Latest / Pod Save America / “Trump’s crack legal team.”

Transcript

“Trump’s crack legal team.” · Pod Save America

0:20
Speaker 1: Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Lovett.
0:22
Speaker 2: I'm Dan Pfeiffer.
0:23
Speaker 1: Jon and Tommy are on assignment. So Dan and I
0:26
Speaker 1: are back for a crossover episode like when He-Man and
0:28
Speaker 1: She-Ra team up. I decided to switch it up.
0:32
Speaker 2: To a much more modern reference. Not really.
0:36
Speaker 1: I'm Shira. We have a lot to cover today. The
0:39
Speaker 1: death of ISIS's leader and Trump's deeply mature response to
0:41
Speaker 1: that successful operation. There have been developments in the impeachment
0:44
Speaker 1: inquiry from the release of grand jury materials to the
0:47
Speaker 1: emergence of a new whistleblower, Rudy Giuliani's butt. And in
0:54
Speaker 1: 2020 news. We'll look at Joe Biden's fundraising challenges, his
0:58
Speaker 1: reversal on super PACs, and what we learned from Biden's
1:00
Speaker 1: interview on 60 Minutes. Plus, we'll look at Katie Hill's
1:03
Speaker 1: decision to resign from Congress with Akilah Hughes and Gideon Resnick,
1:06
Speaker 1: the host of Crooked's brand new daily podcast, What a Day. So, Dan,
1:10
Speaker 1: let's start with the news that broke over the weekend.
1:12
Speaker 1: On Saturday at 9.23 p.m. Eastern, Donald Trump, the person
1:16
Speaker 1: occupying the job of president, tweeted, something very big has
1:19
Speaker 1: just happened, exclamation point. Then on Sunday, President Trump announced
1:23
Speaker 1: that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, died over
1:26
Speaker 1: the weekend during an American-led operation in Syria. Trump called
1:29
Speaker 1: Baghdadi a sick and depraved man and said that the
1:32
Speaker 1: United States brought the world's number one terrorist leader to justice.
1:35
Speaker 1: According to the White House, Baghdadi was chased by special
1:37
Speaker 1: forces into a tunnel, ultimately detonated a suicide vest that
1:40
Speaker 1: killed himself and three children. The president also noted that
1:43
Speaker 1: the American forces entered the area through airspace controlled by
1:46
Speaker 1: Russia and did so with permission of the Russian government.
1:50
Speaker 1: I think it's important to separate two parts of this.
1:52
Speaker 1: One is the significance of the operation itself and what
1:54
Speaker 1: it means for the larger fight to defeat ISIS. And
1:56
Speaker 1: the other is the politics of Trump's conduct around the raid.
2:00
Speaker 1: You know, Dan, I'm sure Pod Save the World will
2:02
Speaker 1: talk a lot more about the geopolitical significance of this death.
2:05
Speaker 1: But Dan, can you briefly say why this operation is important?
2:10
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I don't say this often about things
2:12
Speaker 2: Trump says, but he is correct that Baghdadi is the
2:15
Speaker 2: world's number one terrorist. He is both the operational and
2:18
Speaker 2: spiritual leader of ISIS. His death, as you mentioned, Ben
2:23
Speaker 2: and Tommy will talk about in much greater and smarter detail,
2:26
Speaker 2: but his death is a huge blow to ISIS both
2:28
Speaker 2: in terms of their ability to conduct operations but also
2:32
Speaker 2: as a spiritual leader, as someone who claimed to be
2:35
Speaker 2: from the same town as the Prophet Muhammad. The ability
2:39
Speaker 2: of ISIS to recruit followers around the world is most
2:44
Speaker 2: likely diminished by this. So it is a victory in
2:47
Speaker 2: the war against ISIS and as someone who has been
2:48
Speaker 2: at the top of the U.S., list since we were
2:51
Speaker 2: in the White House in 2014.
2:52
Speaker 1: So, of course, the context for this raid is Trump's
2:55
Speaker 1: decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria at the behest
2:58
Speaker 1: of Turkey. The Times reported the following, and it was
3:00
Speaker 1: pretty stunning. For months, intelligence officials had kept Mr. Trump
3:04
Speaker 1: apprised of what he had set as a top priority,
3:06
Speaker 1: the hunt for Mr. al-Baghdadi, the world's most wanted terrorist.
3:10
Speaker 1: That was a pretty extraordinary story in the Times, and
3:13
Speaker 1: it was, I think, so closely to when the raid
3:40
Speaker 1: took place. Extraordinary to see officials from within the national
3:44
Speaker 1: security apparatus be so explicit. How much should Trump's larger
3:50
Speaker 1: foreign policy choices, erratic decision-making, impact how this event is interpreted?
3:59
Speaker 2: I think it should play a central role in it.
4:01
Speaker 2: I mean, it is... Like, if we were ever in
4:04
Speaker 2: the world of a 25th Amendment proceeding... that paragraph you
4:07
Speaker 2: just read would be exhibit one. I mean, here is
4:09
Speaker 2: someone who has said privately and publicly that getting al-Baghdadi
4:13
Speaker 2: is one of his top priorities. He knows that the
4:16
Speaker 2: military is closing in on al-Baghdadi, that according to the Times,
4:19
Speaker 2: there have been two previous missions that had been called
4:22
Speaker 2: back for various reasons. And yet while he knows those
4:26
Speaker 2: things and he knows he wants al-Baghdadi, he capriciously and
4:30
Speaker 2: fairly crazily pulls out of Syria, putting the military in
4:36
Speaker 2: this position where either they're going to lose al-Baghdadi's top
4:40
Speaker 2: Trump-dictated priority or be forced to go do it with
4:44
Speaker 2: greater risk to the troops. It is an absolutely insane decision.
4:47
Speaker 2: And I don't think you can look at this without
4:50
Speaker 2: putting in the context of the fact that he almost
4:52
Speaker 2: screwed the whole thing up by being the terrible president
4:55
Speaker 2: that we know him to be and that people's lives
4:57
Speaker 2: were at risk because of it, either because we wouldn't
5:00
Speaker 2: have gotten al-Baghdadi and ISIS were to stay strong or
5:02
Speaker 2: for the for the brave troops who went in to
5:04
Speaker 2: go do this, they did it under less than ideal
5:06
Speaker 2: circumstances because of the way in which Trump made his decisions.
5:09
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it seems like, you know, after the
5:13
Speaker 1: bin Laden raid, conservatives were loathe to credit President Obama
5:17
Speaker 1: for the decision making and wanted to put the credit
5:20
Speaker 1: into the hands of those that actually carried it out
5:23
Speaker 1: and the leadership in the military. No one was more
5:27
Speaker 1: invested in that denial of respect than Trump for Obama.
5:32
Speaker 1: And yet here now we have an example where it
5:35
Speaker 1: does seem as though Donald Trump's decision making, according to
5:38
Speaker 1: the people involved in that decision making, made this raid
5:41
Speaker 1: less likely to succeed, harder to pull off. It seems
5:44
Speaker 1: that we've had a number of moments in which Donald
5:47
Speaker 1: Trump's sort of capricious, erratic decision making has been something
5:51
Speaker 1: Democrats say and, you know, nonpartisan national security experts say
5:55
Speaker 1: is dangerous for our security. But this does seem to
5:57
Speaker 1: be a specific, practical, real world example. Do you think
6:01
Speaker 1: it's something that will linger? Or do you think this
6:03
Speaker 1: is the kind of thing where this will just go
6:06
Speaker 1: down the memory hole of an event in which I
6:10
Speaker 1: think a lot of people didn't even know who al-Baghdadi was.
6:14
Speaker 1: Now he is dead. Trump is declaring victory. Democrats are critical.
6:17
Speaker 1: I mean, what actual political impact does an event like
6:20
Speaker 1: this have?
6:21
Speaker 2: Well, I always bet on the memory hole in the
6:23
Speaker 2: Trump era that, you know, I mean, this happened. This
6:26
Speaker 2: was announced yesterday morning. And by Monday morning, we were
6:29
Speaker 2: engaged in a national debate about the civility of booing,
6:32
Speaker 2: which I'm sure we'll discuss. And so it's very quick.
6:35
Speaker 2: It is like I sort of hate this competition that's
6:38
Speaker 2: been happening online where Trump wants this to be his
6:40
Speaker 2: quote unquote bin Laden moment. And then Democrats want to explain,
6:45
Speaker 2: want to fight about which terrorist killing was more significant.
6:49
Speaker 2: And I think it's just– it's sort of a dumb,
6:51
Speaker 2: gross competition. But there is a fundamental difference in the
6:57
Speaker 2: political– in the national consciousness about who bin Laden was, right?
7:01
Speaker 2: Like at the White House the night that happened, people
7:04
Speaker 2: spontaneously converged on the White House and started chanting USA,
7:09
Speaker 2: USA so loudly that we could hear it from our
7:11
Speaker 2: offices when it happened. And so it is different in
7:14
Speaker 2: that sense because you were correct. My assumption is most
7:17
Speaker 2: people have no idea. Now, if you tell them Trump
7:22
Speaker 2: was responsible in some way, shape or form for a
7:26
Speaker 2: mission that led to the killing of the leader of ISIS,
7:28
Speaker 2: I imagine that would make people who live in great
7:33
Speaker 2: concern about ISIS, even if that concerns are somewhat irrational,
7:38
Speaker 2: feel good about it. But they are two separate things
7:40
Speaker 2: with two different things. I think the politics of this
7:43
Speaker 2: is very limited. It's mitigated by what you read from
7:49
Speaker 2: the New York Times for sure. But even bin Laden,
7:52
Speaker 2: Obama's poll numbers went up 11 points in some polls
7:55
Speaker 2: right after bin Laden was killed. There was this talk
7:59
Speaker 2: that Obama had just won reelection. It was over. And
8:02
Speaker 2: most of that polling bump was gone within two weeks
8:06
Speaker 2: of the event. And so the idea that this is
8:08
Speaker 2: going to somehow change the trajectory of Trump's politics I
8:11
Speaker 2: think is pretty naive.
8:13
Speaker 1: And I also do think there's this pattern with Trump
8:16
Speaker 1: in moments where he is meant to try to evince
8:20
Speaker 1: the gravitas of the presidency and fails to do it. That,
8:24
Speaker 1: you know, something big happens. He thinks here, here's this
8:26
Speaker 1: moment where I'm going to get respect. Then of course
8:29
Speaker 1: he mishandles it's completely due to egotism and narcissism. He
8:32
Speaker 1: tweets something big happened. Like he just found out he
8:35
Speaker 1: got cast in a musical and he's very excited to
8:38
Speaker 1: tell people the next day. Then he comes up to
8:41
Speaker 1: the podium and I'm, We have one clip of where
8:45
Speaker 1: Trump is explicitly comparing al-Baghdadi to bin Laden.
8:51
Speaker 3: Hamza bin Laden was a big thing, but this is
8:55
Speaker 3: the biggest there is.
8:56
Speaker 2: This is the worst ever.
9:01
Speaker 3: Osama bin Laden was very big, but Osama bin Laden
9:03
Speaker 3: became big with the World Trade Center. This is a
9:05
Speaker 3: man who built a whole, as he would like to
9:09
Speaker 3: call it, a country, a caliphate, and was trying to
9:14
Speaker 3: do it again.
9:14
Speaker 1: So, you know, Dan, I don't want to dwell too
9:18
Speaker 1: much on this because it is aesthetics. There is something
9:20
Speaker 1: I think deeply ugly about Trump talking about terrorist masterminds
9:26
Speaker 1: like they're like lounge singers in Vegas having a moment. But,
9:31
Speaker 1: you know, do the aesthetic, just Trump's inability to project
9:36
Speaker 1: the gravitas seriousness of the presidency, his inability to carry
9:40
Speaker 1: that mantle at all, is it important or is it
9:42
Speaker 1: just sort of an obsession of kind of DC and
9:46
Speaker 1: other political pundits who watch this constantly like us?
9:51
Speaker 2: I think Trump's lack of presidential bearing and his just
9:54
Speaker 2: ability to trip over his own two feet whenever he's
9:57
Speaker 2: on the national stage is something sort of baked into
10:00
Speaker 2: the cake in American politics. I don't think anyone was
10:02
Speaker 2: surprised to see Trump handle it this way in a
10:07
Speaker 2: way that's sort of gross, used car salesman-y, sort of
10:12
Speaker 2: thirsting for like personal affirmation out of it. Like I
10:16
Speaker 2: don't think that bothers people. Where I do think this
10:18
Speaker 2: matters– is outside of the U.S., where there are moments
10:24
Speaker 2: like this where this is not just Trump doing a
10:26
Speaker 2: Hannity interview or doing one of his absurd rallies. This
10:29
Speaker 2: is a moment where the world is watching, right? And
10:31
Speaker 2: it's not just our allies around the world, but it's
10:33
Speaker 2: also people in Syria, people in Turkey, the people who
10:37
Speaker 2: have been victims of ISIS. And the way Trump talked
10:42
Speaker 2: about it was a way in which I am sure
10:45
Speaker 2: no terrorism expert would ever recommend a president talk because
10:51
Speaker 2: you know that ISIS will use this to try to
10:53
Speaker 2: recruit more followers. And when you go out there and
10:56
Speaker 2: you talk about it like this and you just seem
10:59
Speaker 2: so desperate in how you talk about it and you
11:02
Speaker 2: talk about the whimpering and all of that, I think
11:05
Speaker 2: it has the potential to become part of a larger
11:09
Speaker 2: propaganda effort and turn off the world. Like when Obama
11:13
Speaker 2: gave his statement after the death of bin Laden, He
11:17
Speaker 2: spent a lot of time thinking about how it would
11:19
Speaker 2: be viewed by the people in Pakistan, knowing that U.S.
11:23
Speaker 2: forces went into Pakistan to kill bin Laden. How would
11:26
Speaker 2: people there see his remarks? How could he do to
11:29
Speaker 2: mitigate whatever fallout there would be from that? And Trump
11:31
Speaker 2: gave no concern about that. He was really only speaking
11:35
Speaker 2: in the mirror. He wasn't thinking about how the world
11:37
Speaker 2: would see it.
11:38
Speaker 1: It's also one other difference, too, between the way President
11:41
Speaker 1: Obama handled the death of bin Laden and how Trump
11:43
Speaker 1: handled the raid to take out Baghdadi is the notification
11:47
Speaker 1: of Congress. And this is something that I do think
11:49
Speaker 1: is important. Trump did not notify key members of Congress
11:53
Speaker 1: in advance. So before the 2011 bin Laden raid, the
11:56
Speaker 1: White House notifies the top Democrat and Republican in both
11:59
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate, as well as the bipartisan
12:01
Speaker 1: leaders of the intelligence committees, what they call the gang
12:04
Speaker 1: of eight, traditionally understood to be a group of people
12:07
Speaker 1: that could be trusted and with the most sensitive of information.
12:09
Speaker 1: It is a nod to, I think, an important reflection
12:12
Speaker 1: of congressional responsibility, congressional authority, and checks and balances. Trump
12:17
Speaker 1: foregoed that completely. He notified two Republicans. He notified Richard Burr,
12:22
Speaker 1: who is the chair of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate.
12:25
Speaker 1: And of course, he told Lindsey Graham, because Lindsey Graham
12:27
Speaker 1: sucks up to him in the golf course. Dan, do
12:29
Speaker 1: you think there's an important breakdown? What do you think?
12:33
Speaker 2: I think it's troubling about how not just in this moment,
12:37
Speaker 2: but in future interactions between Congress and the president. And
12:40
Speaker 2: it's probably not surprising that Trump, who is so grievance oriented,
12:47
Speaker 2: would not find it with himself to put aside his
12:49
Speaker 2: personal grievance to notify the speaker of the house of
12:53
Speaker 2: a pending operation or to communicate with Adam Schiff, right?
12:57
Speaker 2: Like that is the person with whom he would, he
12:59
Speaker 2: would have communicated in the house where he did do so.
13:02
Speaker 2: And even, Most of the time, this sort of petty
13:07
Speaker 2: stuff is just annoying and distracting. But there can be
13:14
Speaker 2: a time when the president and Congress are going to
13:17
Speaker 2: have to work together to solve a very real problem
13:20
Speaker 2: or to avert a very real crisis. And these sort
13:23
Speaker 2: of steps from Trump are incredibly counterproductive and they don't
13:26
Speaker 2: speak well of– which I guess it's not surprising that
13:30
Speaker 2: Trump would be too wrapped up in his own head
13:33
Speaker 2: to do the right thing. But I mean, it's a
13:35
Speaker 2: warning sign for sure.
13:37
Speaker 3: Yeah.
13:37
Speaker 1: I mean, it's also, you know, look, we're at a
13:39
Speaker 1: moment where we're grappling with whether or not Congress has
13:42
Speaker 1: ceded too much authority to the administration and whether or
13:45
Speaker 1: not Congress has the ability to uphold its responsibilities to
13:50
Speaker 1: check the administration. And one of the ways in which
13:53
Speaker 1: we've ceded so much authority to the presidency, and this
13:56
Speaker 1: is long, long proceeds, Trump is in secrecy that the,
14:01
Speaker 1: that secrecy is, uh, often a tool that the presidency
14:05
Speaker 1: has to keep information from Congress, to keep accountability from
14:11
Speaker 1: the public. And one of the ways we guard against
14:14
Speaker 1: that is a custom and laws that require the president
14:19
Speaker 1: to inform members of Congress, congressional committees, Congress writ large,
14:23
Speaker 1: because we understand that there are dangers associated with the
14:27
Speaker 1: president's ability to do things in secret. Now, I know
14:31
Speaker 1: we don't... That doesn't matter when to Trump, it's not
14:35
Speaker 1: his concern. He's not thinking about the prerogatives of the president.
14:37
Speaker 1: He's thinking about his ego. But I do think as
14:40
Speaker 1: we look beyond Trump, or at least think about what
14:43
Speaker 1: we would do to restrain the presidency, regardless of who
14:45
Speaker 1: holds the office, I do think thinking about how we
14:48
Speaker 1: make sure that Congress can protect its prerogatives, I think
14:51
Speaker 1: is really important.
14:52
Speaker 4: Yeah.
14:53
Speaker 2: And we're operating in this situation on the authority by
14:57
Speaker 2: which president has been conducting these operations in Syria, both
15:03
Speaker 2: dating back to President Obama, is the 2001 authorization for
15:08
Speaker 2: use of military force, something that is 18 years old
15:10
Speaker 2: now for a country that is not Syria. And ultimately,
15:14
Speaker 2: whether we have a Republican or a Democrat, the hope
15:16
Speaker 2: would be a Democratic Congress, even in a bipartisan fashion,
15:21
Speaker 2: would repeal that authorization of military force and, if necessary,
15:25
Speaker 2: pass another one that would be more narrowly tailored and
15:29
Speaker 2: speak to whatever challenges we have in the moment and
15:31
Speaker 2: not just essentially an 18-year-old blank check.
15:35
Speaker 1: Right, especially considering that al-Baghdadi was the leader of an
15:37
Speaker 1: organization that did not exist for more than 10 years
15:40
Speaker 1: after the passage of that authorization for the use of force.
15:45
Speaker 1: Let's move on to impeachment. Last week was perhaps one
15:48
Speaker 1: of the biggest weeks to date in the impeachment of
15:49
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Up to that point, the Trump administration had
15:52
Speaker 1: insisted that the perfect call between Trump and the president
15:55
Speaker 1: of Ukraine did not reflect any kind of quid pro quo.
15:58
Speaker 1: But last week, U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, Bill Taylor,
16:00
Speaker 1: provided the first testimony that drew a direct line between
16:03
Speaker 1: Trump's insistence that Ukraine's president publicly announced an investigation into
16:07
Speaker 1: the Bidens and the release of aid. Now, according to
16:10
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal, we've learned that former U.S. ambassador
16:12
Speaker 1: to the EU, Gordon Sondland, is confirming Taylor's account of
16:15
Speaker 1: the quid pro quo, telling House members that he believed
16:18
Speaker 1: that Ukraine agreed to open investigations into Burisma Group because
16:21
Speaker 1: it was a condition that the White House set for
16:23
Speaker 1: a meeting between Trump and Zelensky. It seems like Taylor's
16:27
Speaker 1: testimony forced Sondland to admit what he had previously said.
16:30
Speaker 1: denied and what Taylor was clearly interested in getting Sondland
16:34
Speaker 1: to admit in their text conversations, which is that he
16:37
Speaker 1: had knowledge of Trump's decision to withhold aid to Ukraine
16:40
Speaker 1: and the reasons why. At the very least, this removes
16:43
Speaker 1: sort of a fragile pillar of the Trump defense that
16:46
Speaker 1: was floated last week. I guess you can't really float
16:48
Speaker 1: a pillar because of shit. Taylor.
16:50
Speaker 2: Can you float a defense?
16:52
Speaker 1: You can float a defense that Taylor's information was secondhand, right?
16:55
Speaker 1: At first you saw even senators like John Thune say,
16:59
Speaker 1: this is very bad news for us. And then the
17:02
Speaker 1: kind of whatever, the intellectual Zambonis come in to try
17:04
Speaker 1: to smooth over the ice. And one of the defenses was, well,
17:07
Speaker 1: how would Taylor know it was only secondhand? It's hearsay.
17:10
Speaker 1: This isn't proof of anything. And now it seems like
17:13
Speaker 1: Sondland is being forced to confirm what Taylor said, which
17:16
Speaker 1: we obviously know is true based on the conversations we read,
17:19
Speaker 1: the text messages between Sondland and Taylor. I mean, Dan,
17:23
Speaker 1: it feels sort of absurd to ask, but how bad
17:30
Speaker 1: is this for Trump? I mean, at this point, there
17:34
Speaker 1: are so few defenses, actually substantive defenses left against a
17:38
Speaker 1: quid pro quo. Now that we're learning, Sondland is confirming
17:41
Speaker 1: what Taylor said.
17:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, the conduct is indefensible. And it has
17:45
Speaker 2: been amusing, I guess would be the right word, to
17:49
Speaker 2: watch Republicans lay out basically like draw a line and say,
17:54
Speaker 2: Trump did not cross this line. And then new information
17:56
Speaker 2: comes out and they have to draw another line and
17:57
Speaker 2: back and forth. You get to the point where, you know,
18:00
Speaker 2: we went from Trump saying the whistleblower misconstrued the call
18:04
Speaker 2: to putting out the call transcript, which proved it, to
18:07
Speaker 2: it wasn't a quid pro quo, to it is a
18:09
Speaker 2: quid pro quo, to it was hearsay, to it now
18:11
Speaker 2: it is firsthand evidence of a quid pro quo. And
18:13
Speaker 2: we're eventually going to get to the point where the
18:17
Speaker 2: only answer is the president can do whatever the hell
18:18
Speaker 2: he wants. And The thing I thought was interesting is
18:21
Speaker 2: so Thune made those comments and then he immediately backed
18:24
Speaker 2: off the next day and said, well, now I've read
18:25
Speaker 2: the whole thing. And it's very– there's a lot of
18:28
Speaker 2: who said this, who said that, like maybe it's hearsay.
18:30
Speaker 2: And then something comes out and cuts Thune's legs out
18:33
Speaker 2: from underneath them. And I saw today in an article
18:37
Speaker 2: about Republicans feeling very uncomfortable in this position that Trump
18:40
Speaker 2: has put them in. I'd like to point out they
18:42
Speaker 2: probably– they helped put Trump in that position by enabling
18:46
Speaker 2: his– every action and defending him all the time. But
18:50
Speaker 2: the new the new sort of line for Republicans is
18:53
Speaker 2: we can't comment on this because we're going to be
18:55
Speaker 2: jurors in the trial, which is the sort of the
18:59
Speaker 2: new version of like Mitch McConnell saying he doesn't read
19:02
Speaker 2: Trump's tweets or Paul Ryan saying he doesn't read the news.
19:06
Speaker 2: And so I think that like they can't keep doing
19:08
Speaker 2: this because they don't know enough and Trump is lying
19:11
Speaker 2: to them or lying to himself or lying to someone.
19:14
Speaker 2: So we're going to get to the point where their
19:16
Speaker 2: fallback position is going to be what Trump did was
19:22
Speaker 2: bad or wrong or not perfect, but we're too close
19:26
Speaker 2: to the election to remove the president, which is a
19:28
Speaker 2: position that is probably sustainable with some portion of the public.
19:33
Speaker 1: Right. And then you add on top of that, Lindsey
19:36
Speaker 1: Graham's effort to kind of attack the investigation itself. You
19:40
Speaker 1: see others like Hugh Hewitt floating that the impeachment that
19:43
Speaker 1: if there is an impeachment trial, It should focus not
19:45
Speaker 1: just on Ukraine, but everything from the Iran. deal to
19:50
Speaker 1: the Mueller investigation to the Steele dossier. Trump also has
19:56
Speaker 1: been launching into attacks against never-Trumpers, that Trump is the
20:02
Speaker 1: victim of a cabal of radical moderate never Trumpers. I
20:08
Speaker 1: don't know who that argument's for. That seems like it's
20:12
Speaker 1: just for him. It's just for him and National Review
20:15
Speaker 1: to bicker about, I suppose. I don't really understand it.
20:18
Speaker 2: Also, Hugh Hewitt is America's most unmutable human. I go
20:23
Speaker 2: out of my way to not know what he has
20:25
Speaker 2: to say because I find it to be so stupid,
20:26
Speaker 2: but he causes such outrage that you can't Like he
20:33
Speaker 2: was this unfortunate barnacle of American public discussion that you
20:36
Speaker 2: cannot get rid of.
20:38
Speaker 1: I do think he is one of the more sophisticated
20:42
Speaker 1: intellectuals and bonies on the Trump side. I mean, he
20:45
Speaker 1: he is really out there. He is an artist when
20:49
Speaker 1: it comes to figuring out how to give some guidance
20:53
Speaker 1: to ostensibly or, you know, to some serious Republicans for
20:59
Speaker 1: how to talk about this. And, you know, he's He's
21:03
Speaker 1: trying his best. You got to give him that. The
21:05
Speaker 1: other point I was going to make on these two
21:07
Speaker 1: is I can also actually see as we get closer
21:08
Speaker 1: to the election, the Republicans in the Senate taking the
21:12
Speaker 1: juror defense, which, by the way, has also been used
21:14
Speaker 1: by people like Amy Klobuchar to avoid calling for impeachment
21:18
Speaker 1: earlier in the process. While at the same time, I
21:21
Speaker 1: was thinking about the Bush defense against swift voting. So
21:26
Speaker 1: when the swift vote ads are maligning John Kerry on television,
21:30
Speaker 1: Bush is avoiding talking about it for a long time. Finally,
21:32
Speaker 1: he agrees to comment on these sort of malicious smears
21:36
Speaker 1: against John Kerry. And what he says is, I think
21:39
Speaker 1: all these ads should go away. I don't want to
21:41
Speaker 1: see attack ads unfairly attacking John Kerry via these outside groups.
21:46
Speaker 1: And I don't want to see those kinds of attacks
21:48
Speaker 1: against me. We should all swear off all of these attacks.
21:51
Speaker 1: And it was a way to avoid actually acknowledging that
21:54
Speaker 1: there was something unfair happening to his opponent while ostensibly
21:57
Speaker 1: denouncing a larger trend. I can see some of these guys...
22:03
Speaker 1: going out there and saying, I think what Trump did
22:06
Speaker 1: was inappropriate. Obviously, I'm reserving judgment because I'm a member
22:09
Speaker 1: of the Senate and we may have to face a trial.
22:12
Speaker 1: But at the same time, I think anyone soliciting any
22:15
Speaker 1: kind of foreign interference, whether it's from Ukraine or whether
22:19
Speaker 1: it's Hillary Clinton and the Democrats with the Steele dossier,
22:22
Speaker 1: we're all Americans, Dan. We've all got to do our
22:25
Speaker 1: part to make sure that we have free and fair elections.
22:28
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm just, you know, look, we don't predict anymore.
22:30
Speaker 1: I'm just if I were If I were a cynical,
22:34
Speaker 1: tax cut loving, regulation hating Republican member of the Senate
22:38
Speaker 1: with eyes on the presidency, which is 100 percent of them,
22:42
Speaker 1: that is, I think, what I would be angling toward.
22:45
Speaker 2: I think the other very cynical response we're going to
22:48
Speaker 2: hear is exactly what you said. But then also, look,
22:52
Speaker 2: what Trump did was wrong. But I really worry about
22:54
Speaker 2: the precedent of proceeding with impeachment.
22:57
Speaker 3: Right.
22:58
Speaker 2: What happens to the next president? President, Republican or Democrat,
23:00
Speaker 2: are we going to do this every four years? We
23:02
Speaker 2: have to protect American institutions by allowing this particular president
23:08
Speaker 2: to commit crimes while in the White House. And so
23:10
Speaker 2: there will be this sort of, because of the proximity election,
23:13
Speaker 2: there will be this argument that it is bad for
23:16
Speaker 2: democracy to hold a president accountable for obvious and multiple
23:22
Speaker 2: crimes in office. And that is the sort of talking
23:25
Speaker 2: point that I think will have some success in pundit world,
23:28
Speaker 2: but basically could not survive 14 seconds of intellectual scrutiny.
23:33
Speaker 2: You know, it's interesting.
23:33
Speaker 1: There is a parallel between that conversation, and I don't
23:36
Speaker 1: want to dwell on it too much, but this civility
23:39
Speaker 1: conversation that's been unfolding in the wake of a truly
23:45
Speaker 1: horrifying event which took place at the World Series, which
23:49
Speaker 1: is people booing Donald Trump. We do have some audio,
23:54
Speaker 1: because why the fuck not? I can't join you by
23:56
Speaker 1: the president, dude. All right, you know what booze sound like.
24:14
Speaker 2: I've never experienced them personally, but I'm aware of the concept.
24:17
Speaker 1: Oh, well, you've never made an Unfortunate Saints reference in
24:21
Speaker 1: New Orleans.
24:22
Speaker 2: Nope.
24:24
Speaker 1: But so also there were chants of lock him up.
24:27
Speaker 1: And this got, I think, a lot of pundits upset
24:30
Speaker 1: at Americans shouting lock him up at Donald Trump. They
24:34
Speaker 1: say it was wrong to shout lock her up at
24:37
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. It's wrong to shout lock him up at
24:40
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. I don't want to dwell too much on the,
24:44
Speaker 1: on Boogazy. Fuck.
24:50
Speaker 2: Is that going to compete for a title with Buttgazy?
24:52
Speaker 1: Oh, that's good too.
24:53
Speaker 2: Buttgazy. Fuck.
24:54
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's Boogazy. Oh man. Anyway, I guess it's just,
24:58
Speaker 1: so obviously the president got booed and you have a
25:00
Speaker 1: problem with booing Donald Trump. You got a problem with me.
25:02
Speaker 1: That's easy. But, but, but on the matter of lock
25:07
Speaker 1: him up, I am, There is a easy, you know,
25:13
Speaker 1: bipartisan pundit rebuke, which says it was wrong to say
25:18
Speaker 1: lock her up when it was Hillary Clinton. And it's
25:21
Speaker 1: wrong to say lock him up to Donald Trump. Do
25:25
Speaker 1: you do you agree that it's wrong that those two
25:28
Speaker 1: things are equivalent, Dan?
25:33
Speaker 2: Like this whole conversation is stupid. And I guess we're
25:36
Speaker 2: guilty of it because we're.
25:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, why not? It's a vunt. Let's have fun. It's
25:40
Speaker 1: a Monday.
25:42
Speaker 2: It speaks to the gravitational pull of the political conversation
25:46
Speaker 2: towards the least relevant thing. The point isn't who chanted
25:51
Speaker 2: lock him up at Trump at a baseball game. It
25:54
Speaker 2: is that the president is committed multiple crimes and at
26:00
Speaker 2: the same time that he ran around accusing all of
26:03
Speaker 2: his political opponents of committing crimes. Like let's have some
26:06
Speaker 2: fucking understanding for context and nuance. in this conversation from
26:10
Speaker 2: the pundits. And this is, so that's point one. It's
26:13
Speaker 2: just stupid. And like some of the arguments around, point
26:16
Speaker 2: two is some of the arguments around this are saying
26:18
Speaker 2: it's embarrassing on the world stage to see people chanting
26:22
Speaker 2: lock him up at our president. Well, yeah, you know
26:25
Speaker 2: what's really embarrassing? Donald Trump is our president. Like that's
26:27
Speaker 2: a bigger problem.
26:27
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't actually agree with that. I think it's
26:29
Speaker 1: actually really important that people around the world understand that
26:32
Speaker 1: there's a huge number of Americans that find Donald Trump
26:37
Speaker 1: to be as repellent as everyone else does. There is
26:39
Speaker 1: a connection to, I think, and a serious, serious point
26:42
Speaker 1: about this, which between the the kind of discomfort with
26:49
Speaker 1: using the powers of impeachment, the discomfort with investigations and
26:55
Speaker 1: with the discomfort of protests, of what they you know,
26:59
Speaker 1: what they see as a kind of a lack of
27:01
Speaker 1: manners in that protest is a big part of America's traditions,
27:06
Speaker 1: not being polite. not being, not going along to get
27:09
Speaker 1: along is a big part of how we protect our institutions. That,
27:13
Speaker 1: that people booing Donald Trump and shouting at Donald Trump
27:16
Speaker 1: at a baseball game are showing respect for the presidency.
27:21
Speaker 1: And that if it comes, you know, we, we've talked
27:23
Speaker 1: about this in terms of, you know, the enforcement of
27:25
Speaker 1: congressional subpoenas. There's this baked in understanding that if Congress
27:28
Speaker 1: were to use its inherent power and send out a,
27:32
Speaker 1: you know, the sergeant of arms and a deputy to
27:35
Speaker 1: go grab a, Rudy Giuliani and force him to testify
27:39
Speaker 1: or go get whoever else is on the tarmac with
27:42
Speaker 1: a one-way ticket out of the country, what have you,
27:45
Speaker 1: that we kind of understand that that would be bad
27:48
Speaker 1: for Democrats. It would look bad because it looks uncivil.
27:51
Speaker 1: But civility is just a means by which the people
27:55
Speaker 1: in that box defend themselves and protect themselves from the
28:00
Speaker 1: very fair accusations of criminality that we're currently in an
28:03
Speaker 1: impeachment about.
28:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is. The fact that pundits– a certain class
28:11
Speaker 2: of pundit in Washington and not just pundits. Like there
28:14
Speaker 2: are– like my home state senator, Chris Coons, today was
28:19
Speaker 2: very upset about this. And I just think that people
28:22
Speaker 2: within the Washington establishment spend more time trying to understand
28:25
Speaker 2: the anger of the people around this country, the righteous
28:29
Speaker 2: anger around what is happening with this president and this
28:31
Speaker 2: White House and less time telling them to keep their
28:33
Speaker 2: anger to themselves. Last, less serious point on this is
28:38
Speaker 2: it was fascinating that Trump went to the World Series
28:42
Speaker 2: to begin with. And it speaks to the difference between
28:45
Speaker 2: who Trump is and who Trump sees in the mirror
28:46
Speaker 2: every morning because every politician knows that you're at great
28:52
Speaker 2: risk of being booed if you go to an event.
28:54
Speaker 2: Here you have Trump going to a baseball game in
28:56
Speaker 2: a city that is one of the most democratic cities
28:59
Speaker 2: in the country. And In his mind, he envisioned this
29:05
Speaker 2: being a moment where people would applaud him for what
29:09
Speaker 2: happened with Baghdadi earlier in that day, like George W.
29:13
Speaker 2: Bush going to the Yankees game after 2001. And like
29:17
Speaker 2: there is this great slow-mo video on Twitter of him
29:19
Speaker 2: thinking it's cheering and then slowly realizing it's booze and
29:22
Speaker 2: his face tightening up as he– the gap between who
29:26
Speaker 2: he is and who he thinks he is. And it
29:29
Speaker 2: is– I think it's just a fascinating window into his
29:34
Speaker 2: own self-delusion that brought him to that baseball game to
29:36
Speaker 2: begin with because Trump is not a huge baseball fan.
29:39
Speaker 2: by any stretch of the imagination. He's not really a
29:41
Speaker 2: fan of anything other than himself and Fox News, I guess.
29:45
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't– like it's like– the man has no hobbies.
29:49
Speaker 1: It's golf, fast food, Twitter, and grievances.
29:53
Speaker 2: It's golfing with sycophants or famous people too. It's very–
29:57
Speaker 2: It's not about golfing with friends because he has no friends.
29:59
Speaker 2: It's golfing with people like Lindsey Graham who will kiss
30:01
Speaker 2: up to him, people like Tiger Woods who he can
30:03
Speaker 2: then say he golfed with someone famous.
30:15
Speaker 1: So before we move to 2020, there was one other
30:17
Speaker 1: development in the impeachment saga. This week, a federal judge
30:22
Speaker 1: in Washington, D.C., confirmed the legality of the Democrats' impeachment
30:25
Speaker 1: probe and granted Congress access to the secret grand jury
30:28
Speaker 1: evidence gathered during the Mueller investigation. In a 75-page decision,
30:32
Speaker 1: Judge Beryl Howell undercut the Republican argument that a formal
30:35
Speaker 1: House resolution is necessary to legitimize an impeachment inquiry. Howell
30:39
Speaker 1: also called out the Trump administration's efforts to stonewall Congress, writing,
30:42
Speaker 1: Congress's need to access grand jury material relevant to potential
30:45
Speaker 1: impeachable conduct by a president is heightened when the executive
30:48
Speaker 1: branch willfully obstructs channels for accessing other relevant evidence. while
30:53
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Nadler both praised the ruling the Trump administration
30:55
Speaker 1: will probably appeal the decision. Dan, how big a deal
30:59
Speaker 1: is this? And do we have any sense of what
31:00
Speaker 1: we may learn from these materials?
31:03
Speaker 2: It's certainly a big deal for the very specific reason
31:05
Speaker 2: you pointed out, which it is a ruling from a
31:07
Speaker 2: judge that undercuts the Republican argument that this is not
31:11
Speaker 2: a legitimate impeachment inquiry for some set of completely bullshit
31:15
Speaker 2: process reasons. And it shows that the traditional legal obligations
31:20
Speaker 2: of administration to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry are there,
31:24
Speaker 2: that witnesses are going to have to testify. They're going
31:26
Speaker 2: to have to provide documents they would not otherwise provide.
31:29
Speaker 2: The ability to use executive privilege to shield those documents
31:33
Speaker 2: and those witnesses from Congress will be circumscribed. So that's
31:35
Speaker 2: very important. I don't think we have any idea what
31:37
Speaker 2: we're going to find. My hope is that Congress goes
31:41
Speaker 2: through the information they have and lets the facts lead
31:46
Speaker 2: them where they may, right? Like where we don't say, well,
31:48
Speaker 2: this is We've decided in advance this is all about Ukraine,
31:51
Speaker 2: so we're just going to stick with that. Let's see
31:54
Speaker 2: what's in there. Let's see if there's information in those files,
31:57
Speaker 2: whatever they are, that is relevant to what we know now, right,
32:01
Speaker 2: that speaks to a broader set of crimes. And if
32:03
Speaker 2: you find additional crimes, additional peaceful offenses, additional evidence of
32:09
Speaker 2: abuse of power, that that becomes part of this inquiry.
32:12
Speaker 2: Let's just basically let the facts go where they lead
32:14
Speaker 2: us and not try to reverse engineer this from a–
32:19
Speaker 2: from an arbitrary deadline, if you will.
32:21
Speaker 3: Yeah.
32:21
Speaker 1: I mean, it does seem to that there is more
32:24
Speaker 1: educating to do whether or not the balance of impeachment
32:27
Speaker 1: are scoped to Ukraine or become larger based on what
32:29
Speaker 1: we learned. Five thirty eight's aggregate of national polling has
32:33
Speaker 1: support for impeachment at forty nine percent and opposition at
32:36
Speaker 1: forty three percent. But in in key swing states, there
32:38
Speaker 1: have been a bunch of polls that are not as strong.
32:41
Speaker 1: One Wisconsin poll found that forty four percent of voters
32:43
Speaker 1: want Trump impeached and removed, while 51% do not want
32:47
Speaker 1: him impeached and removed. A University of North Florida poll
32:50
Speaker 1: released this week found support for impeachment and removal at
32:52
Speaker 1: 46% and opposition at 48%. And The Times also did
32:56
Speaker 1: a survey of six key swing states, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin,
33:00
Speaker 1: North Carolina, and Arizona. It averaged results from across these states.
33:04
Speaker 1: 50% of voters supported an impeachment inquiry, while 45% opposed it. However,
33:09
Speaker 1: only 43% of voters supported impeaching and removing Trump, while
33:12
Speaker 1: 53% opposed it. There is, Dan, in this, you know,
33:17
Speaker 1: first of all, every poll has been phrased a little
33:19
Speaker 1: bit differently, but when you kind of blur your eyes
33:21
Speaker 1: and try to see the big picture, you see a
33:24
Speaker 1: kind of ambivalence around impeachment. Because obviously, like, if you
33:27
Speaker 1: actually think about what it means, I support impeaching him,
33:31
Speaker 1: but not removing him. I support, in other words, voting
33:34
Speaker 1: to send him to a trial for a set of crimes,
33:37
Speaker 1: but not actually convicting him of those crimes. It's a
33:40
Speaker 1: kind of intellectually confusing position, which I think speaks to
33:45
Speaker 1: just a kind of base level discomfort with the stakes
33:48
Speaker 1: of impeachment. Dan, what do you think that suggests Democrats
33:52
Speaker 1: should do?
33:53
Speaker 2: I think it suggests that Democrats should keep doing what
33:56
Speaker 2: they're doing, right? That there is very real support for
34:00
Speaker 2: the inquiry itself. There is understandably apprehension about removing a
34:04
Speaker 2: president from office a year before an election, nine months
34:09
Speaker 2: before an election. I understand why people are apprehensive about that.
34:12
Speaker 2: It's also I think somewhat baked in the cake that
34:14
Speaker 2: people know that that is an incredibly unlikely event. All
34:18
Speaker 2: of the coverage of this from the moment it happened
34:20
Speaker 2: and the story that our own Crooked Media change research
34:24
Speaker 2: polling has shown, people are following incredibly closely. All the
34:28
Speaker 2: discussion around it is centered on the fact that this
34:30
Speaker 2: is the affixing of a scarlet eye on Trump and
34:34
Speaker 2: not an actual step to remove him from office. And
34:37
Speaker 2: I think the political significance of it in the long run,
34:42
Speaker 2: I think there is real political significance to the information
34:45
Speaker 2: people are learning about Trump. There's real political significance to
34:48
Speaker 2: Trump's completely insane reaction to this process. There is opportunity
34:54
Speaker 2: cost for Trump for spending these months during the middle
34:57
Speaker 2: of the height of the Democratic primary just lashing out
35:00
Speaker 2: on Twitter like a crazy person as opposed to trying
35:02
Speaker 2: to get– raise his numbers up to where his win
35:06
Speaker 2: number would be in battleground states. But ultimately, I don't
35:09
Speaker 2: think it's going to be– whether we did impeachment, whether
35:12
Speaker 2: we didn't do impeachment, I think it's not going to
35:13
Speaker 2: be incredibly– that mere fact is not going to be
35:16
Speaker 2: incredibly politically significant. So Democrats should just keep doing what
35:18
Speaker 2: they're doing. Do not let an arbitrary deadline foreclose this.
35:24
Speaker 2: I think if people saw that Democrats got scared and
35:25
Speaker 2: were like, well, we said we'd get this done by Thanksgiving.
35:27
Speaker 2: We haven't heard from all the witnesses yet. We don't
35:29
Speaker 2: have all the documents, but we're going to have the
35:30
Speaker 2: vote anyway. I think that would undermine the legitimacy of
35:33
Speaker 2: the probe in the eyes of the– independent, less partisan
35:38
Speaker 2: voters who now say they support it, and I think
35:39
Speaker 2: would be very frustrating to grassroots-based Democrats who have long
35:44
Speaker 2: thought this was the right thing to do. So just
35:46
Speaker 2: let the facts go where they may. If this gets
35:47
Speaker 2: us into 2020, so be it. But there's enough support
35:52
Speaker 2: that Democrats should be bold here, I think.
35:55
Speaker 1: One last development. This weekend, we learned there's someone who
35:58
Speaker 1: takes a great deal of personal responsibility for the fact
36:02
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump may face impeachment, and it is Former
36:05
Speaker 1: White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, at a summit
36:08
Speaker 1: put on by the Washington Examiner, Kelly described what he
36:12
Speaker 1: said to Trump when he left the White House. He said, saying, quote,
36:17
Speaker 1: I said, whatever you do, don't hire a yes man,
36:20
Speaker 1: someone who won't tell you the truth. Don't do that,
36:22
Speaker 1: because if you do, I believe you will be impeached.
36:26
Speaker 1: Trump categorically denied Kelly's claims, as did the White House
36:29
Speaker 1: press secretary, Stephanie Grissom, who said, quote, Kelly was totally
36:33
Speaker 1: unequipped to handle the genius of our great president. Now, sadly,
36:39
Speaker 1: after she said that, everyone's phones did melt and we
36:43
Speaker 1: no longer have them, which has been sort of a
36:47
Speaker 1: tough thing to get used to. You know, listen, I
36:51
Speaker 1: don't mind when somebody wants to take a shit on
36:54
Speaker 1: Mick Mulvaney. I say, have at it. It's great. But Dan,
36:58
Speaker 1: am I forgetting a kind of... Pax Americana, when John
37:04
Speaker 1: Kelly was chief of staff and Donald Trump was disciplined
37:07
Speaker 1: and everything was going according to plan. I mean, am
37:10
Speaker 1: I forgetting some golden era under Kelly?
37:16
Speaker 2: No, you are not, John. At the risk of offending
37:21
Speaker 2: the civility police, but fuck off, John Kelly. Like most
37:24
Speaker 2: of the impeachable offenses that are outlined in the Mueller
37:27
Speaker 2: report happened while John Kelly was chief of staff. Donald
37:31
Speaker 2: Trump praising Nazis happened while John Kelly was chief of staff.
37:34
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm sure we all remember this very brief
37:37
Speaker 2: moment when John Kelly took over. There were all these
37:40
Speaker 2: stories about how he was going to bring order and
37:42
Speaker 2: process to the White House and control who called Trump
37:46
Speaker 2: and manage the inbox and do the very basic things
37:49
Speaker 2: that you would expect of an office manager at a
37:51
Speaker 2: mid-sized paper company to do. And we treated that like
37:54
Speaker 2: it was some sort of fucking genius. And none of
37:57
Speaker 2: it worked. Trump was just as irresponsible. just as crimey
38:01
Speaker 2: as he is now. It just happened to be that
38:04
Speaker 2: when the whistleblower came forward was when Mick Mulvaney was
38:07
Speaker 2: chief of staff, who is a terrible chief of staff
38:10
Speaker 2: and seemingly just a real blight on American government. But
38:14
Speaker 2: John Kelly does not get to clean up his reputation
38:17
Speaker 2: this way.
38:18
Speaker 1: Right. The only reason I thought it was worth sharing
38:20
Speaker 1: is I do think it's not really an insight into
38:21
Speaker 1: the Trump White House. It's an insight into the mindset
38:24
Speaker 1: of someone like John Kelly, who believed himself to be
38:28
Speaker 1: some kind of a a savior inside of the White House,
38:33
Speaker 1: even as it was operating so chaotically. This idea that
38:36
Speaker 1: that's the justification he is now offering for the reason
38:39
Speaker 1: he was a participant in this administration, and now I
38:43
Speaker 1: believe sits on the board of a company that's responsible
38:47
Speaker 1: for some of the detention facilities along the border, I
38:50
Speaker 1: think tells you something important about the kind of people
38:53
Speaker 1: that went into the administration. All right, let's talk 2020.
38:58
Speaker 1: So we've covered some of the fundraising troubles Biden has
39:00
Speaker 1: faced Late last week, it seemed that Biden's team was
39:03
Speaker 1: breaking with his previous opposition to getting help from super PACs.
39:06
Speaker 1: Biden's deputy campaign manager said he still wants to limit
39:09
Speaker 1: the influence of big money in our politics, but that, quote,
39:11
Speaker 1: nothing changes unless we defeat Donald Trump, end quote. Biden
39:14
Speaker 1: reported the last filing deadline that he had just $ 9
39:17
Speaker 1: million in the bank. You know, Dan, you know, besides
39:20
Speaker 1: the obvious reason that he needs something to buttress his
39:24
Speaker 1: fundraising from the outside, are there any other reasons he
39:27
Speaker 1: did this?
39:27
Speaker 2: I mean, that is the one it is. The extent
39:31
Speaker 2: of Biden's money troubles is dramatically understated. He has a
39:35
Speaker 2: third of the money on hand as Warren and Sanders.
39:39
Speaker 2: He has thus far demonstrated no ability to quickly raise
39:41
Speaker 2: money online. $ 9 million in the bank in October is
39:46
Speaker 2: not enough money to run the sort of campaign that
39:49
Speaker 2: Biden claims he's gonna run. To be able to run, like,
39:53
Speaker 2: Biden's path to the nomination is to do well enough
39:57
Speaker 2: to survive the first four states and then leverage his
40:00
Speaker 2: large national name ID and standing within the party and his,
40:09
Speaker 2: as of yet, tremendous support from the African American community
40:12
Speaker 2: to rack up delegates in a long battle for the nomination.
40:15
Speaker 2: He does not have the money to run serious, campaigns
40:19
Speaker 2: in two early states, let alone all four plus Super
40:22
Speaker 2: Tuesday and beyond. And so it's a huge problem. So
40:24
Speaker 2: this is his only choice if he wants to remain viable.
40:28
Speaker 2: But it comes with real downside.
40:30
Speaker 1: Right. I mean, one of the one of the issues
40:31
Speaker 1: I mean, nobody's by the way, Joe Biden has spoken
40:33
Speaker 1: to those downsides and speaking to why he was against
40:37
Speaker 1: the help of a super PAC to begin with. It also,
40:40
Speaker 1: you know, one of the downsides is what we're seeing
40:42
Speaker 1: is the candidates that have eschewed big money. Bernie Warren
40:48
Speaker 1: have been you know, two of the most prolific fundraisers.
40:52
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is now kind of doubling down on bigger
40:56
Speaker 1: money at the expense of smaller dollars, I guess, because
40:59
Speaker 1: it's a concession that they just will not be able
41:02
Speaker 1: to compete for small donors. I also don't understand. I mean,
41:06
Speaker 1: you know, a super PAC coming in and running ads
41:09
Speaker 1: to help Joe Biden, you know, maybe that has has value,
41:12
Speaker 1: but doesn't solve the problem of the kind of organization
41:15
Speaker 1: he'll need to do on the ground. to rack up
41:17
Speaker 1: the delegates he needs, right?
41:20
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is. It's suboptimal to say the least. He,
41:25
Speaker 2: like there are certain things that Super PAC cannot do
41:27
Speaker 2: for you, right? It cannot put organizers on the ground
41:30
Speaker 2: to organize your caucus goers in the same way your
41:32
Speaker 2: campaign can do it. It cannot build the infrastructure and
41:36
Speaker 2: the data and technology that you need to run a
41:39
Speaker 2: real operation to accumulate delegates. What it can do is
41:42
Speaker 2: do your advertising for you. It can respond to attacks
41:45
Speaker 2: for you. And But it's going to lead to new attacks, right?
41:49
Speaker 2: Because Biden has now reversed himself on something where– that
41:53
Speaker 2: is right in Warren and Sanders' wheelhouse. And I'm sure
41:56
Speaker 2: they're going to make great hay of that as time
41:59
Speaker 2: goes on. We have some experience with this in Obama world.
42:03
Speaker 2: In 2008, we– under a very different sort of campaign
42:09
Speaker 2: finance world, we said– pre-Citizens United said we did not
42:12
Speaker 2: want any outside groups on our side and did not
42:15
Speaker 2: need them. In the primary, John Edwards was in a
42:18
Speaker 2: very similar situation that Biden is in now, where Edwards
42:24
Speaker 2: was unable to raise enough money. He actually was actually
42:27
Speaker 2: forced to take federal matching funds, which was a sign
42:29
Speaker 2: of great weakness at the time. And then all of
42:32
Speaker 2: a sudden, out of nowhere, pops a super PAC funded
42:35
Speaker 2: primarily by one individual, a woman named Bunny Mellon. And
42:39
Speaker 2: the super PAC was run by Nick Baldick, who was
42:43
Speaker 2: Edwards' longtime advisor and former campaign manager on his 04 race.
42:47
Speaker 2: And that was very helpful to Edwards. It got him
42:50
Speaker 2: actually to second in Iowa, and they started bombarding the airwaves.
42:55
Speaker 2: In 2012, because Citizens United had passed and we were
42:58
Speaker 2: staring down the barrel of hundreds of millions of dollars
43:02
Speaker 2: of ads from American Crossroads and the Koch brothers and others,
43:07
Speaker 2: Obama reversed his stance on super PACs and essentially invited
43:13
Speaker 2: them into the race and Priorities USA was formed and
43:17
Speaker 2: ran ads to help Obama in re-election. I think in
43:21
Speaker 2: a general election, as long as Citizens United is on
43:24
Speaker 2: the books, there is no option, right? There is just
43:26
Speaker 2: absolutely– you cannot compete financially without it. I think that's
43:30
Speaker 2: an argument for getting rid of Citizens United. I was
43:33
Speaker 2: very pleased in a primary that all the candidates had
43:36
Speaker 2: refused super PACs because there is something particularly problematic in
43:40
Speaker 2: a primary. of these individual candidate super PACs. So Biden
43:45
Speaker 2: now has been forced down that path. He's going to
43:47
Speaker 2: have to take some political downside from it in the primary.
43:49
Speaker 2: If he survives, I think it'll be hard for Trump
43:53
Speaker 2: and the Republicans to hit him on it, given the
43:55
Speaker 2: wide array of super PACs they have, but that won't. Obviously,
43:59
Speaker 2: shame has never been a break on Trump's political attacks
44:03
Speaker 2: in the past.
44:03
Speaker 1: Right. It is a distinction between the general and the primary,
44:06
Speaker 1: because in a primary, it's you're campaigning against fellow Democrats.
44:11
Speaker 1: And one of the things that super PACs have often
44:13
Speaker 1: done because they are not directly affiliated with the candidate
44:16
Speaker 1: is they've been incredibly negative. In fact, some of the
44:19
Speaker 1: ads that Romney people are angry about to this day
44:23
Speaker 1: are the super PAC ads that were run in the
44:28
Speaker 1: 2012 race against Mitt Romney. So on Sunday, 60 Minutes
44:34
Speaker 1: aired a rare long form interview with Biden Also, New
44:38
Speaker 1: York Magazine ran a profile by Olivia Nutzi that I
44:40
Speaker 1: thought was actually very poignant in examining both the strengths
44:45
Speaker 1: and weaknesses that Biden is bringing to the table. In
44:48
Speaker 1: the 60 Minutes interview, Biden spoke about his confidence and
44:52
Speaker 1: his ability to finance his campaign. He talked about Trump's
44:57
Speaker 1: attacks against him. What struck me about it is so
45:01
Speaker 1: much of the coverage about Biden nationally has been around
45:04
Speaker 1: his challenges as a campaign, and yet his support has
45:07
Speaker 1: remained pretty robust, right? The race hasn't moved that much.
45:11
Speaker 1: He announced he was higher, whatever, low 40s. He's now,
45:14
Speaker 1: let's say, high 20s. But that has been relatively stable.
45:18
Speaker 1: In fact, it's been stable despite people saying that, oh,
45:21
Speaker 1: this Hunter Biden news was going to hurt him. These
45:24
Speaker 1: mediocre debate performances were going to hurt him. And yet
45:27
Speaker 1: the race has been relatively stable. And what you see
45:29
Speaker 1: in that profile, even though I think the Biden campaign
45:32
Speaker 1: was pretty surprisingly critical of it, is you see some
45:34
Speaker 1: of his appeal and why certain people like him and
45:37
Speaker 1: the kind of genial, relatable persona as somebody who's been
45:41
Speaker 1: through a lot in his life. Dan, what were your
45:44
Speaker 1: takeaways from both the kind of the 60 Minutes interview
45:47
Speaker 1: and the profile?
45:49
Speaker 2: I thought the Olivia Nuzzi New York Magazine profile was
45:51
Speaker 2: a phenomenal piece of campaign journalism that really got at
45:54
Speaker 2: the core of the campaign itself, the Biden campaign specifically,
46:00
Speaker 2: and who Joe Biden is in a way that I
46:01
Speaker 2: thought was nuanced and deep and very fair. right? And
46:05
Speaker 2: I think it did speak to a thing that, I mean,
46:07
Speaker 2: you're right, that we have sort of forgotten in this
46:09
Speaker 2: discussion about Biden's weaknesses is he is a tremendous retail politician.
46:16
Speaker 2: And that sounds, I don't mean that in the like,
46:19
Speaker 2: you know, shake hands and kiss babies, although he does
46:21
Speaker 2: that very well. It's that Biden has a tremendous ability
46:24
Speaker 2: to connect with people on a very human level. He
46:26
Speaker 2: has this unending well of empathy for humans and this
46:32
Speaker 2: ability to take the tremendous tragedy that he's experienced in
46:36
Speaker 2: his life and use it as a rock of strength
46:39
Speaker 2: for people who have suffered similar tragedy. My office in
46:41
Speaker 2: the West Wing was basically right past where West Wing
46:45
Speaker 2: tours ended and it was basically in the pathway to
46:48
Speaker 2: Biden's office. So many times I'd be in my office
46:52
Speaker 2: at night and I would hear Biden running into tourists
46:55
Speaker 2: and hear them crying as they were talking to him
46:57
Speaker 2: about stories about cancer in their lives, about losing a
47:00
Speaker 2: family relative and Biden consoling them in a way that
47:02
Speaker 2: it's hard to imagine any politician doing. And I think
47:06
Speaker 2: that part of who Biden is has gotten lost in
47:09
Speaker 2: this campaign and that part of his political strength has
47:11
Speaker 2: gotten lost. When he is in Iowa, he is campaigning
47:14
Speaker 2: differently than others have. All the critiques about the nature
47:17
Speaker 2: of their campaign or it being too old school or
47:21
Speaker 2: him making mistakes on the campaign trail are all fair
47:23
Speaker 2: and legitimate. But it is worth understanding also where that
47:27
Speaker 2: reservoir of strength that has been, as you're right, it's
47:29
Speaker 2: been very consistent. Nate Silver points this out all the time,
47:32
Speaker 2: but Biden is, people have been predicting Biden's demise for
47:36
Speaker 2: a year now. And he has remained, while others have risen,
47:39
Speaker 2: he has remained quite strong. And that, that should be noted,
47:42
Speaker 2: particularly in the midst of a closely watched natural national
47:48
Speaker 2: discussion about his son's business ties. And that has not
47:51
Speaker 2: affected him. And I think that is, uh, is notable
47:55
Speaker 2: at least.
47:55
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, one of the most critical voices in
47:57
Speaker 1: the New York Magazine profile was actually from, you know,
48:00
Speaker 1: our friend David Axelrod, who worries about the way in
48:04
Speaker 1: which Joe Biden is not out there as much. They are,
48:08
Speaker 1: you know, trying to keep him focused on prepared remarks,
48:11
Speaker 1: even as he does retail politics. And Axe called it
48:16
Speaker 1: a candidate protection program. But yet, you know, we kind
48:19
Speaker 1: of understand where that's coming from, right? Because Famously, Joe
48:23
Speaker 1: Biden is somebody who has made mistakes when he is
48:25
Speaker 1: speaking off the cuff. Dan, we've talked about, I think,
48:28
Speaker 1: the strengths that come through the piece, that come through
48:33
Speaker 1: when you're not talking about the financing and the polling
48:35
Speaker 1: and what have you. If you were inside of the
48:37
Speaker 1: Biden campaign trying to kind of highlight those strengths, what
48:41
Speaker 1: would be your advice now?
48:44
Speaker 2: Other than immediately putting him on Pod Save America.
48:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, that goes without saying. That's not advice. That's a no-brainer.
48:49
Speaker 2: That's I think they got to let loose a little bit.
48:56
Speaker 2: I am incredibly sympathetic to some of the instincts of
49:02
Speaker 2: his campaign staff. It's very easy when you're a frontrunner
49:07
Speaker 2: to play prevent defense. I don't think they have that
49:10
Speaker 2: option because we can talk about Biden's strength right now,
49:15
Speaker 2: that he has lasted longer in a stronger position than
49:17
Speaker 2: I think most political pundit types are. ourselves included in
49:21
Speaker 2: some cases, predicted. But, and Axelrod points this out in
49:25
Speaker 2: the piece, his path to the nomination is incredibly precarious, right?
49:31
Speaker 2: Part of his strength is on electability and winning. And
49:34
Speaker 2: he is currently in real risk of losing three of
49:37
Speaker 2: the first four states. And the question is, what happens
49:41
Speaker 2: to someone who is succeeding with this patina of electability
49:47
Speaker 2: if you start losing races. And so I think the
49:50
Speaker 2: present is good. The trajectory is very concerning. And therefore,
49:53
Speaker 2: you got to take the reins off and let him
49:55
Speaker 2: out there and let him make the case. Because otherwise,
49:57
Speaker 2: if you don't really get out there and campaign in
50:00
Speaker 2: an aggressive way and allay the concerns that some have
50:05
Speaker 2: as some of these voters and very dialed in caucus goers, others,
50:09
Speaker 2: have about his ability to stand on stage with Trump,
50:12
Speaker 2: his ability to navigate an incredibly tough campaign in a
50:16
Speaker 2: very complicated media environment, if you don't allay those concerns,
50:19
Speaker 2: you're not going to succeed. So you've got to get
50:20
Speaker 2: out there and do it, even if there is risk.
50:22
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I do. It's actually, I think, an especially
50:25
Speaker 1: tough challenge for Joe Biden specifically because, you know, we've
50:30
Speaker 1: just talked about it, right? The strengths of, I think
50:32
Speaker 1: the strengths of his candidate, you know, the strength of
50:33
Speaker 1: his argument is around electability, but the strength of him
50:36
Speaker 1: as a candidate, right, is that human connection he has
50:40
Speaker 1: with people. And I do think it's about a candidacy
50:44
Speaker 1: rooted in understanding loss, understanding pain, and being able to
50:49
Speaker 1: relate to people who have experienced pain. And a lot
50:51
Speaker 1: of people have, whether it's people that have experienced losses
50:54
Speaker 1: in their families, the way that Joe Biden has, or
50:57
Speaker 1: people who have lost their jobs, lost their livelihood, lost whatever.
51:03
Speaker 1: And the fact that so much of, I think, what
51:06
Speaker 1: makes him someone appealing is not something you're going to
51:09
Speaker 1: be able to say in a some speech. You know,
51:10
Speaker 1: it's not, it's deeper than that. It's, it's, it would
51:13
Speaker 1: be vulgar. It's not, it is an emergent quality of
51:17
Speaker 1: him as a man that comes through, not through talking
51:20
Speaker 1: points or policies, but through something deeper. And so I
51:22
Speaker 1: think it's an especially difficult challenge. They have to get
51:25
Speaker 1: him out there because getting out there, despite the mistakes
51:29
Speaker 1: and the gaffes, is where you see that special thing
51:32
Speaker 1: that makes him somebody people might want to make president,
51:35
Speaker 1: but you can't script it because it's not, It's not
51:38
Speaker 1: a policy. It's not a plan. That's not what's driving
51:41
Speaker 1: his support.
51:43
Speaker 2: In the sort of the conversation around being overly protective
51:47
Speaker 2: of Biden, I think there is one opportunity that speaks
51:52
Speaker 2: to just the incredible level of caution they're doing, and
51:54
Speaker 2: it's not positive America. It's these interviews around healthcare that
51:58
Speaker 2: Adi Barkin's been having with all the candidates. Like, obviously,
52:00
Speaker 2: Adi and Joe Biden disagree on Medicare for all. But
52:05
Speaker 2: I can't imagine... a politician who would have a better
52:09
Speaker 2: opportunity to have a conversation about this, to talk about
52:14
Speaker 2: sacrifice and tragedy and what people go through than Joe Biden.
52:18
Speaker 2: And the fact that his campaign has not yet let
52:23
Speaker 2: him do that, I think bespeaks the larger problem here.
52:26
Speaker 1: I totally agree. It makes me sad to think that
52:29
Speaker 1: they're not putting him in that conversation because I do
52:32
Speaker 1: think you're right. It is that... the strengths of who
52:36
Speaker 1: he is as a person are what would shine in
52:38
Speaker 1: that kind of a moment, even if they disagree on
52:40
Speaker 1: the policy. I mean, even just reading about Biden going
52:44
Speaker 1: back to the house he grew up in, I've been
52:49
Speaker 1: incredibly critical of Joe Biden. I've been incredibly critical of
52:52
Speaker 1: his campaign. I've been incredibly critical of the debate performances
52:55
Speaker 1: he's had. But I have a well of sympathy and
52:58
Speaker 1: love for Joe Biden because I do believe he is
53:01
Speaker 1: someone who has sort of been through such tremendous pain
53:06
Speaker 1: and come out as somebody with empathy. And if they're
53:10
Speaker 1: afraid to put him in a position to demonstrate that,
53:12
Speaker 1: the key moments where that could be revealed and shown
53:17
Speaker 1: to people, I don't understand what changes for him other than,
53:21
Speaker 1: you know, this kind of slow and steady kind of stuff,
53:25
Speaker 1: you know, kind of not a decline, but not growth,
53:31
Speaker 1: just sort of a kind of stasis.
53:33
Speaker 2: I feel like I know Joe Biden pretty well, having
53:35
Speaker 2: grown up in Delaware and worked in the White House
53:38
Speaker 2: with him for six years. And I just know that
53:41
Speaker 2: if he knew that Adi Barkin wanted to talk to
53:45
Speaker 2: him and that he would do it in two seconds,
53:48
Speaker 2: my guess is that request has not gotten to the
53:50
Speaker 2: candidate yet.
53:53
Speaker 1: Well, you know, hopefully we'll see that conversation. When we
53:56
Speaker 1: come back, I'm going to sit down with Akil Hughes
53:59
Speaker 1: and Gideon Resnick, the new host of What a Day,
54:01
Speaker 1: to kind of go through this Katie Hill story. and
54:04
Speaker 1: her decision to resign, as well as the controversy around it.
54:07
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Congresswoman Katie Hale of California's 25th
54:19
Speaker 1: District announced her resignation from Congress this weekend after a
54:22
Speaker 1: tumultuous week in which she faced revenge porn, allegations of
54:25
Speaker 1: inappropriate relationships with staffers, and ethics inquiry, as well as
54:29
Speaker 1: questions as to whether she'd be facing this level of
54:31
Speaker 1: pressure where she and man And were she not bisexual?
54:34
Speaker 1: Here to help us understand this story are Gideon Resnick
54:37
Speaker 1: and Akilah Hughes, the hosts of Crooked's brand new daily
54:41
Speaker 1: news podcast, What a Day. Gideon, let me start with you.
54:45
Speaker 1: What the fuck is going on?
54:46
Speaker 5: Yeah, this is probably the messiest story of this variety
54:49
Speaker 5: that we've maybe ever seen in Congress, because you have
54:53
Speaker 5: a lot of questions about Hill and whether, you know,
54:57
Speaker 5: first off, the relationship that she was alleged to have
54:59
Speaker 5: had is even appropriate. because the person involved is a staffer,
55:03
Speaker 5: an underling. So she now is kind of the beneficiary
55:07
Speaker 5: of the first time when these new rules that have
55:10
Speaker 5: been instituted in Congress after Me Too and after, you know,
55:14
Speaker 5: hordes of creepy men had to retire in 2017 and 18.
55:18
Speaker 5: She's sort of the first person to receive the repercussions
55:21
Speaker 5: of that. And the rule is strictly that, you know,
55:24
Speaker 5: you cannot have relationships with people that are on your
55:28
Speaker 5: staff that work below you. And yet at the same time,
55:32
Speaker 5: she's also facing these really terrible, you know, publication of
55:37
Speaker 5: private images, all these issues around that, these, you know,
55:41
Speaker 5: like nude photographs that were put in conservative publications. So
55:45
Speaker 5: people are trying to sift through here a little bit,
55:46
Speaker 5: like the actions that she did, which she, you know,
55:50
Speaker 5: took accountability for, said she was sorry for, and also
55:53
Speaker 5: the really terrible actions that are kind of coming from
55:55
Speaker 5: the outside at the same time.
55:56
Speaker 6: Right.
55:56
Speaker 1: Terrible and illegal, right? It is illegal to use private photos.
56:00
Speaker 1: Revenge porn is illegal in California. Akilah, you know, when
56:03
Speaker 1: I saw the letter from Katie Hill, I know she
56:04
Speaker 1: put out a video today as well. It was very
56:06
Speaker 1: sad because Katie Hill is somebody that, you know, I
56:08
Speaker 1: canvassed for Katie Hill. I think a lot of people
56:10
Speaker 1: here did in California. She was one of the people
56:12
Speaker 1: who helped take back a district that helped us win
56:14
Speaker 1: the House. What did you think?
56:16
Speaker 6: I mean, it's all just really unfortunate. I think that,
56:19
Speaker 6: you know, Gideon is right. There are a lot of
56:21
Speaker 6: moving pieces in this. But at the end of the day,
56:24
Speaker 6: you know, people shouldn't be, I don't know, I guess,
56:26
Speaker 6: condemned publicly for taking photos. And I think that that
56:30
Speaker 6: might be the bigger reason why she's resigning, just because
56:35
Speaker 6: of the public pressure from that.
56:36
Speaker 4: And, you know, there's a lot of sort of slut
56:38
Speaker 4: shaming and whatever else.
56:40
Speaker 6: And so I think it's disappointing because she has a
56:43
Speaker 6: lot of promise, but also because we live in a
56:46
Speaker 6: society that is on the internet and these things can
56:50
Speaker 6: get out. And so I think that we're maybe seeing
56:52
Speaker 6: the beginning of a new era of politicians.
56:55
Speaker 4: Who just have to not exist online at all, which
56:58
Speaker 4: is kind of sad.
56:59
Speaker 1: Or we grow and come to understand that Yeah. That
57:02
Speaker 1: people that are going to be surrounded by smartphones their
57:04
Speaker 1: whole lives. You know, I don't even consider myself in
57:06
Speaker 1: that generation.
57:07
Speaker 3: Right.
57:07
Speaker 1: We didn't I didn't have smartphones when I was in
57:09
Speaker 1: college because just made it out. But no, but like
57:15
Speaker 1: it does seem like this story combines a few things
57:17
Speaker 1: and it's worth, I think, stopping on each of them.
57:18
Speaker 1: One is like matters of consent. And I don't believe
57:21
Speaker 1: there have been any allegations that these relationships were coercive.
57:25
Speaker 4: Not at all.
57:25
Speaker 1: But then there are others pointing out that, well, wait
57:27
Speaker 1: a second. even if these are consensual relationships, there are
57:31
Speaker 1: thorny issues when a member of Congress or a candidate
57:34
Speaker 1: for Congress has a relationship with a subordinate because that
57:38
Speaker 1: leads to questions around favoritism. And it also leads to
57:40
Speaker 1: questions around what happens when that relationship ends. I think
57:43
Speaker 1: we're sort of figuring out some of these harder issues. Gideon,
57:46
Speaker 1: what do you think?
57:47
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that's the big takeaway from this. Besides, obviously,
57:51
Speaker 5: the fact that I think people can, by and large,
57:53
Speaker 5: condemn the publication of those images as being horrendous. And
57:57
Speaker 5: potentially from, you know, like Hill was saying, actions from
58:01
Speaker 5: a vindictive husband with whom she's having a divorce. I
58:05
Speaker 5: think Hill herself and others have acknowledged that having that
58:09
Speaker 5: sort of relationship with a subordinate is not good. But
58:12
Speaker 5: I think it's up for other people to decide, you know,
58:15
Speaker 5: if that reaches the threshold of needing to resign from Congress.
58:19
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, Akilah, you know, I think this is
58:20
Speaker 1: a sad story for a lot of reasons, and there
58:22
Speaker 1: are important political implications for this specific story. But I
58:25
Speaker 1: also think we're kind of grappling with something that is
58:28
Speaker 1: important because I do think I've seen people try to
58:31
Speaker 1: have these sort of two competing ideas in their mind
58:32
Speaker 1: at once, which is on the one hand, wait, there
58:35
Speaker 1: is something inherently concerning about a relationship between a boss
58:42
Speaker 1: and their employee. That is a problem. And then I've
58:45
Speaker 1: also seen a lot of people kind of openly wondering, well,
58:48
Speaker 1: hold on a second, don't people meet at work, right?
58:51
Speaker 1: I mean, I think we're sort of grappling with in
58:53
Speaker 1: the wake of Me Too and as we sort of
58:55
Speaker 1: uncovered some of the more ugly and sinister parts of
58:59
Speaker 1: our culture, I think we're also grappling with some of
59:01
Speaker 1: these sort of now I think more delicate questions.
59:03
Speaker 3: Yeah.
59:03
Speaker 6: I mean, I think the important thing to remember is
59:06
Speaker 6: that these are two consenting adults. And so while there
59:09
Speaker 6: are these very long standing sort of standards for who
59:13
Speaker 6: gets to date who in an office situation at all,
59:16
Speaker 6: it does seem a little archaic because, I mean, how
59:19
Speaker 6: else do you meet people?
59:20
Speaker 4: I honestly don't know. Not that I'm dating anyone here,
59:22
Speaker 4: but I'm just saying.
59:23
Speaker 6: Like, I think that If neither of them have a problem,
59:26
Speaker 6: you know, if there's favoritism, that's something you can address.
59:29
Speaker 6: And if it affects the rest of the staff, that's
59:31
Speaker 6: something that can be addressed. But I tend to believe
59:35
Speaker 6: that it's really it's just something that as much as
59:38
Speaker 6: society has progressed, we have really like just stayed in
59:41
Speaker 6: the 50s on this issue. Like, don't date your secretary. Like, well,
59:44
Speaker 6: that's not what's happening here.
59:46
Speaker 4: I mean.
59:47
Speaker 1: Gideon, now that Katie Hill's resigning, there's a big question
59:50
Speaker 1: about what's going to happen with this seat. It's a
59:51
Speaker 1: swing district. It was one of the most important pickups
59:53
Speaker 1: in 2018. What's happening now and what's next for Democrats'
59:58
Speaker 1: hopes of keeping the 25th district?
1:00:00
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that Democrats are actually kind of happy
1:00:03
Speaker 5: with the movement that it's that that district is gone.
1:00:06
Speaker 5: You know, like it was it was a Hillary district
1:00:08
Speaker 5: in 16. And then obviously the incumbent Republican was was
1:00:12
Speaker 5: defeated pretty sizably, I think, in 18 by Katie Hill.
1:00:16
Speaker 5: I've seen that Steve Knight, the Republican incumbent who was
1:00:19
Speaker 5: there before, is actually going to run again. And then
1:00:22
Speaker 5: a local assemblywoman, Chrissy Smith, is also going to formally
1:00:26
Speaker 5: enter the race. So I think that the initial impression
1:00:29
Speaker 5: is that they're hopeful. You know, the difficult part is
1:00:32
Speaker 5: that it's a special election, though. So like if it's happening,
1:00:35
Speaker 5: you know, like January 25th, I'm just making that date
1:00:39
Speaker 5: up arbitrarily. You start to end up having a little
1:00:43
Speaker 5: bit more wild card situation because, you know, lower turnout,
1:00:47
Speaker 5: maybe people aren't paying that much attention to it.
1:00:48
Speaker 1: People are going to vote their ass off.
1:00:51
Speaker 5: Yes, yes, exactly. But no, I think that I think Democrats,
1:00:53
Speaker 5: by and large, you know, still consider it a swing district.
1:00:56
Speaker 5: But at the same time, the trend line is kind
1:00:59
Speaker 5: of there for Democrats to likely keep it if, you know,
1:01:02
Speaker 5: they get a good candidate and they run a good race.
1:01:04
Speaker 1: Now on to our own news.
1:01:07
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:01:08
Speaker 1: The first ever.
1:01:09
Speaker 2: That's terrible.
1:01:10
Speaker 1: How do you transition out of this horrible story?
1:01:12
Speaker 4: That's all you should say.
1:01:14
Speaker 1: Let's leave that in. Whatever. The first ever What A
1:01:17
Speaker 1: Day pod went out to listeners this morning. This is
1:01:20
Speaker 1: the new daily news podcast from Crooked Media. What are
1:01:23
Speaker 1: listeners going to find when they download it? And what
1:01:25
Speaker 1: are they going to be able to expect each and
1:01:27
Speaker 1: every weekday morning?
1:01:29
Speaker 4: I mean, just a fire podcast. It's great. It's short.
1:01:34
Speaker 4: It's to the point. You'll be informed on your way
1:01:35
Speaker 4: to work.
1:01:36
Speaker 6: I've heard a lot of great feedback today that it
1:01:38
Speaker 6: wasn't like a bummer.
1:01:39
Speaker 1: The first episode was fantastic.
1:01:41
Speaker 4: Thank you so much.
1:01:42
Speaker 1: Right out of the box.
1:01:43
Speaker 6: We were here until very late because we were so nervous.
1:01:47
Speaker 4: And it's actually really excellent.
1:01:49
Speaker 6: But I think if you're interested in daily news but
1:01:51
Speaker 6: also don't want it to be like, I don't know,
1:01:54
Speaker 6: happening all day at you, this is a good way
1:01:56
Speaker 6: to just stay informed without going insane.
1:01:58
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's like, not being overwhelmed, but at the same
1:02:01
Speaker 5: time being able to go up to somebody and say like, well,
1:02:03
Speaker 5: I know who Baghdadi is because of XYZ.
1:02:05
Speaker 1: That's the goal.
1:02:06
Speaker 5: Every day talk about Baghdadi in some respect.
1:02:12
Speaker 1: Every single day is what we'll cover.
1:02:14
Speaker 2: Right, right.
1:02:15
Speaker 1: Still dead. Still dead. Gideon, Akilah, thank you guys so
1:02:20
Speaker 1: much for being here. Go subscribe to What A Day
1:02:22
Speaker 1: right now. Do it. Do it. All right, Dan, you're
1:02:31
Speaker 1: the She-Ra to my He-Man.
1:02:33
Speaker 2: I was going to go, like, every time we do this,
1:02:35
Speaker 2: I Google best crossover episodes. And you find a lot
1:02:39
Speaker 2: of fake crossovers where they take, like, a show that
1:02:41
Speaker 2: was off the air and they bring it back, like
1:02:43
Speaker 2: when Alf went to Gilligan's Island. But I think the
1:02:45
Speaker 2: best one I found thus far is the crossover episode
1:02:48
Speaker 2: between The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Blossom.
1:02:51
Speaker 1: So am I the– I'll be the Mayim Bialik to
1:02:54
Speaker 1: your Will Smith.
1:02:55
Speaker 4: I'll take it.
1:02:56
Speaker 2: You're Carlton.
1:02:56
Speaker 1: I'm Carlton?
1:02:57
Speaker 6: Fine.
1:02:58
Speaker 1: Okay. Fine. I'll wear a sweater vest. I don't give
1:03:00
Speaker 1: a shit. All right, Dan. Talk to you later.
1:03:03
Speaker 4: All right.
1:03:04
Speaker 2: Bye, everyone.
1:03:08
Speaker 1: Pod Save America is a product of Crooked Media. The
1:03:10
Speaker 1: senior producer is Michael Martinez.
1:03:12
Speaker 2: Our assistant producer is Jordan Waller. It's mixed and edited
1:03:15
Speaker 2: by Andrew Chadwick.
1:03:16
Speaker 1: Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Carolyn Reston,
1:03:19
Speaker 1: Tanya Sominator, and Katie Long for production support.
1:03:22
Speaker 5: And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Narmel Coney, and
1:03:25
Speaker 5: Yael Freed, and Milo Kim, who film and upload these
1:03:27
Speaker 5: episodes as a video every week.