Latest / Pod Save America / “Is Palin Running? Alaska!”

Transcript

“Is Palin Running? Alaska!” · Pod Save America

0:21
Speaker 1: Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau.
0:23
Speaker 2: I'm Jon Lovett.
0:23
Speaker 3: I'm Tommy Vitor.
0:25
Speaker 1: I know this is a podcast, but if you're watching
0:27
Speaker 1: us right now, we're back in the old studio, which
0:29
Speaker 1: is now the new studio. Brand new studio. It's beautiful.
0:32
Speaker 3: There's what looks like a Big Mac on a podium.
0:36
Speaker 2: Chandelier with monkeys on it.
0:37
Speaker 1: There's a monkey chandelier. Yeah, that's a big one. Some
0:41
Speaker 1: other knickknacks here.
0:42
Speaker 4: Anyway.
0:42
Speaker 2: I think describing set decoration is like one of the
0:45
Speaker 2: most wonderful podcasting.
0:47
Speaker 1: On today's show, Washington kicks off a busy spring with
0:50
Speaker 1: Katonji Brown Jackson's confirmation vote in the Senate, a potential
0:54
Speaker 1: criminal referral of Donald Trump from the 1-6 committee in
0:56
Speaker 1: the House, and the return of Joe Biden's economic plan
1:00
Speaker 1: in a form that Joe Manchin can live with. We'll
1:02
Speaker 1: get into all of it, and then Tommy talks to
1:05
Speaker 1: the Atlantics and Applebaum about the current situation in Ukraine.
1:08
Speaker 1: And later, we'll wrap up the final round of our
1:11
Speaker 1: March badness bracket, and we have a surprise late entry
1:15
Speaker 1: to consider from way out west. So stay tuned. But first,
1:19
Speaker 1: check out the latest episodes of Crooked's newest podcast, Strict Scrutiny,
1:22
Speaker 1: to catch up on Judge Katonji Brown-Jackson's confirmation hearings. Each week,
1:26
Speaker 1: law professors Leah Littman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray use
1:29
Speaker 1: their experience to provide understanding, into the inner workings of
1:32
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's decisions, culture, and personalities. New episodes of
1:35
Speaker 1: Strict Scrutiny drop every Monday, wherever you get your podcasts. Also,
1:39
Speaker 1: check out this week's Offline, where Samantha Bee offers some
1:42
Speaker 1: motherly advice for future Oscar attendees, talks about the time
1:45
Speaker 1: she was almost canceled for a joke about Ivanka Trump,
1:48
Speaker 1: and discusses how she keeps her show funny even when
1:50
Speaker 1: politics makes you feel like shit, which is all the time.
1:53
Speaker 3: I forgot about that joke about Ivanka Trump. That was
1:55
Speaker 3: so long ago.
1:56
Speaker 5: Yeah.
1:58
Speaker 1: But fortunately, I made her relive it. As we all
2:01
Speaker 1: like to relive embarrassing public things. The C-bomb. We all
2:04
Speaker 1: love that.
2:04
Speaker 3: The C-bomb situation.
2:05
Speaker 1: It was a C-bomb situation.
2:06
Speaker 3: Very much a C-bomb.
2:07
Speaker 1: I didn't bring that up, but you did. New episodes
2:09
Speaker 1: of Offline drop every Sunday, wherever you get your podcasts.
2:12
Speaker 1: I just twisted you up there like a pretzel. All right,
2:15
Speaker 1: let's get to the news. It's the start of a
2:17
Speaker 1: busy spring in Washington before everyone leaves to campaign for
2:20
Speaker 1: the midterms. Late Monday night, the U.S. Senate advanced the
2:23
Speaker 1: nomination of Judge Katonji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court
2:25
Speaker 1: by a vote of 53 to 47, with Susan Collins,
2:29
Speaker 1: Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney joining all 50 Democrats in support.
2:34
Speaker 1: The procedural vote was necessary to break a highly unusual
2:37
Speaker 1: tie in the Judiciary Committee, where every single Republican senator
2:40
Speaker 1: tried to block Judge Jackson from even being considered by
2:42
Speaker 1: the full Senate. This despite a new Marquette Law School
2:45
Speaker 1: poll showing that 66% of Americans support Judge Jackson's nomination,
2:49
Speaker 1: including 67% of independents and even one in three Republican voters.
2:54
Speaker 1: The whole thing puts Senate Republicans in a bit of
2:56
Speaker 1: an awkward position. Here's Roy Blunt and Lindsey Graham explaining
2:59
Speaker 1: their no votes.
3:00
Speaker 5: I think she's certainly going to be confirmed. I think
3:03
Speaker 5: it'll be a high point for the country to see
3:05
Speaker 5: her go on the court and take her unique perspective
3:09
Speaker 5: to the court. But I don't think she's the kind
3:12
Speaker 5: of judge that will really do the kind of work
3:15
Speaker 5: that I think needs to be done by the court. And, uh,
3:18
Speaker 5: I won't be supporting her, but I'll, I'll be joining
3:21
Speaker 5: others and understanding the importance of, uh, this moment.
3:25
Speaker 1: And I'll say this, if we get back the Senate
3:29
Speaker 1: and we're in charge of this body and there's judicial openings,
3:33
Speaker 1: we will talk to our colleagues on the other side.
3:35
Speaker 1: But if we're in charge, she would not have been
3:37
Speaker 1: before this committee.
3:39
Speaker 2: I like the, the Roy Blunt, uh, prevaricating so much.
3:41
Speaker 2: It's like, uh, is a beautiful and historic day for
3:44
Speaker 2: our country. No. I vote no on it.
3:46
Speaker 1: But then he has a little button on the end.
3:48
Speaker 1: He's like, but you know, and then she'll get nominated
3:51
Speaker 1: and confirmed and we'll all, I'll join everyone in recognizing
3:54
Speaker 1: the importance of the thing that I just voted against.
3:56
Speaker 2: I couldn't be prouder to be part of If by
4:00
Speaker 2: part of you mean opposed to this incredibly historic event.
4:03
Speaker 2: I am a part of it. I am Roy Blunden.
4:05
Speaker 2: I am very much a part of this historic moment.
4:07
Speaker 2: I'm just on the wrong side of it.
4:08
Speaker 1: My part was no. That was my part.
4:10
Speaker 2: I was the one trying to stop it. But there
4:12
Speaker 2: I was, you know. Part of it.
4:15
Speaker 3: He's retiring. You don't have to tie yourself in knots, man.
4:19
Speaker 3: You're retiring.
4:20
Speaker 1: That's why he said the nice words that were in
4:22
Speaker 1: the sandwich. Say whatever you want to do. The nice
4:25
Speaker 1: words between the no sandwich were him retiring. Lindsey Graham,
4:28
Speaker 1: just a three-week temper tantrum. Just banging his rattle every day.
4:33
Speaker 1: Why are you so upset? Lindsey Graham. You voted to
4:36
Speaker 1: confirm her to the second most powerful court in the
4:39
Speaker 1: country last year.
4:40
Speaker 3: Five minutes ago.
4:42
Speaker 1: Last year. I mean, what, if anything, do you guys
4:45
Speaker 1: think Republicans achieved with their buffoonery during this nomination?
4:49
Speaker 2: I think they got Mitt Romney to yes. I think
4:51
Speaker 2: that helps.
4:51
Speaker 1: I think they probably did.
4:53
Speaker 5: Yeah.
4:53
Speaker 1: Maybe Murkowski, too. Yeah.
4:54
Speaker 3: I've been trying to, like, tune my brain to a
4:57
Speaker 3: more cynical setting when thinking about this. Like, set it to, like, Dan,
5:01
Speaker 3: you know?
5:01
Speaker 2: Yeah.
5:02
Speaker 3: It over, but I haven't seen any real benefit for them.
5:05
Speaker 3: Dan's a cynic.
5:07
Speaker 2: He plays his part.
5:08
Speaker 3: The dream scenario for McConnell was digging up something that
5:12
Speaker 3: would get, I guess, Joe Manchin to voice concern, but
5:16
Speaker 3: instead they've achieved the exact opposite.
5:18
Speaker 2: The cynical vote is a yes vote. If your goal
5:21
Speaker 2: is to jam Democrats in the future, the cynical vote
5:23
Speaker 2: is a yes vote. The no vote is not cynical.
5:26
Speaker 2: The no vote is stupid, short term.
5:27
Speaker 3: What are you talking about? Speak to the Speak to me.
5:31
Speaker 1: I think it's a great take.
5:32
Speaker 3: I'm a listener in, you know, upstate New York. I'm
5:36
Speaker 3: not sure what you're saying.
5:38
Speaker 1: Upstate New York.
5:38
Speaker 3: He's trying to be the voice of the people. On SmartList,
5:41
Speaker 3: they do this funny thing where they're... Oh, yeah.
5:43
Speaker 1: Sean's aunt in Wisconsin.
5:45
Speaker 3: Sean's aunt in Wisconsin trying to.
5:46
Speaker 1: Rip that off.
5:47
Speaker 2: Dan's a cynic. The people in upstate New York can't
5:50
Speaker 2: figure out what's going on in politics these days.
5:52
Speaker 3: Dan's a well-known cynic.
5:53
Speaker 2: What do you have against Troy? What do you have
5:55
Speaker 2: against the people of Schenectady?
5:56
Speaker 1: Have you been to Troy?
5:58
Speaker 2: What do you have against Buffalo? A lot of other
6:01
Speaker 2: than that new dump stadium. Here's the point I'm making.
6:04
Speaker 3: The winning in the state.
6:05
Speaker 2: This is this is happening. This is this. She is
6:08
Speaker 2: about to be confirmed. It is an absolutely historic nomination.
6:12
Speaker 2: It would affirm their their sincerely held but wrong belief
6:16
Speaker 2: that Democrats have been the ones leading the radicalization of
6:20
Speaker 2: the judicial nomination process. They are the ones who railroaded
6:23
Speaker 2: Bork and Clarence Thomas and and and. Brett Kavanaugh while
6:28
Speaker 2: they were the ones being dragged along to the ending
6:30
Speaker 2: of the filibuster, dragged along to the scorched earth politics
6:33
Speaker 2: of these confirmation hearings and setting themselves up to do
6:36
Speaker 2: what they want to do in the future, which is
6:38
Speaker 2: never allow another Democratic nominee to ever reach the Supreme
6:42
Speaker 2: Court ever again. But instead, they just they can't do
6:45
Speaker 2: it because their primaries, because of short term thinking, because
6:47
Speaker 2: they're furious, because they just don't want to and because
6:50
Speaker 2: they don't think that way.
6:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, and she's not changing the ideological composition of the court.
6:54
Speaker 2: No.
6:55
Speaker 1: So it was really kind of a free vote.
6:58
Speaker 2: Yeah.
6:59
Speaker 1: They also made her more popular. There was a clear backlash.
7:03
Speaker 1: Even among Republicans. Even among Republicans. Her support at the
7:06
Speaker 1: beginning of the hearings was lower, even though it was
7:09
Speaker 1: still pretty high. It was like 58, 59 percent. It
7:12
Speaker 1: was 66 percent by the end. Overwhelming with independents. And
7:17
Speaker 1: like I said, a third of Republicans, too. And they
7:19
Speaker 1: did a separate poll today. about how the Republicans handled
7:23
Speaker 1: the nomination, 52% of the public said that they were
7:26
Speaker 1: unfair and did a very bad job questioning her. So
7:28
Speaker 1: clearly there was backlash to what they did.
7:30
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, look, I'm thinking about the conversation we
7:32
Speaker 3: had a while back and then you had with Dan
7:34
Speaker 3: on Thursday Pod about like protesting themes for the midterms.
7:38
Speaker 3: But even, yeah, Josh Hawley humiliating himself three or four
7:42
Speaker 3: days in a row did nothing for them. I mean,
7:46
Speaker 3: I'm sure they'll go after Democrats as soft on crime
7:47
Speaker 3: and maybe they'll point to elements of this hearing as
7:50
Speaker 3: part of that, but I kind of doubt it. I
7:52
Speaker 3: sort of think they have that well set up for
7:54
Speaker 3: themselves because they'll go to their usual hobby horses.
7:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think they road tested the messages poorly. Like
7:59
Speaker 1: I think there are some messages around those themes that
8:02
Speaker 1: do worry me around the midterms. I just think they
8:05
Speaker 1: did a particularly bad job in these hearings by being
8:09
Speaker 1: as extreme and openly racist as possible.
8:13
Speaker 2: And they were all over the place. I mean, even
8:15
Speaker 2: just now, John Cornyn is still talking about Obergefell. Obergefell! Right,
8:19
Speaker 2: which is a popular decision legalizing marriage equality. He is
8:22
Speaker 2: still attacking that. He's still, I think, both seeming radical
8:26
Speaker 2: in that he is going after settled and popular opinions,
8:30
Speaker 2: while at the same time, I think giving fuel to
8:33
Speaker 2: the fire for Democrats and progressives who watch this very
8:35
Speaker 2: closely saying, hey, these threats... These threats to our rights,
8:38
Speaker 2: these are very real now. We are not exaggerating. We
8:43
Speaker 2: are not just ringing the alarm.
8:44
Speaker 1: He said that Obergefell mandates same-sex marriage.
8:48
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah.
8:51
Speaker 3: Sure.
8:53
Speaker 2: Your lips to God's ears, buddy. I'll send you a list.
8:59
Speaker 2: I mean, what was your.
9:00
Speaker 1: Take on Graham's comments? Sam Stein tweeted this, a reporter
9:04
Speaker 1: for Politico. He said, have we reached a point where
9:05
Speaker 1: the only way to confirm a Supreme Court justice is
9:08
Speaker 1: if one party controls the White House and the Senate.
9:10
Speaker 2: Yes. That is completely stupid. That is so stupid. Of course,
9:14
Speaker 2: Democrats will get railroaded to confirm a Republican nominee.
9:19
Speaker 3: Yes, I think McConnell stealing the Merrick Garland seat was
9:22
Speaker 3: precedent setting. And all the little McConnell acolytes can blame
9:26
Speaker 3: Trump for ruining politics. But no, I mean, that was
9:30
Speaker 3: the biggest change we've seen in recent history. I do worry, though,
9:35
Speaker 3: The Democrats would probably not have the stomach to do
9:39
Speaker 3: what they did. I mean, like there will be lots
9:41
Speaker 3: of demands for reciprocity and retribution, but I wonder if
9:45
Speaker 3: we'll be able.
9:46
Speaker 5: To pull it.
9:46
Speaker 2: We'll have the grapes for it.
9:47
Speaker 1: Here's something about Graham's comments. The Judiciary Committee tied, deadlocked
9:52
Speaker 1: on this. And the only reason that we were able
9:55
Speaker 1: to get it out of the Judiciary Committee on the
9:57
Speaker 1: floor for a final vote that will come later this
9:59
Speaker 1: week is because Chuck Schumer is the majority leader. If
10:02
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer was not the majority leader and it was
10:04
Speaker 1: a close Senate, we would not have been able to
10:06
Speaker 1: discharge it. There would be no Ketanji Brown-Jackson on the
10:08
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, which, by the way, all the like kick
10:10
Speaker 1: Manchin out of the party stuff and Manchin being kicked
10:13
Speaker 1: out of the party, there would be no Ketanji Brown-Jackson
10:15
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court.
10:15
Speaker 5: Yeah.
10:16
Speaker 3: I mean, look, you know, Scalia was 98 to 0.
10:18
Speaker 3: RBG was 96-3. Do you guys remember how close the
10:21
Speaker 3: John Roberts vote was in 2005?
10:24
Speaker 1: I don't. You got it?
10:25
Speaker 3: I got it in front of me. Pop quiz.
10:30
Speaker 2: 57-40.
10:31
Speaker 3: John?
10:32
Speaker 1: 55.
10:35
Speaker 3: The Democrats split 22-22.
10:37
Speaker 2: What?
10:39
Speaker 3: Half the Democrats voted for it. It was also some
10:41
Speaker 3: weird ones. Chris Dodd.
10:43
Speaker 1: Feingold, Leahy, Levin, Wyden. You know what's extra embarrassing about
10:46
Speaker 1: me getting that wrong is you and I were in
10:48
Speaker 1: the Senate, working in the Senate for Barack Obama, who
10:51
Speaker 1: was voting on that nomination.
10:53
Speaker 3: And he voted no, but I think it kind of
10:55
Speaker 3: tortured him a little bit.
10:56
Speaker 1: Because of this tradition.
10:57
Speaker 2: I was there too.
10:58
Speaker 1: Were you with him? What was the final vote?
10:59
Speaker 3: I don't have it in front of me.
11:00
Speaker 2: Well, what the fuck?
11:01
Speaker 3: What was the split that mattered?
11:04
Speaker 2: Yeah, but that wasn't your question. You said, what was
11:05
Speaker 2: the split?
11:06
Speaker 3: Hold on. It was like 70 or 80. It was
11:07
Speaker 3: like something like that.
11:09
Speaker 1: Graham's comments, though, by just saying like, hey, just so
11:12
Speaker 1: everyone knows, If we ever take back the Senate, we're
11:15
Speaker 1: never going to confirm another judge that's not a right-wing judge. Like,
11:18
Speaker 1: I'd put that in an ad. I think that's good
11:20
Speaker 1: for voters to see. And look, Murkowski, right after her vote,
11:25
Speaker 1: right after she announced that she was voting yes, she said,
11:27
Speaker 1: this process is so unbelievably broken.
11:29
Speaker 3: 78-22. We should have been able to do the math.
11:31
Speaker 3: If there were 22 Democrats who voted no, obviously there
11:33
Speaker 3: were no Republicans. We're so stupid.
11:36
Speaker 2: We're doing great.
11:36
Speaker 1: We're doing great. We're moving on.
11:37
Speaker 3: Terrible math.
11:38
Speaker 1: Over in the House. So anyway, Ketanji Brown-Jackson is going
11:41
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. The vote's going to come later
11:42
Speaker 1: this week. Wonderful. Over in the House, the January 6th
11:46
Speaker 1: committee is aiming to wrap up their investigation before the midterms.
11:49
Speaker 1: But Politico reports that some members still aren't sure if
11:51
Speaker 1: they want to formally recommend that the Justice Department pursue
11:54
Speaker 1: a criminal case against Donald Trump. Select committee member Zoe
11:57
Speaker 1: Lofgren of California said, quote, a referral doesn't mean anything.
12:00
Speaker 1: It has no legal weight whatsoever. And I'm pretty sure
12:02
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice has read last week's opinion. So
12:05
Speaker 1: they don't need us to tell them it exists. She's
12:08
Speaker 1: referring to the federal judge who said in a ruling
12:10
Speaker 1: that there's credible evidence that Donald Trump engaged in criminal
12:13
Speaker 1: conduct by obstructing Congress from certifying the election. There was
12:16
Speaker 1: also a New York Times story over the weekend that
12:18
Speaker 1: gave us the White House view of the situation. Quote,
12:21
Speaker 1: as recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to
12:24
Speaker 1: his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J.
12:26
Speaker 1: Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted.
12:30
Speaker 1: And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly
12:33
Speaker 1: to Mr. Garland, thank God, he has said privately that
12:36
Speaker 1: he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous
12:38
Speaker 1: judge and more like a prosecutor who's willing to take
12:41
Speaker 1: decisive actions over the events of January 6th. Let's start there.
12:45
Speaker 1: What'd you guys think of the New York Times story?
12:47
Speaker 2: I like that Biden on this matter is basically like
12:50
Speaker 2: all of us, just be like, what's going on over there?
12:53
Speaker 2: What's he doing over there? I put this guy in,
12:56
Speaker 2: he says, I'm not going to get involved, I'm not
12:57
Speaker 2: going to call him, but like, Come on! We've got
13:00
Speaker 2: crimes left and right being documented. What's he doing?
13:03
Speaker 4: I don't know.
13:04
Speaker 1: Tommy?
13:04
Speaker 3: This leak sucks so much. This leak is such a problem.
13:09
Speaker 3: This is like the DOJ equivalent of removing a white
13:12
Speaker 3: glove in the 1800s and slapping your opponent. Now, don't
13:15
Speaker 3: you think Garland's going to get his back up and
13:17
Speaker 3: bend over backwards to not look like he's responding to
13:20
Speaker 3: political considerations?
13:21
Speaker 2: They put out the statement.
13:22
Speaker 1: The people who leak... I have no doubt that the
13:27
Speaker 1: people who leaked this to the New York Times... from
13:29
Speaker 1: the White House or from the sources that were familiar
13:31
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden's conversation, want Merrick Garland to prosecute Donald Trump.
13:35
Speaker 1: This will have potentially the opposite effect because Merrick Garland
13:39
Speaker 1: is the type of guy who, if he has to
13:41
Speaker 1: read the New York Times that Joe Biden wants him
13:42
Speaker 1: to prosecute someone, is going to feel like he shouldn't
13:44
Speaker 1: prosecute someone.
13:45
Speaker 2: Ridiculous to think like that. My hope in reading this
13:50
Speaker 2: is that this has zero impact.
13:52
Speaker 1: Potentially.
13:53
Speaker 2: That's how I took it. Unless it was happening tomorrow.
13:55
Speaker 1: I hope that too. I hope for all kinds of things.
13:56
Speaker 2: I hope and expect.
13:57
Speaker 3: This is giving me tasting notes of Jim Comey, Loretta Lynch,
14:02
Speaker 3: Bill Clinton on a tarmac.
14:04
Speaker 2: Yeah, my hope is- Hints of cigar box. Look, luckily-
14:08
Speaker 2: Fruit Ford Berries. Look, they broke the mold when they
14:11
Speaker 2: made James Comey.
14:12
Speaker 1: All right.
14:12
Speaker 2: That guy, they don't make them that tall and ponderous anymore.
14:15
Speaker 2: All right. That was the last one.
14:17
Speaker 3: All right.
14:17
Speaker 2: So that's great.
14:18
Speaker 1: A little shorter still is pretty ponderous.
14:21
Speaker 2: Pretty ponderous. But he's not in that rarefied, you know, six, three, six,
14:26
Speaker 2: four air where facts and reason don't reach. So that's,
14:29
Speaker 2: I think, hopeful. I'll tell you what my actual. So
14:33
Speaker 2: I'll be honest in that I thought of the quote
14:36
Speaker 2: and then I thought, oh, who said that? What wise
14:38
Speaker 2: sage said that quote? And then when I looked it up,
14:41
Speaker 2: I'm about to tell you. I realized that once I
14:43
Speaker 2: found it, I was in fact quoting Alfred Pennyworth from
14:46
Speaker 2: Dark Knight Rises. And this is the quote. Maybe it's
14:50
Speaker 2: time to stop trying to outsmart the truth and let
14:52
Speaker 2: it have its day. That's what I thought about.
14:55
Speaker 1: What do you think? Merrick Garland said that?
14:58
Speaker 2: That's what I thought when I saw the January 6th
15:02
Speaker 2: quotes about them not being sure if they're going to.
15:04
Speaker 1: Do a criminal referral.
15:05
Speaker 2: It's like, hey.
15:06
Speaker 1: Oh, back to the back to Zoe. Oh, yeah. No,
15:09
Speaker 1: let's talk about that.
15:10
Speaker 3: But before this, though, and Garland, what I want to
15:12
Speaker 3: say to Joe Biden, though, is if you don't want
15:15
Speaker 3: a DOJ that acts like it's being run by a
15:17
Speaker 3: ponderous judge, don't put a ponderous judge in charge of
15:21
Speaker 3: it would.
15:21
Speaker 1: Be probably the big piece of advice.
15:23
Speaker 3: Also, it is a great example of a decision designed
15:26
Speaker 3: to send a message of reform or like you're cleaning
15:29
Speaker 3: up Washington by making DOJ independent again doesn't usually get
15:34
Speaker 3: you much because a Republicans will now point to the
15:38
Speaker 3: story and say, look, Biden is politicizing DOJ. It's just
15:42
Speaker 3: as bad as it was under Barr or anybody else.
15:44
Speaker 3: And Democrats are frustrated with Garland, and they feel like
15:46
Speaker 3: things are going slowly.
15:48
Speaker 1: And so here we are. What do you mean it
15:49
Speaker 1: doesn't get you much? Probably a Washington Post editorial? Maybe
15:54
Speaker 1: a Ross Douthat column?
15:55
Speaker 2: We could have had Doug Jones. We could have.
15:58
Speaker 1: Had Doug Jones. Perhaps a tweet from the liberal legal establishment?
16:02
Speaker 3: I bet no labels was.
16:04
Speaker 2: We could have had Doug Jones right now taping pieces
16:07
Speaker 2: of shredded paper together.
16:09
Speaker 1: Doesn't strike me as too ponderous, that guy.
16:10
Speaker 2: No.
16:11
Speaker 1: That is not a ponderer.
16:12
Speaker 2: He does. Some ponder. Not our boy Doug Jones. He does.
16:21
Speaker 2: Just thinking about the flashlight going through the fucking trash
16:24
Speaker 2: outside of Trump Tower. That guy get it done. Come on,
16:29
Speaker 2: Merrick Garland.
16:29
Speaker 3: He's obviously really well qualified for the job. The DOJ's
16:33
Speaker 3: legitimacy is bigger than a case against Trump, but not
16:36
Speaker 3: that much bigger.
16:36
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a pretty big case. It's a
16:38
Speaker 1: pretty big case. Look, you're right. Anyway. But back to
16:40
Speaker 1: your original point, Levitt. Something about a Batman? No, there
16:44
Speaker 1: is a hope that Merrick Garland is like, I don't
16:46
Speaker 1: care what's in the New York Times. I don't care
16:48
Speaker 1: what Joe Biden wants. If the facts lead me to
16:50
Speaker 1: prosecute him, I'm going to prosecute him. And if not,
16:53
Speaker 1: then I'm not, which... And I look. But again, we
16:56
Speaker 1: now look. The most important story was the one we
16:58
Speaker 1: talked about on Thursday's pod, which is, again, or one
17:00
Speaker 1: of these pods, a federal judge said in a ruling
17:04
Speaker 1: that there is ample evidence that Donald Trump broke the
17:07
Speaker 1: law when he tried to obstruct Congress from an official proceeding,
17:09
Speaker 1: which was certifying the presidential election.
17:12
Speaker 2: And I also like when the case out of New
17:15
Speaker 2: York fell apart and the district attorney bragged, basically said
17:20
Speaker 2: he wasn't going to do it, wasn't going to let
17:22
Speaker 2: them go to the grand jury and those prosecutors resigned.
17:25
Speaker 2: The letter was, I think, furious that they weren't allowed
17:28
Speaker 2: to take this case to the grand jury. But I
17:29
Speaker 2: think even those prosecutors admitted that they didn't believe this
17:32
Speaker 2: was some malevolent choice. It was just one they disagreed with.
17:36
Speaker 2: They thought it was an error because they thought that
17:38
Speaker 2: the evidence was strong enough to lead them toward seeking
17:42
Speaker 2: an indictment. This this district attorney disagreed. But what I'm
17:47
Speaker 2: getting at is they all if they're going to do this,
17:51
Speaker 2: they understand that this is one of the most important
17:53
Speaker 2: decisions ever. uh, any prosecutor has ever made in the
17:56
Speaker 2: history of this country. And so they don't want to
17:59
Speaker 2: do it unless they feel like they have him dead
18:01
Speaker 2: to rights.
18:01
Speaker 1: That's right.
18:02
Speaker 2: I understand that.
18:03
Speaker 1: I understand that.
18:04
Speaker 3: And that's where Congresswoman Loughran's quote is correct. Like a
18:07
Speaker 3: DOJ referral from Congress doesn't mean anything in practice. And
18:12
Speaker 3: the fact that a judge looked at all this evidence
18:14
Speaker 3: and said, Hey, there's some crimes here is a very
18:16
Speaker 3: big deal that should hopefully give DOJ all that they
18:19
Speaker 3: need to move forward. But, Why say it to the politico?
18:24
Speaker 1: But also, and also this is also this is the
18:26
Speaker 1: how these are these Democrats in the House, like too
18:29
Speaker 1: afraid to put their hand on the knife. You know,
18:31
Speaker 1: it's like Liz Cheney has been out there saying if
18:34
Speaker 1: a criminal referral is warranted, we will have a criminal referral.
18:38
Speaker 1: So now we're going to have Zoe Lofgren like go
18:40
Speaker 1: back on that. And do you think Merrick Garland is
18:43
Speaker 1: going to be more or less likely it like, OK,
18:46
Speaker 1: if there's a bipartisan, there's a bipartisan committee on this.
18:49
Speaker 1: if the bipartisan committee sends a criminal referral to DOJ,
18:52
Speaker 1: that probably lends the whole thing a little bit more
18:54
Speaker 1: weight than if the bipartisan committee, much like Robert Mueller
18:58
Speaker 1: before them, decides to end with a report and no
19:02
Speaker 1: recommendation whatsoever.
19:03
Speaker 2: But this is the point, though. This is like a
19:07
Speaker 2: second-order question about the politics of what these referrals will
19:11
Speaker 2: or will not do, the stories that they'll shape, the
19:14
Speaker 2: mood of the country. If you get to the end
19:17
Speaker 2: of the investigation and you believe there's enough evidence for
19:19
Speaker 2: a criminal referral, you do it.
19:20
Speaker 4: Of course.
19:21
Speaker 2: And if you don't, you don't.
19:22
Speaker 1: You don't.
19:22
Speaker 2: Why are you doing punditry about, oh, it's even if
19:25
Speaker 2: we don't, it's fine. Like, what the fuck are you doing?
19:28
Speaker 2: Just do it. If you think there's a referral, send
19:31
Speaker 2: it along. If not, don't. But why are you getting
19:33
Speaker 2: out there ahead of it being like, in the end,
19:36
Speaker 2: what we do is really up to God?
19:38
Speaker 3: You know, just declined comment on that one, because truthfully,
19:41
Speaker 3: the committee has done some good work and they are
19:43
Speaker 3: the reason that we have this ruling from a judge now.
19:46
Speaker 3: who has seen the evidence.
19:47
Speaker 1: Look, the best investigations happen through the press. We all
19:50
Speaker 1: know that.
19:50
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, Trump's done most of his crimes on television.
19:54
Speaker 1: There's one last big piece of potential business for Congress
19:57
Speaker 1: this spring that we should talk about. The return of
20:00
Speaker 1: the bill formerly known as Build Back Better. Politico reports
20:04
Speaker 1: that Joe Manchin is open to a smaller bill focused
20:07
Speaker 1: on raising taxes on the rich and big corporations, married
20:09
Speaker 1: with prescription drug reform and climate spending, with roughly half
20:13
Speaker 1: of any new revenues from the bill to go toward
20:14
Speaker 1: deficit reduction. But of course, when reporters tried to pin
20:18
Speaker 1: him down on the details, he gave the following quote. Really,
20:21
Speaker 1: I can't give you a reading on it if there's
20:23
Speaker 1: anything serious about this. You have chatter and we talk
20:25
Speaker 1: to everybody. After next week, we'll see. After the judge
20:28
Speaker 1: and all that, maybe things will pick up.
20:30
Speaker 2: I'll tell you, I was.
20:32
Speaker 2: Joe Manchin is the.
20:33
Speaker 1: Sounds like they should schedule that signing ceremony at the
20:35
Speaker 1: White House, huh?
20:36
Speaker 2: He is the sweet green of word salads.
20:38
Speaker 1: This guy.
20:40
Speaker 5: Why?
20:41
Speaker 2: He pops out a lot of word salads. I'm just,
20:43
Speaker 2: that's all I mean. He's like sweet green, you know,
20:46
Speaker 2: the restaurant that makes salads?
20:47
Speaker 1: Yeah.
20:48
Speaker 2: But he puts out a lot.
20:49
Speaker 1: No, I get it.
20:49
Speaker 2: Like a conveyor belt of them.
20:50
Speaker 1: Sure, sure, sure, sure, sure.
20:52
Speaker 2: Not enough dressing. Oh, man.
20:54
Speaker 1: Criminal referral for that joke.
20:58
Speaker 3: It's like, his position is just a, it's a Mobius strip,
21:03
Speaker 3: you know? Yeah. He's for and against it at all times.
21:05
Speaker 2: That's right.
21:06
Speaker 3: Just write down what you want on paper. We, you
21:10
Speaker 3: guys pass what this asshole says and let's just move forward.
21:13
Speaker 2: Well, there was some talk of him actually writing things
21:15
Speaker 2: down on paper.
21:16
Speaker 1: It would be wonderful.
21:17
Speaker 2: That he's maybe started to jot some things down, made
21:19
Speaker 2: some scratches.
21:20
Speaker 1: So that's helpful. I will tell you, so the question is,
21:23
Speaker 1: if you're reading this story in the white house uh
21:27
Speaker 1: and you still have hair left afterwards um or you're
21:30
Speaker 1: a democrat in congress like what approach do you think
21:33
Speaker 1: offers the best chance because we're not going to predict
21:35
Speaker 1: that it's going to get passed but the best chance
21:37
Speaker 1: of getting this passed.
21:38
Speaker 2: You you basically get joe manager pretty drunk you put
21:42
Speaker 2: a dead body on the almost famous you wake up
21:44
Speaker 2: and you say take care of it we'll just take
21:46
Speaker 2: care of it for you joe joe joe we're family
21:48
Speaker 2: we'll take care of it.
21:49
Speaker 1: Okay i gotta i'm gonna side with love it on
21:51
Speaker 1: this one Okay. Just write the bill, dude.
21:55
Speaker 2: You could be a hero. Put a bunch of earmarks
21:57
Speaker 2: in for your little coal factory or whatever you want
22:01
Speaker 2: on there.
22:01
Speaker 5: Whatever.
22:02
Speaker 2: Get the rest done. Short-term climate destruction for long-term climate salvation.
22:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a little bit of... He wants this all-of-the-above
22:10
Speaker 1: energy strategy, which means short-term fossil fuel production, long-term climate investment.
22:17
Speaker 1: Politico Pro had some Democratic members of Congress in the
22:21
Speaker 1: House quoted as saying, like, fine, you know, as long
22:24
Speaker 1: as it's short term and the long term spending is
22:26
Speaker 1: going to match what was in the original Build Back Better,
22:28
Speaker 1: which was very significant spending and transformative on climate.
22:31
Speaker 2: And the hopes that it would out, it would just
22:33
Speaker 2: by having done that, that spending, you kind of outpace
22:36
Speaker 2: whatever damage you do with the short term.
22:38
Speaker 1: But here's what I've learned from Build Back Better for
22:40
Speaker 1: everyone else is everyone shut up about everything on this, right?
22:43
Speaker 1: Like whatever Joe Manchin sees this partly as a messaging
22:47
Speaker 1: exercise about himself and where he stands. And if he
22:49
Speaker 1: wants to go out here and say that this is
22:51
Speaker 1: a bill about deficit reduction and and fighting inflation, and
22:55
Speaker 1: we're going to fight the deficit and blah, blah, blah,
22:56
Speaker 1: let him say that. If he wants to talk about
22:58
Speaker 1: the all of the above energy strategy, but we know
23:00
Speaker 1: that the actual legislation is really transformative on climate, let
23:03
Speaker 1: him say whatever the fuck he wants to say. Just
23:05
Speaker 1: get the thing done.
23:06
Speaker 2: I think that the thing I don't understand is where
23:08
Speaker 2: Sinema falls on all this because, so there's a prescription
23:11
Speaker 2: drug piece, and if she apparently negotiated a weaker prescription
23:14
Speaker 2: drug piece that she could get behind before, I don't
23:17
Speaker 2: know where that stands compared to what they're kind of
23:19
Speaker 2: heading towards now. There's the climate piece, which Manchin has
23:23
Speaker 2: been for, which Sinema has not come out against. And
23:26
Speaker 2: then there's the taxes. Joe Manchin's been all over the place.
23:29
Speaker 2: He's said different things, depending on which reporters are passing
23:31
Speaker 2: him by. But he has been, over time, signaling that
23:34
Speaker 2: he wants higher taxes on the rich to pay for this,
23:38
Speaker 2: plus some deficit reduction, both because his brain is kind
23:41
Speaker 2: of steeped in 2000 era. It's pickled by punditry from
23:44
Speaker 2: the 2000s. And I think he is genuinely convinced by
23:47
Speaker 2: the inflationary arguments. But Sinema... has been for a different
23:50
Speaker 2: set of tax increases.
23:51
Speaker 1: So specifically, they both, Sinema and Manchin, both are open
23:56
Speaker 1: to raising taxes on rich people. Manchin wants to raise rates.
24:00
Speaker 1: He wants to undo the Trump tax cuts.
24:01
Speaker 2: And she's been against that.
24:02
Speaker 1: And she has been against that. She's more into the
24:05
Speaker 1: creative minimum tax for millionaires or billionaires or wealth tax
24:09
Speaker 1: or all that other kind of stuff. Or minimum tax
24:11
Speaker 1: for corporations.
24:12
Speaker 2: A little wrapped in an enigma, that's why.
24:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, when I talked to Katie Porter about this on
24:16
Speaker 1: Thursday's pod, and she said the problem is that the
24:19
Speaker 1: The two circles of what Manchin and Sinema want, there
24:22
Speaker 1: is no Venn diagram. They don't really overlap. That's what
24:25
Speaker 1: she's worried about, at least. That's my worry, too. So
24:27
Speaker 1: I think that's the trouble here. But, you know, again,
24:31
Speaker 1: just put the two of them in a room. Put
24:33
Speaker 1: the two of them in a room and say, like,
24:34
Speaker 1: figure out some tax thing. Let's get this done.
24:36
Speaker 3: It's just, it's so frustrating. Because, like, even Larry Summers,
24:39
Speaker 3: the biggest inflation hawk who has been shouted down for
24:42
Speaker 3: the last six months to a year, was in favor
24:44
Speaker 3: of Build Back Better. because he didn't think it was
24:46
Speaker 3: going to exacerbate the problem. But you will undoubtedly hear
24:49
Speaker 3: Joe Manchin cite that over and over again about this
24:51
Speaker 3: smaller version.
24:52
Speaker 1: And look, it's incredibly important to make the wealthy pay
24:55
Speaker 1: their fair share, to cut the cost of prescription drugs,
24:59
Speaker 1: and more than anything else, to invest in climate, to
25:02
Speaker 1: transform the economy, to clean energy economy. But just on
25:05
Speaker 1: the politics, I will tell you the politics of a
25:07
Speaker 1: bill that raises tax on the rich, cuts the deficit,
25:10
Speaker 1: cuts the cost of prescription drugs, includes the ACA subsidies,
25:13
Speaker 1: and creates clean energy jobs. Couldn't be better. Good stuff.
25:16
Speaker 1: Outstanding politics.
25:17
Speaker 2: Run on that. Yeah.
25:19
Speaker 1: And on the ACA stuff, it looks like our old
25:21
Speaker 1: boss is going to the White House for the first
25:23
Speaker 1: time since he left on Tuesday.
25:25
Speaker 2: Maybe he can stick around.
25:26
Speaker 1: He's going to do an event with Joe Biden on
25:28
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act anniversary. Apparently they're going to announce
25:31
Speaker 1: that they're going to fix the family glitch in the ACA,
25:34
Speaker 1: which means that... That's the one.
25:36
Speaker 2: That makes you have gay kids. Makes your kids gay.
25:40
Speaker 2: That's the problem with that.
25:40
Speaker 1: It's also, yeah, that or extend subsidized health insurance to
25:44
Speaker 1: 5 million more Americans, which is pretty good. Which is
25:47
Speaker 1: pretty good.
25:47
Speaker 2: So they could just do that? Says you.
25:49
Speaker 3: By executive action.
25:49
Speaker 1: Says you, that's what it does. Yeah, says me. There's
25:52
Speaker 1: a treasury rule that they think they can do that,
25:54
Speaker 1: which is they screwed up the way, HHS screwed up
25:57
Speaker 1: the way it defines how you qualify for subsidies when
26:01
Speaker 1: it's just you versus you and your family.
26:02
Speaker 2: Only applies to pregnant men.
26:04
Speaker 3: Right.
26:07
Speaker 1: Also, we got a COVID deal. We talked about the
26:10
Speaker 1: COVID funding not getting in the last bill, and apparently
26:13
Speaker 1: they just reached a $ 10 billion agreement on that, though
26:15
Speaker 1: they left out fucking international COVID.
26:17
Speaker 2: Funding, which is awful, but that's stupid.
26:19
Speaker 1: Yell at the Republicans over that, because it was $ 10
26:21
Speaker 1: billion or nothing, and so we got the $ 10 billion.
26:23
Speaker 3: No, I mean, COVID is famously a virus that only.
26:27
Speaker 1: occurs in the U.S. Yeah, so it's good that we
26:29
Speaker 1: cut all that international funding. But at the very least,
26:31
Speaker 1: you know, boosters, vaccines, treatments, we're going to have money
26:33
Speaker 1: for all that because amazingly we weren't going to because
26:36
Speaker 1: the Republicans tried to block it before. So that's some
26:38
Speaker 1: good news. All right, when we come back, Tommy talks
26:41
Speaker 1: to The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum about the war in Ukraine.
26:54
Speaker 3: On the line, I'm joined by Anne Applebaum. She's a
26:55
Speaker 3: staff writer at The Atlantic. and the author of a
26:58
Speaker 3: fantastic book, Twilight of Democracy, The Seductive Lore of Authoritarianism. Anne,
27:03
Speaker 3: thanks so much for doing the show.
27:04
Speaker 4: Thanks for having me.
27:06
Speaker 3: So I'm really grateful for you coming on. Obviously, Ukraine
27:11
Speaker 3: has been in the news for a month plus now,
27:14
Speaker 3: but over the weekend, we saw some truly horrifying images
27:17
Speaker 3: out of parts of Ukraine, like Bukha, that had recently
27:19
Speaker 3: been occupied by Russian troops. Clearly, there were civilians being
27:24
Speaker 3: bound and shot. war crimes, or at least evidence of
27:27
Speaker 3: war crimes. The international response has been a little bit
27:31
Speaker 3: mixed so far, as far as I can see. Have
27:33
Speaker 3: you seen meaningful steps in terms of the pressure campaign
27:37
Speaker 3: on Putin? Are you seeing countries saying things that might
27:39
Speaker 3: move the needle?
27:40
Speaker 4: So the response of the West more broadly has moved
27:43
Speaker 4: the needle already. I think the fact that Putin did
27:46
Speaker 4: withdraw his troops from the north of the country is
27:49
Speaker 4: an important sign. He felt he could no longer win.
27:52
Speaker 4: And his original plan, which was to conquer Kiev, has failed.
27:56
Speaker 4: And that's partly because of Western support for Ukraine. I mean,
27:58
Speaker 4: I actually think that the military support for Ukraine is
28:01
Speaker 4: by far the most important thing we're doing and much
28:03
Speaker 4: more important than sanctions. Sanctions might have a long-term effect,
28:07
Speaker 4: particularly on the Russian military industry and its ability to
28:11
Speaker 4: manufacture weapons, and that's good. But in the short term,
28:14
Speaker 4: it doesn't really, there's no mechanism, there's no tool by
28:18
Speaker 4: which it stops Putin or does anything. So really the
28:21
Speaker 4: most effective thing we can do is still military support.
28:23
Speaker 4: I mean, there are the beginnings in Ukraine of important
28:27
Speaker 4: and serious human rights investigations. The Human Rights Watch is
28:31
Speaker 4: on the ground. There are journalists on the ground. There
28:35
Speaker 4: are people beginning to bring court cases. And although that's
28:38
Speaker 4: all very slow moving and so on, I believe that
28:42
Speaker 4: will also have a cumulative effect over time. But I
28:45
Speaker 4: do expect more sanctions, more response. But as I said,
28:49
Speaker 4: I'll just repeat it again. Most important thing we can
28:52
Speaker 4: do is give the Ukrainian army the weapons that they're
28:55
Speaker 4: asking for.
28:55
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, I agree with you there. I mean, I
28:58
Speaker 3: think we all want the peace talks between Ukrainians and
29:02
Speaker 3: the Russians to work. But, you know, most of the
29:05
Speaker 3: experts I read believe that this is essentially an effort
29:09
Speaker 3: by Putin to reconstitute his army, resupply, give people some
29:13
Speaker 3: rest and refocus his military effort on the east of
29:16
Speaker 3: Ukraine because their effort to race down from Belarus and
29:19
Speaker 3: get a bunch of tanks into Kyiv was met with
29:22
Speaker 3: really fierce resistance from the Ukrainian military, who, you know,
29:26
Speaker 3: you're right, they performed incredibly ably, but in part because
29:28
Speaker 3: they had anti-tank weapons that were provided by the US
29:32
Speaker 3: and the UK and many others.
29:34
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, it's also important to understand, you know,
29:36
Speaker 4: so the peace talks, I agree, eventually there will be
29:39
Speaker 4: some kind of negotiation. but the war continues to matter
29:43
Speaker 4: and will shape that negotiation. Anybody who wants the Ukrainians,
29:47
Speaker 4: you know, to trade land for peace needs to understand
29:52
Speaker 4: what's at stake here. And I think we've just learned
29:54
Speaker 4: it over the weekend. Every piece of territory that the
29:56
Speaker 4: Ukrainians give up to Russians is is terrorized. That means
30:00
Speaker 4: the local mayors and business leaders and museum curators are
30:05
Speaker 4: arrested or disappeared or murdered. It means that there's random
30:09
Speaker 4: terror at civilians. We saw already the effects of some
30:14
Speaker 4: of it. Apparently there's more coming out as more of
30:16
Speaker 4: those towns are liberated and as people come in to
30:20
Speaker 4: find out what happened. Every single Eastern Ukrainian town that
30:24
Speaker 4: has been occupied by the Russians, the same story. In fact,
30:28
Speaker 4: this is what happened in Crimea as well after the
30:30
Speaker 4: Russians occupied Crimea. So remember that any concessions, this isn't
30:36
Speaker 4: just about giving a little bit of land up or
30:37
Speaker 4: moving the border. Any concessions mean that the Ukrainians are
30:41
Speaker 4: giving their own people up to a vicious totalitarian occupation force.
30:49
Speaker 2: And they may have to do it.
30:51
Speaker 4: And I'm not going to tell the Ukrainians what their
30:53
Speaker 4: negotiation strategy should be. But just remember when advocating for
30:57
Speaker 4: them to do that, that that's.
30:58
Speaker 3: What's at stake. No, I think that's an important note.
31:01
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, I too am not going to
31:03
Speaker 3: tell the Ukrainians when to negotiate or what to negotiate.
31:06
Speaker 3: But it is worth noting that I think when you
31:08
Speaker 3: total up the Crimean Peninsula and the Donbass region, you're
31:10
Speaker 3: talking about like 10 percent of Ukrainian territory. So this
31:13
Speaker 3: is not a small concession that we're talking about. What
31:18
Speaker 3: steps do you think have not yet been taken that
31:21
Speaker 3: would be the most meaningful in terms of support for Ukraine?
31:25
Speaker 4: So there's some military support we could sue them and
31:28
Speaker 4: some sanctions. I mean, I think actually if you want
31:30
Speaker 4: sanctions that are more effective, I would take the top 5,000 Russians,
31:36
Speaker 4: you know, everybody who is in the Duma and the
31:39
Speaker 4: Russian parliament, everybody in the Kremlin administration, and plus all
31:43
Speaker 4: their wives and daughters and sons and relatives. And I
31:48
Speaker 4: would ban all of them from traveling to Europe or
31:51
Speaker 4: America ever again. I mean, I would put them on
31:52
Speaker 4: lists right now. That's something that could have an effect
31:55
Speaker 4: right now. So I would begin focusing sanctions much more
31:58
Speaker 4: on the broader elite and not just on these billionaire
32:02
Speaker 4: oligarchs who everybody loves to hate. So I would say that.
32:06
Speaker 4: In terms of military help, I mean, the Ukrainians have
32:08
Speaker 4: a specific list. They want aircraft. They want armored vehicles.
32:13
Speaker 4: They want more tanks. They wanted a no-fly zone. They
32:19
Speaker 4: made that very clear, and we made it very clear, unfortunately,
32:21
Speaker 4: that we weren't willing to do that, not even over
32:24
Speaker 4: Western Ukraine, which I think was a mistake. But I
32:28
Speaker 4: understand the calculation of the Pentagon was this fear of
32:30
Speaker 4: a direct clash between U.S. and Russian forces, which they
32:33
Speaker 4: wanted to avoid. But speeding up the provision of those weapons,
32:40
Speaker 4: those bigger ticket items that they want, plus the ammunition
32:44
Speaker 4: and so on, I think we can do that right away.
32:46
Speaker 4: I mean, we can do it the next week.
32:49
Speaker 3: So, I mean, just to follow up on the no-fly
32:51
Speaker 3: zone point, I think I'm definitely in a sort of
32:55
Speaker 3: further left position than you are on this.
32:58
Speaker 4: Oh, there's no left and right here.
33:00
Speaker 3: Well, I'm just trying to describe to the audience. I've
33:03
Speaker 3: been very worried about escalation, very concerned about the prospect
33:07
Speaker 3: of a direct military confrontation between the U.S. or NATO
33:10
Speaker 3: and Russia.
33:11
Speaker 4: I understand those concerns.
33:12
Speaker 1: Yeah.
33:13
Speaker 3: No, I'm just sort of like spelling it out for listeners. But,
33:15
Speaker 3: you know, I'm over the weekend, you know, I saw
33:18
Speaker 3: the images at Abuka and it's hard not to feel
33:20
Speaker 3: like outraged, horrified, disgusted, wanting to give the Ukrainian military,
33:28
Speaker 3: you know, every weapon system they need. So, I mean,
33:30
Speaker 3: I guess, how are you thinking about the balance there
33:32
Speaker 3: or the risk of a direct confrontation between the U.S.
33:35
Speaker 3: or NATO and Russia? I mean, how did you calculate that.
33:38
Speaker 4: Well, so right now there is no such risk. I mean,
33:40
Speaker 4: we aren't there, you know, we're not fighting. There is no,
33:43
Speaker 4: there are no American soldiers.
33:44
Speaker 1: No active American.
33:45
Speaker 3: But a no-fly zone would mean U.S. shooting down Russian jets.
33:48
Speaker 4: We're not doing it.
33:50
Speaker 3: I mean, it's... Right. But you're advocating for it.
33:53
Speaker 4: I mean, it's sort of, it's a moot point to
33:55
Speaker 4: advocate for something that won't happen. So I've, you know,
33:59
Speaker 4: I'm not going to bother advocating for it. And I,
34:01
Speaker 4: as I said, I understand the Pentagon's concerns about that.
34:03
Speaker 4: You know, it's a, it's not, it's not irrational. I
34:06
Speaker 4: do think that the Russians have used the nuclear issue
34:10
Speaker 4: as a form of, you know, they use it to
34:12
Speaker 4: create fear and anxiety. They use it to create, you know,
34:15
Speaker 4: to make us not fight. And so to a certain extent,
34:20
Speaker 4: they are bluffing. I mean, they are, you know, that's
34:24
Speaker 4: what they do in order to prevent us from entering
34:25
Speaker 4: the war. And, you know, we have succumbed to that threat.
34:31
Speaker 4: You know, but they're, you know, reasonable people can disagree
34:33
Speaker 4: about this one. Yeah.
34:34
Speaker 3: So you've written a lot about the need to crack
34:37
Speaker 3: down on Russian money, Russian oligarchs, and there has been
34:40
Speaker 3: some scrambling, some catching up lately to crack down on
34:42
Speaker 3: Russian oligarchs. The UK says they're going to pass some
34:47
Speaker 3: laws that make it hopefully less difficult to wash money
34:50
Speaker 3: through London. Everyone's excited when we see some mega yacht
34:56
Speaker 3: get taken by the Spanish authorities, whoever did it today.
34:59
Speaker 3: But you've written about how there are actually– The conventional
35:04
Speaker 3: wisdom is that money laundering and ill-gotten gains get hidden
35:07
Speaker 3: in offshore accounts abroad. But in reality, today, states like
35:10
Speaker 3: South Dakota have become premier global tax havens. There's actually
35:15
Speaker 3: people taking money out of Switzerland and putting it in
35:17
Speaker 3: South Dakota. How do we fix that? If South Dakota
35:20
Speaker 3: state lawmakers don't want to deal with the fact that
35:23
Speaker 3: you can hold companies anonymously in South Dakota, hide taxes,
35:27
Speaker 3: hide from legal liability... Is that something Congress would have
35:31
Speaker 3: to do? Are any lawmakers working on it?
35:34
Speaker 4: So there are people in Congress who think about it.
35:36
Speaker 4: There are a couple senators who think about it quite seriously.
35:38
Speaker 4: Senator Whitehouse is one of them from Rhode Island. You know,
35:43
Speaker 4: I agree with the premise of your question, you know,
35:46
Speaker 4: that this is really a structural problem. And, you know,
35:48
Speaker 4: I don't know, confiscating somebody's yacht feels great and, you know,
35:51
Speaker 4: makes everyone happy, but it doesn't fix it. I mean,
35:53
Speaker 4: I think there are really much more fundamental things we
35:55
Speaker 4: should do. I mean, look, why does anybody need to
35:58
Speaker 4: have an anonymous company? Why does anyone need to hold
36:01
Speaker 4: property anonymously? And people have these, you know, there are
36:04
Speaker 4: these fringe reasons why someone might want it. But frankly,
36:08
Speaker 4: the people who want to do those things do it
36:10
Speaker 4: because either they want to avoid taxes or because they're criminals.
36:14
Speaker 4: So why does that have to be at all legal
36:17
Speaker 4: in our country for any reason? I mean, I think
36:18
Speaker 4: it's really time now to end all of those practices,
36:22
Speaker 4: not just in the United States, but in Europe and
36:26
Speaker 4: really in all democracies. And getting to these very basic problems,
36:31
Speaker 4: these very basic sources of kleptocracy and money laundering would
36:34
Speaker 4: be a lot more effective than just sanctioning people retroactively
36:39
Speaker 4: when something bad happens. And by the way, this just
36:41
Speaker 4: isn't about Russia. This is about Russia. It's about countries
36:44
Speaker 4: in Africa. It's about many, many countries around the world.
36:48
Speaker 4: And we could stop a lot of corruption and we
36:51
Speaker 4: could stop a lot of the political influence campaigns that
36:54
Speaker 4: are paid for with corrupt money if we just change
36:57
Speaker 4: these laws. I mean, another one, why do Americans have
37:00
Speaker 4: to ever be allowed to put any money in tax havens?
37:02
Speaker 4: What are tax havens for? Who uses them? People who
37:05
Speaker 4: are avoiding taxes and people who are corrupt. So let's
37:09
Speaker 4: shut them down.
37:10
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I totally agree with that. Just stepping back
37:13
Speaker 3: a little bit and getting more into the topic of
37:14
Speaker 3: your book. I mean, we're obviously seeing an autocrat in
37:18
Speaker 3: Russia invade Ukraine, but you're also seeing nationalists, autocrats like
37:22
Speaker 3: Viktor Orban in Hungary win re-election. It now looks like
37:26
Speaker 3: there's a surge in support in France for Marine Le Pen,
37:30
Speaker 3: who's a horrible right-wing, xenophobic, racist candidate. Over and over again,
37:36
Speaker 3: I think we see these sort of illiberal autocrats use
37:39
Speaker 3: nationalism to get power. Do you have any thoughts on
37:43
Speaker 3: how to push back on that? I mean, my concern
37:44
Speaker 3: is that it seems to happen in the wake of
37:47
Speaker 3: difficult economic times. So the 2008 financial crisis led to
37:51
Speaker 3: Victor Orban. Marine Le Pen is beating the drum about inflation.
37:56
Speaker 3: How do you think about how we can help counter
37:58
Speaker 3: those sort of appeals?
38:00
Speaker 4: I mean, that's a long, deep question. And a lot
38:03
Speaker 4: of politicians spend a lot of time thinking about it.
38:05
Speaker 4: I don't think there's a pat answer that goes for
38:06
Speaker 4: every country. I mean, there's some answers that have to
38:09
Speaker 4: do with changing the subject and focusing people on roads
38:14
Speaker 4: and bridges, you know, instead of existential cultural issues about
38:17
Speaker 4: which we will never all agree and divide people. There
38:20
Speaker 4: is an answer that has to do with rekindling and
38:24
Speaker 4: focusing on patriotism as opposed to nationalism. And what are
38:27
Speaker 4: the what are the things that tie us together as
38:29
Speaker 4: nations and pull us together? You know, where can we
38:32
Speaker 4: be proud as Americans or as French people? You know,
38:35
Speaker 4: there's a there's there's a counter narrative to nationalism that
38:38
Speaker 4: is also could be unifying and satisfying in a in
38:42
Speaker 4: a in a different way. There's a there's a weird
38:45
Speaker 4: way in which Zelensky, I mean, that's an extreme circumstance,
38:48
Speaker 4: but the president of Ukraine has done that. I mean,
38:50
Speaker 4: he's here is a muscular man. you know, patriotic defense
38:55
Speaker 4: of a, of a liberal tolerant society. And of course
38:58
Speaker 4: they have to do it with weapons and we don't,
39:00
Speaker 4: we're lucky. But, but thinking about, you know, and, and
39:03
Speaker 4: also think, you know, thinking about the issues that unify
39:06
Speaker 4: people as opposed to the ones that divide them, finding
39:09
Speaker 4: ways to talk to the wavering parts of the right
39:13
Speaker 4: who are tempted by the far right. And this is
39:15
Speaker 4: a task both for the center left and for the
39:17
Speaker 4: center right might be important, you know, finding the right messengers.
39:20
Speaker 4: I mean, there's a, There's a series of, you know,
39:24
Speaker 4: I actually spent part of last year, I went around
39:26
Speaker 4: and I met a lot of center right leaders in Europe.
39:28
Speaker 4: I wound up not writing anything because it was a
39:32
Speaker 4: little bit too inchoate. But if you talk to the
39:34
Speaker 4: center right leaders of Spain, Poland, Hungary, actually the one
39:39
Speaker 4: who just lost, and others, they'd all thought about this
39:41
Speaker 4: a lot. Nobody had a formula, but you can see
39:43
Speaker 4: the beginnings of the outline of some ideas.
39:46
Speaker 2: Yeah.
39:47
Speaker 3: I mean, it seems like nationalism And xenophobia is an
39:50
Speaker 3: age-old problem that's highly effective. And I agree with you
39:53
Speaker 3: that appeals to patriotism can be effective. I mean, Barack Obama, ultimately,
39:57
Speaker 3: that was an appeal to patriotism. It was sort of
39:59
Speaker 3: the better angels of the history of the U.S. while
40:01
Speaker 3: recognizing its flaws, you know?
40:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah.
40:04
Speaker 4: But in a way that is appealing to.
40:07
Speaker 5: Others.
40:08
Speaker 3: Final question for you, just to play like a bit
40:10
Speaker 3: of devil's advocate. I mean, I think there are totally
40:13
Speaker 3: understandable appeals for the U.S. to get more involved, to
40:16
Speaker 3: do more to help the Ukrainians. But then there are
40:18
Speaker 3: also voices often on the left who say, hey, you know,
40:22
Speaker 3: if you look at the recent history of the U.S.
40:25
Speaker 3: pushing for a freedom agenda, we don't have the best
40:27
Speaker 3: track record. You could start at 1953 and, you know,
40:31
Speaker 3: propping up the Shah in Iran or pushing for a coup.
40:34
Speaker 3: You could push you could look at Bush's freedom agenda
40:37
Speaker 3: leading to the Iraq war. You could even say, hey,
40:39
Speaker 3: Obama's humanitarian intervention in Libya turned into a regime change
40:43
Speaker 3: exercise and had long lasting repercussions. It seems like you
40:47
Speaker 3: could easily get from those examples to an argument that,
40:51
Speaker 3: you know, the U.S. efforts to push our ideals on
40:54
Speaker 3: other countries often end very badly and that maybe the
40:58
Speaker 3: answer is more restraint. What would you say to that?
41:00
Speaker 4: I would say this is not a U.S. effort to
41:03
Speaker 4: push our ideals on another country. This is The Ukrainians
41:07
Speaker 4: who have a set of ideals and who have goals
41:11
Speaker 4: as a nation and who would like to remain a
41:13
Speaker 4: sovereign nation and who would like to be able to
41:16
Speaker 4: choose their own form of government, this is them requesting
41:19
Speaker 4: help from us. This is not a US-inspired movement. This
41:24
Speaker 4: is not an evidence of American manipulation. That's a Russian narrative.
41:30
Speaker 4: That's not what happened in Ukraine and that's not what's
41:33
Speaker 4: going on.
41:34
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's fair.
41:36
Speaker 2: OK, and we'll listen.
41:37
Speaker 3: I know you're at the airport. I will say thank
41:39
Speaker 3: you very much for talking to us and safe travels.
41:42
Speaker 4: Delighted and happy to do it again sometime. Thank you.
41:55
Speaker 1: All right, we're back. Love it. Yeah. You know, we
41:58
Speaker 1: had a big we had the March badness. championship round
42:01
Speaker 1: on thursday and uh and you weren't you weren't there
42:04
Speaker 1: on the pod so tommy.
42:05
Speaker 3: You weren't there love it i wasn't there i wasn't
42:06
Speaker 3: invited um before we get to that what did you
42:09
Speaker 3: think about the outcome of the duke game and what
42:11
Speaker 3: it means for coach k's legacy.
42:13
Speaker 2: Um i and who won uh so one of the
42:17
Speaker 2: teams that duke was playing won or lost uh i
42:21
Speaker 2: literally don't know what i know there's someone named coach
42:23
Speaker 2: k I believe for the first time someone accidentally tweeted
42:26
Speaker 2: a picture that I saw. I see he seemed... Someone.
42:29
Speaker 1: Accidentally tweeted a picture.
42:30
Speaker 2: That you saw? I accidentally saw a picture of Coach
42:31
Speaker 2: K because it came into my feed, and it said
42:34
Speaker 2: Coach K. I saw him sitting in a folding chair
42:35
Speaker 2: on some kind of a court. He looks like he
42:36
Speaker 2: has dyed black hair. Yes.
42:38
Speaker 1: Some kind of a court.
42:39
Speaker 3: Famously terrible hair dye.
42:41
Speaker 1: A tennis court?
42:42
Speaker 2: No, it was a basketball court. I don't know who
42:44
Speaker 2: Duke played, and I don't know whether or not Duke
42:46
Speaker 2: won or not. I don't know what round it was in.
42:48
Speaker 2: I don't know how long March Madness goes. I know
42:50
Speaker 2: it is now April, so it can't be too much longer.
42:54
Speaker 3: Final game is tonight.
42:55
Speaker 2: Final game is obviously tonight, Thursday night. We're recording Monday.
42:58
Speaker 2: We're recording.
42:59
Speaker 1: It's Monday.
43:03
Speaker 2: Well, that's not on me not knowing sports.
43:05
Speaker 1: No more edibles before the C block.
43:09
Speaker 3: And that was the Pot Save America Sports Minute. So
43:12
Speaker 3: Dan and Sean chose the national championship team. So they
43:17
Speaker 3: had a split decision. They chose one vote for the
43:20
Speaker 3: Thomas family. Not the English muffins, the Clarence and Ginny.
43:24
Speaker 3: One vote for the Florida GOP. The audience also chose
43:27
Speaker 3: the Thomas family. Who do you choose?
43:30
Speaker 2: So I appreciate that the audience chose Ginny and Clarence Thomas.
43:36
Speaker 2: I understand that they're a kind of... You know, that's
43:40
Speaker 2: where your heart goes. That's where your emotion goes. But
43:42
Speaker 2: when you actually step back and think of it, Ginny
43:45
Speaker 2: Thomas and Clarence Thomas are symptoms of our broken politics.
43:50
Speaker 2: Ginny Thomas... but for her connections to the centers of power,
43:54
Speaker 2: is just any baby boomer with a broken brain on Facebook.
43:58
Speaker 1: Potentially from Florida.
43:59
Speaker 2: Potentially from Florida. And while Clarence Thomas is, I think...
44:05
Speaker 2: An icon. Yeah, obviously an icon. And gay icon. Gay
44:10
Speaker 2: icon Clarence Thomas. Queer icon Clarence Thomas, who's done so
44:16
Speaker 2: much for all of us. At the end of the day,
44:20
Speaker 2: Clarence Thomas... He's the far right vote in a court
44:24
Speaker 2: we lost and could literally abstain for the next 10
44:28
Speaker 2: years and would have no impact on any outcomes. They're
44:33
Speaker 2: doing what they're going to do, and we love them
44:34
Speaker 2: for that, and they're living their best life. The Florida
44:37
Speaker 2: GOP is the future of our problems. It is everything
44:43
Speaker 2: that we are dealing with all at once. I had
44:45
Speaker 2: a feeling about that. I had a feeling about that.
44:47
Speaker 2: Ron DeSantis is smart Trumpism. The kind of radicalization of
44:52
Speaker 2: the Florida GOP. I mean, they are considering going after
44:56
Speaker 2: families for supporting trans kids. They've obviously done this. Don't
44:59
Speaker 2: say gay bill. They're now going to go after Disney for,
45:05
Speaker 2: I don't know, having their own army in there. I
45:07
Speaker 2: actually was surprised I didn't know that much about it.
45:08
Speaker 1: Disney for belatedly weighing in on the don't.
45:10
Speaker 2: Say gay bill.
45:12
Speaker 3: Did you see the J.D. Vance one day threatening to
45:15
Speaker 3: boycott Disney? Disney the next day, tweeting about how he
45:18
Speaker 3: was watching Disney movies with his kids.
45:20
Speaker 2: Yeah, good luck. You're going to take on Han Solo,
45:22
Speaker 2: Mickey Mouse, all of them at once. The Mandalorian, you're
45:26
Speaker 2: going to take on the Mandalorian too. And Elsa, you're
45:30
Speaker 2: going to take on Elsa. That's your position. I side
45:33
Speaker 2: with Elsa. I stand with Elsa. I stand with Elsa.
45:39
Speaker 1: So the Florida GOP is your pick.
45:40
Speaker 2: I choose the Florida GOP.
45:42
Speaker 3: So what we have learned is that for two straight
45:46
Speaker 3: years running my failure to think of a tie-breaking mechanism
45:51
Speaker 3: has come back to.
45:51
Speaker 1: Bite so it's dan in the audience first me and
45:55
Speaker 1: you oh right right right do you want to make
45:57
Speaker 1: should we downgrade the audience is that what you're trying.
45:59
Speaker 6: To say love it i mean no it's just more
46:01
Speaker 6: that i think like well well obviously well we don't
46:03
Speaker 6: really look obviously we got him now we don't like
46:05
Speaker 6: to shine too much how about this dan is technically
46:06
Speaker 6: our employee the winner of the Crooked media internal.
46:10
Speaker 2: Dan works here for us at Pod Save America.
46:12
Speaker 3: National championship.
46:13
Speaker 2: Obviously, we're not going to put our boot down. You know,
46:15
Speaker 2: it's not like a serious thing.
46:16
Speaker 1: Dan got Tommy's coffee today.
46:18
Speaker 3: He's the Florida GOP.
46:19
Speaker 1: Florida GOP. You know what? You're going to thank us. Yeah.
46:24
Speaker 1: They are the biggest villain. What's that?
46:27
Speaker 3: There's some breaking news.
46:28
Speaker 1: Oh, my gosh. What's going on?
46:30
Speaker 2: What's going on? Hey, what's going on? Hey, what's going on?
46:33
Speaker 3: Let me throw it over to my anchor, Jon Favreau.
46:36
Speaker 1: Wait, he knows.
46:37
Speaker 2: Well, that acting doesn't work. If he doesn't know what's
46:39
Speaker 2: going on, how can you throw it to him and
46:40
Speaker 2: then read what's going on? It's fine.
46:41
Speaker 1: It's fine. It's fine. We have a late entry into
46:47
Speaker 1: the March Badness Tournament from way out west. We did
46:51
Speaker 1: not see this coming, but we do have to take
46:54
Speaker 1: it seriously.
46:55
Speaker 3: Of course.
46:56
Speaker 1: On April Fool's Day, of all days, we got an
47:00
Speaker 1: announcement that there is a new candidate for Congress to
47:03
Speaker 1: fill the seat of the dean of the U.S. Congress,
47:07
Speaker 1: Don Young from Alaska, and that candidate is Sarah Palin
47:11
Speaker 1: of Wasilla.
47:12
Speaker 3: Sarah Palin.
47:13
Speaker 2: She's back, everybody.
47:15
Speaker 1: She's back. She's back. So I saw this news on
47:20
Speaker 1: April Fool's Day, and I saw Jeremy Peters of the
47:24
Speaker 1: New York Times tweet out the press release, and I
47:27
Speaker 1: started texting it around, and I sent it to our Slack,
47:30
Speaker 1: and I was like, I'm the first one to let
47:32
Speaker 1: everyone know that Sarah Palin's back. And then all of
47:34
Speaker 1: a sudden I looked at the date and I was like, oh,
47:37
Speaker 1: April Fool's. Jeremy Peters was had and so was I.
47:40
Speaker 1: I can't believe this. And then it wasn't an April
47:43
Speaker 1: Fool's joke. It was real. Sarah Palin announced her congressional
47:46
Speaker 1: bid on April Fool's Day.
47:47
Speaker 2: In a sense, we've been living in April Fool's Day
47:51
Speaker 2: for the better part of six years now.
47:53
Speaker 1: Six years. I was going to say since.
47:56
Speaker 3: My favorite part about the reveal from Miss Palin, former
48:00
Speaker 3: Masked Singer, was that a reporter from the Anchorage Daily
48:03
Speaker 3: News You know, probably a critical source of news for
48:08
Speaker 3: your average Alaska voter was replying to Jeremy Peter's tweet saying, hey,
48:12
Speaker 3: can anyone confirm this or forward it to us? Please
48:14
Speaker 3: let me know. Here's my number.
48:15
Speaker 1: It's so funny.
48:16
Speaker 3: On Twitter.
48:16
Speaker 2: You didn't send it to your, the biggest paper in
48:19
Speaker 2: the biggest city in your state.
48:20
Speaker 1: Also, I went to the website to see if it
48:21
Speaker 1: was real too. And it's like, even the website, you're like,
48:24
Speaker 1: is this real? It looks like it could be real.
48:27
Speaker 1: There's definitely a donation button, but there's not much else
48:29
Speaker 1: going on there. Anyway, it's real.
48:31
Speaker 2: I guess the cameo business dried up a little bit.
48:34
Speaker 2: We've got to put more gas in that tank.
48:37
Speaker 1: For those of you who are wondering what's going on
48:39
Speaker 1: with this election, there are nearly 40 candidates running to
48:42
Speaker 1: fill Don Young's seat. He died at 88. He was
48:45
Speaker 1: the oldest member of the House.
48:45
Speaker 2: Seven of them are Huskies.
48:47
Speaker 1: Here's how it's going to go. There will be a
48:49
Speaker 1: special election on June 11th, and the top four candidates
48:55
Speaker 1: will move ahead to the special general election on August 16th. Again,
48:58
Speaker 1: this is like Republicans, Democrats all run in the same direction.
49:03
Speaker 1: First election, the one on June 11th, and then the
49:06
Speaker 1: top four run in August 16th. What a wild thing.
49:10
Speaker 3: Can you think of a worse job in all of
49:13
Speaker 3: politics than being like the lowest ranked congressman from Alaska?
49:20
Speaker 3: Like you have the longest commute possible and you have
49:23
Speaker 3: zero power.
49:24
Speaker 2: Get all the miles.
49:25
Speaker 1: I don't know. Sarah Palin, she's pretty bored. Pretty bored.
49:29
Speaker 3: I mean, she resigned in 2009. What has she been
49:31
Speaker 3: doing since then? I guess some Fox hits. A couple
49:33
Speaker 3: of reality shows.
49:35
Speaker 2: Speaking gigs. Yeah.
49:36
Speaker 1: Yeah, she's back. I think she got a million dollars
49:38
Speaker 1: from Fox.
49:39
Speaker 2: I think getting divorced takes time.
49:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, that probably takes time. This is from the Times story. Ms.
49:44
Speaker 1: Palin will face a host of both far-right and establishment
49:47
Speaker 1: Republican rivals, including Nick Begich III, the Republican scion of
49:51
Speaker 1: Alaskan political royalty. Father Mark was a Senate candidate on
49:54
Speaker 1: the Democratic side. That's weird. State Senator Joshua Revek, an
49:58
Speaker 1: Iraq war veteran who previously worked for Mr. Young, and
50:01
Speaker 1: Tara Sweeney, who served in the Trump administration on the
50:04
Speaker 1: Democratic side. Al Gross, Dr.
50:06
Speaker 2: Al.
50:07
Speaker 3: Nice.
50:08
Speaker 1: He'll be a former orthopedic surgeon. He ran unsuccessfully for
50:10
Speaker 1: Senate in 2020. He's going to be running as an independent.
50:12
Speaker 2: Break the back of these gas prices. That's a free one.
50:16
Speaker 2: That's a free one, doctor.
50:18
Speaker 1: And Christopher Constant, an openly gay Democrat who's a member
50:21
Speaker 1: of the Anchorage Assembly. So that's what we got. What
50:23
Speaker 1: do you think, guys? Are we ready for another episode
50:26
Speaker 1: of Sarah Palin?
50:27
Speaker 2: I think she's seeing Marjorie Taylor Greene and she's like,
50:30
Speaker 2: you think you can do what I do? You fucking bitch,
50:33
Speaker 2: I'm coming. You dumb lady.
50:37
Speaker 1: Lauren Boebert, seriously?
50:38
Speaker 2: I am twice as smart and half as well-read as you.
50:41
Speaker 2: I'm on my way. I am all fucking savvy, and
50:48
Speaker 2: I haven't read a goddamn thing since those people on
50:52
Speaker 2: the McCain campaign tried to give me a binder.
50:56
Speaker 1: They think they can get me to read a binder
50:57
Speaker 1: about foreign policy? Fuck you.
50:59
Speaker 2: I read all the magazines. I'm coming.
51:03
Speaker 3: To your daughter. back to your joke earlier, the Anchorage
51:07
Speaker 3: Daily News said the number of candidates is more than
51:09
Speaker 3: twice the number seen in any other primary in Alaska
51:11
Speaker 3: history and greater than the number of mushers who ran
51:14
Speaker 3: in this year's Iditarod Trail Slide Dog Race.
51:16
Speaker 1: Wow, that's awesome.
51:17
Speaker 3: That's awesome.
51:18
Speaker 1: What do you guys think? You think she has a chance?
51:20
Speaker 1: 40 candidates, that's tough. But the name ID.
51:24
Speaker 3: The name ID is huge, but she's 50 now?
51:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, it used to be 51.
51:27
Speaker 3: What are they, growing every day?
51:29
Speaker 2: Beat the filing deadline.
51:31
Speaker 1: I was going to say, isn't there a filing deadline?
51:32
Speaker 2: The thing is, she is not a popular politician in Alaska.
51:36
Speaker 2: She's obviously very well known, but people did not love
51:39
Speaker 2: when she resigned in the middle of her term. And
51:43
Speaker 2: she hasn't really done much for a full decade, but
51:46
Speaker 2: name IDs, name IDs.
51:47
Speaker 1: She did open the door for Donald Trump to become
51:49
Speaker 1: president of the United States.
51:50
Speaker 3: And he endorsed her pretty quick.
51:52
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. As our friend Peter Hamby tweeted, there would
51:55
Speaker 1: be no Trump without Palin.
51:56
Speaker 2: Yes, I think that's true. I don't know if it's,
51:58
Speaker 2: I think it's correlation, not causation. I think, I think she,
52:01
Speaker 2: I think she was trying, she was like, Hey guys,
52:04
Speaker 2: I don't know if you guys noticed it, but I
52:06
Speaker 2: think this, uh, none of the doors on this bank
52:08
Speaker 2: are locked.
52:09
Speaker 1: Well, I think he saw that work.
52:11
Speaker 5: Yeah.
52:11
Speaker 1: He saw it where she made, she, she ran a
52:13
Speaker 1: campaign that was based entirely on cultural identity and he
52:15
Speaker 1: was like, yeah. And you know, right wing populism.
52:19
Speaker 2: Yeah.
52:20
Speaker 1: Uh, and he thought, okay, I can try that. I
52:22
Speaker 1: could probably do it better than her. I'm richer, probably
52:23
Speaker 1: more well known. Sure.
52:24
Speaker 3: 50 candidates seems like just kind of a mess. Oh,
52:29
Speaker 3: there's a candidate named Santa Claus who's a self-described democratic
52:32
Speaker 3: socialist who currently sits on the city council of the
52:35
Speaker 3: North Pole.
52:36
Speaker 1: Book him on the pod.
52:38
Speaker 3: Now, this feels like April Fool's content that I'm reading.
52:43
Speaker 4: Yeah.
52:44
Speaker 1: Again, that could be said of any of the news we.
52:46
Speaker 2: Read any day. I fell for a baloney folder on
52:48
Speaker 2: the QVC TikTok.
52:49
Speaker 3: Yeah.
52:51
Speaker 2: I'll just confess that now. I saw it and I thought,
52:54
Speaker 2: what are these fucking assholes doing? Oh, it's... God damn it. Wait,
52:57
Speaker 2: a baloney folder?
52:57
Speaker 1: A baloney folder?
52:58
Speaker 2: Yeah, they put out... Well, the problem is I saw
52:59
Speaker 2: it on April 3rd. I didn't know it was... I
53:02
Speaker 2: saw it on April 3rd. I was like, they're trying
53:03
Speaker 2: to sell a baloney folder? Am I in outer space here?
53:05
Speaker 2: And then I was like, oh, it's from two days ago.
53:06
Speaker 2: Those bastards.
53:07
Speaker 1: That's funny.
53:09
Speaker 2: Wow. All right.
53:09
Speaker 1: Well, thank you. This is the time I say thank
53:11
Speaker 1: you to Anne Elkebaum for joining us. This is going
53:14
Speaker 1: to sound real weird after that interview, let me tell you.
53:16
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you to Ann Applebaum for joining us.
53:19
Speaker 1: Congratulations to the Florida GOP for winning the national championship.
53:22
Speaker 2: I have one note that I forgot to include.
53:24
Speaker 1: Oh, please. Is it another Batman quote? It was.
53:27
Speaker 2: Actually, it was that everyone should watch Batman Returns.
53:29
Speaker 1: Okay.
53:29
Speaker 2: It's a great way to understand the Trump-Palin era.
53:32
Speaker 3: So again, Coach K won or lost?
53:35
Speaker 2: I assume because the fixture, he looks sad. He seems sad,
53:38
Speaker 2: so I assume that he lost. And I understand this
53:42
Speaker 2: is perhaps his final round.
53:44
Speaker 1: Yes, look, you know more than you let on.
53:46
Speaker 2: And they lost. And so now there's a final championship
53:49
Speaker 2: between the Denver Nuggets.
53:53
Speaker 1: Nope.
53:55
Speaker 3: The Milwaukee Brewers.
53:57
Speaker 2: Milwaukee Brewers? No. Is Bucknell involved? What about Gonzaga?
54:01
Speaker 1: Of course we are. Kentucky?
54:03
Speaker 2: Kentucky? Sometimes Kentucky goes far.
54:05
Speaker 1: You're closer with Kentucky.
54:06
Speaker 3: They got upset earlier.
54:07
Speaker 1: No, you're a little less close.
54:08
Speaker 2: I honestly can't.
54:10
Speaker 3: Yes.
54:11
Speaker 2: I'm telling you that I have no idea.
54:13
Speaker 1: What's Elijah's favorite team?
54:15
Speaker 2: Oh, the North Carolina Tar Heels. Sure.
54:18
Speaker 1: Yeah.
54:18
Speaker 2: Is that it?
54:19
Speaker 3: Let the record say that he pumped his fist.
54:23
Speaker 1: Listen.
54:24
Speaker 2: All right, everyone. This is some don't say gay shit
54:27
Speaker 2: happening at this table. This is how it starts. This
54:29
Speaker 2: is how it starts.
54:30
Speaker 3: What?
54:31
Speaker 2: You know, it's not limited to K-3. I'm not allowed
54:33
Speaker 2: to be myself here either.
54:36
Speaker 1: Just asking your opinion.
54:37
Speaker 3: You nailed the hair color.
54:38
Speaker 1: End of pod. Bye, everyone. Pod Save America is a
54:46
Speaker 1: Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our
54:50
Speaker 1: senior producer is Andy Gardner Bernstein. Our producer is Haley Muse,
54:54
Speaker 1: and Olivia Martinez is our associate producer. It's mixed and
54:57
Speaker 1: edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound
55:00
Speaker 1: engineer the show. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Sandy Gerard, Hallie Kiefer,
55:04
Speaker 1: Ari Schwartz, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support.
55:08
Speaker 1: And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim,
55:12
Speaker 1: and Amelia Montu. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com
55:16
Speaker 1: slash crookedmedia.