Latest / Pod Save America / “Impeaching the Big Lie.”

Transcript

“Impeaching the Big Lie.” · Pod Save America

0:01
Speaker 1: So Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau.
0:22
Speaker 2: I'm Jon Lovett.
0:23
Speaker 3: I'm Tommy Vitor.
0:24
Speaker 1: On today's show, the second impeachment of Donald Trump begins,
0:27
Speaker 1: President Biden begins a major reversal of his predecessor's immigration policies,
0:31
Speaker 1: and Fox News is hit with a multi-billion dollar lawsuit
0:34
Speaker 1: for spreading disinformation. We were also supposed to have a
0:37
Speaker 1: conversation with Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, who runs the White House's
0:40
Speaker 1: COVID-19 Equity Task Force, but she unfortunately had something come
0:44
Speaker 1: up last minute, so... We are working to get her
0:46
Speaker 1: on again soon. Looking forward to that when it happens.
0:49
Speaker 1: But first, love it. How was the show this weekend?
0:52
Speaker 2: Great, love it or leave it. One day I'll say
0:54
Speaker 2: we didn't have a great one, but not today.
0:56
Speaker 1: It was terrible.
0:58
Speaker 2: Langston Kerman was hilarious. Aaron, Ira, Travis all joined to
1:03
Speaker 2: do rants on the rant wheel. We quiz listeners on
1:06
Speaker 2: their failed pandemic hobbies, including one listener who learned to
1:10
Speaker 2: play guitar for a boyfriend who is no longer their boyfriend. So,
1:15
Speaker 2: you know, Tough.
1:17
Speaker 4: Rough.
1:17
Speaker 3: But it's a lifelong skill.
1:18
Speaker 1: Well, tune in.
1:20
Speaker 2: Thoughts to you, Eric. Use it to get the next one.
1:23
Speaker 1: It's a great cast of characters on the rant wheel
1:25
Speaker 1: this weekend. I enjoyed it. Also, if you are not
1:28
Speaker 1: already listening to Pod Save the People, tune in to
1:31
Speaker 1: hear DeRay McKesson discuss news, culture, race, social justice, and
1:35
Speaker 1: politics with Sam Sinyangwe, Kaya Henderson, and Diara Ballinger each week.
1:40
Speaker 1: They're a fantastic group with unique perspectives on activism, organizing,
1:43
Speaker 1: and stories that don't always appear in the headlines. So
1:45
Speaker 1: check that out. All right, let's get to the news.
1:50
Speaker 1: The former host of The Apprentice is back in the
1:52
Speaker 1: spotlight as Trump's second impeachment trial kicks off on Tuesday.
1:56
Speaker 1: A new ABC poll shows 56% of Americans believe the
1:59
Speaker 1: 45th president should be convicted of inciting a violent insurrection
2:02
Speaker 1: against the government he once led. That's up from the
2:05
Speaker 1: 47% who believes he should have been impeached the first time.
2:09
Speaker 1: That first impeachment way back in the day.
2:11
Speaker 2: Generous to say he led a government.
2:16
Speaker 1: Supposedly. Donald Trump is refusing a request from Congress that
2:20
Speaker 1: he testify. So he will be a no-show. Another no-show
2:23
Speaker 1: will be Chief Justice John Roberts, who has declined to
2:25
Speaker 1: preside over the trial. So the most senior member of
2:27
Speaker 1: the Senate, Vermont's Pat Leahy, will take his place. And
2:31
Speaker 1: most outlets are now reporting that neither side is likely
2:33
Speaker 1: to call any witnesses. That is not a sure bet
2:36
Speaker 1: just yet. So no Trump, no Roberts, maybe no witnesses,
2:41
Speaker 1: almost no chance of conviction since you'd need 17 Republican senators.
2:45
Speaker 1: And all but five of them have said that the
2:47
Speaker 1: trial itself is unconstitutional. With all that in mind, what
2:51
Speaker 1: are the Democratic House managers who will act as prosecutors
2:55
Speaker 1: trying to achieve? Is this just about going through the
2:57
Speaker 1: motions because it's the right thing to do? Or is
3:00
Speaker 1: there a potential political benefit here, Tommy?
3:04
Speaker 3: I mean, look, there's always a chance, right, that they
3:07
Speaker 3: will get the numbers they need and we can impeach
3:08
Speaker 3: and remove. And so I don't want to rule that out.
3:11
Speaker 3: I do think there's a very important and high level
3:14
Speaker 3: noble goal, which is to say we can't move past
3:16
Speaker 3: what happened on January 6th. There was a mob of fascists.
3:20
Speaker 3: were incited by the President of the United States and
3:22
Speaker 3: many others to attack the Capitol in an effort to
3:25
Speaker 3: overturn the election. And people died, including Capitol Police. Others
3:29
Speaker 3: were injured. Many were terrified. And we can't just yada, yada,
3:32
Speaker 3: yada that. We can't allow this revisionist history to cloud
3:36
Speaker 3: the record of what happened, Trump's complicity in it, and
3:40
Speaker 3: the real danger and risk that there was that day.
3:42
Speaker 3: Because I think Failing to stand up to and correct
3:46
Speaker 3: Trump's lies over the last four or five years has
3:49
Speaker 3: been one of the great failures of the Trump era
3:52
Speaker 3: that has been enabled by the Republican Party. So it
3:54
Speaker 3: sounds like they want to nail down that case through
3:56
Speaker 3: all this video evidence. They want to make a broader
3:58
Speaker 3: political argument that the members of Congress who went along
4:02
Speaker 3: with that big lie about the election, about it being
4:04
Speaker 3: stolen from him, are also complicit in it. I don't
4:09
Speaker 3: know whether there will be a broader political benefit to
4:11
Speaker 3: the Democratic Party from any of this. I do think
4:14
Speaker 3: it's interesting that support for removing Trump has increased in
4:18
Speaker 3: that ABC poll without any actual messaging or evidence presented.
4:22
Speaker 3: That seems to be a good sign. But I think
4:24
Speaker 3: that's what they're hoping for.
4:27
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it seems, Lovett, that it's quite important
4:29
Speaker 1: to connect the dots between how disinformation and propaganda can
4:34
Speaker 1: lead to political violence, especially today. The Democrats are faced
4:37
Speaker 1: with choices here. So the Times reports that the impeachment
4:42
Speaker 1: managers might not want to implicate Republican politicians themselves, just Trump.
4:47
Speaker 1: They want to make it clear that Trump is on trial,
4:49
Speaker 1: not his party, which is an interesting decision. And then
4:53
Speaker 1: there's some news this morning that House impeachment managers may
4:57
Speaker 1: have wanted to call witnesses, but they've been encouraged not
5:01
Speaker 1: to by Pelosi, Schumer, and the White House because they
5:04
Speaker 1: sort of want a speedy trial. What's your take on
5:06
Speaker 1: some of the decisions by House managers and what kind
5:09
Speaker 1: of a case they should be trying to make here?
5:11
Speaker 2: So first of all, I just I do think that
5:14
Speaker 2: they're in a very difficult position, in part because so
5:17
Speaker 2: much of the coverage has revolved around the fact that
5:19
Speaker 2: this is a foregone conclusion. I think to Tommy's point,
5:25
Speaker 2: we shouldn't accept that. And they should proceed as if
5:28
Speaker 2: Republican senators are persuadable and through them, the American people,
5:33
Speaker 2: by making the best argument they can for why Donald
5:34
Speaker 2: Trump should be barred from holding future office. I think
5:37
Speaker 2: one of the big challenges, and even before you get
5:40
Speaker 2: to witnesses, you have to get to the kind of
5:42
Speaker 2: case you would make. And there's the important substance of
5:48
Speaker 2: what Trump did, uh, not just in inciting the insurrection,
5:52
Speaker 2: but in undermining the election for weeks and some of the, uh,
5:57
Speaker 2: connected crimes of what he was trying to do in
6:00
Speaker 2: Georgia and across the country, uh, But a lot of
6:04
Speaker 2: these Republican senators have hinged their no votes on the
6:09
Speaker 2: fact that they have embraced a completely manufactured argument that
6:13
Speaker 2: impeachment after the president leaves office or conviction after the
6:16
Speaker 2: president leaves office is not constitutional. And so what I
6:22
Speaker 2: don't know how you do is make an argument in
6:25
Speaker 2: which your goal is to try to get some of
6:26
Speaker 2: these Republicans on the record, on the substance. of what
6:30
Speaker 2: Donald Trump did without being kind of sucked into a
6:33
Speaker 2: process debate that's ultimately just about giving these people a
6:38
Speaker 2: pass to reject Donald Trump's conviction without ever having to
6:43
Speaker 2: take a position on the insurrection itself.
6:45
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think to Tommy's point, like the
6:48
Speaker 1: fact that you are very unlikely to get 17 Republican
6:51
Speaker 1: senators to convict in a way almost liberates you to
6:54
Speaker 1: just make the most compelling case to the public possible.
6:58
Speaker 1: And part of that case is witnesses. Part of that
7:00
Speaker 1: case is, by the way, implicating Republican politicians in helping
7:04
Speaker 1: Donald Trump spread these conspiracies that led to political violence,
7:09
Speaker 1: particularly because they're still around and we have to deal
7:12
Speaker 1: with them. They're still running for office. They're still holding office.
7:15
Speaker 1: They're still spreading these lies and conspiracies. There is still
7:17
Speaker 1: plenty of danger out there. And like, for these impeachment
7:22
Speaker 1: managers to be concerned about That somehow implicating the entire party,
7:27
Speaker 1: Republican Party, is going to like prevent Republican senators from
7:30
Speaker 1: voting to convict Trump. Like they're not going to, you know,
7:34
Speaker 1: like we're not going to get 17. So you might
7:36
Speaker 1: as well make the most compelling public case that you can.
7:39
Speaker 1: with all the tools that you have available, I think.
7:42
Speaker 1: What do you think, Tommy?
7:43
Speaker 3: What you monsters won't acknowledge is that unity and civility
7:46
Speaker 3: itself is on trial here, and that's got to be...
7:49
Speaker 3: I think there's sort of like an inside and an
7:51
Speaker 3: outside game here. The sort of outside public messaging component
7:56
Speaker 3: of this might lead you to ask a Capitol Police
7:59
Speaker 3: officer to testify, someone who fought back against this mob,
8:02
Speaker 3: who could talk about how horrifying it was in their
8:04
Speaker 3: experience to sort of bring forward the emotional stakes The
8:08
Speaker 3: other kind of witness that I would be very interested
8:10
Speaker 3: to hear from is someone who worked in the White House,
8:13
Speaker 3: who observed Trump during this time. There were all these
8:16
Speaker 3: background quotes in newspapers about how he was enjoying watching
8:20
Speaker 3: the mob attack the Capitol. If there was someone who
8:22
Speaker 3: could come forward and say, like, this was his state
8:24
Speaker 3: of mind when he gave that speech, he really did
8:27
Speaker 3: want them to attack. He did want them, the mob,
8:29
Speaker 3: to force Congress to stop counting the electoral votes. I
8:33
Speaker 3: think that could be compelling for your inside gaze. It's
8:36
Speaker 3: frustrating that we haven't seen that kind of witness come
8:38
Speaker 3: forward yet publicly on the record, despite there being some
8:42
Speaker 3: of this reporting. So, you know, I think those are
8:44
Speaker 3: like the things I would be balancing if I were
8:46
Speaker 3: the managers.
8:48
Speaker 1: I will say, too, just to the argument that some
8:51
Speaker 1: Democratic leaders and certainly the White House is worried that
8:54
Speaker 1: the trial will take too long. Like, I don't think
8:57
Speaker 1: that the covid relief bill should be delayed because of
9:00
Speaker 1: the trial at all. And, you know, I don't think
9:03
Speaker 1: that in the House and Senate should like pull people
9:05
Speaker 1: off negotiations on that bill because of the trial. Like
9:07
Speaker 1: that has to be the first priority. That said, I
9:10
Speaker 1: haven't heard a good reason why you can't do both
9:12
Speaker 1: at the same time. Like there's plenty of behind the
9:14
Speaker 1: scenes work to be done on COVID that involves drafting
9:17
Speaker 1: legislation and negotiations. And I do think if you're going
9:19
Speaker 1: to hold the trial, you got to just like do
9:21
Speaker 1: your best. And, you know, you can't if you rush
9:24
Speaker 1: the trial, it'll certainly be worthless.
9:26
Speaker 4: Right.
9:27
Speaker 1: Yeah.
9:27
Speaker 4: Yeah.
9:29
Speaker 2: Right. Like a one week trial with no witnesses. You
9:32
Speaker 2: have an incredibly compelling case by the Democratic managers as
9:35
Speaker 2: to Donald Trump's being complicit in what happened and the
9:38
Speaker 2: damage it caused and the damage it could have caused
9:41
Speaker 2: that we're really lucky it didn't cause. Right. We can
9:43
Speaker 2: imagine what that looks like, followed by endless bad faith
9:48
Speaker 2: arguments by Trump's lawyers that, look, what Democrats have said
9:51
Speaker 2: in the past, this is a slippery slope. First Amendment
9:54
Speaker 2: can't try a president once they leave office. And then
9:59
Speaker 2: there's a vote. there's an acquittal, and we move on.
10:01
Speaker 2: I don't know what the value of that is to history.
10:04
Speaker 2: I don't know what that contributes. So I suppose if
10:07
Speaker 2: it has any value at all, it has to be
10:09
Speaker 2: to cast aside the Republican arguments altogether and make a
10:12
Speaker 2: case for posterity about how dangerous and bad this was.
10:16
Speaker 2: Because one argument that I found pretty persuasive is that
10:18
Speaker 2: You can't just wait for history to vindicate you that
10:21
Speaker 2: actually how you respond in the moment affects how historians
10:24
Speaker 2: look at what happened. You can look at the difference
10:26
Speaker 2: to how Watergate is handled versus how, say, Iran-Contra is
10:29
Speaker 2: handled by the consequences that were extracted in real time.
10:33
Speaker 1: Also, the House Democratic impeachment managers aren't going to make
10:36
Speaker 1: a case in a vacuum. Trump's lawyers are going to
10:38
Speaker 1: make a case as well. Lovett, you previewed the fact
10:41
Speaker 1: that they're going to talk about process and why it's unconstitutional.
10:44
Speaker 1: They're also arguing in a rebuttal that they've already filed.
10:48
Speaker 1: that their client, quote, exercised his First Amendment right under
10:51
Speaker 1: the Constitution to express his belief that the election results
10:54
Speaker 1: were suspect. Trump lawyer Bruce Castor also then said on
10:57
Speaker 1: Laura Ingraham's show, that they plan to make the case
11:00
Speaker 1: that what Trump did is okay because supposedly Democrats incite
11:03
Speaker 1: violence too. Here's a clip.
11:04
Speaker 2: Well, you have dueling video.
11:07
Speaker 5: They're going to do that. So are you then, and
11:09
Speaker 5: I know President Trump loves video clips and video montages.
11:13
Speaker 5: Will you then respond with the Maxine Waters, with a
11:17
Speaker 5: number of other Democrat officials not speaking out against the
11:21
Speaker 5: Antifa and other extremist rallies over last summer?
11:27
Speaker 2: I think you can count on that. If my eyes
11:31
Speaker 2: look a little red to the viewers, it's because I've
11:33
Speaker 2: been looking at a lot of video the last several days.
11:35
Speaker 2: They do look a little red, Bruce.
11:37
Speaker 1: They do look a little red.
11:37
Speaker 2: Yeah. If my eyes look a little red, it's because
11:41
Speaker 2: I'm a deeply addled, low-rent lawyer and the only person
11:45
Speaker 2: they could find to do this.
11:47
Speaker 1: I mean, you know that Mr. Trump loves a good
11:49
Speaker 1: video compilation.
11:50
Speaker 3: Listen, who doesn't love a good montage, right? I mean,
11:54
Speaker 3: when does that come love it? Like, is it sort
11:55
Speaker 3: of like early act two, you get a great like
11:58
Speaker 3: training montage or something?
11:59
Speaker 2: But yeah, look, according to the structure that we're all
12:02
Speaker 2: stuck with, I suppose it'd be sometime, you know, it's
12:05
Speaker 2: the fun and games, as they say, you know? Who
12:07
Speaker 2: doesn't love the.
12:08
Speaker 1: Fun and games?
12:09
Speaker 2: Collage.
12:11
Speaker 1: It's very funny.
12:12
Speaker 3: I can't believe we're talking process when these guys literally
12:15
Speaker 3: watched a mob of fascists storm their office and saw
12:19
Speaker 3: cops get killed. I mean, there are conservative legal scholars
12:21
Speaker 3: who argue that this Republican argument, the Trump defense argument
12:25
Speaker 3: that you can't impeach a former president is wrong. Like
12:29
Speaker 3: Matt Geitz, the biggest Trump lackey on the planet, has
12:31
Speaker 3: previously tweeted that you can impeach.
12:33
Speaker 1: A former president.
12:34
Speaker 3: I think that there's a different but maybe more dangerous
12:38
Speaker 3: slippery slope argument here, which is if you say you
12:40
Speaker 3: can't impeach a former president, then our already very long,
12:44
Speaker 3: very dangerous lame duck period becomes even riskier because presidents
12:48
Speaker 3: can do whatever the hell they want. They can't be
12:50
Speaker 3: prosecuted and they can't be impeached.
12:52
Speaker 2: So I don't know.
12:54
Speaker 3: Total impunity for the president of the United States maybe
12:56
Speaker 3: seems like a bad idea that people would want to consider.
12:59
Speaker 1: I also think that the specifically what that clip was about,
13:01
Speaker 1: which is like the whataboutism.
13:03
Speaker 2: It's ridiculous.
13:03
Speaker 1: Like false equivalence between Democrats like that. They're going to
13:07
Speaker 1: they're going to go there. We're going to hear all
13:09
Speaker 1: week all these comments from Democrats like that are, you know,
13:13
Speaker 1: nothing compared to what fucking Trump and the Republicans have done.
13:15
Speaker 1: Like get up in people's faces, which is not like
13:19
Speaker 1: go storm the seat of government while they're trying to
13:22
Speaker 1: certify the election.
13:24
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, look, I. So first of all, I
13:26
Speaker 2: do think that as a country, we need to grapple
13:28
Speaker 2: with the law school brain disease that has captured many
13:34
Speaker 2: people in which you debate rock to the head, undebatable things.
13:39
Speaker 2: Can the president self-pardon? Can the president be convicted after
13:44
Speaker 2: he or she leaves office? Like, what Tommy just said
13:46
Speaker 2: is right. These things leave you open to ridiculous scenarios
13:50
Speaker 2: in which the president is above the law and in
13:52
Speaker 2: which nobody would have ever intended. And they become debatable
13:55
Speaker 2: because hacks have wanted to give conservatives an argument that
13:59
Speaker 2: they could make to get out of telling the truth
14:02
Speaker 2: about what happened. I do think that one of the
14:04
Speaker 2: challenges I think is like, how much do you talk
14:06
Speaker 2: about what Trump said specifically in about January 6th versus
14:10
Speaker 2: the ways in which he was undermining the democracy and
14:13
Speaker 2: denying the legitimacy of our elections and lying and spreading
14:18
Speaker 2: false information and propaganda before the election, after the election,
14:22
Speaker 2: in the run-up to January 6th. Because altogether to me,
14:25
Speaker 2: that ultimately is the high crime, right? The crime was
14:28
Speaker 2: in undermining and rejecting American democracy. I've seen people like
14:32
Speaker 2: John Cornyn and others making these ridiculous First Amendment arguments.
14:35
Speaker 2: First of all, like, There are all kinds of things
14:39
Speaker 2: that the president should be impeached for saying that a
14:42
Speaker 2: citizen could say at any time. All kinds of things.
14:46
Speaker 2: This job sucks. I hate America. And I think Canada
14:49
Speaker 2: should take over. And Canada, if you're listening, invade at
14:52
Speaker 2: any time. We can all say that. We're free to
14:54
Speaker 2: say that. But if the president said you have to
14:55
Speaker 2: remove them because impeachment is not just a legal question,
14:58
Speaker 2: it's a political question.
14:59
Speaker 1: Right.
14:59
Speaker 3: The First Amendment doesn't protect you from political consequences. Very famously,
15:03
Speaker 3: saying stupid things often has political consequences. What are they
15:06
Speaker 3: talking about?
15:08
Speaker 2: You know, the president in an open bathrobe coming into
15:11
Speaker 2: the into the press briefing room saying, what do you
15:13
Speaker 2: fuckers want? I hate this country. You know, that goes
15:16
Speaker 2: on long enough. You got to remove them to be
15:18
Speaker 2: a problem.
15:19
Speaker 1: To the question you raised, they have to start before
15:22
Speaker 1: January 6th. They have to make the whole case because
15:25
Speaker 1: that is what the case is about. It is about
15:27
Speaker 1: the fact that Trump waged an entire disinformation campaign to
15:31
Speaker 1: tell his supporters that a presidential election was fraudulent and
15:33
Speaker 1: stolen by evil people who were trying to commit a coup.
15:36
Speaker 1: That's the case. The case is not slicing and dicing
15:40
Speaker 1: a specific speech and words and this. Like, that's going
15:42
Speaker 1: to lead you down to a path where they're going
15:44
Speaker 1: to do whataboutism to death, right? You can't find any
15:48
Speaker 1: examples of people saying they committed a violent insurrection against
15:51
Speaker 1: the government because a Democrat told them to. On the
15:54
Speaker 1: other hand, House managers are going to have plenty examples
15:56
Speaker 1: of rioters saying that they stormed the Capitol because of
15:58
Speaker 1: Trump's lies and encouragement. That is the case. So Joe
16:03
Speaker 1: Biden was asked over the weekend by Nora O'Donnell during
16:05
Speaker 1: a CBS interview about how he'd vote on impeachment. He
16:08
Speaker 1: declined to answer, said it was up to the Senate.
16:10
Speaker 1: But then he made some news when Nora followed up
16:13
Speaker 1: by asking if Trump should receive the intelligence briefings that
16:16
Speaker 1: ex-presidents typically receive. Here's a clip.
16:18
Speaker 4: Well, let me ask you then something that you do
16:20
Speaker 4: have oversight of as president. Should former President Trump still
16:25
Speaker 4: receive intelligence briefings?
16:28
Speaker 6: I think not.
16:30
Speaker 2: Why not?
16:32
Speaker 6: Because of his erratic behavior. unrelated to the insurrection.
16:37
Speaker 4: I mean, you've called him an existential threat. You've called
16:41
Speaker 4: him dangerous. You've called him reckless.
16:43
Speaker 6: Yeah, I have, and I believe it.
16:46
Speaker 4: What's your worst fear if he continues to get these
16:48
Speaker 4: intelligence briefings?
16:52
Speaker 6: I'd rather not speculate out loud. I just think that
16:55
Speaker 6: there is no need for him to have that intelligence briefings.
16:59
Speaker 6: What value is giving him an intelligence briefing? What impact
17:02
Speaker 6: does he have at all other than the fact he
17:04
Speaker 6: might slip and say something?
17:06
Speaker 1: Tommy, what did you think of Biden's answer there? The
17:08
Speaker 1: White House issued a statement afterwards saying that it would
17:10
Speaker 1: be Biden's intelligence team, not Biden himself, who would make
17:13
Speaker 1: the final decision on this.
17:14
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, I think this sort of this debate, this
17:17
Speaker 3: conversation is extremely overblown. If you're really worried about Trump
17:22
Speaker 3: disclosing something sensitive or highly classified, the risk exists whether
17:26
Speaker 3: or not he gets another briefing ever again. And like
17:28
Speaker 3: all the most sensitive horses out of the barn. But
17:31
Speaker 3: even if it was like much further than that, like
17:34
Speaker 3: all the sensitive stuff, like the closely held covert action programs,
17:38
Speaker 3: like the answers to how we get information, i.e. some
17:41
Speaker 3: senior official in a foreign country is actually a CIA asset.
17:44
Speaker 3: Like that stuff has already been briefed to him if
17:47
Speaker 3: it was ever going to be. The good news is
17:49
Speaker 3: that Trump quite famously never read or attended his PDB.
17:52
Speaker 3: And any post-presidency briefings would not go into nearly as
17:55
Speaker 3: much depth or sensitive detail as what he's already gotten.
18:00
Speaker 3: I'm not sure how often presidents actually get these briefings.
18:03
Speaker 3: Like maybe if you're going on a trip overseas, you
18:06
Speaker 3: request one.
18:07
Speaker 1: So I'm not that worried about it.
18:08
Speaker 3: Like, do I think Trump needs these briefings?
18:10
Speaker 2: No.
18:10
Speaker 1: Would I deny him?
18:11
Speaker 3: I'm not sure. It was notable that Sue Gordon, the
18:14
Speaker 3: former principal deputy director of national intelligence, during the Trump
18:17
Speaker 3: administration is worried about it and wrote an op-ed saying
18:20
Speaker 3: he shouldn't get them. But I think what Biden could
18:22
Speaker 3: say here, his team could say is like, let him
18:24
Speaker 3: make requests for briefings on a case by case basis.
18:27
Speaker 3: And then we'll decide based on those individual requests.
18:31
Speaker 1: Can you, that's so funny. Can you imagine Donald Trump
18:35
Speaker 1: making a specific request for, for a briefing on an,
18:39
Speaker 1: on an individual issue?
18:41
Speaker 2: I mean, it's worth, it's like, it's all of it.
18:43
Speaker 2: It's so like, there was this, somebody like, well, what
18:45
Speaker 2: kind of precedent would it set of if Joe Biden
18:48
Speaker 2: denies Donald Trump intelligence briefing, like president, like this is
18:51
Speaker 2: all predicated on the idea that Donald Trump is an
18:54
Speaker 2: interested party who cared about national security, had a few
18:57
Speaker 2: issues of focus on which he became quite expert, would
19:00
Speaker 2: like to keep up with those in perhaps hopes of say,
19:02
Speaker 2: traveling abroad as a representative of the United States or
19:05
Speaker 2: advising Joe Biden in his capacity as an ex-president with
19:08
Speaker 2: a lot of information and helpful experience that he could impart.
19:11
Speaker 2: I don't think anybody thinks that that's a possibility. So
19:13
Speaker 2: it's all, it's all quite silly.
19:16
Speaker 1: Hey, I'm heading to the Horn of Africa. I was
19:18
Speaker 1: looking for a security briefing. Could you just give me
19:21
Speaker 1: some knowledge there?
19:23
Speaker 2: It's just sort of like, yeah, it's like the damage
19:26
Speaker 2: is done. He was a security threat every day he
19:28
Speaker 2: was in the White House. Nobody's calling him for advice.
19:41
Speaker 1: Let's talk about immigration, because The Washington Post reported that
19:44
Speaker 1: this week the Biden administration will direct Immigrations and Customs Enforcement,
19:48
Speaker 1: or ICE, to implement. a, quote, major shift in enforcement
19:52
Speaker 1: that could sharply curb deportations of undocumented immigrants, focusing instead
19:57
Speaker 1: on people who are, quote, national security threats, recent border crossers,
20:01
Speaker 1: and people with aggravated felony convictions. Under the new guidelines,
20:05
Speaker 1: ICE agents would have to get approval from the agency's
20:07
Speaker 1: director and to make arrests. One very sad ICE official
20:11
Speaker 1: told the Post, quote, they've abolished ICE without abolishing ICE. Cool.
20:18
Speaker 1: So we can talk about Biden's legislative strategy around immigration
20:21
Speaker 1: in a second, but we did learn in the Trump
20:23
Speaker 1: years that this is a policy area where the president
20:26
Speaker 1: wields a lot of power. Tommy, how much can Biden
20:29
Speaker 1: do here without Congress and what are his constraints?
20:32
Speaker 3: So a lot of what he has done so far
20:34
Speaker 3: was about rolling back specific Trump era policies and Basically, Trump,
20:39
Speaker 3: Stephen Miller did everything by executive order and nothing by legislation.
20:43
Speaker 3: So the good news is you can fix a lot
20:44
Speaker 3: of that. So that includes getting rid of the Muslim ban,
20:47
Speaker 3: which is a big deal in terms of the message
20:48
Speaker 3: sense of the world. But in practice, right, there's like
20:51
Speaker 3: COVID related travel bans in place. So it's like it'll
20:54
Speaker 3: take a while for this to really show up in
20:56
Speaker 3: terms of numbers. Biden will at least temporarily restore protections
20:59
Speaker 3: for young undocumented migrants through the Deferred Action for Childhood
21:02
Speaker 3: Arrivals program or DACA. He can stop construction of the
21:05
Speaker 3: border wall. They can rescind Trump's attempt to exclude undocumented
21:11
Speaker 3: immigrants from the census count. They can get rid of
21:14
Speaker 3: the remain in Mexico policy, which totally screwed up the
21:17
Speaker 3: asylum process. They can get rid of basically a wealth
21:19
Speaker 3: test that discriminated against poor people trying to immigrate to
21:23
Speaker 3: the US. So there's a lot they can just unwind
21:25
Speaker 3: by EO and he's done very quickly. But the legislative
21:29
Speaker 3: piece of this is a lot more complicated, as I
21:31
Speaker 3: assume we'll soon discuss.
21:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, so love it. Obviously, legislation is one of the
21:37
Speaker 1: big constraints. What are some of the other constraints on
21:39
Speaker 1: Biden's executive power for what he can do here? He
21:44
Speaker 1: can't sort of turn this all around on a dime
21:46
Speaker 1: right now, whether it's enforcement, whether it's the crisis at
21:49
Speaker 1: the border. What are some of the issues that he's
21:52
Speaker 1: going to face here?
21:53
Speaker 2: Well, so one of them is the efforts of Trump
21:55
Speaker 2: officials who burrowed into the administration to try to kind
21:58
Speaker 2: of codify Trump era rules to make it difficult to, say,
22:02
Speaker 2: rein in ICE. There's some question as to whether or
22:06
Speaker 2: not the Biden administration will be able to quickly unwind
22:08
Speaker 2: an agreement that the Trump administration put in place with
22:12
Speaker 2: the union to make it really.
22:14
Speaker 1: Unbelievable agreement.
22:15
Speaker 2: Really difficult to make changes. I'm not sure what the
22:21
Speaker 2: status of that is or what the hope is of
22:22
Speaker 2: being able to quickly undo that, for example.
22:26
Speaker 1: Ken Cuccinelli, Trump DHS official. Yeah, famous... anti-immigrant crusader, decided
22:32
Speaker 1: to strike a deal with the ICE union saying that
22:36
Speaker 1: forbidding the federal government from making any modifications whatsoever concerning
22:40
Speaker 1: the policies and functions of the agents. Now I assume
22:43
Speaker 1: that Biden... The Biden administration can just challenge that at
22:48
Speaker 1: the Federal Labor Relations Board. I know they're trying to
22:51
Speaker 1: purge some of the Trump officials from that board as well.
22:55
Speaker 1: And then look, and then the other constraint is, of course,
22:57
Speaker 1: the courts and a lot of Trump judges. There was
22:59
Speaker 1: a Trump judge in Texas that basically, you know, Biden
23:03
Speaker 1: tried to suspend all deportations for 100 days. federal judge
23:06
Speaker 1: in Texas tried to strike that down. So, you know,
23:09
Speaker 1: Biden's going to learn, as Obama learned too, that it is,
23:12
Speaker 1: you both are, you're facing the courts and the bureaucracy,
23:15
Speaker 1: even in your power as president to try to undo
23:18
Speaker 1: some of this. But like, again, you know, some of
23:19
Speaker 1: the lessons we learned in the Obama administration, Obama tried
23:22
Speaker 1: to sort of change the enforcement priorities of ICE in
23:25
Speaker 1: the first term, and we failed, basically. We didn't really
23:29
Speaker 1: undo as much of the Bush administration's enforcement priorities as
23:34
Speaker 1: the president wanted to, basically, we didn't get there until
23:37
Speaker 1: the second term, which is why Obama had so many
23:40
Speaker 1: deportations in the first term, because ICE dragged its feet.
23:44
Speaker 1: It's sort of like a rogue agency, you know, and
23:47
Speaker 1: the question will be if Biden can get it under control.
23:49
Speaker 2: You see that in the response from unnamed people within ICE.
23:53
Speaker 2: And then also in the way this is written, I
23:54
Speaker 2: think some of the rules around needing approvals are trying
23:57
Speaker 2: to make sure that there's no end run around these
24:00
Speaker 2: rules at the local level, that it's clear that the
24:02
Speaker 2: rules are set in such a way as to try
24:03
Speaker 2: to shift ISIS behavior, even if agents don't want to.
24:08
Speaker 1: Yeah. Tommy, for the longer term changes, obviously you need legislation.
24:12
Speaker 1: How likely is it that Biden gets his immigration bill
24:14
Speaker 1: passed in Congress? He's already sent it to Congress, which
24:17
Speaker 1: is pretty fast. Yeah.
24:19
Speaker 3: I mean, what I think was interesting about the bill
24:20
Speaker 3: was it wasn't really written in a way that was
24:23
Speaker 3: designed to pass. He didn't negotiate against himself before introducing
24:27
Speaker 3: the bill It wasn't a pathway to citizenship for undocumented people,
24:32
Speaker 3: plus a ton of draconian immigration enforcement measures. It was
24:35
Speaker 3: a pathway to citizenship. It was more refugees and then
24:38
Speaker 3: some technology at the border. There wasn't like, you know,
24:42
Speaker 3: a ton of money for wall construction like we've seen previously.
24:45
Speaker 3: So in 2013, when the so-called Gang of Eight introduced
24:49
Speaker 3: a bill that started with the pathway to citizenship, That
24:53
Speaker 3: also included $ 46 billion for border enforcement. It had the
24:57
Speaker 3: E-Verify system and made that mandatory for employers to try
25:00
Speaker 3: to deal with that side of the immigration problem. So
25:05
Speaker 3: that was designed to be a more moderate approach that
25:07
Speaker 3: might bring along Republicans. I don't think a lot of
25:10
Speaker 3: people think that Biden's opening salvo is going to get
25:12
Speaker 3: close to 60 votes, but you're already hearing the Biden
25:15
Speaker 3: team say, They're willing to break up the bill into
25:18
Speaker 3: smaller pieces and try to pass components of it that way.
25:21
Speaker 1: And I think that's what you'll see from Congress. Yeah,
25:24
Speaker 1: I mean, talk about problems with the filibuster. I think like,
25:26
Speaker 1: you know, some parts of immigration reform can be done
25:29
Speaker 1: through budget reconciliation process, namely anything that impacts the budget.
25:33
Speaker 1: But to get people a pathway to citizenship, clearly you
25:36
Speaker 1: need legislation. And it's either 60 votes or Joe Manchin
25:41
Speaker 1: and Kyrsten Sinema deciding to get rid of the filibuster
25:43
Speaker 1: for immigration reform. which seems even less likely than them
25:47
Speaker 1: wanting to get rid of the filibuster for almost anything else,
25:49
Speaker 1: because Joe Manchin is not necessarily the most progressive senator
25:52
Speaker 1: on immigration. So you have a real problem trying to
25:55
Speaker 1: get 60 votes on immigration.
25:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look, 2013, it's not that long ago,
26:01
Speaker 2: you got 68 votes in the Senate, which included 14 Republicans.
26:05
Speaker 2: In the years since, a lot of those Republicans have
26:08
Speaker 2: left office, either by their own choice or gods in
26:14
Speaker 2: some cases. Uh, and then, uh, I don't know why
26:17
Speaker 2: I said that and, uh, uh, or the, or the voters. Um,
26:21
Speaker 2: and you know, Graham and Rubio, who were two of the,
26:25
Speaker 2: the kind of lead, uh, uh, advocates for immigration reform
26:29
Speaker 2: sponsors of it, part of the gang, uh, decided that
26:32
Speaker 2: immigration was the path forward for the Republican party. And
26:35
Speaker 2: then they enter the Republican primary and Trump gives them a,
26:38
Speaker 2: policy swirly in the toilet. And now Rubio says the
26:41
Speaker 2: thing that he was for and that he was going
26:43
Speaker 2: to make the hallmark of his legislative agenda is now
26:46
Speaker 2: a non-starter. So, um, on the one hand, like the
26:49
Speaker 2: bill is actually the, the, the pathway to citizenship itself. Um,
26:56
Speaker 2: I think it's remarkable how, how the democratic policies have
26:59
Speaker 2: shifted and that like, you know, uh, you know, Bernie
27:02
Speaker 2: Sanders got a uh, he compared it to slavery and he, uh,
27:08
Speaker 2: you know, but, but, uh, um, the criticism of a
27:11
Speaker 2: guest worker program that it basically solidified the ways in
27:15
Speaker 2: which our system was unjust. Like now you have the
27:18
Speaker 2: United farm workers basically praising this and saying, you know,
27:21
Speaker 2: this is a remarkable thing that will give people kind
27:23
Speaker 2: of dignity. So, so the pathway to citizenship itself has
27:26
Speaker 2: gotten more progressive, even as the hopes of passing something,
27:29
Speaker 2: I think have gone down.
27:31
Speaker 1: So, you know, Republicans are obviously jumping all over, um,
27:34
Speaker 1: Biden's executive actions on immigration already. Lindsey Graham said the
27:38
Speaker 1: caravans are going to start to flow again. Ron Johnson
27:42
Speaker 1: was on TV. He tried to one-up him by predicting
27:45
Speaker 1: a caravan a day. So obviously, Republicans are going to
27:48
Speaker 1: say these things no matter what Biden does. But Tommy,
27:51
Speaker 1: how can President Biden institute a more humane immigration policy
27:55
Speaker 1: while still avoiding the kind of humanitarian crisis at the
27:58
Speaker 1: border that both Trump and Obama faced. We've talked about
28:02
Speaker 1: ICE and internal enforcement once immigrants were already here. But
28:05
Speaker 1: of course, you know, there were reports over the weekend that,
28:07
Speaker 1: you know, because Joe Biden is president, you know, a
28:11
Speaker 1: lot of migrants and asylum seekers feel like they're going
28:14
Speaker 1: to be more welcomed. And so they have been coming
28:16
Speaker 1: to the border again. And we know that the problems
28:19
Speaker 1: that can create. Yeah.
28:20
Speaker 3: I mean, look, one major thing that I forgot to
28:22
Speaker 3: mention was he's going to create a task force to
28:25
Speaker 3: reunify families that were separated on purpose. by the Trump
28:28
Speaker 3: administration's policies. And that's like a hugely important moral step
28:33
Speaker 3: to take. It's something we should mention. He wants to
28:37
Speaker 3: start by addressing the asylum system. And in part, that
28:41
Speaker 3: means helping some of these Northern Triangle countries in Central
28:45
Speaker 3: America with aid and other support so that people who
28:50
Speaker 3: live in El Salvador don't feel like it is so
28:53
Speaker 3: unsafe to remain in that country that they're going to
28:57
Speaker 3: travel north to the US border to try to get
29:00
Speaker 3: into the US or seek asylum because remaining is a
29:05
Speaker 3: death sentence. So that's a big piece of Biden's plan.
29:09
Speaker 3: He also wants to get rid of this policy called
29:11
Speaker 3: Remain in Mexico that requires non-Mexican migrants coming up from
29:15
Speaker 3: Latin America in most cases, to remain in Mexico until
29:19
Speaker 3: they have an immigration court case. That has created these
29:23
Speaker 3: camps along the border with absolutely horrific conditions. And that
29:27
Speaker 3: was the case before COVID. So those are some of
29:29
Speaker 3: the things that he can start adjusting and dealing with
29:33
Speaker 3: on his own. Well, to help out the Northern Tribal countries,
29:36
Speaker 3: they'll have to eventually get some money out of Congress.
29:39
Speaker 3: But there's steps he can take to just make the
29:41
Speaker 3: process better. Even if that doesn't address the most important thing,
29:45
Speaker 3: which is this pathway to citizenship provision for the, you know,
29:48
Speaker 3: 11 to 13 million undocumented migrants in the U S.
29:53
Speaker 4: Yeah.
29:53
Speaker 1: I mean, it's, it, The biggest problems are clearly this
29:56
Speaker 1: backlog of asylum cases. You need more asylum judges need
29:59
Speaker 1: to be able to process these claims. And that's been
30:02
Speaker 1: a problem for a long time as a problem through
30:03
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, through the Trump administration. Trump, of course,
30:06
Speaker 1: handled it like an inhumane fucking monster. But the problem
30:10
Speaker 1: still exists no matter what, no matter who's the president.
30:13
Speaker 1: And I do think like working with some of these
30:14
Speaker 1: Central American countries to address the root causes of migration
30:17
Speaker 1: is probably the only way, because otherwise you're going to
30:20
Speaker 1: constantly have migrants and asylum seekers coming to the border.
30:23
Speaker 1: And you do need some kind of system. You can't
30:25
Speaker 1: just have people crossing the border illegally when there are
30:28
Speaker 1: people who are trying to claim asylum through the official
30:30
Speaker 1: channels and trying to immigrate through the official channels, right?
30:33
Speaker 1: Like you have to have an actual system in place,
30:36
Speaker 1: which is tough. And it's going to take a while
30:38
Speaker 1: to unwind, I think, what Trump did.
30:39
Speaker 2: I mean, there's no, like we've been, you know, over
30:43
Speaker 2: 30 years into this, since the last immigration law was passed,
30:46
Speaker 2: there is no way to resolve a crisis without passing
30:53
Speaker 2: an immigration law, and there's no way to pass an
30:55
Speaker 2: immigration law unless Republicans are willing to join. And they
31:00
Speaker 2: passed the bill through the Senate, and then it died
31:02
Speaker 2: in John Boehner's house. Now we could pass a bill
31:05
Speaker 2: through a Democratic house, and it looks like with people
31:08
Speaker 2: like Graham and Rubio saying it's a non-starter, that it
31:11
Speaker 2: would die in a Senate. And none of this will
31:12
Speaker 2: ultimately change or resolve until you pass that law.
31:24
Speaker 1: All right, let's end on a high note. Fox News
31:26
Speaker 1: is being sued for $ 2. 7 billion. This is a defamation
31:30
Speaker 1: lawsuit brought by Smartmatic, an election technology company, which claims
31:34
Speaker 1: it lost business because Fox spread election fraud conspiracies and
31:38
Speaker 1: disinformation about the company. The suit also targets Fox anchors
31:41
Speaker 1: Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, and Lou Dobbs, whose top-rated show
31:45
Speaker 1: on Fox Business was canceled on Friday, despite the fact
31:48
Speaker 1: that he is still under contract. Smartmatic is suing Rudy
31:52
Speaker 1: Giuliani and Sidney Powell as well. What a cast of
31:55
Speaker 1: all-stars who are also the target of another billion-dollar lawsuit
31:59
Speaker 1: from Dominion Voting Systems for defamation about their voting technology. Lovett,
32:05
Speaker 1: what do you think about the use of defamation lawsuits
32:07
Speaker 1: as a way to fight disinformation? How effective have they
32:09
Speaker 1: been so far?
32:11
Speaker 2: So I think those are two different questions. In terms
32:14
Speaker 2: of how it's been effective, it's certainly been more effective
32:16
Speaker 2: than liberals haranguing these places on Twitter. uh, you know, liberals,
32:22
Speaker 2: we have not been able to tweets, you know, that
32:24
Speaker 2: the tweets are going to do it. Uh, you know,
32:25
Speaker 2: it has been, uh, quite satisfying to see places, some
32:28
Speaker 2: of the most heinous news outlets in the country have
32:30
Speaker 2: to kind of come on the air and say, uh,
32:32
Speaker 2: we obviously never meant to imply, et cetera, et cetera.
32:36
Speaker 2: We regret, et cetera, et cetera. The disclaimer that, uh,
32:39
Speaker 2: OAN had to put on before they aired, uh, the
32:42
Speaker 2: pillow man's nonsense was, uh, satisfying, uh, some of these apologies, these,
32:47
Speaker 2: extremely invasive step-by-step apologies have been great to see. That said,
32:53
Speaker 2: this is an extraordinary example, right? Because there was a
32:55
Speaker 2: concerted effort across multiple networks to spread misinformation and propaganda
32:59
Speaker 2: and lies, information they knew to be false, in order
33:02
Speaker 2: to help Donald Trump spread a kind of anti-democratic narrative.
33:06
Speaker 2: And if there is a reason to have defamation, it
33:08
Speaker 2: is for this moment. That said, a lot of people
33:11
Speaker 2: cheered on defamation lawsuits in the past. A lot of
33:14
Speaker 2: people cheered on lawsuits against places like Gawker. I was
33:16
Speaker 2: not one of them. Uh, Ronan has been threatened with,
33:20
Speaker 2: with frivolous lawsuits around defamation. Uh, and so I do
33:23
Speaker 2: think like, uh, tempered enthusiasm is where I'm at.
33:30
Speaker 1: Tommy, what do you think?
33:30
Speaker 3: I mean, I, I think they've been highly effective so
33:33
Speaker 3: far and I understand the concerns of, about freedom of speech.
33:37
Speaker 3: You know, like we work at a media company, we
33:39
Speaker 3: started one, but the thing people need to understand is
33:41
Speaker 3: that the stuff that Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell and
33:44
Speaker 3: these folks are pushing is is literally made up, right?
33:46
Speaker 3: They're saying Smartmatic software was used to flip votes in
33:51
Speaker 3: key swing states, but that software wasn't used literally in
33:55
Speaker 3: any of those states, right? And for Smartmatic and some
33:58
Speaker 3: of these companies, this is existential. Who would ever buy
34:02
Speaker 3: voting machines or software from a company that has this
34:05
Speaker 3: reputational damage? And it is also poisoned the brains of
34:10
Speaker 3: all kinds of Trump voters. So yes, I would not
34:13
Speaker 3: be comfortable with MSNBC getting sued for reporting on Trump
34:18
Speaker 3: collusion or what. But I also think that that's kind
34:22
Speaker 3: of the rejoinder you're hearing from a lot of conservatives.
34:25
Speaker 3: I don't really think that they're analogous cases. Smartmatic software
34:29
Speaker 3: was only used in LA County, but Sidney Powell's on
34:32
Speaker 3: TV saying a secret cabal controlled by Venezuela and Iran
34:36
Speaker 3: and China and all these countries is use that software
34:39
Speaker 3: to flip votes in Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. So I
34:43
Speaker 3: do think when you're dealing with a claim like that,
34:46
Speaker 3: that will run a company out of business that is
34:49
Speaker 3: enormously damaging and literally made up out of whole cloth,
34:52
Speaker 3: I fully support going to the courts for a situation
34:56
Speaker 3: like this.
34:57
Speaker 6: Yeah.
34:58
Speaker 1: I don't think it has to be a slippery slope here.
35:00
Speaker 1: There are situations where there are gray areas and then
35:05
Speaker 1: there are situations where it's pretty black and white. And
35:07
Speaker 1: I think the black and white areas are the places
35:09
Speaker 1: for the defamation lawsuits, right? Like you make a pretty
35:12
Speaker 1: clear argument that by knowingly spreading lies and conspiracies, Fox
35:15
Speaker 1: News and others caused harm to these companies, right? Like
35:19
Speaker 1: Tommy was saying. And I think if you can draw
35:22
Speaker 1: that direct connection and you can prove that they were
35:27
Speaker 1: knowingly spreading these false, uh, conspiracies, that's a lot different
35:32
Speaker 1: than journalists being concerned that if they happen to say
35:34
Speaker 1: something that isn't true, that they could suddenly be held
35:37
Speaker 1: liable just because we're holding a bunch of propagandists liable
35:41
Speaker 1: who were like knowingly spreading conspiracies.
35:43
Speaker 2: I agree. I'm not, I do think it's like, you know,
35:46
Speaker 2: there are other aspects of it, right? So if you
35:49
Speaker 2: host a show and you interview a guest and that
35:52
Speaker 2: guest spreads knowingly misinformation and falsehoods, when do you become responsible?
35:57
Speaker 2: for what that person says on your air. Like there
35:58
Speaker 2: are questions like that.
35:59
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a good question. Like if someone did
36:01
Speaker 1: that on Pod Save America, what would we do? We
36:04
Speaker 1: would probably go back, cut the segment, issue an apology, right?
36:08
Speaker 1: Like we would take a number of steps to try
36:10
Speaker 1: to rectify that.
36:12
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, of course. I'm just like, I am for this.
36:15
Speaker 2: I just, I have, if defamation laws should exist, it
36:19
Speaker 2: exists for a moment like this. But the challenge is,
36:23
Speaker 2: you know, even if you are a journalist and you
36:26
Speaker 2: are sued for defamation and you are vindicated, it still
36:30
Speaker 2: can ruin you. It still can bankrupt you. It still
36:33
Speaker 2: can destroy your life. And so like the kind of,
36:37
Speaker 2: and these frivolous things are popping up more and more.
36:39
Speaker 2: So I am all for this. I guess it's just
36:41
Speaker 2: sort of like, there is no larger lesson to be drawn.
36:43
Speaker 2: These companies have every right to sue these companies for
36:46
Speaker 2: billions of dollars for the damage they've done. I just
36:49
Speaker 2: think the larger conversation around defamation and how it's been used,
36:53
Speaker 2: I think is- worrying. That's all. Yeah.
36:57
Speaker 1: Well, it's also a question of stepping back. What are
37:00
Speaker 1: some of the other ways post-Trump, post-January 6th of fighting
37:06
Speaker 1: disinformation and conspiracies, which now we have seen can lead
37:11
Speaker 1: to political violence? What are some of the other effective
37:14
Speaker 1: ways aside from defamation lawsuits that we've seen out there?
37:18
Speaker 2: I mean, the single most effective thing we've seen recently
37:22
Speaker 2: has been going after their money, right? Going after their advertisers,
37:25
Speaker 2: going after corporate backers for politicians, basically the customers drawing
37:30
Speaker 2: a line and saying, reaching Tucker Carlson's audience is not
37:33
Speaker 2: worth the damage to your brand by being associated with
37:36
Speaker 2: Tucker Carlson. And I think that that's incredibly valid and
37:39
Speaker 2: a really important tool. Places like Sleeping Giants, Judd Legum
37:44
Speaker 2: at The Information, a number of other outlets have been
37:46
Speaker 2: great on this. And that to me, I think is
37:48
Speaker 2: incredibly effective and good.
37:53
Speaker 1: Tell me, what do you think? What, you know, one
37:54
Speaker 1: of the problems there is, uh, yes, like Tucker has
37:56
Speaker 1: fewer advertisers than he ever has before. And yet, uh,
37:59
Speaker 1: the show's still on.
38:00
Speaker 6: Yeah.
38:00
Speaker 3: I mean, look, remember Bill O'Reilly was this sort of
38:04
Speaker 3: nightly cancer, uh, you know, being horrible misogynist talking about,
38:08
Speaker 3: you know, all kinds of conservative lies and he was
38:10
Speaker 3: booted off, uh, the network and then we got Tucker, right?
38:13
Speaker 3: So it can get worse. I think that we are
38:16
Speaker 3: in a misinformation crisis, uh, the most effective way to
38:21
Speaker 3: manage it that we've seen in the last couple of
38:23
Speaker 3: years has been kicking Donald Trump off Twitter. That brings
38:26
Speaker 3: with it a whole set of its own complexities. But,
38:29
Speaker 3: you know, just going back to the immigration conversation we
38:33
Speaker 3: were just having, right? I mean, nativist lies peddled by
38:37
Speaker 3: Fox News about, you know, caravans coming to the border.
38:42
Speaker 3: They're going to kill your family, right? It's like scary
38:45
Speaker 3: ISIS members are among them, right? Like those things have
38:48
Speaker 3: prevented reasonable immigration policies from getting put in place. And
38:53
Speaker 3: I'm not in any way suggesting that there's a defamation
38:56
Speaker 3: suit to be had against Fox News for the caravan
39:00
Speaker 3: storyline or anything else. I'm just saying that I do
39:03
Speaker 3: think the damage of misinformation has been so large and
39:08
Speaker 3: so clear over many years that I guess I've started
39:11
Speaker 3: to become less and less concerned about some of the
39:14
Speaker 3: slippery slope arguments against shutting down the loudest, most dishonest
39:20
Speaker 3: voices that are out there. At some point, we need
39:23
Speaker 3: to course correct back in the direction of truth at
39:27
Speaker 3: some point. I don't pretend to have all the answers here,
39:30
Speaker 3: but doing what we're doing right now has gotten us
39:33
Speaker 3: to Donald Trump being president and a fascist mob attack
39:35
Speaker 3: on the Capitol. And I think we can't go back
39:38
Speaker 3: to that status quo ante and leave the structural problems unchanged.
39:43
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's very hard to draw these lines, but we
39:46
Speaker 1: have to start drawing them, I think, somewhere.
39:48
Speaker 2: Yeah.
39:50
Speaker 1: And look, another another thing to do is, you know,
39:54
Speaker 1: for media companies have an obligation to maybe like stop
39:57
Speaker 1: putting conspiracy theorists and propagandists on their shows. And I'm
40:02
Speaker 1: not just talking about like like Fox is obviously not
40:03
Speaker 1: going to do that. But I think program Sunday shows,
40:08
Speaker 1: cable shows have to start thinking twice about like having
40:11
Speaker 1: Republican politicians as guests who are just going to like
40:15
Speaker 1: spout a bunch of false conspiracies. and spread disinformation. And
40:19
Speaker 1: what are you going to do? You're going to like
40:20
Speaker 1: fact check them once or twice, but then the viewers
40:22
Speaker 1: have already just heard a bunch of lies. Like what
40:25
Speaker 1: is the, if they start asking yourself, like, what is
40:27
Speaker 1: the use of that?
40:28
Speaker 2: What is the use of that? And then also, you know,
40:30
Speaker 2: when do you decide that a controversy is over, right?
40:34
Speaker 2: Like a bunch of Republican senators, a bunch of, you know,
40:38
Speaker 2: 140 some odd Republican house members tried to under, tried
40:41
Speaker 2: to overturn the election. They did it after a mob attack.
40:44
Speaker 2: The Capitol was Uh, and then they go on these
40:47
Speaker 2: shows and they talk about unity and they talk about
40:49
Speaker 2: the importance of coming together. When do you stop asking
40:51
Speaker 2: them about the coup? What is the, what is the,
40:54
Speaker 2: what is the newness matter? Like when do they get
40:56
Speaker 2: away with it without having had to apologize or acknowledge it?
40:58
Speaker 2: When does it stop becoming an embarrassment or what should
41:01
Speaker 2: be a source of shame? And I think the challenge
41:03
Speaker 2: is none of those Republicans are going to want to
41:06
Speaker 2: go on your TV show. If every time they come on,
41:09
Speaker 2: you say, and I just want to reiterate, you've never
41:11
Speaker 2: publicly acknowledged your complicity and what took place at the Capitol.
41:14
Speaker 2: Is that right? nobody, no Republican is going to subject
41:16
Speaker 2: themselves to that over and over again. It's embarrassing because
41:19
Speaker 2: they're an embarrassment. And so to your point, John, it's like, they,
41:25
Speaker 2: are you, it's not just asking them about what they're,
41:28
Speaker 2: it's not just about fact-checking their lies in real time. It's,
41:31
Speaker 2: are you willing to ignore their, their already extant lies
41:35
Speaker 2: and misinformation and smears in order to have them on
41:38
Speaker 2: your show? What is the value of that?
41:41
Speaker 4: Yeah.
41:41
Speaker 1: I was going to say, and if they say, well, no,
41:43
Speaker 1: we don't want to come on the shows because we
41:44
Speaker 1: don't want to be embarrassed. Like Okay, your loss. Not
41:50
Speaker 1: America's game that you don't come on these shows.
41:52
Speaker 3: I don't know.
41:52
Speaker 1: Is it better to just keep them off the show?
41:55
Speaker 3: Look, there's a lot of senators and members of Congress
41:57
Speaker 3: to choose from. I don't get why Meet the Press
42:00
Speaker 3: and all these shows have Ron Johnson on all the time.
42:03
Speaker 3: He is like, I'm not sure he's all there, right?
42:08
Speaker 3: He peddles conspiracy theories about all kinds of things. He's
42:11
Speaker 3: a shameless liar. He's a shameless Trump defender. And the
42:13
Speaker 3: efforts that have been made by a lot of those
42:15
Speaker 3: hosts to fact check him have been terrible, terrible, terrible.
42:19
Speaker 3: And the net effect is he spreads misinformation routinely on
42:24
Speaker 3: major network shows. And look, I'm not a big Sunday
42:28
Speaker 3: show fan. I'm not sure they're driving the news anymore.
42:31
Speaker 3: But still, it is pretty glaring. I mean, you could
42:35
Speaker 3: just go out to somebody else that's not going to
42:37
Speaker 3: peddle conspiracy theories that just led to an attack on
42:40
Speaker 3: the Capitol. That would be my, you know, low, low bar.
42:44
Speaker 1: It's partly a format issue too, even if you have
42:47
Speaker 1: the best interviewer around, right? Like if, if Ron Johnson
42:51
Speaker 1: goes on for a 10 minute segment and spouts 15
42:54
Speaker 1: different conspiracy theories and, and Chuck Todd only has time
42:58
Speaker 1: to correct two of them, then a whole bunch of
43:00
Speaker 1: others got through because you have a quick cable news segment.
43:03
Speaker 1: It's the whole problem with this, right? It's why all
43:05
Speaker 1: those Trump interviews always seemed like shitty unless it was
43:09
Speaker 1: like an hour sit down with Chris Wallace or Savannah
43:12
Speaker 1: Guthrie or Jake Tapper or somewhere where like someone could
43:15
Speaker 1: really drive at Trump over and over again to call
43:18
Speaker 1: out all his conspiracies. Like it takes a certain format
43:21
Speaker 1: and a certain amount of time to get that done.
43:23
Speaker 1: And if you can't do that, then it's really not
43:25
Speaker 1: worth having the person on in the first place because
43:27
Speaker 1: you're still letting a bunch of misinformation get through.
43:30
Speaker 2: I mean, I assume the reason Ron Johnson is on
43:33
Speaker 2: all these shows all the time is because he says yes.
43:37
Speaker 5: Yeah.
43:38
Speaker 1: And was one of, yeah, it's true. He's one of
43:39
Speaker 1: the only ones that does.
43:40
Speaker 2: And, and, you know, like I really did stick with me. So,
43:44
Speaker 2: you know, Jamie Raskin's one of the house managers and
43:45
Speaker 2: it's something I've, I've thought about ever since he wrote it.
43:48
Speaker 2: He wrote a very moving tribute to his son, uh,
43:51
Speaker 2: who died, uh, over the holidays. And one, one reference
43:55
Speaker 2: in that piece was about his son trying to live
43:57
Speaker 2: as though the truth were true. And I think about
44:00
Speaker 2: it all the time because I think about what he
44:01
Speaker 2: went through in the Capitol and now he's a house manager. Um,
44:04
Speaker 2: and then I think about like who in our politics
44:05
Speaker 2: is acting as if the truth is true. uh, like
44:08
Speaker 2: who is, who is being honest about Donald Trump and
44:11
Speaker 2: misinformation and propaganda and what it actually means. It seems
44:14
Speaker 2: to me it's the people who voted to impeach Donald Trump. Um,
44:17
Speaker 2: and it's the people on the cat and it's the,
44:18
Speaker 2: it's the insurrectionists who believed what Donald Trump said. They
44:21
Speaker 2: agreed with Donald Trump's view of democracy and the impeachment, uh, yes,
44:26
Speaker 2: votes recognize what Donald Trump said about democracy. And I
44:29
Speaker 2: think some, there's been a, a, a real shift in
44:32
Speaker 2: the way a lot of even, you know, cable news, uh,
44:36
Speaker 2: Newspapers everywhere. It's not a medium thing. There's been a
44:39
Speaker 2: shift in how they respond to misinformation and propaganda for
44:42
Speaker 2: the better. But there are still places where in order
44:45
Speaker 2: to get guests, in order to respect the prestige of
44:49
Speaker 2: public office that senators should have, that House members should have,
44:52
Speaker 2: that Kevin McCarthy should have as the leader of the
44:54
Speaker 2: Republican caucus, that that prestige is a defense against being
44:59
Speaker 2: honest about what they say and what they do. And
45:02
Speaker 2: that to me, it's a tough challenge, right? What do
45:04
Speaker 2: you do? One of the two political parties becomes anti-democratic,
45:07
Speaker 2: is radicalized against the truth and against democracy? What do
45:10
Speaker 2: you do when you're trying to have a debate between
45:12
Speaker 2: those two parties? It's a really hard question, but I
45:13
Speaker 2: think it starts by being honest about what they say
45:16
Speaker 2: and treating them as though they mean it. Yeah, it is.
45:19
Speaker 1: It is a very hard question. And I will say,
45:20
Speaker 1: I think there has been a lot of progress over
45:23
Speaker 1: the last four years among many media outlets in handling this.
45:28
Speaker 3: Not all.
45:28
Speaker 1: We've complained about a lot of them, but I think
45:30
Speaker 1: there has been progress.
45:31
Speaker 2: For sure.
45:32
Speaker 1: All right. That's our show for today. Enjoy your impeachment
45:36
Speaker 1: trial this week. We will talk to you on Thursday.
45:44
Speaker 1: Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive
45:47
Speaker 1: producer is Michael Martinez. Our associate producer is Jordan Waller.
45:51
Speaker 1: It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is
45:54
Speaker 1: our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Katie Long, Roman Papadimitriou,
45:59
Speaker 1: Caroline Rustin, and Justine Howe for production support. And to
46:02
Speaker 1: our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Nar Melkonian, Yale Freed, and
46:05
Speaker 1: Milo Kim, who film and upload these episodes as videos
46:09
Speaker 1: every week.