, unless we're going to pass something, what the value, it's almost diminishing the constitutional protection. What I would be happy to do is sign on to an amicus brief for someone suing in one of these states. And if it's going to the Supreme Court to support someone's right to, to boycott, I'd be happy to support legislation that said that the states need to remove these restrictions. But to affirm a federal constitutional right, legislatively, I think is actually to, to diminish that right. It'd be like if someone said let's pass a statute to affirm Roe versus Wade. I mean, we wouldn't do that because it's a constitutional right. I mean, that's my that was my perspective on it. But but in terms of the commitment, it's a it's 100% there. And you can hold me to it where we're being recorded, that in the entire course of my public career, I will always stand up for people's right to boycott and, and the government shouldn't be ever penalized. But on one hand, you know, you voted to condemn BDS. But now it seems contradictory that you won't vote to affirm our right to engage in BDS. So do you kind of see why it seems as if there's this double standard? And again, I think that the fact that you're willing to say, I will not support the criminalization is important. That goes, you know, a long way. But to take it a step further and say, not only do I not condone the criminalization, but I affirm the right to protest. It just it may be symbolic, but I think that it would demonstrate to people that you're really committed to stopping any efforts to curtail freedom of speech. I hear that. I don't think a singular bill is the only way to do that. I think I can make the constitutional argument for that. And there'll be numerous cases. I've made that case. And if you talk to constituents in my own district that I said I would vigorously oppose any efforts in California to criminalize BDS and penalties. And I can be active in doing that in other states. I'm not I'm open to when I get back after recess to to looking at the bill when I but I am 100% committed to affirming the the right to a boycott more broadly. Well, thank you for being open. I really I do appreciate the fact that you're being open. And unlike other other lawmakers, when you say that you're open, I genuinely believe that you are open. So thank you. And I just really hope that you do consider that bill one more time. That is HR 496 sponsored by Ilhan Omar for viewers who don't know. I do want to move on because we have a limited amount of time. And I want to get to something that you did that I absolutely applaud. And really, this is historic. So after the house passed your resolution to end US complicity in Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen, this is what you said, quote, this is the first time in the history of this nation that a war powers resolution has passed the House and Senate and made it to the president's desk. And in an interview with San Jose inside when Nicholas Chan asked why Americans should care about something that seemingly doesn't affect them. You know, this is happening, you know, halfway around the world. Your answer was two words, human rights. So here's what I want to ask you about that because ultimately, everyone knows that that was vetoed by Donald Trump. But still, the fact that you got that passed was a tremendous almost legendary feat. So what was it that got Republicans on board? I'm asking in terms of argument sake, was the human rights argument what resonated with them? What tactic did you use? Because I think going forward, I want to use this strategy to get Republicans and even more centrist Democrats on board with other proposals that are I think common sense, but apparently not everyone agrees. Donald Trump, especially. But what was it that got them to budge on that? Because it seemed like there was no hope. I think it's the most consequential thing I have done in Congress. And I, of course, I worked with Senator Bernie Sanders on it. And it would never have happened if up for his leadership in the Senate. We passed the war powers resolution the first time in the history of this country since 1973 that a war powers resolution has passed. And even though Donald Trump vetoed it, he voluntarily suspended the refueling of Saudi planes and Mattis, the Secretary of Defense at the time, called the Saudis and said, you better get to the peace table. And if you talk to Special Envoy Griffiths, he'll tell you that that's in part what led to the peace deal in Hodeidah. Now, there's still a long way to go, but I'm convinced that the passing of that war powers resolution had a major impact by stopping our refueling and leading the pressure on the Saudis to come to the table. Now, the UAE has withdrawn from the conflict. And it's also said a precedent that in the future Congress may act when it comes to asserting our constitutional rights. We're not going to allow a situation like Libya to happen again where a president just goes into war without congressional authorization. Or we can name a lot of these instances and now Congress has a much greater authority on war powers. I think there's an emerging consensus that even Republicans have about Congress having the constitutional authority to opine matters of war and peace and that that should not be an executive decision. There's also an emerging consensus that we've been intervening too much militarily overseas and that that has not made us any safer. And I think in the case of Yemen, the Khashoggi murder really highlighted for a lot of Washington the human rights abuses of the Saudi regime. And so there's a greater skepticism of the relationship with Saudi Arabia. But I do think there is an opportunity for a left-right coalition in keeping us out of these endless wars. And that really is encouraging to hear. And I think that the way that you and Bernie sold this to the American people, it absolutely made all of the difference. Because one statistic that you cited on the House floor about the number of deaths that are happening in Yemen every single hour, that statistic haunted me and it stood with me. So thank you for being a leader on this. And really, I think that this was a huge thing. And to see it, to see everyone come together for this, it honestly was shocking because I think as someone who has followed politics very closely, I'm incredibly cynical. So I wouldn't have expected any Republicans, let alone Democrats to get on board. But the fact that you were a leader here, it was great. So thank you so much. But I know that you are running short on time. So we've got one more issue that I want to get to. Now, this is about Bernie Sanders actually, because you are a national campaign co-chair. And just an observation that I've made is that Bernie 2019 version is exponentially better than Bernie 2015. I have less criticisms of Bernie Sanders now than I did back then. But there's still one area where I'm wondering how easy it would be or difficult it would be for us to get the needle to move. And as a national campaign co-chair, I'm wondering if you could be... I thought you were going to give me all the credit as national co-chair, but Bernie's campaign. Well look, hey, the speeches you've made have been fantastic. So you absolutely get credit. And the campaign is doing a fantastic job. And look, everyone who watches my podcast knows I absolutely unequivocally endorse Bernie Sanders. And he's exactly what we need. And I commend you for being courageous and endorsing him like a matter of days after he announced. But here's what I want to ask you. So this is in relation to foreign policy and human rights. And this is about a quote that Bernie Sanders said in 2015 of August in an interview with ABC's This Week. And it's rubbed me the wrong way and I haven't let it go. So let me read you that quote. So he said this about drones. I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case. What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective. There are times and places where they have been absolutely counter effective and have caused more problems than they have solved. When you kill innocent people, what the end result is that people in the region become anti-American who otherwise would not have been. So on one hand, this is better than Trump. This is better than Obama. You see his concern for human rights. However, I don't think that this is very realistic because when you look at the statistics, it just doesn't seem like there's any effective way to use drones. So in March of 2019, the editorial board of the New York Times cited Air Wars that claims 7,600 to 12,000 civilians have been killed due to our drone strikes since 2014. And that number since this article was published has increased. It's now 8 to 12,000. 90% of people killed according to a 2015 report by the Intercept were not enemy combatants. They were civilians. And Pentagon documents obtained by the Intercept revealed that there are various technological flaws as well as dubious intelligence that is often used that results in human beings dying. And that's just what we can quantify. I mean, there are psychological issues that we are causing kids in Pakistan who have PTSD who are afraid to leave their homes when it's sunny because they know that drones will be patrolling. They're going to hear the buzzing and they'll immediately feel fearful. So my question is, can we get Bernie to actually move and come out and say unequivocally, we will not use drones because unfortunately, this isn't something that has been effective. What do you think just as a national campaign co-chair? Is that something he's movable on? Well, first of all, I certainly will take some of the data. I mean, if it's the case that 90% of the drone strikes in Afghanistan have killed civilians, and I think Bernie Sanders would say, based on his quote from 2015, that it's not working there. If there are, you may not want to take the option completely off the table. If there are areas of counterterrorism where it's been effective, it hasn't caused massive civilian loss of life. But I think it's a very different approach from any of his predecessors where there was too much of a willingness to rely on drone strikes without a sufficient understanding of the civilian laws of life. So I will talk to him about it, my instinct, and again, I don't want to commit Senator Sanders to any position. Also, he makes these decisions. My instinct is that he would say that we need to evaluate them region by region, case by case. And if there's evidence that you're citing that in places where they're being used, their massive civilian casualties that they are attacking or targeting terrorists, then he wouldn't use them. And thank you. Thank you for raising this to Bernie Sanders, because I think that he is someone who, like you, responds really well to constructive criticism and feedback. And one other thing that I want to add is just the legal issue. This does violate the territorial integrity and sovereignty of these countries. And Pakistani courts have ruled that these drone strikes in their home turf, it's illegal. So really the way that I picture this is in the events, you know, in my state of Oregon, I saw Russia doing drone strikes, I would absolutely unequivocally be appalled, I would be rebelling. So it's not even just a matter of counterterrorism tactics. I mean, I think that we see that this is making people more radicalized in the region because this, they see this as a threat to their lives, because this has affected them very personally. Again, if they don't know anyone who was killed or injured by a drone, they have that psychological, you know, fear of drones embedded in their heads for the rest of their lives. So the way that I see this is, this is still warfare. This is wars. This is an invasion. This is occupation. But we're just calling it something different, you know, under the guise of fighting terrorism. And it's not really effective. So I will sort of respectfully disagree with you on the Oregon analogy and that there were terrorists in Oregon that were attacking Russia. It would probably be a different case. And there are, you know, terrorists in Afghanistan and part of Pakistan. But I think the effectiveness argument is a different is something that's more to me more concerning. I mean, if it's the case that we're sending drones and they're killing 90% civilians and only 10% terrorists, then I think we're just breeding more hate, more anger, and people are going to grow up without their parents or their brother or their uncles are going to end up growing up hating the United States. So to me, it's counterproductive if the statistics that you're citing are true, which I don't doubt. And I think what we need to look at is very objectively, are these strikes working in our goal, which is to get terrorists, or are they killing civilians and further radicalizing a population? Because of that, I can tell you this Bernie Sanders is going to approach things with a great concern for human rights and with a great concern for constitutionality. He is not a pacifist. He believes we need to go after the terrorists. And if we're hit, if we're going to strike terrorists, and he believes that that's a very legitimate use of American military force, but he also has a deep understanding that that has to be done really respecting the civilians. Okay, that's that's good to hear. And look, let me just say this for the record. I am not saying that Bernie would be as bad as Donald Trump because it's gotten worse under Donald Trump. You know, drone strikes under him have increased by more than 400% according to some estimates. And there's also a lack of transparency that the Obama administration had finally put into place towards the end of his administration. So I know that Bernie will be better. But my concern is better still isn't good enough. So just the mere fact that you're willing to bring this to Bernie's attention for now is absolutely good enough, you know, for me. And Bernie is he's still one of the best when it comes to foreign policy. So just a matter of, you know, making him even measurably better. That's great. So look, Ro, before we go, is there anything left that you want to say? Bernie Sanders, if I can, I mean, I've been, I was just in South Carolina for him. I've been in New Hampshire. After New Hampshire, he has got incredible energy on the ground. There are hundreds of people showing up in rural towns for him. There are thousands of people showing up in cities for him. He has tremendous momentum, despite what some of the media narrative is. And he has more grassroots support across this country than anyone else in the democratic field. To beat Donald Trump, it's my honest view, we're going to need someone who can draw crowds, who can get people energized, who can get people out to vote, and who can connect with people in rural communities and small town communities and working families and communities of color. And Bernie Sanders, I believe, is the best person to do that. And I do think if he wins, it will herald in a new progressive era in this country, the type of which really will reverse finally the Reagan legacy. So more than anything else, I believe electing Bernie Sanders is probably the biggest thing we can do for the country in terms of a lot of the policies we need. I could not agree more. And watching your stump speeches for Bernie on the campaign drill, they're amazing, Ro. So thank you so much. Thank you for your advocacy. And thank you for your willingness to always engage in dialogue, even if we may not always agree. We always, you know, we have a respectful conversation. And that's just incredibly commendable, especially in this day and age. I appreciate it. I hope that service and one thing you can count on is that we may not always agree, but I will always be honest with you and where we disagree, point that out, but you'll always get an answer that's how I feel and where I stand. Well, I appreciate that so much. Thank you so much for coming on the program. We're talking to Ro Cona of California's 17th Congressional District. Have a great day, Ro. Thanks.