Lovett or Leave It - Pre-Exhausting Conditions

Episode Date: May 6, 2017

Zombie Trumpcare clears the House. Comey says he'd do it all again. The FCC threatens net neutrality. And Ivanka Trump has advice for working women who cannot wait to hear it. Teen Vogue's Lauren Duca, comedian Jena Friedman, and ABC's Dan Harris join. Plus Jon sits down with Professor Tim Wu, the expert who first coined the term "net neutrality."

Thank you guys for coming. Hey guys. Holy shit. Thank you guys for coming. I don't know why you guys are in a good mood. Welcome to the show. Thank you for being here. Our very first New York show at the Gotham Comedy Club. Appreciate you coming out. I see some merch.

Always going to point it out. Let me bring out our panel. He is an ABC News anchor and the author of 10% Happier, which is also an app and a podcast, which is overkill. Dan Harris.

She is the award-winning author of Teen Vogue's Thigh High Politics column. Holy... Lauren Duca. That was cool. And our next guest, she's a comedian, writer, correspondent for National Geographic Explorer,

whose work you've seen everywhere from Vice to The Daily Show, Jenna Friedman. Thank you guys for being here. So let's get into it. What a day. The Republican Congress passed through the House the bill known as ACHA, a.k.a. Ryan Care, a.kcare, aka Trumpcare. My friend John calls it... He does call it wealth care, which is some 1990s garbage messaging, and he's not here to defend himself, is he? This is barely a health care bill. It's much more like a tax bill, which is why they've been fighting so hard to pass it before the tax bill that Trump wants to do on tax reform

has been debated because they need the money from this bill. And that ultimately what this is, is a trillion dollar tax cut and a trillion dollar cut in benefits, right? There's an $800 billion cut to Medicaid, and then there's a $200 billion shortfall to cover the expenses associated with preexisting conditions, which might not be covered under this plan. First, there are a couple questions, though. I'd be interested to hear your take on it a little bit. I'd love to tell you. I find that really surprising. You're talking about this bill as if it's passed or is close to passing.

It has to go through the Senate and then, you know, conference. And so there's a lot left to play out, one. Two, on the part of the Democrats, there was some real celebration today. I mean, Nancy Pelosi's speech on the floor, when she's talking about you're going to have this tattooed on your forehead, you're going to be glowing in the dark

with this stuff. They're singing, the Democrats are singing. So... So let's talk about that. I don't know who you're booing, but I hope it's not Dan. Are you booing the singing? Oh, good, good, good. I would say that I would not

like to not make a big deal about the singing because I understand the emotion of... Because House members, they're just like us. They're just regular people. They don't belong there. I worked on the Hill, and the

approval rating of Congress amongst Americans is like around 8 or 9%. The approval rating of Congress amongst people that work with members of Congress is 0%. But I understand the emotion of being angry and pissed and a bit sad and reacting by taunting these people, and it's not the worst thing that we could do

is to taunt members of the Republican Party on the House floor to say, you know you guys are fucked because of this, right? That's a posture, so I don't mind that, but I'm not totally a fan of taunting when the issue is so stark and so important. I agree with you there. I wasn't making a point about whether it was wrong or right. What I was, I guess, trying to prompt you to think about

was whether, in fact, this does redound to the Democrats' benefit. Yeah, I mean, look, I wish that I was so partisan that I cared more about winning than stopping this bill. That's just not who I am. I'm a, you know,

I'm a straight shooter. I heard that. I didn't say it. I didn't say it, but I did hear it in the crowd. But to your point, look. She's the one who's been drinking. To your point, I'm not a fan of celebrating

because yes, this bill has a long way to go and the Senate's not necessarily interested in passing a version of this bill, but Mitch McConnell's a smart guy and he can pass something and all of a sudden there's something that's become law and maybe win the house after but that

won't undo the damage to people's lives caused by the bill. The question is after that if the bill gets passed and a bunch of millions of people don't have insurance and many of them voted Republican will they switch back to Democrat in 2018 or 2020?

Yeah, I think that's like a really hard question. I think, and I think... Joe Oxycontin. That's great. Look, just... That question was a setup for that joke. Just a couple of ordinary people, you know, Mary Coding, Joe Oxycontin. I know that. Just a couple of ordinary people, you know. Mary Coding, Joe Oxycontin, I love that.

I'm paid by Pfizer, I should tell you. No, and by the way, thank you for the samples. Making this whole healthcare thing a little less painful. Yeah, so let's talk a little bit about what's next. I think that's a really interesting question.

I think we don't know. There is a huge disconnect between Donald Trump's rhetoric and the policies of his administration. He campaigned as a populist. We're kind of getting the worst of both worlds, right? We get Donald Trump's temperament and Ted Cruz's agenda. Brutal. Not my line. Somebody's line. It's not mine, but it's a good one. But Donald Trump goes and he does his events. He says, we're going to take care of our people. If the bill has something against pre-existing conditions, we're going to take care of it. He made a promise about Medicaid. I don't know what happens when the reality of these policies really starts reaching people. And one place where they really will reach people is on health care. And I

think that's an open question, whether Donald Trump failing to deliver on his promises and failing to deliver the change he promised will finally mean that some of these people will lose him. It was really interesting tonight on ABC's evening newscast, World News Tonight with David Muir. They had a great, available at 6.30, Channel 7 here in New York City. They had a really interesting graphic,

a map of the United States that showed that the four or five states with the highest concentration of people with pre-existing conditions are deep red Trump states. Lauren, what do you think? Oh, yeah. Oh, no, I think that to that end, the Jimmy Kimmel monologue is worth talking about. Also on ABC. Because this is just, it's so funny how it's like, it's so easy for us to get up, caught up in this. And it's very interesting.

And it's, to me as well, but this like, where do we go from here? And are they just doing this for this next career move? And what does this mean for Republicans and Democrats? What does this mean for 24 million people who are going to lose health insurance? This is going to start hitting people. And the tragedy of the average citizen's inability to see policies affect on their lives is going to come to light through people dying and their family members dying. And more importantly, fetuses dying, too. Right. I think that fetuses are the only being that is currently protected by the government.

They should have called Obamacare fetus care and we wouldn't be in this position. I think that... care and we wouldn't be in this position. I think that but we were talking about this earlier when we talked about semantics and the Republican Party being pro-life, pro-life, pro-life. This is unequivocally not pro-life and I think that

people who are thanks wombs, thanks wombs. Women. I'm calling women wombs now just to you know get ready for the handmaid's tale thank you but anyway um but that's the thing i think we have to seize this moment i don't want to even talk about democrat or republican or whatever i think as people with empathy by calling the people who are voting on this bill and supporting it not pro-life. And I think that that's just kind of, we have to take back that word, that phrase. Well, you know, it's so interesting how there's this divide on social issues and economic issues

because even Republicans would have to admit that there are women who have to make a difficult choice when they get pregnant. And why on earth would you want to make pregnancy care a pre-existing condition which will change the calculus for thousands of women who are pregnant because the second they are pregnant, they know that that may lead to an incredible

amount of cost for them in their lives. Here's why. Because they're not thinking about it at all. It's literally what it is somebody i forget you would probably know the politician that they asked why would a woman get a late-term abortion and he was like i never thought of it and it's like most women would never want to terminate a child at that stage and they don't understand they just aren't thinking about women so it's not like a malicious thing for most of them I'm not talking about Pence but I think

for most of these people in power they're just not thinking about women because there aren't enough women in power I mean if you saw Donald Trump did a very lovely event in the Rose Garden where he spiked the football at the 30 yard line, was that good? Was that a sports analogy?

And if you look behind him it was just a sea of white guys. It's just the only thing different about them was their tie color, and it's only red or blue. So to your point, the House bill is not law. It now moves to the Senate. They start over. Now, the Senate will pass, the Senate will start from scratch. Mitch McConnell has said he's going to start from scratch. They're throwing out this bill. And I think the question for Democrats is, well, what do we do now? And one of the things that Democrats can do is make clear that there is a price to be paid for senators by showing the House just exactly how expensive this bill is going to be for them politically. So before we move off of health care, you know, Crooked Media, a company of which I am a part,

we're going to be working with SwingLeft.org. Love that. And they have district funds where a lot of these races don't have opponents yet. I mean, they don't have Democrats yet, but they do have opponents, right? They have Republican members of the House. And there were, I believe, 14 Republican members of the House in districts that voted for Hillary Clinton that supported ACHA.

And they're going to be targeted. And so, if you get a chance, I would consider going to swingleft.org and signing up to participate, to volunteer, to knock on doors, to donate if you can. You can. You've bought these tickets, and that was a waste. And get involved. Because I think that the mission now is going to be to make clear in the Senate how toxic this House version was, because they are going to start from scratch and look, we do not control any branch of government.

It may be hard for us to stop this but we can fight and we can stop this but it's going to be really hard and it's going to mean a lot of pressure and a lot of work and I think that's sort of the work that has to start now. I was thinking about what Ivanka Trump said. Ivana Trump, not what Ivanka Trump said. I'm not going to read. I didn't read her fucking book.

I was thinking about what Ivanka Trump said. Ivana Trump. Not what Ivanka Trump said. I'm not going to read. I didn't read her fucking book. I was thinking about what Ivanka Trump said when she misquoted Toni Morrison, who said. But it was Ivana Trump who said, I love this. So Ivana Trump said in the movie, The First Wives Club, don't get mad, get everything. And it made me feel better today. I don't know. You guys have anything else on health care before I move on? You feel good? I mean, we're all sad today. It's a dark moment for Democrats because we thought we had beat this thing back,

and it came back from the fucking grave. But they spiked the ball today, but they're not done, and so we just have to keep up the pressure. That's our day. That's our week, man. We're done. When we come back, a segment called OK Stop. Jenna, how are you? Fine. I honestly think

that, okay, minus the, you know, many millions of lives that will be lost. I think that because the Republicans are such idiots about how they're operating in the first 100 days, the Democrats actually have a chance in 2018 and 2020. I feel like we're at such a precarious time where it does feel like the American experiment has failed, but then you can kind of flip the script and be like, well, you know, because they're such idiots, we might actually survive this.

So there is a weird optimism to this whole healthcare debacle that I'm riding on. Yeah, yeah, no, I hear you. And I think that's sort of, I feel like the energy. You know what? We're back from break. Sorry, I don't... I was into it. I'm not a... I don't know why you waited for the break. I, yeah. No, I hear you. And I think that's sort of, I feel like, the energy. You know what? We're back from break. Sorry, I don't... I was into it. I'm not a... I'm a comedian. I don't know why you waited for the break. I like that. Okay, so let's move off of healthcare for a

moment. We're going to play Okay, Stop. And I wanted to use a clip from James Comey, who... That's... Which is the exact right moan. Can I make... I want to make a quick pitch, by the way. I think that the sitcom to heal these times would be, like,

and everybody hates Comey. And if you want to write that with me, John, let's do it. I really think that a giant part of his problem is that he is 6'8". And I think when you're 6'8", you just don't hear enough criticism. He's so high up. He's so commanding.

But that's just bone length. In this segment, we are going to watch a clip of Dianne Feinstein, Senator from the great state of California, home to seven Republicans who voted for the Republican health care bill. Side note, swingleft.org.

But she asked him, you know, why did you send this letter, that letter? Why did you send the letter? And James Comey gave a really impassioned response that I thought was really interesting and fascinating because I think it exposes a lot of blind spots, not just from James Comey, but for our Democrats too. And I think it's worth breaking down. So let's roll the clip. Why was it necessary to announce 11 days before

a presidential election that you were opening an investigation on a new computer without any knowledge of what was in that computer. Why didn't you just do the investigation as you would normally, with no public announcement? MR. Great question, Senator. Thank you. October 27th, the investigative team that had finished the investigation in July, focused on Secretary Clinton's emails, asked to meet with me. So I met with them that morning, late morning in my conference room, and they laid out for me what they could see from the metadata on this fellow Anthony Weiner's laptop that had been seized in an unrelated case.

What they could see from the metadata was that there were thousands of Secretary Clinton's emails on that device, including what they thought might be the missing emails from her first three months as Secretary of State. We never found any emails from her first three months. She was using a Verizon Blackberry then, and that's obviously very important because if there was evidence that she was acting with bad intent, that's where it would be in the first three months. But they weren't there. Look, can I just finish my answer, Senator?

The women behind her are really the best part. Tough observation for a podcast. It is tough, but you know what? People listening, they're savvy. They have Twitter. They can Google. They've watched the clip. They'll catch up,

and they'll see those very stern faces behind the senior senator. Resting, you swung the election face. So I wanted to I wanted to stop it there first though because this is the most impassioned we've seen James Comey. It's really interesting. Lauren, what was your thought?

You were going to chime in. No, finish me, thanks. But what I found interesting about that is clearly one of the things that has been bugging James Comey is, you fucking Democrats. Do you realize how much of a real

investigation this was? That this was serious and we really were looking for intent of a crime and that there were missing emails? And, listen, I don't want to dwell on this, but the New York Times did a full, long, very long piece about this in between columns about climate change skepticism. And denying Russia's role in the election. They've been busy at the Times. Love the Times. Subscriber.

But Mike Barbaro on a fantastic podcast called The Daily that you should not subscribe to which I love interviewed a member of the Hillary Clinton staff and when they watched James Comey give his first speech

in July about the closing of the investigation, they themselves were worried that somebody might actually be about to be charged with something. So I want to coin right now pulling a Comey, and I want to just give that to all of you to use. And what I mean by that is acting on the basis of being observed instead of by your just ethical,

typical judgments. And I think it's very clear that he's aware that this is what he was doing in treating these two investigations in such starkly different ways. It was anticipating the perception of bias, and it wasn't based on the usual FBI standard of practice. And the fact that he can just excuse this as if it's a worse and worse decision that was before him, it's just sort of, I think, gets caught up in this whole idea of, It's just sort of, I think it's caught up in this whole idea of, it completely loses sight of what the standard is of weighing decisions,

and it loses it to partisanship, and he's acting as a PR professional rather than a director of the FBI. Dan, what do you think about that? I'm going to say some things just to provoke conversation, not necessarily that I'm taking a side here, because I'm still digesting what he said today, but the first question I had is just, isn't the perception of bias important? Because we, I think what he was thinking of is we need to be able to trust this institution, and he thought he was making the least worst decision that would protect the institution to the best of his ability given terrible options

i think he was over correcting for it i think we have to be aware of our own bias right but like the the way the way that i see this as even as significant beyond comey and i've been hopefully i drew the comparison well because i wrote about it today but we'll see but um is is is i think that that's a problem overall, is in professionalism of journalism, of the FBI, is an overcompensation for the perception of bias, where being called out for being liberal is seen as the worst possible thing. So instead, we are tearing down the people that are seen to be wearing the same jerseys as us. And in the context of journalism, it's distortion. And in the context of the FBI,

it's just grand misconduct that is changing the shape of this country. You used a phrase when we were chatting backstage, I hope you don't mind if I... Sure. You used the phrase performative neutrality, which I thought was interesting. Ooh, I like that.

Can I ask her another question? Take over. Okay. You're a pro. Actually, so maybe just leave it? Okay. Okay. Don're a pro. Actually, so maybe just leave it? Okay. Don't laugh at that. Boo him. Boo him.

Keep going, Dan Harris of ABC News. Bring it on. 10% happier, huh? This is what happens. 10% happier. I'm happier now. The difference, and again, I'm not saying this is somebody who, because I'm still processing what I heard from him today, but the difference, at least that I was gathering from hearing him talk today,

was that the Trump investigation was not publicly disclosed to start with, right? But they had come out and said, we're done with the Hillary Clinton investigation. They had said it repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly. So then when they started to back up in earnest based on information that he found and his staff found to be compelling, did they not have a compelling reason to tell the people whom they just told that it was closed, hey, actually, we are taking another look? The 11 days out choice needed to come with a proclamation of a Trump investigation as well. So let's, I think, I think that's right. So let's hear a little bit more from Comey, because he defends, he tries to answer your question too.

And so they came in and said, we can see thousands of emails from the Clinton email domain, including many, many, many from the Verizon Clinton domain, BlackBerry domain. They said, we think we got to get a search warrant to go get these. And the Department of Justice agreed we had to go get a search warrant. So I agreed. I authorized them to seek a search warrant. And then I faced a choice. And I've lived my entire career by the tradition that if you can possibly avoid it, you avoid any action in the run up to an election that might have an impact, whether it's a dogcatcher election or President of the United States. But I sat there that morning, and I could not see a door labeled no action here.

I could see two doors, and they were both actions. One was labeled speak. The other was labeled conceal. Because here's how I thought about it. I'm not trying to talk you into this, but I want you to know my thinking. Having repeatedly told this Congress, we are done, and there's nothing there, there's no case there, there's no case there, to restart in a hugely significant way, potentially finding the emails that would reflect on her intent from the beginning, and not speak about it would require an act of concealment, in my view.

And so I stared at speak and conceal. Speak would be really bad. There's an election in 11 days. Lordy, that would be really bad. Okay, stop. Concealing in my view. Lordy. It would have been helpful to know if Trump was being investigated to just regurgitate what Lauren said. And the other thing about trust, how do you not talk about gender when you talk about whether Comey trusted Hillary or not? Thanks, women. Just the women clapped. Thanks. The men are like, I see Comey's point.

But this is interesting because I think what Lauren's getting at is exactly right because Comey frames this as a new tack for him. I think clearly we've never seen James Comey this impassioned before, which is why I think it's so fascinating. Clearly this criticism has been getting to him. He's been under an onslaught. His private Twitter was exposed, which was hilarious. But this is a new framing from him, this choice between conceal versus talk, right? As opposed to talk versus shut the fuck up. And talk versus do nothing, framing doing nothing as an act.

But to Lauren's point, that he can claim that this decision was one he felt bound to make and he had no other option. But the upshot of his decision was to let the world know about one investigation, but not the other. It's also bullshit. It's either protocol or radical break from protocol. It's not, like, what are these two fucking doors? I don't know if he had a dream.

I don't know. It's just insane. But it's a bubble burst in his decision-making process that was compounded by a number of factors, including a perception of liberal bias, including a Hillary Clinton corruption narrative that, frankly, has been liberal bias, including a Hillary Clinton corruption narrative that frankly has been hammered home by a confused

media and was generated by a propaganda machine to begin with. It's just those are all, that was all part of this. I was going to say she only killed 49 people, not 50. It's like, come on media. No, I'm just kidding.

Sorry. Too soon. Sorry. But I think the point that James Comey is trying to make here, and he has an agenda here too, which is to say, hey, this wasn't just some frivolous investigation. This was a real and serious criminal investigation. And one of the things that's come out is there was a lot of shaping of the way

it was described inside the Justice Department. I'm pushing because we have been fighting about this for so fucking long. No, I think we can also return to the initial announcement, which is very strange. I mean, there was just a very, there was a strange scolding in it. And I think

that the Michael Barbaro episode of The Daily really delves into the Which you should not listen to. Tender gravitas of that man is just delightful um never heard his voice today um so anyway i don't know i just think that even the initial message i i think we're losing sight of of factors that we as reasonable people can can analyze onto these things it's like we're holding ourselves to either really rigorous standards of fact-checking or creating kind of fake

news conspiracy theories, and that's how we're processing the news, is either in a really strict, extremely neutral way, or with these sort of completely fictionalized stories. And the way that that's happening around this arena, which should be so very objective and non-partisan, is really troubling.

Applause. Feel free to applaud whenever you'd like. I want to finish the clip and then continue talking about it a little bit. Catastrophic. Not just to the FBI, but well beyond. And honestly, as between really bad and catastrophic, I said to my team, we've got to

walk into the world of really bad. I've got to tell Congress that we're restarting this. Not in some frivolous way, in a hugely significant way. And the team also told me we cannot finish this work before the election. And then they worked night after night after night, and they found thousands of new emails. They found classified information on Anthony Weiner. Somehow her emails are being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information by her assistant, Huma Abedin.

And so they found thousands of new emails and then called me the Saturday night before the election and said, thanks to the wizardry of our technology, we've only had to personally read 6,000. We think we can finish tomorrow morning, Sunday. And so I met with them, and they said, we found a lot of new stuff. We did not find anything that changes our view of her intent. So we're in the same place we were in July. It hasn't changed our view. And I asked them lots of questions. And I said, OK, if that's where you are, then I also have to tell Congress that we're done. Look, this is terrible. It makes me mildly nauseous to think that we might have had some impact on the election. But honestly, it wouldn't change the decision. He says at the end

of that, I would make the same decision again. And he doesn't know what else he would have done. Dan, we are liberal leaning. We are Democrats. We're frustrated by Comey. Do you see some wisdom in what he's saying? Do you understand where he's coming from better than we do? I'm not going to pretend to be in the man's mind. I found it illuminating to watch what he said today, and I took away some of the same things that you did about what he is portraying as the severity of the investigation,

and also, it's just really interesting to get a sense of what he says was his view of his choices between what were the choices again? Conceal. Or speak. But it was catastrophic or very bad. Very bad or catastrophic.

Or lordy. G. Willikers. Said Andy Griffith. You can get away with a lordy and G. Willikers if you're 6'8". Yeah, 6'8 people, they can say whatever they want, can't they? Could it be that subconsciously Comey and the

FBI just didn't want mom to be their boss see I I think that it's I think that actually it's the opposite I think subconsciously James Comey not even so I think consciously I think that every decision was predicated on the assumption that Hillary Clinton was going to win and what he was afraid was going to happen was he didn't know afraid was going to happen was he didn't know, right? He lays it all out. He didn't know that the investigation into the new batch of emails on Anthony Weiner's fucking laptop, that guy... And did

Russia, Russian hackers, have a role in putting that, like... Because I read a lot of... That's invention. We still don't know, though. We don't know the extent to which Russia actually hacked our election. We just don't know that. don't know the extent to which Russia Actually hacked our election We just don't know that

That's true but I would say Occam's razor If the choice is a conspiracy Or Anthony Weiner fucked up Let's be honest here Wait Was part of the calculus The assumption that She was going to win anyway Yes and so I think Come assumption that she was going to win anyway.

Yes, and so I think Comey believed she was going to win and believed that he was going to be investigating her emails across Election Day and then would later have to say, hey, by the way, October 28th, we issued a search warrant for Anthony Weiner's laptop related to this investigation and we didn't tell you because we already told you the investigation is closed. I understand that conundrum, but what's bullshit is to say that he didn't have a third door. And the third door was to say, there was four doors. Four doors.

Conceal lordy. No, but conceal speak. Wait three goddamn days for them to do a search or four, and I think this is what he should have done, and it's pretty clear in hindsight

when you stop seeing the forest for the trees, is tell people that you're investigating Donald Trump too. It's not that complicated. But just playing devil's advocate, and I'm sure the room's going to continue to turn against me. It will not.

Not on my watch. He didn't know, he says, that it was only going to take the amount of time they said it was going to take. Fair enough. I'll concede that, too. So, three doors. Three doors.

Well, I would say... Three doors and Lordy. Three doors and Lordy. I would maybe say he was... Cut the mic. I would... Let's change the analogy to you've built a restaurant that you're really proud of

that's really popular. You had a chef you wanted to replace you. He gives everybody violent food poisoning, 24 million die, and a missile hits New York. Jen, I didn't eat dinner, so if we could curb the restaurant analogy. I'm a little hungry.

I just want to finish no I want to finish the analogy okay I would vote leave it but like just keep going I just want to I was trying to come to a place where there's two chefs

one is a narcissistic racist adult maniac and the other is a little cold during interviews how about that I think your option there is Blue Apron. And that is OK Stop. Gotta leave it there. When we come back,

a segment we call Too Stupid to be True. And we're back now this is a segment called too stupid to be true Lauren and Jenna if you look under your chairs you guys have a piece of paper it's not a trick

it's not a car it's not a trick what's your name? My name is April. April. Yes. We have three statements, and you have to decide which one of these is real and which two are too stupid to be true. Lauren, start us out. This is a reaction to Jimmy Kimmel's

monologue about the complications during the birth of his son. This is a guy who is incredibly rich, of course. He's not going to have a problem. And the truth is, if you go to the emergency room, they take care of you. Woof. Okay, let's just think about it. And I want to point out that I did not give a piece of paper to Dan

because I felt I should protect his journalistic integrity and not force him to play, but to be, again, the arbiter of truth for us generally. That's fair. Nobody wants to be called fake news. Wasn't my journalistic integrity under assault when you forced me to come on the show? I don't know. I don't remember putting a gun to your head. Just thought you were happy to be here.

Jenna, you're up. This is a quote about pre-existing conditions. Was this actually said? It will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher healthcare costs to contribute more to the insurance pool,

reducing the cost of those people. I can't do Pence's accent. People who lead good lives they're healthy, they've done nothing no, sorry, they've done the things to keep their bodies healthy and right now those are the people who have done the things the right way pretty tough

real or too stupid to be true don't decide just yet April April how are you? I mean, in Trump world. That's all I needed to know. Yeah. And finally, is this a true quote

that someone said about the cuts to Medicaid inside the Republican proposal? Just like Jesus said, yeah, that's how you know you're going to have a great, a great sentence. The poor

will always be with us. There is a group of people that just don't want healthcare and aren't going to take care of themselves. Can you believe that was said? Okay, so I'm supposed to pick the one that's true or I'm supposed to pick the one that's false? You are supposed to pick the one that is true. Was it people

can go to emergency rooms? Was it the healthy people did the right thing and the sick people should be punished? Or was there just some people that hate healthcare and don't want anything to do with it?

Okay, this is how much of a nerd I am. Mm-hmm. It's exciting. Didn't Mo Brooks say that? Holy shit. So that's the one you want to pick? I don't know.

I think that's the true one. Mo Brooks did say that. Mo Brooks said that. But everybody said all of them. They're all true. Oh, no. April, but don't worry. You've won.

Oh, but we've all lost. We've all lost. We've all lost. Let's roll the clip. I don't think that this is the right move for him to do to politicize this. This is a guy who's incredibly rich, of course, you know, and he's not going to have a problem. And the truth is... Oh, my God, he's politicizing this. He's making a moral point that people should be allowed to get insurance.

And that's exactly why I tune in to Jimmy Kimmel to get him making moral points. Look, people do get coverage. If you go to the emergency room, they take care of you. That was actually part of the reason that Mitt Romney came up with RomneyCare. My understanding is, as you just mentioned, this new legislation would allow states to opt out and allow insurance companies to refuse to sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions as long as there's some with some setup for them. My understanding is that it will allow insurance companies

to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they're healthy. They've done the things to keep their bodies healthy. And right now those are the people who've done things the right way. Representative Roger Marshall, he's actually a brand new congressman. He got elected in November. During a recent press conference, he was asked about the issue of Medicaid.

And when he was answering the question, here's what he said. Just like Jesus said, the poor will always be with us, there is a group of people that just don't want healthcare and aren't going to take care of themselves. Now, who would be dumb enough to say that? April, you've won the game.

And by the way, there should be some kind of a bonus for knowing that Moe fucking Brooks said one of the quotes. You're paying too much of attention. You've got to get something. You're too sucked into this whole Trump thing. You can help the resistance, but you can miss some

of the stories. I mean, I'm glad you're doing it. So you'll get a parachute gift card because I didn't bring the rope with me to New York. Yeah, it's happening. It's happening. And that's too stupid to be true. A lot of people have been emailing me asking about net neutrality

because it's something the Trump administration has been taking on. Earlier today, I sat down with Columbia professor Tim Wu to talk about it, and I thought it was a pretty good interview, and I think you guys will like it. Joining me now on Love It or Leave It in studio is Professor Tim Wu of Columbia Law School. He is the author of a new book, Attention Merchants. You know, a lot of people ask me to talk about net neutrality because there's so much going on.

And look, I mean, today the House voted to repeal Obamacare. But amidst that, there's an ongoing fight over net neutrality. And I wanted to bring someone who is an expert on it. And I have to say, I would have accepted a lesser expert. I would have been cool with a reporter who's written about the issue, someone with a vague passing knowledge of it. of it. But Professor Tim Wu is the person who came up with the concept of net neutrality, invented the term, and first described the contours of the debate that we're having right now. And it was a pretty prescient piece about the way in which cable providers would start to take advantage of the fact that they control the way we access information. Thank you for being here.

Sure. It's great. Now, I was doing research for this interview, and it is amazing how many people start the conversation by saying how fucking boring this topic is. And you know what? I think that's bullshit. I don't understand that. I don't know who decides what's boring or not, but I don't find it boring. I think it's really fascinating. But I do think it's a hard thing for people to understand, and it's complicated.

So can you give people a quick primer? What is net neutrality, and why is it important? Sure. No, I don't think it's boring at all, because it is about control of information. At some levels, it's about censorship, the most important kind of stuff. So net neutrality is a series of controls on cable and phone companies that say they have to give you the whole internet. They can't block parts of the internet off. They can't speed up some parts, slow other parts down. They just basically, when they offer the internet, they got to deliver the internet.

What arises as a problem when internet service providers pick and choose, sort of assign a price to certain kinds of content as it's delivered to you? Yeah, well, why don't we like rewind a little bit to say 2010. And imagine there's this new young company called Netflix, which is first putting movies and TV shows over the internet for people to watch. It's kind of popular. So if there were no net neutrality, you could see the cable industry saying, wait a second, I think they're getting something that's as good as our TV shows for cheaper. We may need to make that not happen. So you can imagine them slowing down Netflix, with no controls, just blocking it. Sort of making it worse.

It buffers, doesn't really load properly, or it's really low quality. Similarly, you can make phone calls for free over the internet. Phone companies have never liked that. So they have a lot of reasons to want to block or slow down stuff that replaces services that they have. It's basically about monopoly defense. I want to add also the cable companies have thought,

well, you know, there's ways we can make money here. We could, you know, well, Google's got a lot of money. We'll ask them for money. You know, they've made all this money, and we haven't made as much as they have, so we want their money for reaching people. So there's just that. We'll put a sort of tax on Google. And then we'll agree maybe to slow down their rivals. There's some new company or DuckDuckGo or something. They won't work quite as well, so we'll be able to do

this. So there's a million different schemes. If I can use obscenities. Please. We prefer them. The coin that was phrased by John Oliver was cable company fuckery. I think that is kind of it. There's just a million different ways. I'm going to add one more. I'm sorry. I don't want to go on.

But imagine you're like, OK, I want to subscribe to cable. OK. Well, you can get broadband. OK, you can get the regular broadband, which is like $30 a month. But it only does email. Oh, so you want more of the web? Well, maybe $60. Oh, you want streaming video?

Oh, maybe that's going to be $120. So it creates all kinds of ways for basically cable and phone companies to make more money in various ways. And that, I don't know about you, but I don't really think that's the pressing concern of our time. And I want to add to that some compliments to the host here who has read the underlying original net neutrality piece.

I must say that's not done by everyone. So my thanks for that. Yeah. Take that, Colbert. Yeah, there you go. So just so you know, you went on a roller coaster with Stephen Colbert to make explaining this a bit more interesting. All I did was I did the research. That's what I did. A little extra production value. That was a wild experience. Caught not on camera was the fact that right afterwards, Steve Colbert threw up. Just like threw up. Yeah.

I think everyone felt sick. How many times did you have to go around? We did one take. It was just one take? Yeah. But he did more than one. One take, what did they say? He did one more than one guest.

I don't know which one was used or not, but he had more than one guest. I didn't know that. And he looked terrible. But the amazing thing is he just delivered the lines. He's a pro. He still delivered the lines. He's a pro. He timed the descent of the roller coaster with, woo, my last name.

It was like amazing. So, you know, the point about when you start picking, oh, you know, Netflix is using bandwidth. Oh, you know, maybe Skype, it's telephone service, something special. You put at risk the future. You know, the good thing about the internet is there's a whole open commons out there. People try their best. They throw shit up there.

Some of it succeeds, some fails. And what you don't want, in my view, as an innovation policy, is the cable company deciding who wins. Because then you have something more like cable TV where there's all these random channels that look like, they're not like survival of the fittest. A deeper issue, this is about who controls the future. You know, is it kind of the marketplace

of ideas almost like people put stuff up? Look, Wikipedia would have never taken off without net neutrality. Because Wikipedia has no business model. You know, it's not clear that it would work an online encyclopedia that the people write like it's got all these crazy functions. Yet it's like one of the highest traffic sites in the world. People really take net neutrality, because it was the operating reality for so long, people take it for granted that the space between you and the internet that's closed by Time Warner or Verizon or what have you, that you don't have to think about that space very much. You may have to speak about your internet speed overall, but like you go to Wikipedia,

you go to Netflix, you go to the New York Times, you go to Fox News, whatever you go to, it's coming to you and there's no gatekeeper and that it's a pipe. You know what would be a great analogy is imagine like the electric network, the thing you plug things into, like not everything worked on it. Right. Like the electric company is like, oh no, we're not, we don't approve the toaster. Or like this toaster works better than that microwave because we cut a deal with them. I mean, basically, you own your house, you own your electricity. It's a very similar concept.

You just plug in whatever you want. You take it for granted. No one's like marching in the street for electricity neutrality. They would be if it was threatened. I was trying to come up with analogies to try on you before this. And the one I thought of was, it would be as if the Ford Motor Company bought the George Washington Bridge and only charged a toll to Hondas. Yeah, that's basically kind of the idea. Can we grade that? What do you think?

Should we call that a B plus? What do you think? B minus? How do you feel about it? You have to add Chris Christie to it, and then it's perfect. Yeah, time for some traffic problems on your internet service provider.

Yeah, you have to add Chris Christie. But that's basically the idea. Imagine bridges were owned by some, or maybe like pizza companies. So Domino gets to go through, but not like some other kind of pizza company. And then you're like, well, Domino then has a monopoly. I mean, we have enough problem already with monopoly consolidation. For sure. And one of the things I think that's important about net neutrality

is it not only puts some control on the cable and phone companies, but also prevents them from creating their own monopolies. So as I said, imagine the Brooklyn Bridge or all the New York bridges were like Domino's. That's our pizza vendor of choice. So now Domino's has essentially a monopoly on pizza delivery because no one else can get through. And so you end up with shitty pizza. And that's kind of what could happen in net neutrality.

Maybe 20 years from now, Facebook sucks. I don't know if it's great now. And so someone's trying with shitty pizza. And that's kind of what could happen in net neutrality. Maybe 20 years from now, Facebook sucks. I mean, I don't know if it's great now. And so someone's trying to compete with them. But they're like, oh, no, no. Facebook is the favored child. They have a deal. They have the deal. And so no one else can get started.

So Snap is in the graveyard or whatever. Maybe Snap's big and the bad guy. Whatever it is, you can see this potential for insulating companies from competition and creating more monopoly. So President Obama takes office. He talks about net neutrality on the campaign trail. And the FCC gets involved. You'll be able to explain this better than I can. Yeah, sure. I actually met the candidate Obama pretty early in the process. And, you know, net neutrality is like net neutrality. Yeah, got to do something about that.

So that he did, in fact. And his first chairman passed the net neutrality yeah they've got to do something about that so that he did in fact and his first chairman passed the net neutrality rule it was immediately challenged in court and knocked out and so he did it again and a lot of people came out in support like like four million people came out in support to write letters the FCC saying do this we really want it and they did a really strong a good rule and we actually have the rule right now. And, you know, I think it was one of the great accomplishments of the Obama administration, frankly. And it was later upheld by the courts. Yes, it was upheld. It was challenged again. Now, I want to say to give, I don't want to give Obama all the credit. Believe it or not, it was chairmen in the Bush administration who were concerned about the power of cable, who also did

something. Kevin Martin was around the name of the chairman, and he also tried to punish cable companies who were misbehaving in the 2000s. But one of the things he did do was he realized that cable companies were getting really powerful and phone companies, and he did fine them. They tried to block phone, internet phones, and he was pretty aggressive and said, like, we need to crack down on that. And frankly, got net neutrality started. I mean, that's why, you know, I started writing it in 2002 or so. In 2005, he was starting to, like, hammer on it and use it. Because he also, you know, believe it or not, you know, Republicans can be good people, too.

I want to say this. And he saw the internet was growing and he didn't want cable and phone companies to kill it. Right. And, you know, it's kind of a natural thing when you face these cases. You're like, wait, we're going to let the phone company kill this internet company? It's not any good. And there was an ideological divide based on how much government control there should be, right? That a lot of the Bush rules were about being voluntary.

They were guidelines. Originally were guidelines enforced, but they did go to court with them and lost. So it kind of left us in this kind of middle ground. And that's why I think, that's why Chairman Wheeler in the second Obama administration was like, we have to put this in a more legally solid form. It kind of been in like liquid form before. Yeah, yeah. And he's like, we need to have the rule so it survives, because it got knocked down in court over and over and over again.

And he did that, and it was upheld in court, and so we have a rule in place right now. And part of that rule is about the way in which we describe internet service providers, right? Whether or not they are treated as utilities. That's sort of the public description. When I go and say, like, this is why net neutrality is important. We need to treat these guys like utilities because they need to deliver this as a service that everybody can get the same exact way. Okay, that's fine. I mean, you can say that.

I don't want to be fine. I want to be accurate. It is accurate. I think what Chairman Wheeler did was base net neutrality in a very powerful grant of jurisdiction, the main kind of battle guns of the FCC, which is Title II, which is the public utility kind of authority. That is like a strong, powerful authority that wins in court. And previously, they thought, oh, well, we can base it on this much weaker, you know, the water sprinkler authority or whatever. And he used the

main guns of the FCC. Now, for decades, the phone and cable companies have been saying you should never use those regulatory tools because they're too powerful. And so that is a little bit what the fight's about is using the full powers of the regulatory agency.

But the reason the public utility powers of the FCC are powerful is because we recognize that it is critical that consumers be protected. And I would add that since the early Bush administration,

cable companies have gotten much more powerful. I mean, they have a monopoly over broadband service, most of the country. A couple areas, there's little competition from Verizon. Most areas, it's like cable or nothing. I used to have, in my old apartment in D.C., I had RCN and Comcast. And my favorite thing to do was once a year,

call them both up and get them negotiating against each other. And I'd get $20 off, $30 off, six months of free HBO. That's just money in my pocket. Yeah, that's great. And if all of America were competitive, it would be a lot better. Most parts of the United States, outside of few urban areas, have one broadband provider, cable. They have so much power over us right now,

and we haven't even talked about the privacy aspects of it, but you're going to go without internet? No. But you explain this to most people, and they're like, oh yeah, why would you want to... Of course broadband's at a utility. Give them more power to raise your bill, that's good. I would like you to make the best two-minute case you can against net neutrality. Okay.

The best case I would make, I think, is one of unintended consequences. Is like, you know, that's a pretty powerful government authority you've used. And okay, maybe it's fine for net neutrality. You know, maybe it'd be used for other reasons. You'll get, the FCC will get out of control. You know, they get excited about other missions. They'll go too far in privacy. And eventually what was once a vibrant, healthy sector will be choked off and it'll be back like the AT&T monopoly back in the 70s where they were just this stupefied agency. You know, over-regulation kills interest in doing interesting stuff. That would be the strongest thing.

It's not about net neutrality, but about unforeseen consequences. Okay, so Trump administration comes in, and all of a sudden net neutrality is under assault. What have they done? It's happening right now. So they rumbled a little bit, and then released a pretty dramatic plan just to get rid of the regulations or weaken them to the point where they're unrecognizable. And that's where it is.

They proposed a rule. It hasn't taken effect yet. It will be subject to court challenges, almost certainly. But, yeah, they took the very different view. They're like, cable companies need more incentives to... Basically, cable companies need to make more money. I'll put it that way. That was the simplification.

Or they won't want to invest. You know what I mean? So we have to guarantee that they make more money. Now, I know the service providers, the cable companies, they like this. There's not a constituency beyond them, right? The big tech companies are all against this. There's the telephone companies.

Telephone companies, of course. The telephone companies, cable companies, they like this. That's the constituency. Now, in their heart of hearts, there are some internet giants who might think, this is not going to be that bad for us. And I'm talking about Google, Facebook, the really big Apple. Because they're like, when it comes to making the deals, we can make some pretty good deals.

So they are not saying anything publicly. I think, in fact, Facebook said we're in favor of net neutrality. But in their heart of hearts, they know that they could further entrench themselves. And so, like, remember I was saying it helps other monopolists? So it could help them. But at the same time, it would also, it doesn't hurt them to remove this sort of plane of competition, right? Take this off the table. All these companies don't

have to suddenly jump into this unknown of figuring out how to negotiate new and complicated deals in a kind of gold rush to take different parts of the pipeline. Yeah. And maybe your question is is there a political constituency yeah no um show me the people who are interested in more powerful cable cable companies making more money and you having higher bills show me those uh constituencies i mean are the worst there's a tiny maybe there's people who are like always opposed to any regulation at all no matter what and so they would but they're not really like, they're just reflexively against anything. Libertarians, the libertarians.

Sort of a libertarian crowd, but they don't like march on the street. And even people are like, so bloggers are interesting. Even libertarian bloggers are often in favor of net neutrality. Why? Because it's like, wait a second, I'm going to have to pay Verizon

to get my blog out there? And no, no, I mean like, there's a lot of bloggers who're like this is terrible for us even if we're right-wing dudes we we want we've had this opportunity to reach people right and now we're gonna have to negotiate with cable to reach people on the same basis of cnn or something this is gonna suck so you'd be surprised actually so mrs oh their ideology breaks down when it comes to affect their individual lives yeah so that's where it is right now they They have proposed a rule.

That rule is currently receiving feedback, right? There's a mandatory period of time where they have to accept public comment. And so people listening to this can do something, right? They can provide their own comment. Yes. And I recommend they write in and say, stop it. This is just, why are you doing this? And, you know, I don't think phone companies need more control over my life or need to make more money. And I

just think this is backwards. I think net neutrality is great. You know, whatever you say, the comments make a big difference. Last time, as I said, there was 4 million comments received in favor of net neutrality. Against it, I think there were 23 or something. You know, if we can beat that, I think it sends a message. At some point, I would also think the White House would be like, what's going on here? What are these guys doing? I think that's a lot of hope. That maybe is a lot of hope. But if there's enough public opposition to something, it can have an effect. We've seen this administration back down already. Look, I know they just passed this health care thing,

but they backed down in the face of populist opposition. And if the people can rise and show much they care about this sort of basic question of whether cable companies get more profits and more control over our lives, I think, or I can hope the government will listen. I hope so, too. Thank you to Tim Wu for joining us earlier today in a studio of which this audience was not a part.

So right now, the FCC is taking comment on net neutrality, and you can tell them that love it or leave it sent you to complain about this bullshit fight to put the internet service providers even more in control of our digital lives. And that's, there's just like so much going on. When we come back, the rant wheel. And we're back. The Rant Wheel. And we're back.

This is a segment called The Rant Wheel. People love The Rant Wheel. I'm worried it's a little bit too 1980s Dennis Miller, a little too Peter Griffin, who just really grinds my gears, but I like it. Everyone's taking their phones out to take a picture of the rant wheel.

That's where we're at. So Dan, Lauren, Jenna, here's how this works. We spin the wheel. It lands on a topic. Maybe I'll start. Maybe you feel strongly about it. Maybe you dive in. But we rant about it.

And that's it. This week on the wheel, we have Senators Ask Bad Questions. I'm canceling my subscription in quotes, all you complainers. Audience Chooses. Hashtag Fire Colbert. Trump Praising Kim Jong-un and Other Dictators.

Oh, Ivanka the Author. And another... A lot of chatter And another one where the audience Where you'll get to shout out one and we'll just pick it out Let's spin the wheel Well, it's pretty high tech This has landed on Ivanka the author

So Ivanka has a new book out today Called Women Who Work Why do things happen to bad people? Lauren, thoughts? Yeah, I think that there I don't know if we've seen a bullshit artist like Ivanka Trump since Taylor Swift. But here we are.

The Taylor Swift of politics, Ivanka Trump, is peddling women's empowerment by, I think her one concrete claim to fame now is supporting maternity leave, but not fully supporting paternity leave, which is a textbook socialist authoritarian state. But also, I think we're supposed to give her credit for doing anything bad that doesn't happen to women.

And I guess just the fact that we're all still alive here today, a round of applause for Ivanka. I think her ghostwriter was trolling her. I mean, misappropriating a Toni Morrison quote, that's just funny. That's hilarious. Wasn't there also a quote about slavery that she used to say,

don't be a slave to your phone? And she hashtagged it IT wise words as in Ivanka Trump wise words. Yeah, it's gross as hell. Today there was also a tip. Listen, don't ask questions. The audacity

of this woman to give women who work advice. It's insane. What is the advice? Be born to a lunatic billionaire? I don't want advice from people who've never had a job they couldn't be fired from. That's a good rule I have.

Dan, you have anything to add from the... What was the title of the last book? I think it was like Trump Card, Fuck You, I'm Rich, was the previous, the prequel to Women at Work. One of the quotes in the book is about how she's tried to cultivate authenticity,

which is impossible by definition. And that's not just her, but like... Honestly, John, if cultivating authenticity means pretending that having good posture is being a feminist,

then I'm cultivating authenticity. I have terrible posture. She does have great posture. Let's not be afraid to compliment her posture the woman is straight up in the air let's roll the wheel again what is it landed on? Fire Colbert?

what a bunch of censorious... How do you say it? Censurious? Censurious? It's nonsense. Do you have any thoughts on people campaigning to fire people on television?

I'm just impressed that that guy actually knows how to say censorious. That was... Censorious. Is he in a friend of the potcher? He is. Very smart.

Very smart. Very smart. So I don't know if you saw this, but Stephen Colbert made a joke, and the joke was something along the lines of... Cock holster. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Donald Trump is a cock holster. Which isn't even homophobic.

It's just like an accessory. Right. Like a dick purse. Yeah Which isn't even homophobic. It's just like an accessory. Right. Like a dick purse. Yeah. Or a vagina satchel. Anyway, there was a movement of people on the right saying this was homophobic and therefore Stephen Colbert should be fired.

But it's part of a larger trend. Actually, Lauren, this is something that you and I have been talking about, which is there's a whole way people now speak online, which is I wasn't offended by this. But this was the wrong thing to say because other people are going to take it the wrong way. And it's a fascinating way in which we all have kind of become pundits. What if a conservative host had said something like that about then-President Obama?

I think that I'd be one of those people that says, first of all, yeah, they did him worse, right? I think I'd be one of the people that says, first of all, yeah, they did him worse, right? I think I'd be one of the people that says, that sucks, but the idea that it would occur to me to be like, let's get him fired. Well, okay, so I think the hypocrisy of a fire Colbert movement, like if, so where's my list of things that we're firing Trump for? Because the people behind

that movement are typically Trump supporters who we're accepting of a whole slew of offensive Megyn Kelly bleeding out of her wherever is on par with that Colbert joke. For sure. Well, I just think comedians are stepping up to the plate in the way that our

politicians aren't. Our politicians are failing us, and we have comedians who are telling truth to power, and to me, they're like a life preserver. So I love Stephen Colbert, and I think it's very ballsy to do what he's doing and Stephen Colbert couldn't even challenge Susan Sarandon so give me a break

but like I just he has no bright whatsoever I am loving that there is a debate during the rant wheel about the role of comedy in the era of Trump didn't see it coming I think it's fantastic I love the disagreement I think it's important I mean he put me on his election night special live,

which like nobody would do. And they just let me uncensored say what I was feeling. And yes, Susan Cernan is totally out of touch. And I mean, put a microphone up to an actor and what do you expect? But except the one in the film. Have you met an actor?

Come to L.A. and defend actors. I get it, I get it, but I'm just saying, I think Susan Turner is a separate issue because he didn't hold her feet to the fire. No one bats a thousand, but Stephen Colbert is doing a really great job, as are so many of the comedians right now, sifting through the madness,

and we're all exhausted. He's better than Jimmy Fallon. Anyway, what we were saying about the punditry class. Let's talk about that because I think it's really interesting. The example we were kind of also picking apart were when John shared his thing after eating three hot dogs in Central Park. I ate one hot dog.

We did a loop. I ate one hot dog. I ate a second hot dog. And then I ate a third hot dog. Okay. That's true. Calories in, calories out, man. You're doing a loop, eating a dog.

That's cool. I do crossfit. It's fine. It was iconic, frankly. But we were talking about how at the very end of when I was on Pod Save, I said, like, sorry for talking so much. And I honestly had had so much coffee. And I was on the way to the airport.

And it was diary of the mouth. It wasn't I'm taking up space and I'm a woman. And I got so many messages about how people praising me and telling me that I'm this incredible feminist that they look up to. But how I ruined it. And it's sort of, like, very interesting. Because some of it was on Twitter, which was public. Some of it was email. It was, it ranged in thoughtfulness. It ranged from the accusatory to the sort of an attempt to bolster me up, which I thought was interesting because if you're writing to me to say, don't doubt yourself, you don't need to apologize. Why wouldn't you maybe praise a part of the 20 minute

interview that we had instead of writing 300 words to further increase my likelihood of self-doubt the next time that I'm on a podcast? I think you're holding internet trolls to a higher standard. No, no, this wasn't trolls. I'm sorry. These were all messages from women that were really earnest. But the thing that's interesting, I think even thoughtful commentary now, it comes with this level of,

I'm not telling you what I think. I'm telling you what I'm worried other people think. And it's similar when people try to have people like Colbert fired, or when there's this sort of impulse to police what other people say. It is partly a consequence of the fact that so much of our news is to deliver to us,

not as if we're citizens, trying to make decisions about what to vote for, but treating us as analysts too. And it's removing power from the people because the way people connect to politics is through personal stories and not analysis of mass culture. Right, and right. It separates out the individual from the story. That's right.

They were clapping for me, actually. No, I want them to applaud for you. I'm just kidding. No, Lauren. You take that applause, alright? You take up that space, alright? No apologies. I'm not sorry, John Lovett. So Dan, I don't want to let you go without having you chime in on this

because you're somebody on the other side of this equation. You are an anchor for ABC News. You cover politics. You talk to voters. Do you feel pressure inside of your role to stay out of what's ultimately partisan, which is adjudicating policy fights, and stay more in the lane of analysis, punditry, the politics of these fights? Well, I personally don't get into punditry. On policy, though, I mean, I think

there are times when I think we need to move away from false equivalency and I'll give you one area where I think this has been a problem for a while but it's gotten better but I think we can do even better was climate change it's very obvious that the vast vast vast majority of serious scientists say this is real and caused by humans and possibly could be catastrophic. So I think that we need to, yes, I think there's an enormous amount of pressure on us to be fair and to be seen as fair. But also not to get so into, as you said before, performative neutrality that we can't give a vision of the truth that is close to actual reality. Well, just for the laymen or women or gender neutral, the lay gender neutral, gender fluid, the lay two-spirit.

Anyway, what's the distinction between maybe a pundit and a journalist? Besides like lipstick. No, but like what is the distinction? That's not funny. Sorry. No, no, no. I'm not saying I'm conflating the two. I'm just saying for somebody listening,

how would, without emotion, we articulate the difference? I think in my job, the way we think about it as a journalist, I would call myself a journalist in that my job is not to give my opinion. Pundits, their job is absolutely

to give their opinion. Where is that line drawn? Well, I would just say, I'm not sure I'm answering your question, but I'm sort of continuing to answer your first question. I think there's an important role for both. I think it's great to have people out there giving their opinions. That's why I listen to this guy's podcast. Because by your definition, Lauren gives an opinion,

so by your definition, Lauren would be a pundit. I can answer that. I don't need Dan Harris to define me as a journalist. I define myself as a journalist because, not that he wouldn't. He was fine. And I'm not attacking you, by the way. Oh, it's fine. I don't feel attacked. What a journalist does is ruled by an objectivity of method.

I'm an opinionated journalist. The type that we hold in the highest regard is typically, and to bring back that term, is neutral. But there is a level of performative neutrality where a neutral voice does not signify rigorous journalism. In fact, a story in a neutral voice without a rigorous discipline of verification is deception. So when I use my voice and I share my opinion, I am still guided by a discipline of verification and I have my voice and I share my opinion, I am still guided by a discipline of verification and I have that background and I have that understanding and I have that professionalism and I think that there are there are people that the public should know what they should expect from

journalism and from journalists and there should be a transparency in what is being presented and often punditry is presented as the news when frankly it is infotainment. So I think there's how you want to parse what the difference between a pundit, a journalist, and an opinionated journalist is, I don't know if I feel qualified to get that Talmudic, however

I do think that there's a real value in all of those and I think that we should all have a really varied media diet. We should be listening to podcasts from all sorts of people with all sorts of opinions.

From Tommy Vitor, Jon Favreau, Anna Marie Cox, DeRay McKesson. Well, let me just say... Mike Marbar, have you got time? Anna Marie Cox

is a great example of talking to people with whom you disagree. I said DeRay. What are you? I said five names you disagree. I said DeRay. What are you? I said five names and one of them was DeRay. We are so far from Fire Colbert, I don't even remember where this started.

That's the rant wheel. I want to thank my guests, Dan Harris, Lauren Duca, Jenna Friedman And that's the show Love it or leave it Let's love it or leave it

Respect it or don't say Thank you.