Latest / Pod Save America / “Welcome to the Schiff-show.”

Transcript

“Welcome to the Schiff-show.” · Pod Save America

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau.
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: I'm Dan Pfeiffer.
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: On today's pod, the first day of public impeachment hearings
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: did not go very well for the president. And we're
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: going to talk all about it with our guest, former
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: acting U.S. Solicitor General Neil Katyal, the author of a
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: brand new book on impeachment. We're also going to talk
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: about how the schedule for an impeachment trial in the
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: Senate could affect the members who are running for president.
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: And about the news that yet another Democrat, Deval Patrick,
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: is making a late entry into the 2020 primary. Also,
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: check out Pod Save the World this week, where Tommy
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: and Ben talk about Bolivian President Evo Morales' downfall and
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: whether it was a popular uprising or a military coup.
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: They also cover Turkish President Erdogan's decision to briefly pause
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: his ethnic cleansing of the Kurds to visit his friend
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump in Washington. Then they talk to former Australian
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd about China and why he believes
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: Rupert Murdoch is a cancer on American politics. Yeah, you know,
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Kevin Rudd was in the office and every once in
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: a while someone comes into Crooked Media and I'm like,
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: what are you doing here? Like, you know, like George
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: Mitchell was here once. Sometimes there's just people I'm like,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: you seem like you're like too respectable of a figure
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: to be coming to our podcast studio.
• 1:37
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: I feel that way when I see the Instagrams of
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: the Keep It guests, but it's like, you're too cool
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: to be in the office.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: There's that too, yeah. We get some celebrities in here
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: who I'm like, what are you doing here? And then
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: there's Kevin Rudd and George Mitchell. It's quite a group
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: that comes walking through this office. Okay, so one more
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: announcement from us. You guys were all so generous to
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: donate to Fair Fight 2020, which is Stacey Abrams' effort
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: to fight voter suppression all over the country. In fact,
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: thanks to you, Fair Fight was able to stop the
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: Republican-led government in Kentucky from moving 175,000 names to the
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: inactive voter list. And today, Andy Beshear will be the
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: next governor of Kentucky because he won by 5,086 votes.
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: That is 175,000 people that could have been removed from
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: the rolls, and they weren't because of Fair Fight, and
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: the Democratic candidate won by 5,000 votes. So Because we
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: did such a good job raising the first million, Stacey
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: Abrams has asked if we could raise a second million dollars. And,
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: you know, we don't want to disappoint Stacey Abrams. You
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: never do. So if you haven't pitched in yet or
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: you know people who would want to help or you
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: want to give again, let's finish out 2019 by hitting
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: $ 2 million altogether. We have the first million. We would
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: love your help with the second million. And to help,
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: you can go to votesaveamerica.com slash fair fight to chip
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: in what you can. This money is needed. It is
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: incredibly effective. Stacey Abrams has already proven that in Kentucky,
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: and we will prove it everywhere in the country in 2020.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: And Dan, on that note, how are those early book sales?
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: Are people coming through?
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: They are. They are. I'm glad you gave me this
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: incredible segue because another way in which you can help
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: Fair Fight raise money is by buying a copy of
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: my book, Untrumming America. which is out on February 18th.
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: And as we said last week, a portion of the
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: proceeds of every book is going to go to Fair Fight.
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: And I really want to sell books because I really
• 3:44
  Speaker 2: want to help Fair Fight. And I want you to
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: read my book. But I wanted to thank everyone who
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: bought the book. And I want to thank you even
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: more for the people who pre-ordered it and then shared
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: your proof of purchase with your friends and mainly with
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: me so I can sleep better at night. And I
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: know many of you bought the book. And I'm so
• 4:00
  Speaker 2: grateful for that. All of you have not yet bought it,
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: but I'm sure you will. For those of you who
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: follow the New York Times list, you would note that
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: the number one, do you know who it is, John,
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: who's the number one bestselling author on the New York
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: Times hardcover nonfiction list this week?
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: I sure do, Dan, because sadly I read Twitter too
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: much and I saw that Yashar tweeted that it was
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump Jr. and his book Triggered. which is just
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: one of the 30,000 things a day that makes me
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: want to throw my phone across the room.
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: Well, in addition to being very angering to you and many,
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: to triggering you, if you will.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: Yeah, mission accomplished.
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: Exactly. It's the first thing Donald Trump Jr. has ever
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: accomplished in his life. But if you look at it carefully,
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: there is a little dagger next to Donald Trump Jr.
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: 's name because what that dagger signifies is that in
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: the course of analyzing how many books Donald Trump Jr. sold,
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: they noticed suspicious bulk purchases of the book. And in
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: that is a parable of the difference between conservative authors,
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: progressive authors, conservative politics, progressive politics is these conservative authors
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: are often propped up by people like the RNC buying
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: tens of thousands of copies of Donald Trump's book, other
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: billionaires and Republican organizations doing that, while progressive authors have
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: to do it on their own. We have no, the RNC,
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: because the DNC does not buy many copies of my book,
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: although I would appreciate it would be a terrible use
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: of their money. They should be spending it on field
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: organizers and things like that. So this is all to
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: say that if you hate Donald Trump and like Stacey Abrams,
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: buy the book. And if you don't buy the book,
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: I will presume that you love Donald Trump Jr. and
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: hate Stacey Abrams. So these are the sort of life
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: decisions you need to make as you are perusing Amazon
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: or Barnes & Noble or IndieBound or all the other
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: places you could.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: Buy the book. Look, we don't have a bunch of
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: Russian oligarchs buying bulk purchases of our books from Moscow,
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: you know? See, that's a conspiracy theory, Dan. That's what
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: they do.
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: I believe that story last night, that a Russian copper
• 6:08
  Speaker 2: company bought 70,000 copies of Donald Trump's book, and I
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: had an entire pitch for this morning centered around that fact,
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: because it was very believable, and then I did some research.
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: Many people are saying. Many people are saying. Okay, let's
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: get to the news. On Wednesday... Two nonpartisan public servants
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: who currently serve in Donald Trump's State Department implicated him
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: in a bribery and extortion scheme where he'd bully the
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: Ukrainian government into helping him rig the 2020 election. Bill Taylor,
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: our current ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, the State
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: Department's top Ukraine official, testified for about five hours at
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: the first public impeachment hearing, during which Taylor offered new,
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: very incriminating information to the House Intelligence Committee. I think
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: we have a clip of... Taylor's bombshell.
• 6:52
  Speaker 4: Last Friday, a member of my staff told me of
• 6:55
  Speaker 4: events that occurred on July 26th. While Ambassador Volker and
• 7:00
  Speaker 4: I visited the front, this member of my staff accompanied
• 7:03
  Speaker 4: Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Sondland met with Mr.
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: Yerbach.
• 7:08
  Speaker 4: Following that meeting, in the presence of my staff at
• 7:11
  Speaker 4: a restaurant, Ambassador Sondland called President Trump and told him
• 7:15
  Speaker 4: of his meetings in Kiev. The member of my staff
• 7:19
  Speaker 4: could hear President Trump on the phone asking Ambassador Sondland
• 7:22
  Speaker 4: about the investigations. Ambassador Sondland told President Trump the Ukrainians
• 7:27
  Speaker 4: were ready to move forward. Following the call with President Trump,
• 7:32
  Speaker 4: the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President
• 7:35
  Speaker 4: Trump thought about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump
• 7:39
  Speaker 4: cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was
• 7:43
  Speaker 4: pressing for.
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: Well, then. All right, so we're going to get to
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: the bombshell, but first, what did you think of the
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: hearing overall, and how great is Bill Taylor's voice?
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: Look, I think it is important that we just take
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: a step back from the political analysis of the moment,
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: the optics, the theater criticism, and even the specific substance
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: of what Bill Taylor and George Kent said. The United
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: States Congress... has convened impeachment hearings on the President of
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: the United States for using taxpayer-funded military aid to extort
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: an ally under threat from Russia to interfere in the U.S. election.
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: Regardless of whatever else happens, how this affects non-voters in Arizona,
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: swing voters in Wisconsin, or whatever else, or however it ends,
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: this is an important day in history and it's significant.
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: I think we can look back at this moment as
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: like an important sort of crossroads for American democracy, because
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: there was a lot at stake here beyond just how
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: the House votes, how this, you know, how the Senate
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: convenes a trial and what it means the election is
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: that this is, I mean, this is perhaps the highest
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: crime ever committed by a president. And it is now
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: an inquiry has begun and a trial will follow. And
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: that is like, that is more important than all of
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: the sort of Twitter machinations of the day.
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and look, you know, Nancy Pelosi has been saying
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: for some time now that this is sort of a
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: sad situation we're in. And, you know, she said she's
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: been prayerful and she's handling this in a very somber way. And,
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: you know, the cynical among us can say, well, you know,
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: she's doing that because she shouldn't appear giddy over this
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: and like it's some political boon for Democrats. But, you know,
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: thinking about this last night when I was prepping for
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: the pod, I kind of agree, partly because, you know,
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: we've always had this fear and expectation, really, that at
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: the end of the day, Republicans will acquit this president.
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: And what that says... what that will say about our
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: democracy and what's allowed in this country and the precedent
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: it sets for future presidents, that it is as long
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: as you have the political support of your own party
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: and you control at least some parts of the government,
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: you can invite a foreign power to help rig in
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: the United States election. And that is a concern that
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: the founders had from the very fucking beginning when they
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: were at the constitutional convention. It is terribly alarming. The
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: idea that a president can get a foreign power to
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: interfere in the election, the idea that a president can
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: target his political opponents using the vast powers of the
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: presidency is very sad and also very terrifying. And, you know, I,
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: I kind of thought the same thing. It wasn't like
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: I was, I didn't find myself excited or, you know,
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: wondering just about the politics. I was thinking about that,
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: you know?
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: I think it's fair, really analyze the prospect of impeachment,
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: whether it was the right decision to do it or not.
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: And then how to proceed once that decision was made
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: through a political lens, right? And that is sort of
• 11:10
  Speaker 2: reverse engineering the almost certain outcome in the Senate. But
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: as we sat there, yesterday watching it, it's much bigger
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: than that, right? And it's how this plays out is
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: going to extend beyond what happens in this election. And
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: I think it's worth just, you know, as we're saying here,
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: take a moment and soak that in.
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: So how significant is, and just on a substantive basis here,
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: how significant do you believe Taylor's revelation about this call
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: between Sondland and Trump and then the conversation between with Sondland,
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: and we now know the name of the staffer, Taylor's staffer,
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: Dave Holmes. He's an embassy staffer, and he will now
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: be testifying in a private deposition on Friday. So how
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: significant do you think this is?
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: I think in terms of advancing what we know, it
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: is not that significant. What is significant is that it
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: is another person who can testify with firsthand knowledge of
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: what the president said. And there was an AP report
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: this morning that there was a second embassy staffer who
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: also heard that call, who I imagine we'll be hearing
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: from soon. So it, It does deliver a fatal blow
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: to the already flawed hearsay defense that the Republicans have
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: been using because ultimately you're going to have Sondland testify
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: next week and Sondland has firsthand knowledge of what the
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: president said to him and in some of these meetings.
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: But Sondland is a– like he is a credible witness
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: in the sense that he is hard to paint as
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: a deep state operative, right? He is someone who gave
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: a million dollars to Trump. But he's also someone who
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: has already once– lied slash failed to recollect under oath.
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: And so in some ways, he is a imperfect witness.
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: Having career, theoretically nonpartisan foreign service officers testify to the
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: same thing just buttresses the Democratic case in a strong way.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: I think. Yeah, I think that, I mean, look, Republicans
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: literally get out of every single argument, leave every defense
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: behind and go on to a new one. And they
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: will certainly do this here. But, you know, in a
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: in a public hearing that was on television for many
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: hours yesterday, I think Republicans hung way too much on
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: this hearsay defense. No one has talked to the president
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: that we're hearing from directly. And, like, Gordon Sondland is
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: going to testify next week. And Gordon Sondland is either
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: going to perjure himself again, basically, and say that Bill Taylor...
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: Dave Holmes and this second embassy staffer are all lying,
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: or Gordon Sondland is going to say that he had
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: a direct conversation with the president of the United States
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: and believed that the president cared more about investigating or
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: a sham investigation of his political opponent than he did
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: about any Ukraine policy or corruption in Ukraine, which is
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: the other big argument that the Republicans are making. So
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: Republicans aren't known to be looking around quarters and planning
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: long-term strategy here, like they're just trying to get through
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: the day. But I'm not sure the value of the
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: hearsay argument or the value of the Trump really cares
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: about corruption argument, and we'll talk about this in a bit,
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: when you now have this phone call between Sondland and
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: Trump that we're going to hear about from Sondland and
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: from the two people who overheard the phone call.
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: I mean, there's a political significance to it too, or
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: media significance, which is the media loves something new, right?
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: Everything else was just a video version of the written
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: deposition transcripts we had seen. And so as we know
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: from the Mueller report, from Mueller's testimony, in order to
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: meet some tests set by the media, you need something new.
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: And here you had something new. Even if it didn't
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: advance the story significantly, it was a surprise, and a
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: surprise is incredibly important in a media assessment of a hearing, apparently,
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: for reasons that are somewhat bizarre, but such is life.
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: So let's talk about how Taylor and Kent did as
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: witnesses in general. You know, I found them very credible.
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: They started, both of them started by emphasizing, you know,
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: their sort of nonpartisan credentials. They both basically said, you know,
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: we're not here to take a side. We I think
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: they both did a very good job of knocking down
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: a lot of sort of the Republican nonsense arguments. You know,
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: from Bill Taylor, you know, you heard how he believed
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: that withholding any aid to Ukraine after it was already
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: appropriated was crazy, not for any policy beliefs or policy reasons,
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: but because the State Department wanted to give the aid,
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: the Defense Department wanted to give the aid, every expert
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: and nonpartisan official working in the federal government with the
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: exception of maybe Donald Trump and Gordon Sondland and Mick Mulvaney,
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: wanted the aid to be released. So he talked about that.
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: He talked about how no president has ever, ever conditioned
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: foreign aid on a personal or political favor. So this
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: is not the normal course of business, which is what
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: people might think. Oh, there's corruption all the time. Presidents
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: are trying to get political favors all the time. That's
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: what foreign policy is. That's what domestic policy is. When
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: you're president, you try to help yourself. You know, Bill
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: Taylor said, no, that's never been done before. And I
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: also think Taylor made the point that, you know, Trump
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: wanted Zelensky, President Zelensky, to do this in public. If
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: he really cared about corruption, if he really cared about
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: Burisma's corruption, you know, he could have asked Zelensky, it
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: still would have been fucking wrong and probably impeachable, to
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: conduct some private investigation. But all he wanted was for
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: him to go on CNN and make a public statement
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: that they were investigating Joe Biden. That's what he wanted.
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: So I thought that Taylor was really effective. What did
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: you think? And what did you think of George Kent?
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: I thought they were both excellent. They are the people,
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: for all the discussion of how terrible Washington is and
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: politics sucks, I've never met Bill Taylor or George Kent,
• 17:27
  Speaker 2: but we have met people like them throughout the government. Career,
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: nonpartisan public servants who view it as their life's calling.
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: to serve the United States, regardless of who was president.
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: We know those people are in the Foreign Service, they're
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: in the military, they're in the intelligence agency, they're in
• 17:43
  Speaker 2: domestic agencies like HHS or the Interior Department who are
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: just trying to do the right thing. And that appears
• 17:52
  Speaker 2: to be who they are. That's how they testified. They
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: were very believable and serious and didn't give in to
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: anyone's partisan instincts, right? Whether it was the Republicans trying
• 18:02
  Speaker 2: to get them to you know, sort of validated conspiracy
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: theory or Democrats trying to get them to make assessments
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: about the impeachability of Donald Trump's conduct. They only testified
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: to what they had seen and what they knew and
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: what their experience was and didn't make proclamations beyond what
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: they were supposed to do. And in that way, I
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: thought they were incredible witnesses.
• 18:25
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: I don't know if people necessarily understand that, that when
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: you work in the White House or when you work
• 18:29
  Speaker 1: for an administration, just how many people you work with
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: on a daily basis is do not necessarily share your
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: partisan politics. And it's not necessarily that they share, you know,
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: the other side's politics, but they truly are nonpartisan, almost
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: apolitical public servants who sometimes when those of us who
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: were on the campaign are all shooting the shit about
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: politics and, or people who'd worked in other administrations like
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: the Clinton administration, you know, we're all talking politics and
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: there's a whole bunch of people who are bureaucrats in
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: the government who are public servants who who just don't
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: participate in that. And when they work with you, you
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: can tell how nonpartisan they are because their job is
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: to serve in government and they don't see their job
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: as to take sides in partisan politics. And those are
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: all the people that we're hearing from through the course
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: of this impeachment hearing, by and large. I also thought
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: that George Kent was very effective. You know, George Kent
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: in his opening statement sort of talked about, preempted one
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: of the lines of attack from Republicans, which is, you know,
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: way back when George Kent did say something to the
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: vice president's office, like, hey, Hunter Biden's on this board.
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: I'm a little worried about the appearance of a conflict
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: of interest here. So, you know, George Kent did sort
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: of raise his concerns about that. But then in the
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: next breath, Kent says, but what Joe Biden did in
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: firing that prosecutor was 100% correct. It was the position
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: of the entire United States government. It was the position
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: of most of the world, except for corrupt people in Ukraine.
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: And in fact, by Joe Biden, by firing that prosecutor,
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: increase the chances that a new non-corrupt prosecutor would look
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: into Burisma. And so, you know, I think George Kent
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: was very effective in knocking down this conspiracy that Joe
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: Biden did anything wrong, anything wrong with regard to Ukraine.
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: It's not just like, and a lot of reports of this,
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: there's no factual evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong. No, no, no.
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: It is like Joe Biden did the right thing in Ukraine.
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: You can comment on whether Hunter Biden did the right
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: thing by joining the board, whether it was a conflict
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: of interest, all that kind of stuff. But Joe Biden
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: in firing that prosecutor was 100 percent correct. And I
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: thought George Kent was very effective in in making that point.
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: It seems like the Republicans spent less time on Biden
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: than I would have expected.
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: In part because I think maybe the way George can't
• 21:01
  Speaker 2: handle that at the beginning.
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: Yes, I agree with that. All right, let's talk about
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: how the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee handled the hearing,
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: starting with Chairman Adam Schiff, who gave a pretty powerful
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: opening statement. Let's play a clip of that.
• 21:16
  Speaker 5: The issue that we confront is the one posed by
• 21:19
  Speaker 5: the president's acting chief of staff when he challenged Americans
• 21:23
  Speaker 5: to get over it. If we find that the president
• 21:28
  Speaker 5: of the United States abuses power and invited foreign interference
• 21:31
  Speaker 5: in our elections, or if he sought to condition, coerce, extort,
• 21:36
  Speaker 5: or bribe an ally into conducting investigations to aid his
• 21:39
  Speaker 5: reelection campaign and did so by withholding official acts, a
• 21:44
  Speaker 5: White House meeting, or hundreds of millions of dollars of
• 21:47
  Speaker 5: needed military aid, must we simply get over it? Is
• 21:53
  Speaker 5: this what Americans should now expect from their president? If
• 21:58
  Speaker 5: this is not impeachable conduct, what is?
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: If this is not impeachable conduct, what is? I thought
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: that was maybe the most powerful line from Schiff. How
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: do you think Schiff did overall in the hearing?
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: Flawless. I thought Schiff and all of the Democrats did
• 22:18
  Speaker 2: everything I could have hoped that they would do. Their
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: arguments were clear. They handled it with the seriousness that
• 22:27
  Speaker 2: the occasion deserved. They did not get drawn into Jim
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: Jordan-style absurdities or get pulled into the mud or look
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: like they were preening for the cameras and their questions.
• 22:38
  Speaker 2: The division of topics among the members, everyone sort of
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: hit a different thing. It wasn't just everyone doing the
• 22:44
  Speaker 2: same thing. People asked questions as opposed to give speeches.
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: I thought they did just a truly... phenomenal job. Like,
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: and we have been always critical of Democrats in hearings
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: and they, I couldn't, I could have asked for, uh,
• 22:59
  Speaker 2: I really was incredibly impressed with them.
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: I feel the same way. And you know, you guys
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: all know we've, we've been critical of Pelosi in the
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: past of hearings in the past. We've been pretty honest
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: about that. The Mueller hearing was not the blockbuster that
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: we all hoped for. Um, I think that was more
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: Mueller's fault than the Democrats on the committee, but so
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: be it. Um, but I do think that, um, Adam
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: Schiff and the Democrats handled yesterday with the seriousness it deserves,
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: with the seriousness that the American people hopefully expect. I
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: don't think that was easy, especially when you saw moments
• 23:35
  Speaker 1: when Republicans on the committee tried to turn it into
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: a circus, tried to drag Adam Schiff into their bullshit
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: so that they would say something crazy and then maybe
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: he would get upset and they would get in a
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: fight and they could say, oh, look, it's a partisan
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: food fight. And he just refused. And when they wanted
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: to enter something crazy into the record, he just said, sure,
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: enter it into the record. And I thought that his
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: demeanor was very effective. And I think this is important
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: to say because as we move forward and Republicans continue
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: to act more like Jim Jordan and start screaming and
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: yelling and turning this into a circus, I guarantee there
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: will be pundits who say, Adam Schiff's got to fight back.
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: Adam Schiff's being too passive and too calm. And he's
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: got to show some fight and stuff like that. He
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: should not. He should not. Because this is not about
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: winning a food fight with the Republicans on the committee.
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: That's not what people watching want to see happen. This
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: is about making the best case possible and making them
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: look like they're the partisan political ones. And the Democrats
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: are the ones who care about this violation of the
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: president's oath of office. What did you think about the
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: Democratic strategy overall, not just the demeanor? Do you think
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: the Democrats made an effective case with what they had
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: to work with?
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: I do. I think that it was smart to start
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: with two objectively unimpeachable witnesses, nonpartisan career public servants, who
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: could speak to both the facts of what happened and
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: the geopolitical consequences of what Trump and Giuliani shenanigans. I
• 25:15
  Speaker 2: thought that was very important. It sets the stage of
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: getting into the broader hearings next week and talking to
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: people like Sondland and others. So they were very good
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: witnesses to start with. I thought it was the predicate,
• 25:27
  Speaker 2: like you want to set a predicate for what is
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: to come. And I thought they did that.
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: So let's talk about how the Republicans handled the hearing.
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: Starting with the Intel Committee's ranking member, Devin Nunes, who
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: opened with a rambling series of conspiracy theories that resembled
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: a Sean Hannity monologue, including one.
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: Well, we should just play the clip here. This is
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: what Devin Nunes said during his opening statement.
• 25:59
  Speaker 6: We should forget about them reading fabrications of Trump-Russia collusion
• 26:03
  Speaker 6: from the Steele dossier into the congressional record. We should
• 26:09
  Speaker 6: also forget about them trying to obtain... nude pictures of
• 26:13
  Speaker 6: Trump from Russian pranksters who pretended to be Ukrainian officials.
• 26:19
  Speaker 6: We should forget about them leaking a false story to
• 26:22
  Speaker 6: CNN while he was still testifying to our committee claiming
• 26:26
  Speaker 6: that Donald Trump Jr. was colluding with WikiLeaks and forget
• 26:30
  Speaker 6: about countless other deceptions large and small that make them
• 26:34
  Speaker 6: the last people on earth with the credibility to hurl
• 26:39
  Speaker 6: more preposterous accusations at their political opponents.
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: Dan, you and I pay pretty close attention to the news.
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: We pay pretty close attention to the various right-wing conspiracy
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: theories that sort of float through the ether on the internet.
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: I have to admit, I have not heard about the
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: one where the Democrats tried to get nude pictures of
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump.
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: Uh, I don't know what to say. I do not
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: know what to say. I do not want to see those.
• 27:13
  Speaker 2: I do not. No one does. America deserves better than that.
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: I mean, I thought it was so fascinating watching Devin
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: Nunes do this routine, because my first thought was, if
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: you do not spend time watching Fox News or trafficking
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: in you know, 8chan, 4chan conspiracy theories, listening to InfoWars
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: or Ben Shapiro or whatever, you would think that they
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: were speaking in a foreign language on that committee because
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: the list of things that he ran through were crazy time.
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: I just... I don't know how it's effective. I mean,
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: I know how it's effective in keeping their base and
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: the Fox News watchers angry and uptight and, you know,
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: he's playing all the hits, but... doesn't seem like it's
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: effective beyond that, but who knows? I don't know. What
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: do you think?
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: My takeaway from Nunez's performance and then also what we'd
• 28:13
  Speaker 2: see from Jim Jordan and a few others later was
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: the Republicans are much more interested in persuading Trump of
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: their loyalty to him than persuading the American people of
• 28:23
  Speaker 2: Trump's innocence. And I think that says everything about the
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: current state of Republican politics, which is they're much more
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: afraid of angering Trump, getting primaried, and losing their job
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: than they are actually doing the right thing, or even
• 28:37
  Speaker 2: thinking in some sort of strategy about how you would
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: handle this in a way that minimized damage to the
• 28:44
  Speaker 2: party writ large, right? There's like this massive prisoner's dilemma
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: problem for all the Republicans. And that's a very apt term,
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: I think, in terms of how they handle this is
• 28:52
  Speaker 2: that they're dealing with their own politics, not what is
• 28:55
  Speaker 2: best for the party. And every one of them is
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: doing that.
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: Now, Republicans made this big show of, you know, we
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: don't have anyone on the Intel Committee that can really
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: be the best defender of Donald Trump, which, tough for
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: Devin Nunes. And so they removed a member of the
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: Intel Committee and replaced that person with Jim Jordan, who
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: was supposed to be the hero of the day, who
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: was going to defend Donald Trump. How do you think
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: Jim Jordan did?
• 29:22
  Speaker 2: I think he did exactly what he was supposed to do,
• 29:24
  Speaker 2: which was make Donald Trump feel better about himself. I mean,
• 29:27
  Speaker 2: he was basically just a... obnoxious, not too bright security
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: blanket for Donald Trump. And Donald Trump feels better if there's,
• 29:35
  Speaker 2: Because Jim Jordan is basically low-rent Hannity, right? And that's
• 29:40
  Speaker 2: his future. And so that made Trump feel better. I
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: don't know that he did anything... He did better than
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: Devin Nunes, sure. But I mean.
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: He yelled a lot.
• 29:52
  Speaker 2: Who doesn't?
• 29:53
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: He yelled a lot, which is what Trump wants to hear, right?
• 29:55
  Speaker 2: And frankly, it's what some Republicans want to hear. It's basically...
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: how Brett Kavanaugh got on the Supreme Court was by
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: screaming at everyone.
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: That was my first thought when I listened to Jordan.
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: I was like, oh, this is their Brett Kavanaugh, Lindsey Graham.
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: If we're, you know, losing the argument, if we can
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: just scream about how we're grieved and Donald Trump's a victim,
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: if we can yell loud enough, then it's going to work.
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: And of course it did work for them in the
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: Kavanaugh hearings. And, you know, Devin Nunes's approach was to
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: basically like read off 13 conspiracy theories to Bill Taylor
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: and say, have you heard of that? Have you heard
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: of that? And I don't think that was quite effective.
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: And then you saw like Republicans like Will Hurd, who
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: are traditionally more moderate, but has clearly bought into a
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: lot of the bullshit during this impeachment hearing, try to
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: sort of lay out a more constructed argument about why
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: Trump might be innocent of this. And as I'm watching
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: all that and then listening to Jim Jordan sound like
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: a fucking auctioneer screaming as fast as he can and yelling,
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: I was thinking like, this is, this is probably where
• 31:03
  Speaker 1: this is going to go in the coming weeks. Like
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: they are quickly going to lose patience. Some of these Republicans,
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: and if they feel cornered are just going to start
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: yelling and screaming to get through it.
• 31:13
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: I mean, you can expect a walkout, you can like
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: all kinds of absurdities to try to blow up the process,
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: for sure.
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Matt Gaetz barging into the room, riding an elephant.
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: There was one moment with Jim Jordan yelling where I
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: thought Peter Welsh, one of the Democratic members on the
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: Intel Committee, had a great retort. Let's play that clip. Now,
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: there is one witness, one witness that they won't bring
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: in front of us. They won't bring in front of
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: the American people. That's the guy who started it all,
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: the whistleblower. Thank you.
• 31:46
  Speaker 6: I say to my colleague, I'd be glad to have
• 31:49
  Speaker 6: the person who started it all come in and testify.
• 31:52
  Speaker 3: President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there.
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: What a line from Peter Walsh. He got the biggest
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: laugh of the day. Donald Trump should come sit down
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: and testify. But I thought it was, you know, it
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: sort of revealed the absurdity of the Republican focus on
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: the whistleblower, whose account has been corroborated by numerous witnesses
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: and hasn't been challenged enough. successfully by any witnesses or
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: any evidence, and the idea that Donald Trump is hiding
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: from testifying and did in the Mueller case as well.
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: And he's also preventing critical witnesses like John Bolton and
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: Mick Mulvaney and everyone else from testifying.
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: Or even the notes of the people who were testifying
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: that day. That was a big point about, you know,
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: And he turned it into the State Department to be
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: responsible for the subpoena, and Mike Pompeo's sitting on it.
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: But I also think that Peter Welch's comment, which is
• 32:53
  Speaker 2: quite funny, and apropos and goes to the heart of it,
• 32:58
  Speaker 2: also goes to how dumb Jim Jordan is, which is
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: he just walked right into that and had no idea
• 33:02
  Speaker 2: he was doing it.
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: What did you think of the two staff lawyers who
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: questioned the witnesses, Dan Goldman on the Democratic side and
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: Steve Castor on the Republican side?
• 33:14
  Speaker 2: I thought Dan Goldman, the Democrat, was phenomenal. He knew
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: exactly what he was doing. He asked the questions. He
• 33:22
  Speaker 2: had a plan. He executed the plan. The Republican attorney
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: was terrible. In a city of a million attorneys, that's
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: the guy they got, says a lot about how few
• 33:33
  Speaker 2: people wanted that job.
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't know if he was directed by the
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: Republicans to ask all these topics. And, and, and he
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: probably didn't know how to wade through all the conspiracies
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: or what, but it was sort of like a rambling
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: series of questions. Um, he always had like a weird
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: constipated look on his face. It was, uh, it was
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: very bizarre. And during the questioning, even some of Donald
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: Trump's most fervent supporters, like, uh, you know, former white
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: house press secretary Ari Fleischer was like on Twitter, what
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: is this guy doing? This is not effective. Um, One
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: Republican operative told Bloomberg's Sahil Kapur, quote, this is a
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: massive fucking shit show. No one wants to be here. So,
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: you know, you'll hear a lot of spin from Republicans
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: today that it was wonderful and boring and Democrats had
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: a rough time and all that kind of shit. But
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: during the hearing, I don't think they were that excited.
• 34:28
  Speaker 2: No, he did. He did a terrible job. And it
• 34:30
  Speaker 2: it just sort of the fact that he had 45
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: minutes of question of question time, but didn't have 40
• 34:36
  Speaker 2: really have 45 minutes of things to say. sort of
• 34:38
  Speaker 2: bespeaks the weakness of the Republican argument. You even saw
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: that with some of the members with their five minutes
• 34:43
  Speaker 2: who would ask a couple of like the non Jim
• 34:45
  Speaker 2: Jordan types would sort of ask a couple of questions
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: and then just give up and yield their time back
• 34:51
  Speaker 2: because there's, there's nothing like the conduct is indefensible, right?
• 34:55
  Speaker 2: Like you can, there's only, it's just a question of
• 34:57
  Speaker 2: how much shame you're willing to bathe in during to
• 35:01
  Speaker 2: defend Trump. But it's not like you can, there's no
• 35:04
  Speaker 2: substantive argument to make here.
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and the answer to that is like a full
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: sensory deprivation tank of shame is how much they're willing
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: to pay them. What did you think of the media
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: reaction to the theater criticism, if you will, of the
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: hearing yesterday?
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: Well, I think we should start with the fact that
• 35:32
  Speaker 2: the overwhelming majority of the coverage, I think, was... fair
• 35:38
  Speaker 2: and objective and as serious as the moment demanded.
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: I agree. I agree.
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: And I am sympathetic to the sort of the, quote,
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: media writ large here, which is their performance is often
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: defined by not the work they do or the majority
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: of the work that is done, but by the worst
• 35:57
  Speaker 2: examples of their work, right? So there were two stories
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: that inflamed the world, one by Jeff Mason of Reuters
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: and one by Jonathan Allen of NBC News. that people
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: were very mad about. We were mad about them.
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: Yeah, let me, I'll read the headlines just for people
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: to know why we were so annoyed. Reuters headline was,
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: consequential but dull. Trump impeachment hearings begin without a bang.
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: And the lead was, Democratic lawmakers tried their hand at
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: reality television with mixed results on Wednesday. That's Reuters. And
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: here's the NBC piece from Jonathan Allen, which You know,
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: in fairness, NBC was one piece of analysis out of
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: a lot of coverage from NBC that was not this. Quote,
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: the first two witnesses called Wednesday testified to President Trump's scheme,
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: but lacked the pizzazz necessary to capture the public attention.
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: All right, Dan, go ahead.
• 36:53
  Speaker 2: The thing you read from Jeff Mason is one of
• 36:56
  Speaker 2: the worst things I've ever heard in my life. And
• 36:58
  Speaker 2: I will, but I will, the caveat I'll give to
• 37:00
  Speaker 2: that is, you and I have known Jeff Mason for
• 37:02
  Speaker 2: over a decade. He covered Obama's white house. He is
• 37:05
  Speaker 2: 99% of the time, a very good, very straightforward wire reporter.
• 37:12
  Speaker 2: And so like people are very upset about this piece.
• 37:14
  Speaker 2: They should be upset about this piece, but I do
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: not think it is indicative of Jeff Mason's work.
• 37:21
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 37:21
  Speaker 2: I mean, there are reporters and analysts who often lean
• 37:23
  Speaker 2: into these tropes and are sort of famous for them.
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: I don't think Jeff is one of those people. And
• 37:28
  Speaker 2: so like, That's the perspective I would offer of having
• 37:31
  Speaker 2: worked with him for a long time. You know, I
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: thought there was a really interesting conversation on Twitter between
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: two critics at the Times, James Ponowasiak and A.O. Scott,
• 37:41
  Speaker 2: where they talked about the value of television criticism of
• 37:46
  Speaker 2: big TV moments, right? And I think that that is
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: very true. Like, it is a television moment, right? It is. Like,
• 37:54
  Speaker 2: millions of Americans watched it, right? Just like a State
• 37:56
  Speaker 2: of the Union or Inauguration or, you know, the... Mueller
• 38:00
  Speaker 2: testimony or whatever it is. And I often very much
• 38:04
  Speaker 2: enjoy the pieces written by TV critics about those things.
• 38:07
  Speaker 2: People like James Ponowaziak or Emily Nussbaum or Alan Sepinwall,
• 38:11
  Speaker 2: like really great writers who analyze it from the perspective
• 38:13
  Speaker 2: of television. But that is a job for television critics, right?
• 38:16
  Speaker 2: It would be annoying if James Ponowaziak was covering day-to-day politics,
• 38:20
  Speaker 2: but he has an expertise in television critics, so he's
• 38:22
  Speaker 2: doing it. And so The point of what A.O. Scott
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: was saying is criticism is an art, right? It's something
• 38:28
  Speaker 2: you do, and it should be left to the people
• 38:30
  Speaker 2: who do it for a living. And so the political
• 38:32
  Speaker 2: reporter should cover the politics and the substance and the
• 38:37
  Speaker 2: legality and all of what is happening. And we want
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: to hear from trained television critics about the television aspect
• 38:43
  Speaker 2: of it. I think that's an interesting and important component
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: of it.
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, look, we cover, hopefully— the substance of
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: every political issue we talk about on the show. And
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: then we also cover the politics and we do political
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: analysis and we talk about optics on the show. And
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: you and I wish that we didn't have to, and
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: we complained about it the entire time we were in
• 39:07
  Speaker 1: the White House. But I remember last week before these
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: hearings started, I was giving advice to Democrats and saying, remember,
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: this will be judged. As a show, what kind of
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: show you put on, it should be choreographed. This is
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: about trying to persuade the public. And so you do
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: have to think about these things. So I don't think
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: there's inherently a problem. or at least it's a necessity
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: in the television age that we live in, to talk
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: about sort of the performance of various political players, since
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: this is about affecting public opinion. That's not necessarily my
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: big problem with this. The problem is but lacked the
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: pizzazz necessary to capture the public attention. How do you
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: know that? There are no polls. There is no data.
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: How do you know, Jeff Mason, the Democratic lawmakers tried
• 40:00
  Speaker 1: their hand at reality television with mixed results? No one
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: knows this yet, right? Like, you and I thought the
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: Democrats did a fantastic job and that it was choreographed
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: really well. Other people might disagree with us. In about
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: a week, you know, we'll have some polls that say
• 40:15
  Speaker 1: that one way or the other. But the idea that
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: reporters or some reporters, a minority of reporters in this instance,
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: believe that it is their job to preempt public opinion
• 40:30
  Speaker 1: by offering their own opinion of whether the testimony was
• 40:35
  Speaker 1: effective or not bothers me because it's also something that
• 40:41
  Speaker 1: reporters do where it's like, we are all in this
• 40:44
  Speaker 1: bubble together. those of us who pay attention to politics
• 40:47
  Speaker 1: a lot, reporters, political people, pundits, like we know all
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: this information. We've heard it all before, except for, of course,
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: the Taylor bombshell, which I thought would prevent anyone from
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: writing this bullshit because we heard something very new at
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: the hearing. But because we all know this a lot,
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: you know, and reporters are covering this every day, obviously
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: they get bored by it after a while because they're
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: trafficking in this bullshit all the time, right? But what
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: about the average voter, the average American who who's walking around,
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: who doesn't pay attention to the news that much. And
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: they think, okay, there was a big impeachment hearing yesterday.
• 41:21
  Speaker 1: I want to find out what happened because I didn't
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: have time to watch it. So they go on, they
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: go on their computers and they go on their phones
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: and they see an NBC piece and it says it
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: lacked the pizzazz necessary to capture the public attention. Like
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: if I were someone just watching that, I'd be like, well,
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: I'm the public. Why did you just make that judgment
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: about me? I didn't even get to read the facts yet.
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: I And I don't think that some reporters realize that they,
• 41:48
  Speaker 1: by writing that stuff, are shaping public opinion. And who
• 41:52
  Speaker 1: were they to shape public opinion just based on their
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: own personal opinion and not report the substance of the
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: hearing and also maybe do political analysis based on facts, data,
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: experience in politics, experience in media, right? Like, just give
• 42:07
  Speaker 1: us something besides a poorly formed opinion right off the bat.
• 42:12
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it is both presuming a reaction and then influencing
• 42:16
  Speaker 2: that reaction by that presumption.
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: Yes, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy because if a bunch
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: of people continue to read that the hearings were boring,
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: people will think the hearings are boring. This is what happens.
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: And when you argue with reporters about this, as we
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: have done in the past, what they will tell you is, well,
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: I'm just one person who's going to read my blog
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: or who's going to read my piece or whatever. But
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: these things add up. You write for outlets that are,
• 42:40
  Speaker 1: you know, go far and wide and there's a responsibility
• 42:42
  Speaker 1: that comes with that. And again, I completely agree with
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: your opening point here, which is, until I saw those
• 42:48
  Speaker 1: two pieces last night and they went around on our
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: Slack channel, I said to myself, wow, I'm really proud
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: of the media and how they've covered this. I think
• 42:55
  Speaker 1: they've covered this in a serious, substantive way. And I
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: almost didn't even want to tweet about these two pieces
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: because one of the things that happens in this age
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: is the algorithms that you've talked about in Facebook too,
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: the things that piss people off the most that enrage
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: people the most are what gets shared the most. And
• 43:14
  Speaker 1: now I fear that so many people will be like, oh,
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: you know, the impeachment hearings were covered as boring by
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: a bunch of people. So that must be a problem.
• 43:21
  Speaker 1: So I almost didn't even want to lift these pieces up,
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: but because we have a long way to go and
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: many weeks to go, I think, you know, it should be, uh,
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: it's a brushback pitch to the rest of the media.
• 43:32
  Speaker 2: And I thought, and frankly, I would, this is something
• 43:35
  Speaker 2: I thought that was rare about this was a lot
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: of reporters were were critical of the, of the, of
• 43:40
  Speaker 2: those takes, right. It's not just those two pieces, but
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: just anything that sort of had that sort of TV
• 43:47
  Speaker 2: assessment from a political reporter. And we just, so like,
• 43:51
  Speaker 2: like we, we did the thing that I warned about,
• 43:53
  Speaker 2: which is we defy, like we did, we took the
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: two worst pieces and we used to define everything. I
• 43:57
  Speaker 2: was like, most people did a really like great job.
• 44:01
  Speaker 2: I wrote the outline in the middle of the hearing
• 44:03
  Speaker 2: yesterday and I put, um, you know, one of the
• 44:06
  Speaker 2: items in there was like, was our reaction to the
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: media coverage of this. And my presumption was it would
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: be largely infuriating and it actually wasn't right. And then
• 44:16
  Speaker 2: hopefully what we're trying to do is explain the outrage
• 44:18
  Speaker 2: ours and on Twitter about those pieces and acknowledge that
• 44:21
  Speaker 2: most people did the overwhelming majority of coverage I thought
• 44:24
  Speaker 2: was serious, took this very seriously. I thought that's important.
• 44:27
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: And I do think, you know, one thing I worry
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: about is, um, as I mentioned, I think Taylor's revelation
• 44:34
  Speaker 1: sort of drove a lot of the coverage because if
• 44:38
  Speaker 1: reporters can write about something new, then they don't necessarily
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: write about all the theater criticism stuff. And so, you know,
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: I do have a concern that as the testimony continues
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: into next week, if each witness doesn't have a Bill
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: Taylor-like bombshell, then we will devolve into sort of the
• 44:57
  Speaker 1: worst of the coverage that we were just complaining about.
• 44:59
  Speaker 1: So I do have that fear. And look, I have
• 45:02
  Speaker 1: a bigger anxiety, which is This is still seen as
• 45:07
  Speaker 1: a test by too many in the media as can
• 45:10
  Speaker 1: Democrats persuade Republicans to do the right thing? And I
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: think that, you know, Democrats would probably do themselves some
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: good by setting expectations now that we do not see
• 45:24
  Speaker 1: our job here. Democrats on that committee do not see
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: their job as trying to persuade Republican members of Congress
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: to do the right thing and vote their conscience. That's
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: for the Republicans to do. What the Democrats are trying
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: to do is lay out a case to the American
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: people about why the president has betrayed his oath of office.
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: And if Republicans agree with that, then please join us
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: in voting that way. If you don't, then that's telling
• 45:53
  Speaker 1: to the American people and they should vote accordingly in 2020.
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: That should be our goal. I think this whole idea
• 45:59
  Speaker 1: is like, you know, if Democrats can convince a couple
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: of Republicans to vote with them, they win. And if
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: Republicans can maintain partisan unity, they win. I think we
• 46:08
  Speaker 1: have to get out of that frame.
• 46:10
  Speaker 2: We have already convinced a Republican. His name is Justin Amash.
• 46:13
  Speaker 2: He was forced to leave the party because of it.
• 46:15
  Speaker 2: It's actually an impossible situation. You can't convince a Republican.
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: If a Republican agrees with you, they are forced to
• 46:20
  Speaker 2: leave the party. So it is going to be a
• 46:22
  Speaker 2: partisan vote. It's just a question of whether there will
• 46:24
  Speaker 2: be other independents like Justin Amash. We cannot allow.
• 46:31
  Speaker 2: A test to be set up. The Democrats are destined
• 46:33
  Speaker 2: to fail.
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: So what, uh, what, what comes next, uh, next week
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: and what is Wednesday's testimony change, if anything?
• 46:41
  Speaker 2: Well, I think it really puts the onus on even
• 46:45
  Speaker 2: more so on Gordon Sondland's testimony. Like that is, I
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: think the most, um, interesting and compelling and be the
• 46:53
  Speaker 2: hardest to that. I think that in terms of what
• 46:55
  Speaker 2: people are looking for, what's new and what's different, That
• 46:57
  Speaker 2: will be the one. We have a parade of other
• 47:01
  Speaker 2: nonpartisan career officials who are going to come in and
• 47:05
  Speaker 2: speak to what we already know and corroborate things that
• 47:09
  Speaker 2: were in the call transcript, were in the depositions, were
• 47:12
  Speaker 2: in Mick Mulvaney's national television announcement of crimes. But Gordon
• 47:19
  Speaker 2: Sondland is the one who spoke directly to the press
• 47:21
  Speaker 2: and who we will hear from.
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I also think that– I don't think there's going
• 47:25
  Speaker 1: to be a moment– that is, even if there are
• 47:29
  Speaker 1: other developments, other bombshells, that is going to instantly change
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: public opinion here. I think this is going to, this
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: is something that's just going to build and build and build.
• 47:40
  Speaker 1: And so, you know, I would even be wary of
• 47:43
  Speaker 1: polls that come out in a couple days, polls that
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: come out next week. Like, I think what I hope
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: will happen here is, as witness after witness testifies the
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: same thing, as they corroborate each other's testimony, as you
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: see this parade of nonpartisan officials, then the cumulative effect
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: of all of this testimony will be powerful and compelling,
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: but it will take time. It will take repetition. And
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: I don't think we should ever expect anything to change
• 48:12
  Speaker 1: overnight and possibly at all. I mean, look, we've said
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: this to our own polling right before the hearing started,
• 48:18
  Speaker 1: showed 94% of Democratic-leaning voters for impeachment and 94% of
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: Republican-leaning voters against. And there was like a 2% that
• 48:27
  Speaker 1: hadn't made up their mind. So, you know, we live
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: in a polarized environment and that's that. And there's nothing
• 48:31
  Speaker 1: much we can do about that right now. But I feel, look,
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: I would be upset and anxious if I think Democrats
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: didn't do a great job, if we didn't have all
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: the facts on our side, right? Like if most of
• 48:44
  Speaker 1: the media looked like those two pieces, I'd be upset. Like,
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: I think the Democrats are doing everything they can possibly do.
• 48:50
  Speaker 1: They're taking it seriously. We have very compelling evidence that,
• 48:55
  Speaker 1: very compelling evidence and testimony from nonpartisan people. There's nothing
• 49:00
  Speaker 1: else we can do. And I'm glad we're doing this because,
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: as we said at the top, this is that important.
• 49:06
  Speaker 1: You know, it really does rise above partisan politics, or
• 49:10
  Speaker 1: at least it should, because it is a very scary,
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: serious moment for the country. And no matter what happens,
• 49:17
  Speaker 1: I'm glad the Democrats have pursued this. Okay, when we
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: come back, we'll talk more about impeachment with our guest,
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: former acting Solicitor General, Neil Katyal. On the pod today,
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: the former acting Solicitor General of the United States and
• 49:40
  Speaker 1: the co-author of the upcoming book Impeach, The Case Against
• 49:43
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump, Neil Katyal. Neil, welcome to Pod Save America.
• 49:48
  Speaker 3: Thanks. I'm a huge fan of yours, and so it's
• 49:50
  Speaker 3: really exciting for me to be here.
• 49:52
  Speaker 1: Same here. Same here. Let's start with yesterday's hearing. What
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: did you make of Bill Taylor's new revelations about Gordon
• 50:01
  Speaker 1: Sondland's call with Donald Trump? How significant do you think
• 50:04
  Speaker 1: those were?
• 50:05
  Speaker 3: I think it's quite significant. So first of all, Taylor
• 50:08
  Speaker 3: is not just anyone. He's Trump's guy. He's Trump's handpicked
• 50:12
  Speaker 3: guy to serve as ambassador to Ukraine. And just within
• 50:16
  Speaker 3: a few seconds of him standing up there and testifying,
• 50:20
  Speaker 3: you could tell it was going to be a pretty
• 50:22
  Speaker 3: significant event. A guy who was literally a war hero,
• 50:26
  Speaker 3: who'd worked for Republican presidents as well as Democratic ones,
• 50:30
  Speaker 3: who was you know, really striving to be neutral and say,
• 50:34
  Speaker 3: I'm not taking a position on impeachment. I'm just here
• 50:36
  Speaker 3: as a fact witness. And then he dropped, and it
• 50:39
  Speaker 3: came late, at page 18 of his 20-page testimony, this
• 50:44
  Speaker 3: remarkable fact. There were several other facts, too, that we
• 50:47
  Speaker 3: should talk about that he, you know, detailed that were new,
• 50:50
  Speaker 3: but that on July 26th, one of his staff members
• 50:54
  Speaker 3: was with Ambassador Sondland's who was Trump's guy to be
• 50:58
  Speaker 3: ambassador to the European Union, but also his kind of
• 51:01
  Speaker 3: hand-picked person to run this shadow foreign policy. And Sondland
• 51:06
  Speaker 3: had a conversation with President Trump in a restaurant on
• 51:10
  Speaker 3: a cell phone, which is like nine degrees of awfulness
• 51:14
  Speaker 3: from a security perspective. But in any event, what the
• 51:18
  Speaker 3: staffer said that he overheard President Trump saying was asking
• 51:22
  Speaker 3: about the, quote, investigations. And then afterwards, the staffer had
• 51:26
  Speaker 3: a conversation with Ambassador Sondland about what President Trump thought
• 51:30
  Speaker 3: about Ukraine. And this is a quote from Ambassador Taylor's
• 51:33
  Speaker 3: testimony yesterday, quote, Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares
• 51:38
  Speaker 3: more about the investigations of Biden. And that's significant because
• 51:43
  Speaker 3: it ties Trump directly to all of these events. That's
• 51:47
  Speaker 3: the first thing. And the second is it lands Sondland
• 51:50
  Speaker 3: in even further hot water. This is the guy who
• 51:53
  Speaker 3: had a closed-door interview a few weeks ago in which
• 51:57
  Speaker 3: he basically denied having anything to do with Trump and
• 52:02
  Speaker 3: this whole shadow foreign plot. And then as more people
• 52:05
  Speaker 3: testified in closed session, he then all of a sudden
• 52:08
  Speaker 3: magically remembered a bunch of things and wrote an updated
• 52:12
  Speaker 3: letter to the Congress saying so. And now he's going
• 52:15
  Speaker 3: to have to do something again next week. He's testifying
• 52:18
  Speaker 3: on Wednesday, and the choice before him is stark. Either
• 52:22
  Speaker 3: he's going to say, oh, I now magically remember that
• 52:25
  Speaker 3: conversation with the president that I somehow forgot, which, again,
• 52:28
  Speaker 3: very dubious for anyone who's worked, as you know better
• 52:31
  Speaker 3: than anyone, anyone who's worked for an administration. You remember
• 52:34
  Speaker 3: the conversations you have with the president of the United States.
• 52:37
  Speaker 3: But either he's going to say that, that he now
• 52:40
  Speaker 3: magically remembers something he had forgotten in two prior sessions,
• 52:44
  Speaker 3: or he's going to call Ambassador Taylor a liar. And
• 52:47
  Speaker 3: good luck with that, given this man's gravitas and credibility.
• 52:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, that was one of my first reactions yesterday.
• 52:54
  Speaker 1: It was, you know, what is with Gordon Sondland? He
• 52:58
  Speaker 1: obviously has lawyers who've been advising him. Like, what would
• 53:03
  Speaker 1: you have been advising him if you were his lawyer?
• 53:06
  Speaker 1: Do you think that he told them the whole truth? Like,
• 53:08
  Speaker 1: what do you think was going on there? How did
• 53:10
  Speaker 1: he think he was going to get away with.
• 53:11
  Speaker 3: All of this? Yeah, I mean, first of all, he
• 53:14
  Speaker 3: is represented by one of the greatest lawyers around, Bob Luskin.
• 53:18
  Speaker 3: So Bob is as good as they come. And so
• 53:22
  Speaker 3: I have to believe that there is no chance that
• 53:25
  Speaker 3: Sondland told the whole truth to his lawyer. And, you know,
• 53:27
  Speaker 3: this is unfortunately what Trump does. He corrupts the people
• 53:32
  Speaker 3: around him, even if they started out well-meaning and in
• 53:38
  Speaker 3: a real attempt to try and protect him. and protect
• 53:42
  Speaker 3: this lawlessness. And it corrodes and it corrodes massively. And
• 53:45
  Speaker 3: I think Sondland is the first person to face it
• 53:48
  Speaker 3: and probably will not be the last. And this is
• 53:51
  Speaker 3: why the investigation, I know some of your listeners may
• 53:53
  Speaker 3: be wondering, why do you start an investigation out this
• 53:56
  Speaker 3: way with all these closed door interviews and then these
• 53:59
  Speaker 3: witnesses who aren't necessarily the central witnesses? And you do
• 54:03
  Speaker 3: it because you're running this part like a law enforcement investigation.
• 54:06
  Speaker 3: You're trying to get people to first testify behind closed
• 54:10
  Speaker 3: doors and and then to later catch them in lies,
• 54:14
  Speaker 3: which is exactly what's happened to Sondland. And so the
• 54:17
  Speaker 3: case building is methodical and slow. It's not absolute whiz-bang.
• 54:22
  Speaker 3: And so, you know, some of the pundits today were saying, oh, well,
• 54:26
  Speaker 3: there weren't any bombshells on the first day, or it
• 54:28
  Speaker 3: wasn't that exciting, it was a little boring, or so on.
• 54:31
  Speaker 3: That's how law enforcement investigations should be. We should worry
• 54:34
  Speaker 3: about a process that was all designed for political theatrics
• 54:39
  Speaker 3: and not for building, you know, a solid legal case.
• 54:42
  Speaker 1: So obviously, you know, Sondland is someone who had direct
• 54:44
  Speaker 1: contact with the president. Can you talk about, from a
• 54:47
  Speaker 1: legal standpoint, this Republican argument that all the other testimony
• 54:51
  Speaker 1: so far is just hearsay, second- and third-hand information?
• 54:55
  Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. So hearsay is the idea that you don't
• 54:59
  Speaker 3: have a first-hand witness to President Trump's state of mind.
• 55:03
  Speaker 3: That's what the Republicans are saying. They're saying, look, President
• 55:06
  Speaker 3: said he cared about corruption. You don't have any firsthand
• 55:09
  Speaker 3: witnesses that say to the contrary. And Gersay is actually
• 55:14
  Speaker 3: accepted in federal courts. There are 23 different exceptions. But
• 55:18
  Speaker 3: here there's a much simpler answer to this, and this
• 55:21
  Speaker 3: is why I think this Republican argument is ultimately going
• 55:24
  Speaker 3: to blow up in their face. There's only one reason
• 55:26
  Speaker 3: we don't have firsthand witnesses. Because the firsthand witnesses are
• 55:30
  Speaker 3: people like John Bolton, the president's national security advisor, Bolton's deputy, Kupperman,
• 55:36
  Speaker 3: the president himself, and people like that. Those are people
• 55:39
  Speaker 3: with firsthand knowledge, no question about it. All of those
• 55:42
  Speaker 3: people are under orders by the president not to go
• 55:46
  Speaker 3: and testify, not to provide any documents to Congress. He's
• 55:51
  Speaker 3: written a memo through his White House counsel that says
• 55:53
  Speaker 3: all of that. And indeed, even the two gentlemen who
• 55:56
  Speaker 3: we heard from yesterday said, Kenton Taylor, were under that
• 55:59
  Speaker 3: same order not to testify by the president. And they
• 56:03
  Speaker 3: courageously and patriotically decided to go tell the truth. But
• 56:07
  Speaker 3: the reason why there is some hearsay going on, it's
• 56:12
  Speaker 3: simply a matter of the president's doing. And this is
• 56:14
  Speaker 3: what I wrote about in the New York Times this week,
• 56:17
  Speaker 3: which is the idea that a president can say, I
• 56:20
  Speaker 3: can't be indicted because I'm a sitting president and presidents
• 56:23
  Speaker 3: can't be indicted under constitution. I can't be impeached because
• 56:27
  Speaker 3: because I have the ability to stop any investigation into
• 56:31
  Speaker 3: me and not turn over evidence and not to provide
• 56:34
  Speaker 3: any witnesses. I mean, that's at least where King George
• 56:37
  Speaker 3: III was, if not more powerful than that. So I mean,
• 56:42
  Speaker 3: there is literally no responsible constitutional scholar in this country,
• 56:47
  Speaker 3: dead or alive, who agrees with these propositions.
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: So Democrats have made the choice to avoid waiting for
• 56:54
  Speaker 1: the courts to decide whether people like Bolton and Mulvaney
• 56:58
  Speaker 1: have to testify and have said sort of like you
• 57:00
  Speaker 1: were just saying, you know, that their refusal to show
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: up is more evidence of obstruction and they're just going
• 57:05
  Speaker 1: to sort of add it to the pile. Do you
• 57:07
  Speaker 1: think this is the right strategy? And how strong do
• 57:11
  Speaker 1: you think the Democrats case would be if they did
• 57:13
  Speaker 1: fight it out in court in terms of getting Bolton
• 57:16
  Speaker 1: to testify? Do you think there's privilege arguments there? What
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: do you think about that?
• 57:21
  Speaker 3: So one of the reasons I wrote this book with
• 57:23
  Speaker 3: Sam Koppelman is because we think that the case is
• 57:27
  Speaker 3: overwhelming and strong on the existing public record. And so
• 57:32
  Speaker 3: you have the president in a transcript. It's not a
• 57:35
  Speaker 3: direct transcript. It's more of a memorandum of a conversation
• 57:38
  Speaker 3: in which the president admits the whole thing. And that's
• 57:42
  Speaker 3: an open and shut case for impeachment. It raises the
• 57:45
  Speaker 3: a offense that is really at the heart of what
• 57:48
  Speaker 3: the founders put impeachment in the Constitution for, which is
• 57:52
  Speaker 3: an executive that's trying to collaborate with a foreign government
• 57:56
  Speaker 3: to try and win an election. So it is squarely
• 58:00
  Speaker 3: what impeachment is about. Now there's other stuff. You could
• 58:03
  Speaker 3: build more of a case for that particular offense with
• 58:06
  Speaker 3: Bolton and Kupperman and others. And then there are other
• 58:10
  Speaker 3: offenses too, even going back to Mueller, which could be
• 58:13
  Speaker 3: looked at. And I think if they went to court,
• 58:17
  Speaker 3: the Democrats went to court, they would win those things.
• 58:20
  Speaker 3: But it would risk muddying a very clear storyline. So
• 58:24
  Speaker 3: I don't have any problem if they want to try
• 58:26
  Speaker 3: and go to the courts on a separate timeline and
• 58:28
  Speaker 3: do that. But they have to be able to walk
• 58:31
  Speaker 3: and chew gum at the same time. And here they
• 58:34
  Speaker 3: have a clear, simple, easy case for impeachment. And they
• 58:38
  Speaker 3: should be running that first. And anything else that they
• 58:41
  Speaker 3: happen to get through the courts, that's just gravy.
• 58:45
  Speaker 1: So can you make the case, like if you were
• 58:48
  Speaker 1: Adam Schiff and you were giving a sort of a
• 58:50
  Speaker 1: closing argument here at the end of this impeachment trial,
• 58:54
  Speaker 1: like there's obviously a whole bunch of people that are
• 58:56
  Speaker 1: sort of in the Fox News bubble and are buying
• 58:59
  Speaker 1: sort of the various Republican conspiracies. But make a case
• 59:03
  Speaker 1: to the person who thinks, you know, okay, maybe what
• 59:07
  Speaker 1: Trump did was wrong, but all presidents make decisions to
• 59:10
  Speaker 1: benefit themselves politically. We have an election coming up soon.
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: Maybe we should just decide all of this then. As
• 59:16
  Speaker 1: I keep thinking about this case, I feel like for
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: a lot of people listening, it may come down to that.
• 59:21
  Speaker 1: And maybe if the Republicans get smarter, you know, they'll
• 59:24
  Speaker 1: get to that argument. What's sort of the best case
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: for why he needs to go now.
• 59:30
  Speaker 3: It's real simple. In the book, I explain the rule
• 59:33
  Speaker 3: that I just try and live my life by, which
• 59:35
  Speaker 3: is what I call the yardstick rule. And it's the
• 59:38
  Speaker 3: way I teach my law students in their first day
• 59:40
  Speaker 3: of class, which is, I just want you to pretend
• 59:42
  Speaker 3: that the sides were reversed. So just ask yourself, if
• 59:46
  Speaker 3: President Obama did this, or if a President Elizabeth Warren
• 59:51
  Speaker 3: or Bernie Sanders did this, and went to a foreign
• 59:54
  Speaker 3: government and said, hey, will you announce an investigation into
• 59:58
  Speaker 3: my chief political rival? How would that make you feel?
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 3: What would that send as a signal, if you said
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 3: that was okay, to future presidents? Who did this all
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 3: in secret? And the only reason, after all, we find
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 3: out about it is because of this brave whistleblower. If
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 3: a president can do that in secret, they destroy the
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 3: ability to have re-election as a check. You know, in
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 3: the Philadelphia Convention, there was a big debate, should we
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 3: have impeachment or not? And some folks, like Gouverneur Morris, said, well,
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 3: the president has to run for re-election, so we don't
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 3: really need to have impeachment in there. A re-election can
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 3: serve as a referendum on impeachment. And Ben Franklin and
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 3: others stood up and said, well, what about if the
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 3: president goes and conspires with a foreign government to corrupt
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 3: the election process? And then Gouverneur Morris changed his mind
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 3: and said, yeah, absolutely. That's a circumstance in which we
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 3: should have impeachment, and that's where high crimes and misdemeanors
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 3: that language comes from. And so, look, I said, yeah, exactly.
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 3: I mean, our founders, you know, you go back and
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 3: read the Philadelphia conventions. They were so wise in so
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 3: many ways. They obviously were painfully ignorant and others, but
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 3: on something like this, they did design an architecture of
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 3: government that is made for a circumstance like this in
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 3: which a president is putting his personal interests of reelection
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 3: above the interests of the American people.
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: So you recently said a few weeks ago that you
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 1: believe Trump will be impeached and removed from office before 2020.
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 1: I would love to believe that, but I have not
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 1: seen anything from Senate Republicans in the last, I don't know,
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 1: 10 years that gives me confidence we'll find 20 who
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 1: are willing to convict or even one or two. What
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 1: am I missing? What gives you some measure of confidence
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 1: that we might be able to convince some of these
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 1: Senate Republicans to vote their conscience?
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 3: What gives me confidence is, frankly, the fact that the
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 3: country is still here with its values, and that over time,
• 1:02:06
  Speaker 3: Americans at critical moments have cast the right decisions, whether
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 3: it's 1776 and breaking with Britain, or 1789 and developing
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 3: a constitution, or 1865 winning the Civil War, 1930s with
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 3: the New Deal or World War II or the Civil
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 3: Rights Revolution or the gender equality revolution. You know, there's
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 3: so many times in which people say, oh, it can't
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 3: possibly be. And yet this country manages to get it done.
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 3: And to me, this is that kind of critical moment.
• 1:02:39
  Speaker 3: And we've never forced the Democratic Party has never forced
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 3: the Republicans to cast a vote and say, oh, this
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 3: is OK. Senators are really going to have to stand
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 3: up and say and look into their hearts and say,
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 3: it's fine for a president to do this, because if
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 3: President Trump can do this, Bernie Sanders can do this
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 3: and Elizabeth Warren and everyone else. And what does that
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 3: do to our democracy? So I do have faith in
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 3: the end that those votes are cast. You know, in
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 3: the book, I talk about a story about Senator Ross
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 3: from Kansas during the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. And Johnson
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 3: was a terrible, racist president, but he wasn't being impeached
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 3: for any of that. He was being impeached for a
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 3: violation of the Tenure of Office Act, the kind of technicality.
• 1:03:26
  Speaker 3: And even though Ross hated Johnson, he sat, looked into
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 3: his heart and cast the vote not to impeach because
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 3: he didn't think it was the right thing to do
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 3: for the country under the way that impeachment proceeding has
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 3: been brought. And I'd like to think that there are
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 3: future senators, Senator Ross is out there when it comes
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 3: to a critical moment like this in which the eyes
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 3: of history and indeed the fate of our democracy may
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 3: rest on the votes.
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: So one last non-impeachment question, just because you have argued
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: so many cases before the Supreme Court. This week, the
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 1: court also heard oral arguments in the DACA case, you know,
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 1: some legal observers who were watching those arguments, reading about
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 1: those arguments, sort of thought the way that John Roberts
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: was talking, he said, oh, well, this has to do
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 1: with benefits and work permits. And I don't think, you know,
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 1: repealing this would, you know, lead to deportation. And what
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 1: kind of sense did you get from those oral arguments
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 1: about where the court might be leaning? And should we
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 1: be cautious in general about interpreting too much from oral
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 1: arguments in a case like that?
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 3: Yes. So first of all, I have the privilege of
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 3: representing a lot of higher education associations in that case
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 3: and saying that President Trump's decision here is illegal. So
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 3: just know that. You know, having argued 39 cases, 38
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 3: of them before John Roberts, I can tell you, I
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 3: am never certain where he is when I leave the courtroom.
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 3: He loves playing devil's advocate. He was himself an extraordinary
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 3: legal advocate before the Supreme Court. And now, carries a
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 3: little bit of that onto the bench with him. So,
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 3: you know, he asks tough questions on either side. And
• 1:05:11
  Speaker 3: that's what you saw, I think, in the hearing on Tuesday.
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 3: I am cautiously optimistic at the end of the day
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 3: that the court is going to say that this is
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 3: something a president can't do, in part because the Trump
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 3: administration gutted their own legal case by making not policy arguments,
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 3: but kind of more silly legal arguments that and in
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 3: part because the acting head of Homeland Security at the time, Ms. Duke,
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 3: refused to make the policy arguments because she thought they
• 1:05:42
  Speaker 3: were evidently abhorrent.
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 1: Well, that is hopeful. Neil, thank you so much for
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 1: joining us. I really appreciate it. Everyone go check out
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 1: the book, Impeach! The Case Against Donald Trump. Thanks for
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 1: coming on. Come back soon.
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 1: Okay, Dan, let's turn to 2020. And let's start by
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 1: talking about one logistical way that impeachment may affect the
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 1: Democratic primary. If the House votes to impeach Trump, Mitch
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 1: McConnell has committed to holding a Senate trial, which he
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: has reportedly told his colleagues may begin right around Thanksgiving.
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 1: Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr suggested the trial may
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 1: take six to eight weeks, though leadership sources close to
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: McConnell disputed that. But whenever the trial is, and however
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: long it takes, Six Democratic presidential candidates would be forced
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 1: off the campaign trail to serve as jurors. Elizabeth Warren,
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Michael Bennett. Dan,
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 1: how much of a political problem for them is this,
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 1: as they are trying to run their campaigns?
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 2: It is a political problem for sure. The place where
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 2: you want to be in January is Iowa. You want
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 2: to be spending the bulk of your time in Iowa.
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 2: organizing caucus goers, building up your volunteer network, and recruiting
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 2: prison captains. That is the best way to win Iowa.
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 2: You want to spend some time in the other three
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 2: early states as well. And if you were in Washington,
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 2: you were not doing any of those things. I'm sure
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 2: there are ways to go Thursday night to Monday morning
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 2: and be in Iowa, but you're going to be a
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 2: decided disadvantage to Pete Buttigieg. Joe Biden. I mean, anyone else,
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 2: Andrew Yang, who have the time to just camp out
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 2: in Iowa. And so that's problematic. The challenge for the
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 2: other contenders who are not senators is it is likely
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 2: that the bulk of the political conversation is going to
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 2: be on the impeachment trial. That is who is going
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 2: to be on TV. That is who is going to
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 2: be talked about on social media. That is who is
• 1:07:49
  Speaker 2: going to have the opportunity for viral moments. And one
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 2: of the things we've seen in this primary to date
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 2: is When candidates are part of that conversation, they do
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 2: quite well. And when they get relegated to being outside
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 2: of that conversation, they often drop pretty quickly. You saw
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 2: with Pete Buttigieg, right? He was a big part of
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 2: the conversation. He moved up really quickly in the polls.
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 2: Then he sort of fell out of it as he
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 2: sort of plateaued and kind of went back down to
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 2: being in the lower tier and then had a good
• 1:08:18
  Speaker 2: debate performance and several good media cycles. It has built
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 2: his way back up to being a top tier candidate.
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 2: Same thing with, you know, look at Beto. Beto gets
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 2: in raises a bunch of money, a lot of excitement,
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 2: falls out of the conversation and drops. And then once
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 2: you're out of the conversation, getting back in is very,
• 1:08:34
  Speaker 2: very hard. So there are upsides and downsides to this,
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 2: but I think the campaign managers of any of these
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 2: candidates would prefer their candidate be in Iowa. And I'm
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 2: also pretty sure McConnell is doing this just to fuck
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 2: with them because he's one of those people who just
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 2: wants to see the world burn.
• 1:08:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I was thinking that too. I mean, yeah, I'm
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 1: sort of torn on this one, right? Like, obviously... You
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 1: want to be on the ground in Iowa New Hampshire
• 1:08:59
  Speaker 1: and meeting voters, right? That still matters. But I am
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 1: also aware that we are in the media political environment
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 1: that you just described, which is, you know, this race
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: is much more nationalized than ever before. Even in some
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 1: of these early states, people are receiving information about the
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 1: candidates through the national news and social media, and maybe
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 1: not as much as they used to in person. And look,
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 1: we're not going to get any viral moments from these
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 1: senators who were jurors during the impeachment trial, because the
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 1: senators aren't supposed to say anything. But during the breaks,
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 1: after the day is over of the impeachment, each day
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 1: of the impeachment trial, you know, these, all of these
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 1: senators will be all over Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: and CNN and all of these different shows. And they'll
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 1: have a lot of media opportunities to talk about the
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 1: trial and talk about what they just saw. Now, will
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 1: they be talking about what they want to talk about,
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 1: which is healthcare and wages and all the issues they
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 1: would have been talking about if they were on the
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 1: ground in Iowa, New Hampshire, where they're not talking about
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 1: impeachment at all? Probably not. Probably in those interviews, they're
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: going to have to be talking about impeachment, which I'm
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: sure they don't want to talk about a ton. So
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 1: I do think it's mixed. It's mixed for these candidates.
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 2: I think the candidate among the senators who has the
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 2: biggest opportunity here is Kamala Harris.
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 1: I agree with that.
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 2: I mean, even though she is a juror in this
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 2: case and is not going to be prosecuted in the case,
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 2: she is always at her best when she gets to
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 2: highlight her prosecutorial skills. And I'm not speaking about her
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 2: criminal justice reform record. I am talking about instances where
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 2: she is questioning Bill Barr or questioning Brett Kavanaugh or
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 2: speaking to that, because that has been, with obviously limited
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 2: success to date, the proxy for her electability cases, is
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 2: she is the person who can take Trump down on
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 2: the debate stage. And there is an opportunity here for
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 2: her to highlight that, to take that part of her
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 2: bio and make it an asset and really an opportunity to,
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 2: I don't want to use the term resuscitate, but to
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 2: sort of build back the momentum she has lost and
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 2: get back into the top tier in time to make
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 2: an impact in the campaign.
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:11:13
  Speaker 1: And I think to that extent, you know, Amy Klobuchar
• 1:11:17
  Speaker 1: serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yeah. And was a prosecutor.
• 1:11:20
  Speaker 1: And so, and I think especially for Klobuchar and Booker,
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 1: who've had a harder time, and Bennett to an extent,
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 1: who've had a harder time getting any attention from media
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 1: at all nationally, I think this will help them get
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 1: some attention. I think for Warren, you know, she was
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 1: out very early for impeachment and made it a big deal.
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: So that's good for her. I would bet that of
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 1: all those folks, Bernie is probably the most annoyed because
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 1: Bernie doesn't love talking about impeachment. He has a message
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 1: that's very different than that. And, you know, and his
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 1: campaign is big on organizing and he loves doing rallies.
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 1: And so I would imagine that he's probably one of
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 1: the more annoyed candidates that he has to go do this.
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 2: Yep, I think that's right.
• 1:11:59
  Speaker 1: So as we mentioned, one person who will not be
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 1: stuck in Washington is Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who has seen
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 1: some pretty good polls lately. On Tuesday, Monmouth University, a
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 1: great pollster, published a poll of likely Iowa Democratic caucus
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 1: goers that had Pete leading at 22%. This is the
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 1: first poll that Pete has led in Iowa. He was
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 1: followed by Biden at 19%, Warren at 18%, and Bernie
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: at 13%. Buttigieg gained 14 points since Monmouth's last Iowa
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 1: poll in August. Dan, what do you attribute this to?
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 2: I mean, he's been riding a wave. He really has.
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 2: And we should just put this caveat on this conversation
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 2: that I just saw the Des Moines Register has a
• 1:12:39
  Speaker 2: new poll coming out Saturday night.
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 3: Oh, boy.
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 2: Oh, boy. So that will be the one. Right. If
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 2: he is leading that poll, that's the starting gun goes off.
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 2: But Nate Silver had an interesting take on this, which is, like,
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 2: is it– Everyone is sort of working back– like Pete's Rise,
• 1:13:00
  Speaker 2: which is happening in Iowa, it's happening in national polls,
• 1:13:02
  Speaker 2: it's happening in other early state polls we've seen, at
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: least New Hampshire, not so much the more diverse states
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 2: in the primary calendar yet. But a lot of people
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 2: are tripping that to his last debate performance, whatever that
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 2: was a few weeks ago, which I think we all
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 2: believe was a good– very good performance. Um, but like
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 2: what Nate Silver pointed out was something like people had
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 2: gained a couple, like a point maybe in the polls
• 1:13:27
  Speaker 2: taken right afterwards, but there, he has managed to, um,
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 2: engineer a media cycle about his surging. And there's a
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 2: self-perpetuating element to that. That is, you know, he has
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 2: been every, like every time you pick up the paper,
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 2: it's like people to judge in the catbird seat in Iowa,
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 2: people to judge surging. And he is definitely drawing the
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 2: crowds that suggest a surge. So it's not made up
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 2: of whole cloth, but he has ridden a very favorable
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 2: media wave that is happening at the same time about
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 2: questions about the electability or viability of the frontrunners, none
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 2: of which we fully understand how to interpret or take seriously.
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 2: But at a question when Democrats are very– he has
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 2: managed to leverage a favored media cycle and a desire
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 2: for a quote-unquote more electable– alternative among some, I don't
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 2: know who, to get to the top. And the question is,
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 2: did he get there too soon?
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, look, I think Nate's point is right
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 1: about the debate. I also think this is sort of
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: the result of a slow build in Iowa that comes
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 1: from having an excellent organization there and having been on
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 1: television there. He spent a lot of money on television
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 1: in Iowa. And I remember months ago, when Tommy was
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 1: in Iowa for, um, his Iowa show that will be, uh,
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 1: first episode dropping next week. And he was texting us
• 1:14:48
  Speaker 1: and he's like, you know, I'm at this Pete event
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 1: at a place in Iowa where usually you don't get
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 1: that many people. And there are tons and tons of
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 1: people here. And so Pete's crowds have sort of predated the, um,
• 1:15:00
  Speaker 1: in Iowa, at least have predated the some of the
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 1: that debate where he where he did pretty well and uh...
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 1: you know i think is used to this is the
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: case in iowa i think it's the same with elizabeth
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 1: warren was sort of a slow rise for her in
• 1:15:12
  Speaker 1: iowa right like when you have a really good organization
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 1: in iowa you can get on the air and you
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 1: can spend a lot of time they're talking to people uh...
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 1: you know if you have the right message then it
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 1: can pay off and i think you know we saw
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 1: this during the uh... the jj are now uh... the
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 1: lj that the two people with pretty distinct messages were
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, her message about the need to fight for
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 1: big structural change, and Pete Buttigieg, which is much more
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 1: of a, we need to fight, but we also need
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 1: to come together. And this sort of hunger among the
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 1: electorate for unity in the end of perpetual political warfare,
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 1: which is, along with Elizabeth Warren's message, also a potent message.
• 1:15:57
  Speaker 1: But you're right, I don't know if he's peaked too
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: soon either. And I imagine... that in the next debate,
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 1: next week, he'll probably take some fire. Yeah.
• 1:16:07
  Speaker 2: I mean, for some time perspective, this is... Pete's rise
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 2: here is about 12 years to the week of Obama's
• 1:16:16
  Speaker 2: rise in Iowa in 2007, when he surged to the front.
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 2: The challenge for Pete is the Iowa caucus is one
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 2: month later in 2020 than it was in 2008. It
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 2: was January 3rd when Obama won it, it's February 3rd now.
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 2: And I remember when we were working for Obama, we
• 1:16:32
  Speaker 2: were like hanging on for dear life to find ways
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 2: to sustain our momentum to just get to caucus day before,
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 2: you know, you sort of have the, cause the narrative
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 2: always turns after too long. And that way, like in
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 2: that was challenging. And there were some actual scary days
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 2: where we thought our poll numbers were dropping right before, um,
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 2: the Christmas holiday. And so Pete has a, he has
• 1:16:55
  Speaker 2: a real, um, task in front of his campaign to
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 2: keep that momentum up and survive a large number of debates.
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 2: I think we had one debate between Obama's surge and
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 2: the actual Iowa caucus, maybe two at most. He's going
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 2: to have, he has at least November, at least December,
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 2: and possibly, I don't know how many, but there's at
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 2: least one and perhaps more in January. So he has
• 1:17:20
  Speaker 2: a gauntlet to ride to get to caucus day. Yeah.
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: And the other challenge he has is this stat from
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 1: that Monmouth poll, fewer than one-third of likely caucus goers
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 1: in Iowa say that they are set on their candidate.
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 1: Fewer than one-third. And most would not be disappointed to
• 1:17:35
  Speaker 1: switch their support to another candidate before the first in
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 1: the nation caucuses take place on February 3rd. That's a
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 1: lot of people who haven't definitely made up their minds yet.
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 1: And I think that is maybe one contributing factor to
• 1:17:50
  Speaker 1: some of these other candidates jumping in the race, which
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 1: is the last thing we'll talk about here. We have
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 1: yet another candidate who has entered the Democratic primary, former
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: two-term governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, jumped into the race today, Thursday,
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 1: saying that this campaign is not just about the character
• 1:18:06
  Speaker 1: of the candidates, but the character of the country. In
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 1: an interview, he also said, quote, we seem to be
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 1: migrating to, on the one camp, sort of nostalgia. Let's
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 1: just get rid of, if you will, the incumbent president,
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 1: and we can go back to doing what we used
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 1: to do. Or it's our way, our big idea, or
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 1: no way. Neither of those, it seems to me, seizes
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 1: the moment to pull the nation together and bring some humility. So, Dan,
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 1: this is a reversal of his 2018 announcement that he
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 1: wouldn't be running for president. Why do you think he
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 1: changed his mind?
• 1:18:36
  Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know. I have to be honest
• 1:18:38
  Speaker 2: with you. I mean, look, Deval Patrick is someone that
• 1:18:42
  Speaker 2: we have worked with. He's been on this podcast. He's
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 2: someone who, as a person, we.
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 2: Really like and whose political talent we genuinely admire. I
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 2: think he's one of the most talented orators in the
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 2: Democratic Party.
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 1: Full stop.
• 1:18:58
  Speaker 2: And I have often thought that if he had run
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 2: in 2016, he could have won the Democratic nomination.
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 2: If he had gotten in at the beginning, then he,
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 2: I think, could have been a major factor in this race.
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 2: And I'm curious about this, and I want to hear
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 2: more from him and for whoever ends up working for
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 2: him as to what they view their path to be.
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 2: Because the one thing we know about Deval Patrick is
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 2: he is not someone who has some chemical need to
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 2: be president anymore. He is not filling some need for
• 1:19:32
  Speaker 2: attention or fulfillment in himself. That's just not who he is.
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 2: And he doesn't, at least in my experience, he's very
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 2: politically savvy. So it's not like he would just jump
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 2: at something without a plan. So I want to hear
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 2: what the plan is. What is his plan to get
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 2: on the debate stage? Because you have to get to 200,000
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 2: donors to be on the debate stage. And candidates who
• 1:19:56
  Speaker 2: have been running for almost a year are just barely
• 1:20:00
  Speaker 2: getting to that number. People like Booker, and I think
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 2: Booker just got there in the last week or so.
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 2: And so how is Deval Patrick going to get there?
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 2: I see the logic in the lane he is going for.
• 1:20:13
  Speaker 2: I'm just not sure how he's going to get the
• 1:20:17
  Speaker 2: attention and money it takes to be in that lane. Yeah.
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 1: I mean, look, I feel the same way. I'm I
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 1: love Deval Patrick. And, you know, I've known him for,
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 1: like you have, for a very long time. And I
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 1: think he's not just a brilliant orator. And like you said,
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 1: there's some speeches he gives that I think, you know,
• 1:20:36
  Speaker 1: surpass Obama's. I just, I really think he is that gifted.
• 1:20:40
  Speaker 2: Which is why, it's why you plagiarized.
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 1: It's why I plagiarized, right. It is, you can all
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 1: go look that up. And, but it's not, it's not
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 1: just his oratory either. I mean, Deval has this story.
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 1: He grew up, poor on the South side of Chicago,
• 1:20:56
  Speaker 1: in poverty with a single mom, you know, worked his
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 1: way out of poverty, got great education, two-term governor of Massachusetts,
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 1: a really strong record in Massachusetts. Also, you know, some
• 1:21:08
  Speaker 1: things in the record that are more controversial from a
• 1:21:11
  Speaker 1: management standpoint, but, you know, and in terms of policy wins,
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: he had quite a few as a two-term governor of Massachusetts,
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 1: you know, and then he, of course, he has a
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 1: business record where he has running the social impact fund
• 1:21:23
  Speaker 1: at Bain, which it's social impact, so that's good, but
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 1: it's Bain, so not so good. And he has some other,
• 1:21:28
  Speaker 1: you know, business ties that'll surely come up. But he,
• 1:21:33
  Speaker 1: you know, one of the reasons I've always liked Duvall is,
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 1: like Barack Obama, like Beto O'Rourke, there is a real
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: disdain for the bullshit of politics and the game of
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 1: politics and there is, um, there's a distance from like,
• 1:21:52
  Speaker 1: these are not people who follow every twist of every
• 1:21:55
  Speaker 1: narrative or are looking at all their comments on social media. Right.
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 1: And so there, which I hope he's not doing today. Exactly.
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 1: So there is a, what I believe is a healthy
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 1: disdain for politics. And like you said, there is not
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 1: this like driving ego and need to be affirmed by
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 1: getting votes, right? It is, I want to do this
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 1: because I think it's the right thing to do. But
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 1: the downside of having that disdain for politics is you
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 1: can hate the game of politics so much that you
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 1: don't put enough thought into how you are going to
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 1: play it and win it. I think our old boss,
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 1: even though he didn't like the game of politics that much,
• 1:22:35
  Speaker 1: you know, understood he was competitive enough and he understood
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 1: that I need a plan and a strategy to win.
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 1: I need to put it in place. I need to
• 1:22:42
  Speaker 1: have the right people. Like, he had all that. Beto
• 1:22:45
  Speaker 1: O'Rourke did not have that, right? He did not think
• 1:22:48
  Speaker 1: hard enough about how he was going to win or
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 1: what his message was. And, like, I'm with you. I
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 1: think if Duvall had announced early on, I think he
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 1: would have been a formidable contender. I, at this late stage,
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 1: watching the primary as we have, I just, I wonder,
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 1: how are you going to get the media attention? Like,
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 1: what policy are you going to propose that we haven't
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 1: heard yet? What message are you going to, uh, deliver
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 1: that we haven't heard yet? Uh, like you said, how
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 1: do you get in the debate stage, right? Like he's
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 1: already missed filing deadlines in Alabama and, um, Arkansas.
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 1: And so, you know, I, I think it's a, and he,
• 1:23:24
  Speaker 1: he acknowledged this in his interviews today that it's going
• 1:23:27
  Speaker 1: to be a really tough path, but, um, uh, it's a, I'm,
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 1: I'm very curious about this one. I'm very curious about
• 1:23:33
  Speaker 1: why he decided to do this and, and what his
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 1: plan is because, um, It's a bit of a mystery.
• 1:23:40
  Speaker 2: The only thing I'd say to all the people who
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 2: are mad that he's getting in the race is anyone
• 1:23:46
  Speaker 2: can run. We're at the point where the voters will decide.
• 1:23:51
  Speaker 2: If there is some giant appetite for Deval Patrick or
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 2: Michael Bloomberg, for instance, then they will get the donors
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 2: and the polling support to get on the debate stage.
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 2: And if there is not... They won't. And it's not
• 1:24:02
  Speaker 2: going to come at the cost of anyone else. Someone
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 2: can make an argument that Bloomberg could be spending his
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 2: money on something else as they can with Steyer. And ultimately,
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 2: that's the choice that Bloomberg and Steyer make. And you
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 2: have to analyze that in the context of all the
• 1:24:16
  Speaker 2: money they've spent on all kinds of other good things
• 1:24:18
  Speaker 2: to help Democrats and progressive issues. But if he wants
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 2: to run, he can run. I think that's true of Bloomberg.
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 2: It's true of Duvall. It's true of anyone else who
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 2: wants to get in. And then the voters will decide.
• 1:24:27
  Speaker 2: It doesn't affect the other people.
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 2: Because voters have agency here.
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 1: I am so over the Twitter fury every time someone
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 1: jumps in the race. Like you said, everyone can run
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 1: in the Democratic primary. If you are good, you will win.
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 1: If not, you won't. That's how this works, right? We
• 1:24:51
  Speaker 1: were upset by one person who decided that they were
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 1: going to get into the race, and that was Howard Schultz,
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 1: because he was going to run as a third-party candidate,
• 1:24:59
  Speaker 1: run as an independant, and potentially tip the election to
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump. It was incredibly dangerous for Howard Schultz to
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 1: think about entering the race. And we said at the time,
• 1:25:09
  Speaker 1: if Howard Schultz was running as a Democrat, we wouldn't
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 1: be nearly as angry. And, you know, that's how I
• 1:25:14
  Speaker 1: felt about Tom Steyer jumping in the race. That's how
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 1: I felt about Mike Bloomberg jumping in the race. That's
• 1:25:18
  Speaker 1: how I feel about Deval Patrick jumping into the race, right? Like,
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 1: I just don't see any of this as cause for
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 1: alarm or, you know, incredible disdain for these people. Like,
• 1:25:29
  Speaker 1: I just Let's let people run. And, you know, and
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 1: also if you're one of the candidates who's in the lead,
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: who's not one of these people, it really will make
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 1: you a better candidate to hear different arguments from different
• 1:25:41
  Speaker 1: kinds of people and to try to overcome those arguments
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 1: and parry them. And just it'll make you a better
• 1:25:47
  Speaker 1: candidate to have more competition. And so, you know, I
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 1: don't think anyone should should fear this. And I think,
• 1:25:53
  Speaker 1: you know, everyone should like let's let's hear what Duvall
• 1:25:56
  Speaker 1: has to say. Let's hear what Mike Bloomberg has to say. That's,
• 1:25:59
  Speaker 1: you know, I will say, and I said this on Monday,
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: there is something that does bother me about we get
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 1: to hear what Mike Bloomberg has to say and we
• 1:26:09
  Speaker 1: get to hear what Tom Steyer has to say because
• 1:26:11
  Speaker 1: they are billionaires. And so, therefore, that money has bought
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: them speech. But that is a larger problem with the
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 1: campaign finance system that we have here.
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 2: That's exactly right.
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 1: But beyond that, like, go ahead. Water's warm. Everyone jump in.
• 1:26:26
  Speaker 2: And to the people who say, well, it's unfair because
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 2: all these other candidates have been running for a year. Yes,
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 2: it is. And that it'll be the voters to decide
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 2: whether that is how to, how to assess that unfair
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 2: advantage or disadvantage, however you want to look at it.
• 1:26:41
  Speaker 2: And just people, people will decide. And there's the history
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 2: of people getting in late has, I think almost never
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 2: worked out. Maybe this will be different, but Wes Clark,
• 1:26:52
  Speaker 2: Rick Perry, um, Fred Thompson, there's an array of people
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 2: who jumped in late. And I think the one thing
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 2: we should note is that the overwhelming number of Democrats
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 2: are satisfied with the field. To the extent they have
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 2: a complaint is there are too many candidates. But so
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 2: that's a hurdle for these candidates who want to get in.
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 2: And we'll see what happens.
• 1:27:10
  Speaker 4: Yep.
• 1:27:11
  Speaker 1: All right. That's all we have for today. Thanks again
• 1:27:14
  Speaker 1: to Neil Katyal for joining the pod. And we will
• 1:27:18
  Speaker 1: see you next week.
• 1:27:19
  Speaker 2: Bye, everyone.
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 3: Bye.
• 1:27:31
  Speaker 1: Pod Save America is a product of Crooked Media. The
• 1:27:33
  Speaker 1: senior producer is Michael Martinez. Our assistant producer is Jordan Waller.
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 1: It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 1: our sound engineer. Thanks to Carolyn Reston, Tanya Somanator, and
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 1: Katie Long for production support. And to our digital team,
• 1:27:46
  Speaker 1: Elijah Cohn, Narmel Coney, and Yael Freed, and Milo Kim,
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 1: who film and upload these episodes as a video every week.