BPR Full Show 8/11/26: Ask the Attorney General

Support for Boston Public Radio comes from MIT Federal Credit Union, banking built on innovation guided by real people. Memberships open to the public. More at MITFCU.org, federally insured by NCUA. And Newberry Court, serving Concord, Massachusetts for 30 years as a not-for-profit continuing care retirement community dedicated to older adults. More at newberrycourt.org. I'm Jim Browdy, head on BPR and GVH and NEPM live from the Boston Public Library. For the first hour, it's the August edition of Ask the Attorney General with Mass A.G. Andrea Joy Campbell. She'll answer our questions and yours via call or text at 877330. Or if you're in the Copley Square area, come on by and ask her a question in person. I'm Marjoriegan. The second hour will check in with Congressman Stephen Lynch, who's running for re-election to the Massachusetts 8th District. Dinsmore, surprising reporting countering the we're losing so much money narrative around the Boston Symphony Orchestra's finances and its decision not to renew Anders Nelson's contract. Then we'll end the show with you, inspired by President Trump's Air Force One hijinks. He'll open the phone and text lines to ask, when was the last time you escaped a work function by hiding inside a catering cart? Call it X next on BPR live from the Boston Public Library.

to listen to BPR and GBAH and NEPM, Jim Rowdy and Marjorie Egan, live on the Boston Public Library, streaming at YouTube.com slash GBAH News. Tomorrow we're going to be back here at the Boston Public Library. Seth Moulton, who is running to unseat Ed Markey in the Democratic primary for the Senate, is going to join us. And the mayor of Boston will be with us for the August edition of... Ask the mayor that, of course, is Michelle. Woo, good morning, Jim. Hey there, and we should say at noon today, Congressman Stephen Lynch, incumbent, being challenged by Patrick Roth and the Democratic primary will be with us in person. And following him, a guy you probably never heard of, Thomas Dinsmore, who probably knows more about the inner workings of the BSO while they continue to struggle with this crisis after the firing of Andres Nelson's will join us to set us all straight. Joining us now at the BPL desk for the first full hour, Massachusetts Attorney General, Andrea Joy Campbell, taking our questions in your calls and text for the August edition of Ask the AG. If you have a question for the Attorney General, you can come find our colleague Zoe. That'd be right there in the audience of the BPL or call our text to at 877-301-8970. Attorney General, nice to you. Thanks for being here. Hello, Attorney General. Thank you very much for coming in. So let's start with something that's got a lot of people very... anxious the election is the fairness and the legitimacy of elections coming up in the fall. Bay State Banner had a kind of disturbing story about people trying to take away voting rights, placing people on inactive voter rolls, 60,000 residents in Brockton. So what do we think, protection-wise? So this is really loud. Oh, it is really loud. Do you know how to do that? Can you hear me now? You're okay now or no? You're okay? You got it? I think so. Okay. So there's an echo in your ear. Shocking. Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe this one. Here comes Jamie. Is it this one? I think it's that one. Oh, Jamie's coming over. Thank you. God bless you. So, first of all, thank you all for having me. Thank you everyone who's here in the library. I'm grateful. So, yes, we've been getting a lot of outreach with respect to election integrity, access to voter files, and a few things. One is we've worked closely with the Secretary of State, and I tell folks, regardless of how you feel about our Secretary of State, he's the longest serving in the country. And so it has... is great when it comes to best practices. Also, as we are filing multi-state lawsuits to protect voter information and the integrity of our elections and pushing back on the Trump administration, the partnership has been a game changer. And we have won more than one lawsuit in this space to prevent the Trump administration from accessing data files or even conditioning how we do immigration and other policy changes on access to voter file information. We are continuing, of course, to work with the Secretary of State on making sure people know about voting. Early voting starts on August 22nd. We're going to put out a know-your-rights guide on this and have specifics on what people can do to access the ballot, how they can vote early, et cetera. We're doing that in partnership with the Secretary of State. And then lastly, we are pushing back on this sort of chaos and confusion.

I think in other states where I work with other AGs, they are more concerned. Do you think about battleground states about the integrity of their elections? And I was just with some of my colleagues recently with respect to some lawsuits. And we're supporting each other in these. with these concerns. So I'm not concerned here in Massachusetts. If we have anyone interfering with our elections, we will mobilize, we will fight back, we were prepared to show up in court to protect the integrity of our elections. I think what I'm most concerned about is the lack of voter turnout. I've always been concerned about that since I was on the city council in Boston. You have in certain communities, even in our gateway communities, sometimes people turning out less than 10% of the population, voting population, even in the most recent mayor race in Boston. I think it was under 25%. Yeah. I tell folks. You want to have elected officials who would be responsive to your needs, who will listen to you, who will fight on your behalf. We need you to show up. I can't do this job without having the citizens be partners with us in this work. So if anything, I think we have to continue to do a better job of telling folks about the importance of voting being civically engaged. And frankly, I think the Haitian TPS issue right now is a great example, a sad one and an unfortunate one. as to why people must be civically engaged. We can file all the lawsuits to protect our people, but they will hit a wall as they did with Haitian TPS status, where folks no longer have that status. And that is heart-wrenching for so many families. So who's in these positions matters. And people do have a voice and you do have power when it comes to the ballot. So it's just a friendly reminder to get out and vote this year. Can I work backwards? Because I do want to ask you about the election stuff. But since you mentioned the TPS is one of the first examples of the pain from this is Zohran Mamdani, who's obviously on the same side you are, had to lay off a ton of Haitian employees the other day because they don't work permits because of this action of our felonious sex-abusing. President and the Supreme Court of the United States. I know you and the governor have been urging Congress to do something, which they could do. That's it, essentially, unless Congress acts, ultimately, when Trump's people choose to deport these people back to a country that the State Department says is unsafe to travel to for the rest of us, there's nothing else that can be done. Very little. And so we're pushing Congress because Congress does have the power to complement what Congress, Congresswoman Presley did on the House side with a bipartisan coalition to extend TPS for a few more years. Senator Ed Markey and others have come together to try to do the same on the Senate side that has gone nowhere. So it's really continuing to push Congress. The second is, obviously, the Trump administration can do something too.

the Department of Homeland Security could change course. Massachusetts is the third largest Haitian population in the country. And this will affect our economy. People may not feel it now, but they will, especially in the context of elder care, health care service delivery, PCAs. And so we are continuing to push not just Congress, even the Trump administration still to change course here, not only for the economic impact, but also for the humanity and moral impact here. But the last piece I think is really important that we want to stress to every listener and anyone who is connected to anyone who is Haitian has that status. It's to continue to reach out to my office or even the governor's administration because we're telling folks there can still be potential relief for a constituent. Another status other than TPS. If they have filed for asylum or they have some other status they have been seeking, these are sometimes complex cases because obviously there are folks who've been here on TPS for a very long time. So there may be other relief available to them. So we're really pushing lawyers, particularly lawyers in the private bar, immigration lawyers, to step up and help us with these type of cases, particularly the ones that are more complex. One last thing about elections. You said your greatest concern. was not turning out. I mean, ICE threats, even if they're not specific, obviously, or a problem. Plus, I mean, after the Supreme Court, whatever, a month or two ago says, as long as they're postmarked, mail-in ballots can be accepted after, depending on state law, Trump does another executive order to try to discourage mail-in ballots. Do you not worry that somebody who ordinarily would be a mail-in voter hears these things in the air and convinces themselves, maybe I can't even vote by mail-in ballot? I think they can hear it. I think the posture and the priority of the Trump administration has been fearmongering from the very beginning. And we have been telling folks, we'd want to acknowledge that fear that people have. It's real. At the same time, we hope to encourage and inspire them to overcome it. for the betterment of our country, and most importantly for the sustainability of our democracy, and not just for us, mainly adults in this space, but for our children. I have two young boys, and for the generations to come, even if you don't have kids, to leave Massachusetts in this country better. And what gives me inspiration in this season amongst that fear when we're filing these lawsuits and they're putting targets on AG backs is... Not only my children, of course, my faith, which runs very deep, and I'm praying for all of us, but also thinking about the history of black folks in this country who mobilized, forget, but just fear at the door with death threats and death at their door to go and to vote and to ensure that I could run for Attorney General, that I could vote, and that I could, of course.

have this position as attorney down on the first black woman to serve in the role. People fought and died for that. And there was coalitions of not just black folks, a lot of folks who put their lives on the lines for some of the things that maybe we take for granted today, including our very constitution. So that gives me inspiration. So I just encourage the listeners out there to find what it gives you some inspiration to overcome that fear against that backdrop of fear-mongering that they are espousing against all of us. You know, the first audience question, I think we should take from a text, anonymous text of synapse energy economics released a study that mass electric customers are overcharged, $22 a month, what are you going to do about it? The headline in the globe, well, let me read the first paragraph in the Globe story by Hayawatha Bray. Electricity suppliers have charged New England customers billions, billions of dollars in excess costs over the past decade, helping to explain the surge in monthly utility bills. What are you doing about that? A lot. I will say one of my number one jobs is by statute of the laws that govern the Attorney General's office is the ratepayer advocate. So going to various proceedings to push back on utility companies, electricity companies, you name it, when they come to try to increase the rate for rate payers. They have the ability to do that, but it has to be reasonable. And we are often in court pushing back through very complex cases, expert witnesses, to demonstrate at times that their request is not reasonable and is unfairly burdensome to the rate payer. So we have saved millions of dollars for ratepayers where they would have had to pay a lot more without our advocacy, particularly when it comes to even when you think about competitive electric supply, we have been there since, I'm in year four as AG, since year one pushing the legislature on changes that would make these industries more affordable. So whether it is, for example, even banning competitive electric supply, not for commercial. real estate opportunities because we see that is actually having an effect where it's reducing the rates but when it comes to residential It's going up. And some of their sales tactics and targeting poorer communities or communities of color, knowing that they are making a promise that their rates would go down when, in fact, they don't. So we have said it's so bad, the complaints are so bad, or our lawsuits aren't enough because sometimes a company will file for bankruptcy after we win that we think you should ban it. So we're pushing for that. There are other measures that we're working with the legislature. The competitive electric supply market for residential homes. We've been pushing that since year one. Other ways in which we're looking at...

changes is obviously through some legislative solutions too not just our enforcement work and that is looking at ways in which infrastructure for example we call the GSEP but different types of initiatives that allow utilities to bringing some dollars for infrastructure improvements but we're saying wait a minute are you really using those increases in the ways in which they were meant to be designed? Are those infrastructure projects needed, and if so, should the rate payer bear the brunt of that? And in some instances, we've said no. So this is work we have put at the forefront. We have a lot more resources even available to people on how they can reduce their utility costs. And so I encourage folks to reach out to our office on the specifics there. We can have a whole segment. I can bring a whole team actually to talk about this portfolio of work that is meaningful and significant. And some of it is some legislative solutions that we need fixed probably yesterday in order to continue to reduce costs for folks. But just so I'm clear here, this is not about what they're, correct me if I'm wrong, what they're seeking from the commission. It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, that they're cooking the books on what their actual cost is, according to this analysis. So what I'm doing is talking about the range of work that we do to lower rate. payer costs because the majority of folks don't have a clue that we even have a whole division in the office that is directly responsible for this work. When we show before the DPU or other hearings, this is just as important as what's in that article. And then, of course, we are through various enforcement actions, investigating fraud, investigating all types of companies that promise a lower rate. Knowing at the end, after someone's been signed the fine print, they didn't get a low rate. And we've put out numerous reports that particularly in the competitive electric supply market, we're seeing almost a billion dollars in losses. So even with that analysis, even with those reports, some of the changes that we need. to really reduce those costs are legislative solutions. And we'll continue to work with the legislature on that. Okay. Thank you for that. Attorney General. Let's go to the calls. 877301-8970. Judy in Adelboro. Julie. Julie and Adelbrose. Excuse me. You're on with the Attorney General. Hey. Hi, Jim and Marjorie. Hello. Attorney General. I would like to ask why a company that is banned in every other state because it uses electric shock devices under our diverse children and adults that are allowed to operate in that business. The Judge Wottenberg Educational Center recently bought a house in our neighborhood at the group home. And this company is the only company in the United States to use electric shock devices to regulate the behavior of children and adults with severe neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism. It's been sued multiple times unsuccessfully. It was the subject of a Channel 5, five-part series. There have been articles in the New York Times and the Boston Globe. And I'm just...

astonished that Massachusetts is the only state that allows this company to operate. Every other state has banned them. My neighbors and I have contacted public officials, including your office, Attorney General, and we're interested in why this is the case, and are you willing to do something about it? Thank you, Julie. Let's hear from the Attorney General. We appreciate it. Thank you, Julie. They were just correcting. Thank you. I couldn't hear her. I could only hear me. Oh. So, Julie, if you can, I would love if you would just leave your number with us. Lauren's with me. We will follow up with you on this. We have actually been, I think, on the... side that you're on when it comes to this issue generally. And we've actually lost at different stages in the courts on this very issue and the very practices that you were speaking of. And part of it is at times you have parents with children who think their children need and require this level of service. We may disagree with that, but it's very difficult to take a position sometimes that is opposite some of these parent coalition groups. that see the value in this service. But I would love if you would stay on. We'll certainly follow up with you, and I promise you that, Julie, on some of the other cases involved here. It's more than just one provider per se. It's a larger policy issue that allows for certain types of services to be done in this way, even if we disagree. And this is based on the coalition of folks who have children who they think deserve. not just deserve, who they think need this level of service. But, Julie, we will follow up. I got part of what you said, not all of it, but we will certainly follow up. Julie, please don't hang up. Please don't. Please don't. We will take all your contact info and share with the AG. We have a question from the library at the microphone here in the library. Steve. Hi, Steve. Are you Steve? Hi. Good morning, folks. Hi. Attorney General, good morning. Good morning. I have two. questions related to non-profits that your office overseas, and this is the nonprofit I have in mind as the Boston Symphony, to a non-legal mind such as myself, what is going on there strikes me as a serious mismanagement. And at some point, your office is allowed to investigate when you determine gross mismanagement. And I'm just curious, what is the threshold? for that determination. And related to that is recent revelations by the BSO staff show that the BSO management is already actively moving to be a producing organization and making the orchestra a secondary venture. Yet the management is seeking contributions to support the orchestra. When does that become misleading and fraudulent solicitations, which are forbidden under law and which your office must investigate? Sorry for such a long question. This came up before, I think the last time I was here, and we tell folks any time they file a complaint about anything in our office, we will look into it. I think sometimes what gets a little confusing is our charities division, nonprofit and charities division, does not have authority when it comes to, we were talking about for-profit in some of the schools. We may have authority in other places.

But if it's an open matter, I can't speak to it. But we're mindful of the news that people are reading, and we encourage them to file with our office concerns they have about some institutions, including the BSO, and to send that to us. And we look into them and we take them very seriously. But Steve was asking not about, I think your first question was about the threshold. What's the criterion that you apply when looking into those things? So could you speak to that generally, not BSO-related? I don't want to do that in the context of it's still too big, so I'd prefer to just follow up. Okay. And speaking of that, by the way, as we said, we have a guy who's been writing a lot about the situation, the BSO, who will join us at 1225. Well, first of all, I'll say, thank you, Steve. Thank you. And the reason I'm always hesitant to be spewing out case law anything on the radio is we look at a set of facts. We look at... ways in which we might be able to approach those set of facts if there's some wrongdoing, and there's a whole, there's different ways in which we can do that. In the context of nonprofits, as Steve described, in the context, higher-ed institutions, colleges, which we're in the midst of some things right now. So if Steve follow up and we'll follow up with Steve. But let me just be clear. This, I know you can answer. The power that you have in your charities division, one of the things you can look at is whether boards of directors on nonprofits. have complied with their fiduciary obligations. Is that not correct? We can look into some of that, yes. Yeah, we can. Okay. Yes. Tom, Amesvary. You're on with the Attorney General. Thank you for calling. Hello, Tom. Welcome. Hello. How are you? Good. I am calling... for the Attorney General. I hear she was just talking about electrical usage. You don't have to refer to her as she. You're talking to her directly. Yes, yes. I'm sorry, Ms. Campbell. I am calling because I've been trying to get a national grid to give a break for off-speak rates. They do it in New York State. But not in Massachusetts. They do if you have an electrical car. I happen to have a smart electrical switch would allow me to take all my energy at night, particularly when it's very hot or in the winter. I can judge when I bring in electricity, but they only have no way to do that. But I'm wondering why they can't be. gotten to give off peak rates like they do that for New York State residents we got it we understand Tom let's hear what the Attorney General's responses so we can look into it I mean right now it's actually not a bad time to do so when we then given what's happening in the state house state house right now in terms of all things related to affordability, energy. There's a big bill that we are part of advocating and inserting various provisions in, working with both the House side and the Senate side. But Tom, can you actually stay on with Lauren, who's here with me? Stick around, Tom. We'll put you on hold. And we'll follow up on this one. Thank you. He's there. You know, Attorney General, if I may, Tom, say. Okay, fine.

We don't do screaming out topics at the library, but thank you. No, and I hope you would come to the mic and address. No, no, I would hope you would come to the mic. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, please don't. Please don't force it. Wait, wait, wait. Are you willing to come to the mic? Say your name. Talk about trans youth who are directly under attack. We have filed several lawsuits to protect health care access for trans youth and adults. We have won many of those who are in partnership with every provider. So please. Say it. Yeah, I'll talk to you directly. We've had multiple meetings with your office. I'm part of a group that was the first time your office talked to any patients or families that had lost gender affirming care in the state. And that was not in October when this all started. This was in April, and it was only after pressuring y'all over and over again. What y'all told children who are losing life-saving care. One after another, because these hospitals are not being shown that breaking the law is going to have any consequences for them in this state. And these clinics are dropping like flies, and your office keeps telling us, wait until it gets worse. There's nothing we can do, even though Attorney Generals in California and New York are taking the brave and correct stance of prosecuting hospitals. for discrimination and for removing life-saving care that is protected in our shield law and is protected under public access. So your question for the AG is what, please? The question is, why are you waiting for future federal regulations that your office doesn't know when they're going to happen? to prosecute and protect the right of health care for every child in our state. Thank you. So, first of all, thank you for that. Number one is we have always taken the obligation of ensuring access to those in our trans community very seriously and unapologetically. Many other states, including the Democratic AGs, have not signed on to every lawsuit that we have filed to protect access to funding and resources for this care, including when the Trump administration tried to go after these providers to say we will take away Medicaid or Medicare if you continue to provide gender affirming care. We have won those lawsuits and we will continue to. We also have to make it clear that right here in Massachusetts, as of even right now and today, Every single person that is choosing to get gender affirming care or any type of health care is still eligible to do so here in Massachusetts. It is still legal. It is still lawful because of our advocacy and the advocacy of you, hospitals, community-based providers, et cetera. The third piece that may be a little different, and this is where the sticky point I think is, is we could choose to prosecute our own hospitals here.

And I don't think we're there yet and why. Kudos to New York and California. I work closely with AG James and AG Rob Bonta. The last thing I think is helpful right now is if you have organizations, including Children's Hospital, Bay State Fenway, doing the best they can under a federal regime that is targeting them every single day, including their providers with attacks personally. professionally, seeking to take and rip away their resources, not just for gender affirming care, for every health care resource you can think about, working against them, targeting them. I think the federal administration wants us to be doing this. And what is this? Our coalition dividing and one group of folks working against another. And so what I think... This is not... Excuse me. This is not the way it works. Can I finish? Can I finish? I let you finish. We're not... I let you finish. Go ahead, Attorney General. And so I do not think we're at a stage now where I should be prosecuting a community-based health organization or children's hospital or others who are doing the best they can. What I do think we can do is tell them what their legal rights and obligations are, which we have. And many of these providers will come back online because of our advocacy. And then the last piece I think is really important is... Anyone who is not getting the care that you say and I know they deserve and are legally, that is legally accessible to them here in Massachusetts, let us know. Because we're not leaving any patient. We're not leaving any patient. We are not leaving any patient without care. We're not leaving any patient without care. So then bring those folks to us. Excuse me. Excuse me. Then bring those folks to us. Let the Attorney General finish and then we'll have a conversation. No one can understand what your... Is there more you want to say? I will say we're not leaving any child without care. And because I'm not adapting to your strategy or prosecuting our health care providers, we may disagree on that. And that's unfortunate. We can't agree to disagree. But let me tell you this. We will not leave any care without care. Excuse me. Excuse me. If you want to make, we ordinarily don't do this. If you want to make, excuse me, we'll turn them. We will turn the mic. The mic is not on. No one can hear a word you're saying. We'll turn it on. Okay. This is no point. Okay. I'm sorry. Here's last chance. If one of you wants to make a follow-up statement, we'll turn the mic on. We will gladly hear it. I'm sure the AG will too. I think what would be helpful is, give me a complete list. In confidence to my office and you're in touch with our office because we have a roundtable discussion and we are meeting with you regularly. Give me a list of every single person and every child in this state who is not being able to access gender affirming care and we will make sure that they get the care.

them there's nothing they can do because you don't believe in standing up to hospitals and clinics and holding them accountable. You would rather play buddy-buddy with them and protect them against our own civil rights laws. They are not doing their best. They are stopping their feet on the most vulnerable people, families who have moved across the country to get this care. And you're inviting them to your pride events instead of saying, these are our laws and this is what we're going to do. No, we've made it crystal clear what the laws are. Let me tell you, they have not been happy with that. We've made them crystal clear. So I need from you all to let me know right now as of today. every single person in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that is not receiving the care that they need. Okay. And we will make sure that that does happen. Okay, we're going to take a break. We're interested. Thank you. We're interested in talking to, and the Attorney General is interested in talking to you. We'll take a break. We'll be right back with the AG.

Welcome back to BPR, GBAH and NEPM, Marjorie Egan and Jim Browdy, live at the library, streaming at YouTube.com slash GBAH News. Tomorrow at the library, Congressman Seth Moulton, who is obviously challenging Senator Ed Markey and Mayor Wu from noon to one. We're continuing our conversation with the Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell. Jamie and Sonder, two of our coworkers, took the names of the three individuals who were just here. We will talk to them, and you wanted to say something else about the issues they raised. Is there any general? I can't. I'm not going to pretend to stand in what their experiences as someone who is in the trans community. I know it's a community that's being targeted, especially kids. And it is life and death for folks in this community. We are fully aware of that. Hence, while the losses we filed against the Trump administration to protect access to care for this particular population have been so important, and we have filed many with the support of a children's hospital, a Fenway Health, Bay State, so many. We just don't think the strategy that in New York or California, and not every state has done this, is to prosecute a Fenway Health or a community-based health organization that is attempting to provide care in other ways for policy decisions they have made. We have made it clear to them. that there is a legal right to gender affirming care here in Massachusetts, and there are civil rights obligations. They are now looking to bring these services back online, but the reason they pulled back was out of real fear that they had, that their Medicaid and Medicare funding would be taken away. You stripped that away. Maybe half the people in this library would not have access to health care. And so these are the considerations. And I do think going back to the fair-mongering piece of the Trump administration, it is designed not just to create fear, but to create divisions in coalitions where you have that happen, where they then continue to put out policies that harm all of us. And so I will never accept or the suggestion that I don't care for young people or trans youth. I care for all of our kids. I've made that crystal clear from the beginning. It's hence why we've led the lawsuits on so many. And then the last piece that I left them with, and my team has two. is if there is anyone in this state who is not receiving gender affirming care as legally obligated by our state to let us know and we will make sure that they get the care they are legally obligated to and we have done that obviously with great confidence and careful how we of course share people's information but we have done that and we're still awaiting the list of folks

who have not been able to receive care, who have not been able to receive care, send me those folks, and we will make sure they get care, and we will continue to fight for them. We're talking to the Attorney General. She's here to answer your questions in text at 877-301-8970. Attorney General, your office just secured a half-million dollar settlement with this. property, green ocean property management, which apparently was illegally charging people for 250 lease renewals, $500 for a new lease. And I guess to get a resident's benefit package, to get a phone number for emergency repair request, they had to pay a monthly benefit for that. To tell us, yeah. So we often say the number one issue right now is affordability. Everything is too expensive. Health care, you name it. And so we passed, even our junk fee regulations, was designed to make sure that all costs were transparent and where people were attaching hidden fees we go after them. So we continue to enforce our junk fees. This was actually slightly different than junk fees. This is just in housing fees generally, where we tell folks all the time, they are not obligated to pay just random fees. There's a first month's rent, a security deposit, okay. But they were charging a new lease fee, as you described. And so we were able to work with this company to reach a $500,000 settlement to give those resources back to the folks who were harmed. And to take on this company that is charging illegal fees, and we continue to do this affordability work. And remind folks that if you think you have been charged an illegal fee to reach out to our office, and we can do something about it. Is $500,000 enough to discourage this kind of activity? It depends on what the cases are. In some instances, given some of these egregious housing violations here, we've had other settlements that are in the millions. And sometimes are so egregious where we say it's not only the money that we're getting for restitution. We're telling certain companies you can't even operate in Massachusetts anymore because they are so egregious. So it depends on the nature of the case. But I want folks to know that we understand and hear folks loud and clear that everything is too expensive and our job is to address affordability. You know, we started today with Marjorie asking you about election integrity. You told us last month of the month before you couldn't speak to the merits of any of the ballot questions until the process was over. Well, the process is over. There are nine questions on the ballot. Question four, which is primarily being led by the Secretary of State you mentioned before, is Seventh Election Day registration. Do you support Election Day registration? Yeah, I've actually been on the record before on that one. I haven't taken positions yet, and I will... I may or may not, on all of the ballot questions. But when I was on the city council, obviously some of these issues appeared then. So whether there was expansion of public records requests, same day voter registration I supported in the past. And I had not changed. Governor Healy said she supported question one, which would expand public records law, the legislature and the governor, you support that too. I do. We're talking to Andrea Joy Campbell, Attorney General. Diane from Dorchester. Thank you for calling. Hello, Diane. Hi, Diane. Hi, how are you? Good.

I'll try to be brief. My brother and I took over a condominium in the Fenway a year and a half ago, and we have tried to get the contract between the management company, ourselves, and the attorney. And I have asked the trustee, the attorney for the condo, and the management company, and my lawyer has asked, we have asked no less than nine times. How can I compel them to produce these documents? Can you, Diane from Dorchester. I like that you're from Dorchester. So can you just stay on, because this is so specific. And so I'm not sure if there's a specific role we can play, but it sounds like you have a lot of players involved here. But stay on. Lawrence here with me. If you leave your number and email, we can certainly follow up and see if this is a way for us to be helpful. Attorney General Springfield is getting a new courthouse. You defended this $2 billion state contract that was awarded involving this courthouse. And one of the firms involved is co-owned by Ianna Presley's husband, Conan Harris, and the head of the convention center, John Barros, who recused himself from the project after some people complain about it. There's a lawsuit from the losing bidders here. What they're asking for is an independent investigation because of it being the congresswoman's husband and John Barras, who's now the head of the convention center authority. Why can't there be an independent investigation of this? So. I'm glad you asked this question because we folks won't know that we represent state agencies when they are sued, almost all of them. DeCAM was sued for various reasons you've just described. We represent them. We represented them in this matter. And frankly, I didn't know who was involved in the beginning when the procurement was taking place. We got involved after the complaints around appearance of conflict, et cetera. When we looked into the matter with DCAM, they have followed the law. They look at the lowest bid. The lowest bid that came in was hundreds of millions of dollars. I think it was $300 million, lesser than the bid that came behind it. And so they went with that bidder as a result of that. And so now, obviously, with Barrow stepping away, people have concerns about conflict of interest. He obviously maybe thinks he has a conflict of interest. I don't know, but I'm looking at the law in the way which DCAM handled the procurement, and by the law, they handled it according to how they were supposed to handle it legally. And I think some have suggested that because we are representing DCAM, I am somehow in favor of the bid by Conan and by John Barrow's. That is total nonsense.

I'm not in favor of anyone's proposal. I'm in favor of representing decam and decam in this process went with the lowest bidder that was $300 million cheaper, which is how the pro-crombment process works. And now... They are standing by that. That may change now that obviously people who were involved in certain bids are now changing or pulling out. That may lead to a different outcome, so we'll see. But you don't even look at the conflict of interest issue? That's not part of your jurisdiction. Is that what you're saying? So right now, when we look at this as did they follow the law according to how they were supposed to? So should some outside entity look at least at that issue? I'm not sure who will be tasked with that, but that's not my lane. They're suggesting the Inspector General, obviously. That's not my lane, right? There are other ways in which conflict issues can be brought up to the state and other state agencies, too. So we'll see. And I don't even know how it will play out now that you have one major part of one of the bidding teams who have pulled out. Okay, so you're basically saying somebody else has to. Look, you're not going to order a conflict outside investigation of this. Somebody else has to do it. My job is just to represent decam. Okay. If decam, the state agency, did something illegally or fraudulently, then that's different, right? Then there's a conversation between me as their potential lawyer to say, If that's the case, then how do we reconcile that? Which is common sometimes, not common, I should say. It does happen where a state agency has been sued, and I represent them. And we look at the facts of the case, and legally we say, wait a minute, you did not follow the law here. And so we either have to come to a conclusion of relief, settle this case, agree with the other side, and handle it appropriately. Can we talk politics for a second? No. You know that there are a lot of your fellow Democrats. who are decrying the fact that people like Abdul El-Sayed, who just got the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate for Michigan, won the nomination there. This woman Hong is likely to win the nomination for Governor Wisconsin, some of the primary races in New York City for Congress. Are you concerned about the, quote, direction that some part of the Democratic Party is taken? Are you comfortable with the... I guess the expansion of the base. I don't even give that thought. And this is what I mean by that. I wake up and I say my job as Attorney General is to go in and to protect the rights of our residents and the economic interest of the Commonwealth and to protect our great state. and to ensure we're addressing the issues that people care about the most. And that is everything having to do with affordability, using our tools there, everything happening at the federal level with the Trump administration that is undermining our state and trying to take billions of dollars. And I do that work regardless of what political letter is by someone's name. I don't care if your deed. Can I finish him? Would it not if there was a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate that was able to stand up to Trump's excesses?

I don't care if your name is, if you have a D by your name, an I by your name, or an R by your name, that's how I do my job, seeing the humanity and everyone, and, of course, delivering for real people. Yes, I do recognize that there are partners in this work with us, and then there are those who are looking to work against us. Our over 60 lawsuits demonstrate that the current president and federal administration are working against us. TPS, Haitian TPS is one example of that. Everything having to do affordability. There are nowhere to be found of anything. They're undermining that work. Great example, the tariffs conversation. That tariff conversation, you had people standing at the border in Canada trying to determine the cost of steel. Because of that uncertainty, we had affordable housing projects. We need more affordable housing being stopped as a result. So I'm going to stand against anyone who gets in the way. When Biden was president. There were things we worked with Biden on and then things we didn't. Right to repair was one example. We passed that here in Massachusetts. The Biden administration got it wrong and was working against us. We had to then work with our federal delegation, I see Congressman Lynch here, our federal delegation to get an agency to reverse course so that we could implement right to repair. So anyone who stands against what we're trying to accomplish. But the two things I think that keep me up at night maybe is the lack of voting. People not really seeing the value in voting and us trying to get past some of the noise to say there is value in your voice and in voting. You have an attorney general who's looking to do real things on your behalf. And then the second is the extremist on all sides where no one's hearing anyone. It's like the screaming match. I said, I'm not going to scream back at you. We agree to disagree. But the extremist on all sides where no one's listening to each other, and frankly, I think it's so disconnected from what the average person is talking about. So my goal is less about what's happening, more about connecting to real people on the ground and delivering for them with the tools that I've been given. So you're not going to be involved in any democratic, any race, candidacy of any Democrat running for Congress or the Senate, the United States Senate? Right now, I'm up for re-elections. So I'm hoping to keep my job. Speaking of that, by the way, since you brought that up. I hope you vote in September and in November. That's right. Can we talk about November for a second in you, not other people's races? And I should say, we have a great federal delegation that we work with, obviously, that is on the right side of the issues we care about, including you think about Haitian TPS, you think about everything happens to do with affordability. We have a delegation that we, or even folks being picked up unlawfully, we can call them and they can get our people returned. That's not the case for every AG that I work with. So for the last 20-some years that I've been doing what I'm doing.

last 13 or so at GVH. We've made a commitment either on the radio or on my old television show that any constitutional office where there was not a debate scheduled, we would do it because we think the voters are entitled to that. Michael Walsh, as your Republican opponent, has agreed to do a debate here. We're not invested in us doing it. We want somebody to do it. We spoke to your office a couple of weeks ago. We haven't heard yet back. Are you going to commit to debate, Michael Walsh? Well, we're evaluating requests. And so we will circle back. We got yours too. Why don't care about us? Are you going to agree to him, debate him somewhere? I will see. And why I say that is, I think right now at this stage we're asking the wrong question. What is the right question? Why is he still on the ballot? Here is someone who unlawfully and fraudulently obtained signatures to appear on the ballot. Everyone, including him and anyone on the Republican side, should be demanding. that he dropped out of the race. How do you run for Attorney General, were you the Chief Law Enforcement Office, an officer of the state of the Commonwealth, and you just broke the law to get on the ballot? You know there's a felon as President of the United States. I'm talking about, I didn't vote for that felon. I'm talking about this particular opponent. But he has been declared. Didn't the ballot law commission rule on his candidacy in those signatures? The ballot commission threw him off and through a technicality. He got back on the, he got back on through a technicality. That's it, right? But he still has yet to address that issue. But he's on the ballot. So let me just be clear. No one's called. He should not be on the ballot. And if he admits to fraudulently receiving signatures to get on the ballot for Attorney General. The question you and others should be asking, including the Republicans who are running side by side with him, is why are you still on the ballot? You just broke the law to get on the ballot. Every voter should be concerned about that. So just to be clear, I'll move on after this. If he remains on the ballot post into September, you are not committing that. You will debate him before the November election. I'll see. Right now my focus is why isn't anyone in the Republican Party calling that out and asking him to remove himself on the ballot? Well, Jim, this has trickled down attorney general lawlessness coming right from the top, I would say, right from Todd Blanche. What do you mean? Well, there we have an attorney general who's advocating breaking all sorts of laws and may have broken some himself. Let's go to Liz. Well, we can't disagree with the fact that he broke the law to get on the ballot. That alone for me says you're not qualified to run for Attorney General. We got our signatures lawfully. Our volunteers mobilized. People were busy. They mobilized to make sure I had an adequate amount of signatures to appear lawfully on our ballot.

Everyone should be concerned about the fact that there were several Republican candidates here in Massachusetts, forget the national, just our local state, who got on the ballot unlawfully. Some were thrown off. Others were not because of a technicality and how they were certain, how they were given notice. But the end of the day... He got on the ballot on lawfully, and he should not be on the ballot. And he should remove himself. Yeah, there's a story in the Harold and the Globe in the last two days about Rachel Rollins, the former and current candidate for the DA's office having fraudulent signatures. She's not directly being blamed, but there's some Chelsea City counselors who are saying that they never signed her petition and they're all on there. Should she be knocked off the ballot too? If she fraudulently got on the ballot, yes. But this guy has been found not to have fraudulently got on the ballot. By the ballot law commission. No, that's not true. That is true. No. He was removed from the ballot, and then the court reinstated him. They reinstated him because the Massachusetts Democratic Party did not serve him properly. This is a technicality. The substance of him unlawfully and illegally getting on the ballot is the same. And that's the part that concerns me and should concern everybody. And I don't care if you're a Republican, Democratic, Independent, Right. We have laws in place. We expect certain people, including our president, to abide by them. We should be doing the same. That's the question for him. Let's go to Liz and Cambridge. You're on with the AG. Welcome. Liz. Hi. Liz. Hi, Liz. Hi, Liz. I'm very worried because the federal government's policy is to support fossil fuels when we can see and feel the warming of the planet. critical consequences for our children and grandchildren. Right. Why is the state letting corporations build huge buildings, including public housing, without requiring heat pumps and solar panels and other alternative energies? Well, I can't, so first of all, Liz, I don't disagree with you. The federal government is not a partner at all on us working to address climate issues. Frankly, they're working against us, even on the endangerment finding, as you are fully aware of, which we fought and continued to fight to protect which Massachusetts led on, which is a game changer in the whole climate conversation that greenhouse gases do indeed lead to climate change. We're fighting for that. But you put me. Excuse me, Liz. Liz, let the Attorney General answer your question. And I would just, in this, I'm using as an opportunity, Liz, to educate an audience, right, on some of the work we're doing to fight back. And some of it is, you know, protecting our offshore wind industry, which would have went under completely without our lawsuits. So on the building piece. There is ways, I think, for the state to do that. Even at the local level, when I was on the city council in Boston, there were ways in which, as we were navigating conversations on development projects, to allow for developers to work with them to be actually green forward, we would say, to put in certain proposals and policies to make their buildings.

more climate-friendly, more green, and developers did that. And there was a willingness to do that, especially if you could cut some of the bureaucracy in bringing on housing, for example, online sooner. So I know it's not, I know it's happening in some parts. It may be municipalities handling it differently. So there's an opportunity, I think, for the state to address it. It wouldn't necessarily be out of our office, but it could be out of the EEA and other state agencies to push for some of this, along with, of course, building code changes that are also applicable here, too. So I don't disagree with you, Liz. I know we're running out of time. I don't disagree with you, Liz. I think we're moving in the right direction. And certainly there's a lot more we can do. Liz, thanks for Cole. Appreciate it. You know, I wanted to fit this in because it's so upset me. Every time there's a lot of people that are anti-gun control, so it has nothing to do with the guns. It all has to do with mental health. So after a bunch of these shootings, Congress approved a billion dollars to bring all these mental health professionals to U.S. schools. And now, The Department of Education wants to get rid of all these grants. You're one of the Attorney General's that's fighting as. Elaborate on what's happening here. So whether it's mental health grants in the context of Department of Education, there are other agencies, too. We have several lawsuits to protect access to mental health grants coming to our state, including school districts and others. But on your larger point... It's not just one thing when you talk about a school shooting. Mental health grants, mental health supports absolutely critical. There's a mental health epidemic in Massachusetts in this country. It's even while we're taking on big tech, why we have lawsuits against a meta and a TikTok for everything they're doing to perpetuate that mental health epidemic, right? It's the reason why we have legislation right now to hold them accountable. At the same time, we know our gun rights here in Massachusetts... work. People are modeling their gun rights and other states on what we have here because they're so progressive, and folks are coming after them. We are frequently defending and helping other states defend an assault rifle ban, for example, in other ways in which to protect our folks. And people have done the numbers to correlate progressive gun law states with lesser school shootings compared to other states that don't. So you need those two, and there's a way to do it while still protecting the Second Amendment. So I think it's just a matter of shifting the conversation to your point. And then, of course, we'll continue to fight for mental health grants. We need more resources in this space. And some of our lawsuits will do just that. You know, Attorney General, you mentioned earlier this harsh show around TPS, particularly around Haitians in this country and what you're doing. The New Bedford Light, which is this wonderful pop-up news organization, obviously in New Bedford. It took a look at staffing and nursing homes. Let me read a little. Half of the state's nursing homes failed to meet one or both of the state's minimum, meaning statutory minimum staffing standards last year. Most for-profit facilities were out of compliance. Most nonprofit facilities were in compliance. What are you doing about these violations of minimum staffing laws? There's a lot we're doing through a Medicaid fraud unit, which... I was about to say something. I better be careful because we're... Oh, say it. Say it. I'm going to leave that alone. So a lot. And I think it actually becomes even more challenging for for-profit, for-profit will speak to this. You're seeing more for-profit players in elder care services. And sometimes it's even difficult to figure out who the who is behind the company name to hold them accountable for some egregious acts. But our Medicaid fraud unit has...

done tremendous work in this space so there's a lot of compliance that we have to do in addition to that we talked about this before we have cases where when millions of dollars to give back to the state because mass health was defrauded and we're continuing that work we're also holding folks accountable we're putting in compliance monitors but then the backdrop is in certain parts of the state that make it more difficult is if you were to close that facility that is under compliance by our office or by independent compliance monitor where we've gotten millions of dollars back because they've defrauded the state, if you close that facility, there's no other place to send those patients. And they know this. And so we're looking all the time creatively of how we push back to hold people accountable for this egregious behavior. And this is where obviously some legislative solutions might be come in place. And this is also where the feds play a critical role too, including the... attorney's office that we work well with on some cases and so we'll continue to do the best we can in this space. You only have a minute or so left. Marjorie was too shy to ask this question. She wanted me to ask, have you ever snuck out of an event by hiding in a catering truck to get away from the... A lot of people want to know. How many times have you done that? We heard it happened. Raise your right hand and tell us if you've ever done that. Is that? Yeah, that'll be a no. No? That'd be a no. No, okay. But I will say just two things. I love my job, and I'm going to continue to get out here to earn the support of voters this year in this election because I want to keep it and fight on your behalf. The second is, and I said this in the context of Haitian TPS, I think we can all go about our lives and our days. sometimes just immune to all that's happening around us. The Haitian TPS issue is a major one. You had folks who came here lawfully, who started families, who worked jobs, who were not committing crimes, even though folks would suggest that all immigrants are somehow committing crimes in Massachusetts. That's nonsense. And now you have families or parents who are sitting maybe in their living room. trying to decide if they leave here because they no longer have status and go back to Haiti where the State Department, as you said, says we should not travel to. And if they then leave their child who was born here and is a citizen here, leave that child behind or take that child with them. Do this emergency planning. That's unacceptable in the great state of Massachusetts and in this country. And the best thing about Massachusetts is we have rich histories of Irish Jews. Italians, you name it, who came here for a better choice, a better life, because of the circumstances that exist in Haiti right now, all of us have an opportunity to play a role here, even if we just went on our Facebook and said, this is wrong. That's saying something, but we need to say something. So thank you all for having me. Can we ask you one last favor before you go? We're going to, as I said, meet with those three young trans advocates who are here. Can you share with us what you're able to after, if they reach out to you, whatever you're permitted to share with us. We'd appreciate you. Absolutely. Thank you so much. It's good to see you. Thank you very much. Attorney General, Andrea Joy Campbell. Yes, we have been speaking with the Attorney General. Obviously, we very much appreciate your coming in to talk to us here on our list. As we say goodbye.

on NEPM, make sure to tune into the fabulous 401. They start at 3 o'clock this afternoon. We're going to keep going here in Boston. Coming up after this quick break, we're going to talk with Boston Congressman Stephen Lynch, who is facing a Democratic primary challenger this fall. He's going to join us here at the Boston Public Library. I'm Marjorie. He is Jim Brow. You're listening to BPR and GBAH and NEPM live from the Boston Public Library and streaming at YouTube.com slash GBAH News. Support for Boston Public Radio comes from MIT Sloan Executive Education, offering dynamic short programs tailored for mid-career professionals looking to build expertise in innovation, leadership, and technology. Details at executive.m.m.edu. And the Museum of Science. From live science demonstrations to hands-on exhibits, families can explore the wonders of Earth's evolution and the frontiers of space this summer. Learn more at M-O-S.org. Welcome back to Boston Public Radio Hour number two. We're broadcasting live from the Boston Public Library streaming at YouTube.com slash GBAH News tomorrow here at the Boston Public Library. We'll be joined by Seth Moulton, who of course is the congressman who's running against Ed Markey for Ed Markey's Senate seat. And we also be joined by the mayor, Boston, Michelle Wu, for the August edition of Ask the Mayor. Hello, Jim. Hello, Marjorie. We're joined now live at the library, Congressman Stephen Lynch. He's running to keep his seat representing the... 8th District of Massachusetts facing a challenge in the Democratic primary on September 1st from Patrick Roth. We recently spoke with Roth on the show. You can find that interview at YouTube.com slash GBAH News. Congressman, it's good to see you. Good to see you as well. Thank you, Jim. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for coming in, Congressman. Thank you having me. So tell people, why should they vote for you this fall? Well, I think every member of Congress brings a different perspective and different strengths to Congress. In my own case, you know, grew up in public housing. Family was very poor growing up. I know that experience. You know, the fact that we had a roof over our head was not a given when I grew up. So naturally, I'm very active on housing issues. Right now, I think I have more. public and below market rate housing being constructed in my district than any other congressional district in America today. We're probably over 5,000 units right now. Some of them just finished, but others under construction. I was an ironwork for 20 years, so I strapped on a pair of work boots. I know what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck and work hard for a living. As a union iron worker, I became... An executive board member for the Iron Workers in my 20s, became president of the union before I was 30. You don't have that perspective in Congress in any significant way. I think there might be three people who worked in construction or worked in union environments in Congress right now. So I bring that perspective. As a result, I'm a vice chair of the Labor and Working Families Caucus. So I think I bring a lot of perspectives. When you think about representative democracy, we hope that we bring the life experiences of the people that we represent. And I think that I do that. And I think that it is certainly informed my choices in Congress on the issues that I work on, like I say, on public housing, on worker safety, on pensions, on health care.

you know, on different issues that affect a lot of constituencies that don't have personal connections with their representative in Congress. So I think I bring all of that. Also, you know, to be honest with you, you know, I've... I've educated myself. I went to college nights and weekends. I've got my engineering degree. I went on to law school, Boston College Law School. I was a labor attorney representing workers before the National Labor Relations Board. Went to Harvard, got my master's degree. So, you know, I've tried to round out my education so that I not only bring those experiences, but also I bring the skillset necessary to effectively represent the people that I... But you don't want the voters to hold Harvard against you. We know that. I usually leave that out. Congressman, if Roth was not running against you, do you think he'd be a good member of Congress? It doesn't have... Well, he comes out of private equity. You know, that's what he was doing, you know, advising public... Wasn't he had a common cause to when he worked for Deval Patrick? Am I not ready about that? The last 10 years, private equity, ropes and gray, you know, advising Sybaris Capital, you know, for-profit health care. So what's your answer? So that's not... So, no, I think there are a lot of, well... I think that any member of Congress, unless just, I'm not criticizing Mr. Rothen this, should have some. experience serving in a position of trust, right? So I was president of my union. I was responsible for their safety and their welfare. I was a state representative. I represented 35,000 people there. I was a state senator, represented 140,000 people there. People had a sense of my performance in positions of trust. I think that anybody who wants to represent close to 800,000 people, 18 towns, three cities, should have some experience. in a, especially in a legislative position, to demonstrate that they can handle that trust and handle that responsibility. And, you know, and so we have a lot of young members in Congress, but many of them have been mayors, have been state representatives, have been state senators, have been in positions. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a bartender. Yeah, yeah. How's she doing? I think she's doing okay. You know, I think she's been there 10 years now, though, so she's, you know, she's had a, you know, a learning curve. Can I ask you about one of your, my understanding, are you the ranking Democrat on the AI subcommittee? I am. Yeah. We talk a lot about how historically Congress has no ability to catch up with the speed with which technology is advancing, particularly when it comes to worker displacement.

kinds of things. What's on your agenda on that committee that might reverse that trend or at least inhibit it? Well, I think you're absolutely right. The pace of change in that technology is just breathtaking, the velocity of change. Congress is not a... an adaptive organization. I think we'd still be wearing powdered wigs if we had our choice. So we are grappling with the difficulty of keeping up with AI, but that's only part of the problem. The other problem is that under our campaign laws and finance laws, these huge industries of, you know, over $5 trillion in capital strength, are able to pump money into the electoral process and shape the legislation that goes through these committees. That has happened with crypto. Crypto pumped $237 million into the campaigns in Congress. and got the bill that they wanted. And that was Democrats and Republicans. And that's happening right now with AI. These big AI, Nvidia, a bunch of these other companies, Anthropic, are coming in. They're using the same power and influence magnified by 10 times in order to gain light touch. regulation of the AI industry. And that's an existential threat to humanity, in my opinion. Talking to Congressman Stephen Lynch. You know, I was joking before you came on the air about how I... I remember you calling in from Iraq many, many years ago from the war there, and I joked about how possibly do we get so old, Steve Lynch. You know, it's amazing. This has happened to us. That's a big theme in this race. Seth Moulton is talking a lot about Marquis' age. He's older than you. I realize that. But that is a big issue. Textor just says, you know, you've been there for 25 years. Republicans control the House. Trump is president. The Senate's and Supreme Court are leaning to the right. And so why should you, is it? serve another term with the Republicans seem to run everything, and you've been there for a long time. Well, that's the nature of democracy. How did they get to run the House, the Senate, and the White House? I think, you know, I think politics is very much in the extremes right now. You've got an extreme left and an extreme right. The American people tend to vote for the party that they feel is less of a threat. And so I, look, I'm a moderate, right? And the ruling party in this country is the party that captures the moderates, captures the middle. Joe Biden's success was his ability to capture the people who elected me, the moderates. I think we actually need more people in the middle. You know, this, this division.

you know, the extreme right and the extreme left, you do need people at times to bridge that gap if government is going to work. So I think we need more people in the middle to give that strength to the Democrats so that we can actually be a party that governs and not simply... a party of protesters against, you know, the loyal opposition against the party in power. But, you know, when people talk about the moderates and progressives, you know, you look at what a lot of the progressors are talking about all the time. It's like... universal health care. A lot of people are upset about that. They're talking about housing. They're talking about child care. Zohran Mamdani, that, you know, the president has called all sorts of terrible names. He's getting childcare into New York City. He's got these, he's going to open these grocery stores so people can have city-operated grocery stores. So those are the affordability issues that progressives have been emphasizing much more than moderates. And certainly in Zohran Mamdani's case, achieving more. Well, you know, there is a certain appeal in some parts of the country for the Democratic Socialists, no doubt. I think it's spotty, though. I don't think that plays in huge swaths of the country. I think it frightens people. You know, sure, they... I think people express frustration at the cost of housing across the board. We have been able to, we just recently did a major housing bill. A lot more needs to be done in a bipartisan fashion. But I don't think, you know, abolishing. abolishing the Senate or abolishing prisons or defunding the police. I don't think that's going to sell in some parts of the country. And I think it may result in us fumbling away our chance right now to regain the House or regain the Senate. And it depends on the candidates who we put forward in 2028 as to whether we... might be able to recapture the White House. Can we stay with 2026 for a second? You serve with Congresswoman Stevens, who lost the primary narrowly to Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. And obviously a lot of the issues you're raised, are being raised by a lot of people in your party. Would she have been a better Democratic nominee in your opinion? I think she would have had a better chance to become. A U.S. Senator, yes. Can we, you know, Marjorie just mentioned universal health care when she was talking a minute ago. One of the criticisms of you by your challenger is in 2010, I think it was, you voted against the Affordable Care Act. Do you want to respond to that criticism, please? Sure, sure. Look, the Affordable Care Act has not performed well.

So it has not made... So right now, today, we've got 7%... We're supposed to be our national health care plan. Today, we've got 7% of the population in the United States on the Affordable Care Act. We have 93% of the... people who are not on our national health care plan, and that's because it's too expensive. Several years ago under Joe Biden, we did simply pump $137 billion to pay the high premiums that people couldn't afford. So right now, we're grappling with Medicare for All. We're going to have to reconsider. How do we redesign this? to succeed in covering the people that we were trying to cover under the Affordable Care Act. When you said grappling, is that something you support Medicare for all? I think we need to embrace that. I think we need to figure out a plan that we can actually, that actually is sustainable and affordable, but I would certainly be open. Certainly the Affordable Care Act didn't work. The cost, we did not bend the cost curve on the Affordable Care Act. Not only can't we keep our own doctors, we can't even keep our own hospitals. You'd vote... Just so I'm... You seem to be saying, and I'm sure they don't want to put words in your mouth. If the Affordable Care Act wasn't law and was proposed right now 16 years after you voted on it, you'd vote against it again based upon what you know. Is that a fair statement? Well, I'll go back to the facts, not just judge's speculation. So there were two versions of the Affordable Care Act, the one in the House. One important thing it did was it took away the antitrust exemption from the insurance companies. So an antitrust exemption allows you to act in restraint of trade. It allows you to avoid competition. So in the first version that came out of the house, we took the antitrust exemption away from the insurance companies. Of course, when it went over to the Senate, they put it back in. So I voted for the bill that took away the antitrust exemption. And when they put it back in, and on top of that, they put a tax on union health care. plans so that the people who stood out on the picket line and fought for good health care were punished, were punished with a 54% tax on the amount of health care that they paid for that was over a certain limit. So if that version did come up again today and didn't exist, you would oppose it again. I mean, is that fair? I'm not trying to put words here. Oh, I'm just trying to understand. Yeah, if they put a new tax on unions for having good health care, yeah, I'd vote against that. So one of the critical issue is speaking of foreign policy stuff a minute ago, correct me if I'm wrong, I hope I'm right here. You're amongst the 100-plus Democrats who voted Dand-Aid to Israel. Is that? Am I right about that? That's correct. Why'd you do that?

because of Benjamin Netanyahu and his policies. So I'm one of the few Democrats, few members of Congress that's been into Gaza. That is a densely settled population there. Those people are trapped. I have described it in the past as an open-air prison, the way is being operated right now, and to just continually pummel the civilian population there with, you know, bombs that are far in excess of what might be necessary to defend Israel. is wrong. So I voted not to provide the $3 billion for military aid for Israel. And I clearly wanted to send a signal to Benjamin Netanyahu that we do not support his policies. We don't support what he's doing with, you know, he's placating the settlers in the West Bank in dispossessing, you know, Palestinian families that have been on that land for many, many years. So... You know, in the past, I've been a supporter of Israel when I thought they were under siege, when I thought they were under attack, when I thought they needed as the only democracy in that area, when I thought they needed to be defended. But now they are clearly the aggressor under Benjamin Netanyahu. And so I withdrew my support. One of the things, this bill won bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, but some people have criticized your stance on the Lake and Riley Act, and people may recall the Lake and Riley Act. She was a young woman who went out for a run and was brutally murdered by a man who had entered the country illegally. So under this Lake and Riley Act, that allows the federal government to, it requires them actually to detain and... deport anybody charged with crimes, whether they're serious crimes like murder or not such serious crimes like shoplifting, but they're charged, they're not convicted. And I think that was the part that upset a lot of people. It requires detaining them. Yes, it does. Yeah, detaining and deporting them. Well, that's another step in the process. But it's certainly required, Section 2 of the bill requires people to be detained when they are charged with certain crimes, including armed robbery, carjacking, serious crimes of high criminality. So, yeah, U.S. citizens are often detained when they commit a crime of that nature. You don't see people when they are charged with armed robbery or carjacking. Oftentimes, they don't make bail because there's a dangerousness hearing. And one of the factors in whether or not people are detained or released on bail is that the risk of flight. the risk that the victim may never get their day in court. So in many cases, almost always, when there's an armed robbery charge against an individual or carjacking, things of that nature,

It's very tough for them to get released pending trial because of the dangerous of their actions and also the likelihood that they may flee. That's for U.S. citizens as well. However, when you think about a person who is not lawfully present in the country, commits that type of crime. The likelihood that they may flee is exponentially higher because, you know, they would, those are serious, serious crimes. But it's also, maybe I'm mistaken, but it's also less serious crimes, like I mentioned before, like shoplifting. Well, on the so-called shoplifting provision was something pushed by the retailers for these, they call them, what do they call them, not occupations, but. Takeovers. I'm sorry, takeovers. So a number of jurisdictions in the United States, mostly in larger cities, said they were no longer going to prosecute shoplifting. And so the Retailers Association lobbied heavily that these cases where, and a takeover is one of these cases where you see on TV where 20 kids walk into a store. Two of them detained the clerk, the other 18, clear the shelves, and the place is empty. Do you ever do that when you're a kid in South Paulson? No. Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. They didn't have that back then. I stole from Sears once. Go ahead. I'm sorry, Congressman. But anyway. So that's why they lobbied. And by the way, there were some district attorneys, you know, that said they were no longer going to prosecute. those type of crimes. Our district attorney, Rachel Rollins, yeah. Former. So the argument there on the floor was, you know, we're going to have to address this type of situation at the federal level. I was not supportive of including that. I thought it should have been a standalone, but it was in the bill necessary. It wasn't in deport. It's just detained. It's not necessarily deport. Before you leave, same issue that we broached where you were sitting here with the Attorney General. Unlike the Attorney General's contentions about Mr. Walsh, the Republican, in the final, who she says shouldn't even be on the ballot, Patrick Roth is... permit is appropriately on the ballot. You have not had a debate. Are you going to agree to a debate with him before September 1st? We did, we did one... Could you pull your mic up just a drop? So we did one candidate's event. But not a debate. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. So it's up to the people who run the thing, not to me as to what the format is. So we had a candidate's night in Weymouth. I spoke. My opponent sent a surrogate. The surrogate spoke. I think he had a problem with his conflict on his schedule. They had a thing in the West End. I don't know if it was a candidate's night or a full debate, but they scheduled it while Congress is in session. So obviously, you know, they had the open chair. Well, you're invited to a debate. So on let me, so Thursday, the League of Women voters, I asked the League of Women voters, a top-notch organization.

And they do a lot of great things, not just hold debates. They do. They advocate on voting rights. They do. So they're hosting on Thursday night a debate in Weymouth. And I'll show up, and my opponent will show up, and we'll have a full debate. That's not a forum? That's up to the League of Women Voters, how they run it. My question is simple, and then I'll shut up. If someone invites you and Patrick Roth to what is a debate, their choice. Assuming it fits your schedule, would you say yes. Yes, I would. Yes, I would. It's great to see you, Congressman. Good to see you as well, Jim. Thank you so much. Thank you very much for coming in. Much appreciate your time, Congressman. Thanks for your kindness. Thank you. We have been speaking with Congressman Stephen Lynch. He lives in Boston, represents the whole eighth contest. Congressional District, which includes not only Boston, but other surrounding communities. Yesterday we, not yesterday, when did we speak with Patrick Growth a couple of weeks ago, I guess. You can find our interview on the YouTube channel. Coming up after this quick break, an update on the Boston Symphony Orchestra from a likely source. Thomas Dinsmore, he usually writes about the business of analytics. He has been digging into the BSO finances and we'll hear from him with his surprising analysis. I'm Marjorie Egan. He was Jim Browdy. You're listening to. P.R. 897 GBIH Live from the Boston Public Library, streaming at YouTube.com slash GBIH News.

Welcome back to BPR 897 GBAH, Marjoriegan, Jim Browdy, live at the library, streaming at YouTube.com slash GBAH News tomorrow at the library. Seth Moulton will join us, Seth Moulton, who is running in the primary against Senator Ed Markey, as well as Mayor Wu for an hour at noon to one tomorrow. Our next guest is a man with the substack, who is historically written about software industry, the business of analytics. and artificial intelligence, things that Marty and I know nothing about. But lately, Thomas Dinsmore's blog has been honing in on what I would call an unlikely topic for him, the Boston Symphony Orchestra, specifically since the firing of the music director, Andrus Nelson's, he's done a deep dive, a term I hate, I don't know why you use it, a deep dive into the BSO's finances and draws very different conclusions than the leaders of the BSO. His substack is Thomas B. W. Dinsmore, Dynes, M-O-R-E-Substack.com. And I should note, we've repeatedly invited the president of the BSO and CEO, Chad Smith, and the board chair, Barbara Hostetter, on the show. The most recently, we don't even get a response to our request today we did with a statement. They were on Jared Bowen's show. They refused to come on ours. Thomas Dinsmore, it's great to meet you. Thanks so much for being here. Thank you for having. Before we get to the fine, he got the Red Rose, before we get to the finances, the Red Rose, which is his support of Anderson-Nelson, but also the long history. I would ask him what the Rose is about. It's support for the BSO musicians. And indirectly for Andres because the BSO musicians are almost unanimous in support of Andrus. Well, you're quite the musician yourself, though. I read that you were a superstar on the Tanglewood young artists on the violin. If I had been a superstar, I would be in the BSA. But I wasn't. Okay, okay. I was a violist and the young artists in... 1971. Stephen Ansel, who's the principal violist for the BSO, sat one chair ahead of me. But he was a hundred times better than me. And when I say better, it's not a matter of talent that makes a difference between people who go into music and people who don't. It's a matter of commitment, energy, courage. And just the absolute passion and burning desire to be a musician. So that someone like Stephen, when everyone else was relaxing or, you know, doing whatever people do in their spare time, he would be in the common area practicing or, you know, performing. In other words, that is the, I mean, and this is true for every single member of the Boston Symphony Orchestra. These are people who are intensely passionate about what they do. They're not in it for money. And they believe that Andres Nelson's is the best music director that they've ever experienced and better than anyone else who might, you know, come in as an alternative. Speaking of Andres Nelson's, you wrote a piece about...

Who you know, who you don't know, why you're doing this? First, why have you decided to write so much and do so much work around the BSO situation? And two, you don't know, Andres, you have met Andres, you know, have a relation with it. Why are you doing what you've been doing for the last several months since he was the announcement of his firing? Well, if you haven't noticed, I do actually feel strongly about this. A lot of people feel strongly and haven't dedicated themselves like you have. Why did you do this? First of all, when I first saw the news, it just struck me. It was dumbfounding because... Since World War II, no Big Seven Symphony Orchestra has ever just dismissed a music director. It doesn't happen. And the reason it doesn't happen is it takes a long time to find a music director that will work well. The Chicago Symphony recently hired music director. It took them seven years. It's a long process. And to simply dismiss Andres without any kind of a plan in place. Right. It means that there will be a period of years when the BSA will have no artistic leadership. Can we get into the merits of Thomas Dinsmore? By my calculation, and I've read virtually everything I can, and we've spoken to whoever has been kind enough to join us, there are two basic reasons that have been identified for Andrus's determination. One... He allegedly is, quote, not aligned on the future vision, even though his lawyer wrote a letter several weeks ago saying he was very aligned with what he was told was the vision. And two, for alleged, there's an alleged financial crisis. Can we take this one at a time? Sure. How is, do you understand how he is allegedly not aligned with the future mission of the BSO because we do not? Well, I don't think anybody does. And I think that that statement was a pretext. because there is no clear vision. The BSR has not released any kind of a clear strategic vision. Now, I happen to have seen some documents that show me what the BSO has in mind. but nothing that they have in mind would in any way rule out our address's participation. So there's nothing that is substantial that, in other words, they say, for example, well, we have deferred maintenance at Symphony Hall. Andres doesn't care. Why would Andrews didn't care? Fix the toilets, please. You know? And so I just think that, and that was in the original statement the BSO made. They made it once. And then the next statement they made, they came up with something completely different. Well, let's read one of their statements around the finances where you have done incredibly comprehensive work. This is a quote from Chad Smith.

in a story by Malcolm Gay on March 13th in the globe. Quote, our business has been running deficits consistently for nearly two decades, and over the course of those two decades, we've decapitalized, I don't know what that word means, you'll explain it, our endowment by over $100 million. Could you respond to what Chad Smith had to say there, please, Thomas? Well, there's... Two parts to that statement. One is we've run deficits continuously for 20 years, and second, we've decapitalized our endowment. Can you move your mic up about an inch, please, while you're... Yes. Go ahead. Hear me better now? Perfect. Okay, so two parts of the statement. One is we're running deficits. Second, we were depleting the endowment. Okay, so the first one on the endowment. I didn't have to do a deep dive. All I did was I went to... You know, I went to a public source, downloaded their tax forms, and you just look at them, right? And I can't recall the exact numbers in the last 20 years. The BSO has run a surplus in 13, they've run a deficit in 7. You'd look at all the other Big 7 symphony orchestra. You see a similar pattern. Because nonprofits sometimes run deficits. I mean, a nonprofit that runs a surplus in every year isn't a nonprofit, right? So the first statement is just plain false. Now, I will also say that Chad and his CFO have invented a kind of a deficit measure which they've made up, but nobody knows what it is, right? I'll also add that... Everyone knows, and this has always been the case, that no orchestra covers all of its expenses from concert revenue, from tickets. Nobody does that. It hasn't happened. In fact, never in the BSO's history has it covered all of its expenses from concert revenue, right? That's why it's a charitable organization. You need charitable donations to keep the thing going, right? So the first part of a statement is false. The second we've decapitalized. Now, decapitalization means specifically when you invade the principle of an endowment. Okay. That's what it means. Let me read it again. We've decapitalized our endowment, said Chad Smith, to the globe by over 100 million. What's the truth? So I went back and looked at the audited financials, which are different from the tax forms. And in the audited financials, what I found was that in, I can only go back to, I think, 2011, so I don't have a whole 20 years of history. But in those years, the board every year would have a standard allocation, and then it would have a supplemental allocation. Now, all of those allocations, all of those appropriations, the board is acting under its fiduciary duty, right? There's no difference between a standard and a supplemental allocation.

Chad goes back, he adds up all the supplementals and say, hey, we've been training the endowment. But what he's basically saying is, well, the board of directors has been violating its fiduciary duty. I don't think he means that. I think that Chad Smith simply doesn't understand what endowment law is. He doesn't understand what it means to say, you know, decapitalizing the... of the endowment, because if you go to any financial glossary, you'll see it's invasion of principle, and that's never happened in the BSO history. We're talking to Thomas Dinsmore's Substack. It's Thomas W.dinsmore.substack.com. I just want to mention something you also wrote that you're talking about that Chasmus talks a lot about the BSO's deficits yet. The Los Angeles Philharmonic had the two largest deficits in its history under his brief tenure there. And you also invite, so there were huge deficits when he was there, the biggest they've had. You also, right, for subsection, you've invited people to. come in and correct any mistakes that you've made a subject. I wonder if you've heard of from anybody yet. BSO has never contacted me. I think one reader once corrected me on a minor point, which I did. Oh, and I had another credit, the... I won't go into detail. It's just a minor point in a recent post. Nothing from the BSR. Barbara Hostetter is a subscriber. Chair of the board is a subscriber. She is a subscriber. I have not heard from her, I've not heard from her lawyers. So how would you, if you could summarize their financial state, the BSOs, what would you, what representation would you make? Every symphony orchestra. struggles. It's a hard business, right? So no symphony orchestra covers its costs from its concert revenue. That means every symphony orchestra is dependent on donations, charitable contributions. Some orchestras are doing better than the BSO in getting contributions, right? Los Angeles, New York, and Cleveland have raised more money than Boston has in the past five years. Can Boston do better at raising money? That's a great question for Barbara Hustetter. She's, I mean, what's the job of the board? The job of the board is to raise money, and they're not doing it, right? That's not Andrews Nelson's fault. Now, I will also say that... You know, if Leonard Bernstein were alive and he could be hired, he would probably draw in a lot of donations. When Gustavo Dudamel moved to the New York Philharmonic, he brought a lot of donations, right? So...

There is a role that the music director plays by creating a kind of a halo around the organization. But music directors don't go out and dial for dollars, right? So can we just summarize? I want to be clear in this. First half of the statement to the globe from Chad Smith, our business has been running deficits consistently for nearly two decades. You say there have been, in fact, in the last 20 years, 13 surpluses, seven deficits. Yes. And we've decapitalized our endowment by over $100 million. In fact, you said they haven't taken anything out of the... principle of the endowment. Is that what you said? That's correct. In other words, the board has made, has released funds from the temporary endowment for specific purposes like building the Lindy Center. These are all legitimate purposes and they're perfectly allowable under endowment law, which is why the endowment is larger, is largest now that it never has been. You know, I'm not an expert at this. I've gone to the symphony. You know, my mother's musician. You know, we talked all about the conductors over the years. I have been transfixed by Andrus Nelson's performances every time I've gone to the symphony, every time I've seen him here. I don't like Bruckner at all. But if you want to hear somebody do Bruckner, he's the guy to do Bruckner. He's great. So that's my question. You know, I grew up around here, held the BSO in such high esteem. I don't know why they've done this to him. And I can't get an answer. I think there's any of the question? Yeah, I hope you have an answer. I have an opinion, right? I think that the chair, Barbara Hostetter, just wants to make changes. She wants to, you know, just like at the Isbell Stewart Gardner Museum. She tore down the carriage house and built a building. Well... She broke eggs and made an omelet. Well, so far, at the BSO, she's breaking eggs, but she hasn't made an omelette, right? But the woman that ran the Garden Museum was there with her, and Holly, I think her name is? Anne Holy wrote a piece of the globe. Yes. It's talking about this. Let's be clear here. In defense of the wonderful things Barbara Hostetter did when she was chair of the board, we called, I contacted Anne Holy and said, we'd love you to come on the show and explain what your point was. Because the way we read it, you were able to do the reform with Barbara Hostel without her firing you. Right. Why couldn't she have done the reform of the BSO that she believes. My point is simply that... By the way, and she refused to come on. Okay. Well, that's the point. I mean, I'm not her psychiatrist, right? And she told the Boston Globe emphatically, Chad Smith did not fire Indress Nelson. It was the decision of the board. Well, the board means... It's, you know, the chair, right? Now, again, that's a little bit oversimplified. But. Even if you, let's suppose you're the board. Let's suppose you decide Andres Nelson's has been with us for a long time. Maybe it's time per change. All right. So the logical thing then to do is talk to the musicians, talk to Andres, work out a three-year transition, get Andras on board for helping find a next music director. In other words, even if you, even if there's plausible reasons why Andres Nelson should leave.

the way they did it was, I would just call it incompetent. Incompetent and amateurish. Correct me if I'm wrong. Not only did they not consult with the musicians, after they notified the musicians, it was just minutes later that the press relates went out. We ordinarily would not do what I'm about to do. We invited Chad and Barbara again here today. We've done it repeatedly. Early on, after the firing of Andres, they had some excuse. They were too busy internally trying to. calm the storm. Those are my words, not theirs, but they said something like that. Today we get an email from their lead communications person. They can't come today in light of ongoing contract negotiations, even though they don't say after negotiations. Yeah, but they don't say when they're over, we'll be happy to join you. We ordinarily would not read a statement when someone regularly refuses to say their side in the air, but I'm going to do it the show we're trying to be as fair as we can. This is from the, it says the statement from the BSO. BSO is committed to ensuring we have the financial resources to support our mission now and into the future. A substantial endowment does not eliminate the need to address persistent operating deficits and decades of deferred maintenance. We remain committed to sound accounting practices and responsible financial stewardship. You want to respond to that? No. Okay, good. Now, can we change gears before you leave for a second? You wrote a piece. Your headlines are generally not... wildly provocative. Sometimes they are. Do you write your own headlines? Yeah. I knew you. Okay. You had won the title of which was The Assassin. Yeah. Do you remember that one? That guy ruins attention. Who were you talking about? Well, I think you can make that inference from reading the article. If I come out and say it, then maybe I'm subject to libel. Okay, well, I'll say it. I believe it may have been David Allen, who's a Harvard guy who is regularly written about Andrus Nelson's, and my reading, I may be wrong in one case, I don't think so, has never written a kind word about Andrus Nelson's. That's fair. Nor do I believe a quick reread last night. I don't know of a situation where he... either talk to the musicians or mentioned that the musicians, as you did, are almost the anonymous in their support of Andres. What's your take on Alan's criticism of Nelson's work? Well, number one, he's not a musician himself. Right. And one of the things I know from the experience of being a musician and playing in an orchestra is nobody is better qualified to judge a conductor or music director than the musicians. Right. Now, critics have a role to play. But the history of criticism is that critics often have other agendas, right? There was a critic in Boston in the 1890s who savaged the BSO for playing Dvorzac. Because they said DeVorzac was, you know, he supported African American music and so forth and so on. I mean, critics often don't really address the realities of what's going on on stage. They have other agendas. What's driving his agenda? I think, I mean, I'm working on another post in that area, but this is my opinion. I don't have facts here.

My first impression when all this happened was that somebody ran a hit job on Andrus, right, a coordinated information operation, right? In other words, there was a deliberate effort to take Andras down in the public eye artistically as a means of influencing the board. That's my personal opinion. Do I have facts to support it? I have some facts, but I'm not ready to go to publish on him. And I don't think that that particular critic is qualified to write about Andrus. I think that in his... In the particular column that I was commenting about, he passes on innuendo and just plain false statements. Doesn't he quote himself at one point? Doesn't he cite himself as a source? Well, he quotes a Boston Globe article that quoted him as circular logic. If I had thought of that, I would have done that myself. So Thomas Dinsmore, I don't want you to leave if we missed something you think it's important for people who care about this treasure that is the BSO should have heard. Is there anything we didn't ask you that you think we should have? No. It's a pleasure to meet you. I hope people read your wonderful work, Thomas W.dinsmore.substack.com. And if there is anything that the BSO believes that Mr. Dinsmore stated that was incorrect, we will not take another written statement, but you are welcome any day to come here and respond to it. It's a pleasure. And thank you so much for work. Thank you. Thank you very much. And congratulations for your great work. We have been speaking, thank you. Thank you very much. We've been speaking with Thomas Dinsmore, whose writings about the BSO can be found at Thomas W. Dinsmore.substack.com. That's Dinsmore, Dinsmore, D-I-N-S-M-O-R-E, Thomas W. Dinsmore.com. Okay, coming after this quick break, we'll open the lines to ask you about our favorite story today. The fact that the president escaped an apparent threat to Turkey by writing... home on a decoy plane. But before he rode home in the decoy plane, he was hidden away inside a food cart to escape the eyes of the media and anybody else. We're going to talk to you about that. You've had to escape an event life. It's not a food cart. It was a catering truck. Catering truck. Yes. Well, he was, I think he was in the car before he was in the truck. Maybe he was. I think, okay? So, anyway, I'm Marjoriegan. He's Jim Brady. Listen to BPR, 897, GPH, streaming at YouTube.com slash GPH News.

Welcome back to BPR in 897, GBA. Jim Browdy and Marjoriegan, live at the library streaming YouTube.com slash GVHU. Seth Moulton joins us tomorrow. He's a congressman challenging in the Democratic primary. Ed Markey for the Senate seat and Mayor Wu will be here at noon. We have almost no time for this. So maybe we'll start this, continue it tomorrow, whatever. One of the great stories, right up there with the algae. Would you say it's not? Okay. So everybody knows Trump went from the new Air Force one given to him by Qatar. to the old Air Force one when he was leaving the NATO meetings in Turkey because apparently the cutter jet was not really protected enough when there were legitimate, credible Iranian threats. And then he came made up with a story. The reason he wasn't flying on the cutter jet was because all the troops in Western Europe really wanted to see it. and they were going to get to walk through it, et cetera, all that BS. Well, it turns out, as Marjorie said, he didn't ride on the other, the old Air Force one either, because that was apparently a threat according to his security people. So he snuck off the plane. and ended up, Marjorie says, what did you say in a food cart? Well, you know, I'm reading different versions here. Okay, so he ended up. One version is that the cart was loaded up to the height of the airplane. He got in the little cart and was lowered into the bed of the catering truck. He was in a catering truck. He was in a catering truck. They had cheeseburgers in there. Not only is he riding in a catering truck, but they leave the reporters and other staff behind. Let's keep this much. To die. Cratery, a credible threat. to Air Force One. It is fine for all the journalists and the rest of the staff other than Pete Hegseth, of course, who went with him. Yeah, I think a couple more. To stay on the plane. And what do they do to ensure the reporters would not see him scampering onto the catering truck? They told everybody to put their shades down. Put their shades down. So I don't even know where to go with this. Remember when he was called, what was he called? There was a line, Bunker Boy. Bunker Boy. Remember when he... Yeah, that's because he went into the bunker during the George Floyd protests, and then people were calling him Bunker Boy for that. He said he wasn't there, he was there only for an inspection. He said the reason he went to the bunker. Because outside the White House, there were hundreds of protests, they were throwing things and tugging at the barricades. And that, he chose that moment to do an inspection of the bunker. It wasn't because he was worried about the protest. And then he did a couple of things, too. He's an armored golf cart, which I guess. I mean, the guy had had several attempts on his life, so I get that completely. But one of the ones I love is he was, before he was the president, he snuck out for a stake in, hankering for a stake, the president loved steak. Well done. And he snuck out to go to 21 club and midtime Manhattan without the press knowing. So here's some text because we don't have time for calls. Lucy and Salem says, all I have to say is. put that man in a corn maze. He'll never be seen or heard from again. That's Lucy from Salem. Here's Red. Jim, if you feel uneasy about confrontational audience members today, we can smuggle you out of the library in a hot bar. That I would take no matter what. Anonymous text, so I heard he had McDonald's and a Diet Coke in the container.

to lure him. You know what, you know what to say? The two things that stay with me in the story. They wanted the staffers and didn't care about the journalists. It was a credible enough threat. Right. The credible enough threat to transfer to a third plane leave the journalists and the rest of his staff was behind. And secondly, it's yet another example where he lied, his people. Yep. They lied to the American people from beginning. Ten, the New York Times or the Washington Post, which is the originator of the story, the only comparable situation they could come up with was after 9-11 when Bush was George W. Bush was flown to Nebraska, but they didn't lie to the press. They just didn't tell the press. where the president was. In any case, we'll try to continue that tomorrow. Can I say something before you bid people adieu? Certainly, Jim. As I think was obvious, if you listen to the whole show today, I am a firm believer. If you're an incumbent, you have an absolute obligation to debate your qualified candidates, meaning qualified for the ballot. You heard the Attorney General say she wouldn't commit to that because she doesn't think her Republican opponent should be on the ballot. You heard Steve Lynch, I think, say at the end, If he has not a debate yet, he said forums, if an entity invites him and Patrick Roth to a debate, he said he'd participate. I believe he did. Let me tell you thorough. Marjorie and I and Jamie have talked a lot about how we're very disturbed by how little coverage the Suffolk County DA race has gotten. We have interviewed all three candidates, Linda Champion, former DA Rollins, current DA Hayden. All those are online. at gbh at youtube.com. You're going to put, we'll tell you where they are in a minute. However, we decided on Friday that there had been such little coverage of this and no debates, not one, that we would invite all three candidates to debate next Friday. We called Rollins, she immediately accepted. We called Champion, she immediately accepted. We called Hayden's person who said that he was not only unavailable this Friday because of a get-out-the-vote effort. I said, well, they're three weeks to election day. Give us a date. We'll do it then. And the answer was there are no dates that the current DA is available to debate Rachel Rollins and live the champion. I think it is incumbent. And all of you listening, if you have an incumbent, Republican or Democrat in our estimation, they have a responsibility to debate their opponents. We hope you'll put pressure on them to find the three interviews we did. YouTube.com slash GVH News. Okay, thank you for that, Jim. And thank you for listening to another edition of Boston Public Radio. Thank you to people that came down to the Boston Public Library. We really appreciate it. Keep up for this 24-7 way of our podcast. Check out our TikTok page at Boston Public Radio. Tomorrow, we're going to be joined here at the Boston Public Library with Congressman Seth Moulton, who's running against Ed Markey for his seat in the Senate of the United States. And Ed Markey did debate him, by the way. Yes, he did. I think he's had a couple of them, hasn't me? Plus Eastern Bank chair, Bob Rivers.

housing in Massachusetts. And Michelle Wu will be here for another edition of Ask. The mayor should be here from noon to one right here at the library. I want to thank our crew, Zoe Matthews, Hannah Loss, Ariana Gonzalez, additional support from Jack Siciliano, our engineer John the Claude Parker, our executive producer, Jamie Bologna, our BPL staff, Madigar, Patrick, Patrick, Patrick, our security team, Darius and Derek, our host at the News Feed Cafe and across the street at the Lenox Hotel, the Curiosity Desk with Edgar Beer at the third. Excuse me. The third starts right after us. And then the culture show with John Bowen at 2. I am Marjorie Egan. Jim Bradley. Thanks so much for tuning in. I hope you can tune in tomorrow and hope you have a lovely afternoon.