Pod Save America - “A little hiccup.”

Episode Date: September 25, 2018

Republicans respond to a second credible allegation of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh by accusing Democrats of a smear campaign, and The New York Times may have given Trump the excuse he’s been looking for to fire Rod Rosenstein. Then Lovett and Dan talk to The New York Times’ Mark Leibovich about politics, Paul Ryan, and his new book “Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times."

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. Tommy Vitor. On today's pod, you'll hear the interview that Dan and Lovett did with New York Times' Mark Leibovich. We'll talk about politics, Paul Ryan, and Leibovich's new book about the NFL called Big Game. Today, we're also going to be talking about the latest allegations against Brett Kavanaugh and the news that Trump is considering firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. That's not exactly right, Jon.

He's been considering firing Rod Rosenstein from the jump. From the get-go? There's just, anyway. From the day Mueller was born. Lovett, how was Love It or Leave It? I saw there was a special studio episode. Very special. So basically, I got sick on Thursday.

I had to cancel the live show. But thanks to Ira Madison III, Emily heller aaron ryan all stars of love it love it or leave it they came in we did a live show friday night in the studio here at cricket hq one of my favorite episodes i was really sorry to have to cancel and sorry to the guests they couldn't they had to cancel on but it's a really good show and you should check it out and you know what there may be some more in studio additions in your future you should stop eating those 7-eleven hot dogs no those are the only things that keep me alive but that's yeah and i like the 7-eleven pizza and i continue to believe i'm the only person who buys 7-eleven pizza before going to

barry's boot camp i ate so much of that 7-eleven pizza when i lived near 17th and r and that 7-eleven there late night are you pepperoni person or cheese person just whatever was there in the in the thing i just walk i'd walk in and just grab me one of those those okay what what else uh the final episode of the wilderness dropped on monday and it features an interview with none other than former president barack obama cool he talks about what makes for a good speech. He talks about Trump and the Republicans, about how Democrats can reclaim patriotism, where we can find hope.

The series finale is all about message and story and the narrative heading into 2018. So take a listen to an interview with Barack Obama. Why wouldn't you do that? He said series finale. It is the series finale. I'm just saying, leave yourself opening. Season 2. Sure, yeah, season 2. Still in the wilderness. series finale you'll it is the series finale i'm just saying leave yourself opening okay sure yeah

season two still in the wilderness yeah if it's still in the wilderness yeah i think we're gonna be in trouble the thing i enjoyed about today's episode was just hearing someone talk about things in a positive way just such a nice antidote to the news yeah i realized on a day like today you wouldn't be looking for an interview with Barack Obama talking about the country in a positive, hopeful way. Looking for a well to jump into. It might be just the antidote you're looking for. So download it today.

All right. We put up a lot of new shit on Vote Save America last week. Everyone should check it out. Make sure you're registered. Make sure your friends are registered. We should also note that Tuesday, Septemberember 25th is national voter registration day did you guys get gifts big day gotta get cards democracy i never like the cards in that section our partner headcount.org will be registering voters all over the country you can join them

by visiting votesaveamerica.com slash do something and search for events on September 25th so you can help out. Also, our HBO live dress rehearsal show in Los Angeles. We were able to open another section at the theater and want to invite you to come to the show for free Friday, September 28th at the Alex Theater in Glendale. Lots of exciting stuff going on in Glendale. RSVP at votesaveamerica.com slash hbo live and uh hopefully we'll see you there maybe we'll go to the outback steakhouse

that's in glendale right after the show john shut up wouldn't you like to go yeah that's why if you want to see john love it i don't it's not it will not help i don't want people to see what happens when i eat at the outback Games. People can't see that. Okay. My reputation. Let's talk about Bart O'Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. Over the weekend, just as an agreement to hear testimony from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was coming together, a separate set of allegations surfaced in a New Yorker article by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer on Sunday,

Separate set of allegations surfaced in a New Yorker article by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer on Sunday, this time from a college classmate of Kavanaugh's who says that he once exposed himself to her at a party while they were students at Yale and caused her to touch his penis without her consent when he thrust it into her face. Democrats have called for a delay in the confirmation process to investigate the new allegations. Republicans have said basically, fuck off. Mitch McConnell today called the whole thing a, quote, shameful smear campaign by the Democrats and vowed to hold an up-or-down vote on Kavanaugh in the near future no matter what. Let's start with the New Yorker story.

Lovett, why do you think that Ronan, Jane Mayer, and the New Yorker thought this story was solid enough to run? What are the most salient, important facts in the story to you? So what's in the story? First of all, there is a woman on the record. Deborah Ramirez. Deborah Ramirez on the record. Photo saying this is what Brett Kavanaugh did when I was a student at Yale.

Now, the New Yorker is incredibly cautious. And so references the fact that she took several days before she felt certain in declaring it was Brett Kavanaugh because she was careful. And they also referenced the fact that she had been drinking and that there were gaps in her memory. Nevertheless, she makes this claim. It is backed up by the fact that there was someone who knew at the time that Brett Kavanaugh had been involved in this incident, that Deborah Ramirez remembered that Brett Kavanaugh's name was shouted in the hallway describing what he had done. It's also reported in the story that people at Yale when Brett Kavanaugh was nominated were talking about these incidents and talking about his behavior at

Yale. Brett Kavanaugh's freshman year roommate finds the story credible, finds Deborah Ramirez believable, and finds the behavior consistent with the kind of behavior he saw from Brett Kavanaugh, the kind of drinking and fucking around he saw from Brett Kavanaugh. And on top of that, Brett Kavanaugh's lawyers gave a statement to The New Yorker ostensibly to back up Brett Kavanaugh's lawyers gave a statement to The New Yorker ostensibly to back up Brett Kavanaugh's claims. However, two of the people in that statement are people that Deborah Ramirez alleges were involved in egging Brett Kavanaugh on. One of them is the wife of somebody who was alleged by Deborah Ramirez to have egged Kavanaugh on.

who was alleged by Deborah Ramirez to have egged Kavanaugh on, and two of the other people in that statement, after the piece came out, reached out to the New Yorker to say they didn't want their names associated with that statement because they could not back up the claims in their rebuttal that this didn't happen. So there is a lot in here to back up Deborah Ramirez's claim. Now, a lot of Republicans have said, but wait, there's no eyewitness wait, there's no eyewitnesses. There's no eyewitnesses.

There have been so many incredibly important stories over the past year where women come forward and say, this is what happened to me that is corroborated by prompt outcry at the time in which, of course, there are no other witnesses, either because people were involved or there was no one else there. Well, and it's important, like you said, that people are involved. people were involved or there was no one else there. Well, and it's important, like you said, that people were involved. The people in the room at the time of this alleged incident was Brett Kavanaugh and a couple of friends who were all egging him on. One of them had, you know, it's like a toy penis that they were shoving that in her face. And then apparently Brett Kavanaugh pulled his pants down. But it's like Kavanaugh and his buddies and they were all egging him on.

So, of course, those people aren't going to testify to the story. Right. Tommy, what was your reaction? The key for me is that Dr. Blasey Ford's position is that she wants a more rigorous investigation. She wants the FBI to step in. She wants Mark Judge, who I'm talking about the first story now. She wants Mark Judge, who was there during the first incident, as described in high school, to be subpoenaed. The Republicans won't let that happen. Deborah Ramirez wants more investigation to be done of this incident. Republicans don't want that to happen. Their response when they heard about this incident was to fast forward the process and try to ram him through. And the fact is, I wasn't there. I can't tell you for sure what happened.

Memory can be unreliable. But if you're involved in trauma, you're probably more likely to remember what happened. And so let's investigate to the best of our ability and let's try to get to the facts because that serves both sides. That serves Kavanaugh. That serves the accusers. But the Republicans don't care about the facts. They want to rush the process. I mean, again, just to go back to what is in this story. go back to what is in this story. Like you said, New Yorker found that Yale classmates have been talking about the story for weeks and months before Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations surfaced. So one thing that is an absolute lie, an easily provable lie, is all these Republicans saying this is an 11th hour thing. This was just made up. After one allegation happened, someone came

forward for another one. No, that is false. That there were Yale classmates emailing around about this story the minute that Brett Kavanaugh was nominated because they'd all remember hearing it. And a classmate of Ramirez's said another student told him about the incident right after it happened. He's in the story, in the he is, quote, 100% sure that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez and independently recalled many of the same exact details that Ramirez had told the New Yorker. So you had her details that she told the New Yorker and this other classmate who hadn't heard what she said, and he said the exact same details. Two other classmates, Richard Oh and Mark Krasberg, said they'd heard the story as well and they just didn't have specific names attached to the story, but they heard the story exactly

like Ramirez recounted it. Yes. And, you know, the New Yorker is so careful. And look, I am outside of this process, but I am very familiar with the care Ronan takes in reporting these stories and the care that The New Yorker takes in reporting these stories. It was interesting. The White House pushback. Eric Wemple wrote a piece in The Washington Post that made this point, which is all the White House's pushback against the New Yorker came from the New Yorker, because in addition to laying out this credible allegation and all the evidence that backs it up from the time and in the year since, they also included very conservatively, very carefully, a lot of caveats. They did an ethical thing. And they said Deborah Ramirez was not comfortable from the jump to say that this is Brett Kavanaugh. She wanted to be sure they did the ethical thing worth it for you to know that this is out there, that Senate Democrats are investigating

this, and this woman is making this claim. And I just know on a personal level how incredibly seriously Ronan takes getting this right. And I know also that he is not motivated by partisanship. He's not motivated by politics. He would do this if it were Democrat. He would do this regardless of party. And that's it. Look, Brett Kavanaugh and his allies over and over again have said, listen to the people who knew me best then. Listen to what they said. OK, here's James Roach, Kavanaugh's roommate at the time of the alleged incident, recalled him in the New Yorker piece being, quote, frequently incoherently drunk, quote, is it believable that she was alone with a wolfy group of guys who thought it was funny to sexually torment a girl like Debbie? Yeah, definitely.

Is it believable that Kavanaugh was one of them? Yes, that was his college roommate at the time. So it's amazing today how this story, even more than, I think, the Blasey Ford story, has sort of spiraled into this whole thing like, oh, this allegation is over the top and they didn't have it. But it's very well detailed in here. Yeah. I mean, Kavanaugh doesn't come off as credible. He just did an interview with Fox News where he stuck to his talking points that all he wanted is a fair hearing and investigation.

But again, with regard to Ms. Blasey Ford, Dr. Blasey Ford, they're not calling the one witness. They're not subpoenaing the one witness who could actually shed some light under this if pressed under oath. If you look at his yearbook page, he claimed that he's never been blacked out drunk. He's never not remembered something from drinking.

It's all about the 100 keg club and all these drinking insinuations. I'm not saying that means the allegations are true. It means that he's painting a picture of himself that is not credible when compared to what people are saying, what he wrote about himself at the time in his yearbook, and what his friends

are saying at the time. Can't lie about the small thing. Exactly. It's like we've been saying Can't lie about the small things. I was just, exactly It's like we've been saying since every time we've talked about Brett Kavanaugh he has been caught lying about things that are so small you know, like, why not say in the interview oh yeah, have you ever

drank to the point where you were blackout drunk and didn't remember anything? No, never You were in a club called the Tit and Clit Club which Fox News did not say in a follow up to to him you're in a book by your childhood friend mark judge as bart o'cavanaugh your drinking buddy pass out all the time people who knew you said that you got incoherently drunk all the time why lie about that little thing and one of the other important pieces of news there's two others two big pieces of news that we haven't talked about from the new yorker story one is that uh people who know Mark Judge felt it necessary to come out and say his claims about this not being possible are just not true.

Mark Judge talked about the fact that he lost his virginity in a sexual encounter with multiple men when he was young, that his denials are just not true. So there's this two-step process that has gone on with Brett Kavanaugh. One is by dint of partisanship, whether it is sincere or cynical, to not see the ways in which Brett Kavanaugh is consistently dishonest, to not see it around Pryor, not see it about the judiciary, not see it in the opening remarks he made when he was named by Donald Trump, to not see it and deny it and claim made when he was named by Donald Trump, to not see it and deny it and claim he is a man of incredible integrity. Step two, then use that integrity that is not

based on evidence, that's not based on his actions, to deny these allegations. And it's just not an accurate representation of this person that we have seen repeatedly lie under oath to get out of less serious situations than this. Yeah. And if this were a serious investigation, they would call Mark Judge to testify. Like you said, the woman who talked about Mark Judge was Elizabeth Razor. She was she dated Mark Judge. And she said that Mark told her a very different story about his days in college. You know, she he told her once ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. And, of course, as she said this as the New Yorker story posted, Michael Avenatti also came out with claims and said he's now representing a group of people, including one who he described as a victim with, quote, credible information about Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge who can corroborate allegations of sexual assault from their high school days. Avenatti said that's going to happen. You know, those people are going to come forward within a couple of days, apparently. So we'll see if that's

a real thing. But like all this stuff keeps coming out. Yeah. And the one thing that has been held constant throughout this whole thing is the Republican reaction. And in fact, it's actually gotten worse. It's gotten worse. And now their latest iteration is that this is a Democratic smear and they want us to feel sympathy for Kavanaugh and for his family. And it leaked out that Kavanaugh in a prep session at the White House was deeply hurt by the accusations and refused to answer them in a prep session. And that is understandable.

It is human. But I do not feel any sympathy for him because we know how Brett Kavanaugh, the political staffer, would have reacted in this instance if he was working against himself. Because when he worked for Ken Starr, he wanted to force Bill Clinton to answer explicit personal sexual questions. And we know he wrote in a memo that it's their job to, quote, make his pattern of revolting behavior clear piece by painful piece. If we're applying the Brett Kavanaugh standard to Brett Kavanaugh, then we should figure out all of these allegations. But they don't. But they don't want to. The Republicans are, if anything, they're digging in even further. The other piece of big news in the New Yorker story is this passage, quote, Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week

and in conversations with The New Yorker expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh's nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. So their response to hearing about a potential second allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh was to confirm him as fast as possible. Well, you know, we've been asking this rhetorical question for days. What's so important about Monday? What's so important about Monday? Why are they rushing? Why are they rushing?

We couldn't figure it out. It was, are they afraid they'll have to withdraw him? And so they need the time to replace him. None of it really made sense. But now we know they're, regardless of their denials, clearly multiple reporters have been chasing this. New York Times is chasing this. We know The Washington Post was chasing this. The New Yorker was clearly chasing this and the committee, the White House, Kavanaugh's team. They were clearly aware of it and terrified. Yeah. You can tell, too. Tommy, you mentioned this. They're making it all about Democrats and the Democrats campaign, which is their way of getting out of saying these women are liars or they don't want

to say two things. They don't want to say these women are liars out loud or they don't want to say it was a sexual assault, but it happened so long ago. So it doesn't really matter. They don't want to say either of those two things. So what they're saying instead is Democrats are making this up, which is also an obvious lie because these are women who are coming forward. These are people who know these women who are coming forward. These are people who went to school with Brett Kavanaugh coming forward. These aren't Democrats. These aren't like some, this isn't some like Democratic smear campaign. That's an easily provable lie.

We know just from the New Yorker's reporting that this was something, the second Brett Kavanaugh's name was in the mix for Supreme Court. People were talking about this. That is how those names emerged, both to Senate Democrats and to reporters chasing the story. It is not a surprise that this information would bubble up. It is not a surprise, by the way, that it would become known to a group of two different people, to reporters, to people that work in the Senate. And Kavanaugh is trying to come out and say the best defense they could muster is he produced calendars from his time in high school as if a high school kid writes down illegal drinking and committed horrific acts at party.

And then he's also on Fox. He said that he was a virgin in high school as if that's somehow relevant. I mean, I know it's hard to prove a negative, but they're they're flailing around. And if you want to do a real interview, don't go on Fox. I mean, leave your safe space and take tough questions. But he does not look prepared to do it. Are you saying you were not persuaded by the defense offered by Ed Whalen? I would like to talk about that for a minute.

Ed Whalen went on Twitter and he posted a libelous tweet storm where he asserted that another individual who looks like Brett Kavanaugh was the one who committed this act, that it was all a piece of mistaken identity. And then he had to backtrack and take it down. should hate DC is that there are Orwellian sounding organizations like the Ethics and Public Policy Center that are filled with some of the most unethical, depraved, partisan fucking humans in the planet. And this guy just attacks a random person, calls him an attempted rapist because he spent the day looking on Zillow to dig up like schematics of an old house. But this organization didn't even fire him, right? They gave him like a leave of

absence. But again, like you can't do ethics and policy without it. Well, yeah, right. You can't be ethical. You can't figure it out. But this is bigger than Whelan, right? Because he's trying to say he did this all on his own. But he clearly coordinated with Kavanaugh's team at the White House. And we know this because he clicked on Dr. Ford's LinkedIn page after The Washington Post had called the White House for comment, but before they published her name. So there's no way he could have known unless he got it from them. And we also know that Kavanaugh and his aides were spreading the idea and calls with Capitol Hill because Orrin Hatch's moron deputy chief of staff tweeted, Hey, everyone, keep an eye on Ed Whalen's Twitter page, for God's sake.

So, like, these guys are lying about everything. And they are literally coordinating smear campaigns as they accuse Democrats of doing the same thing. It also shows you just like the clubby elite nature of Washington, D.C., that a lot of conservatives, a lot of never Trump conservatives, too, were out there saying, I know Ed Whalen. Ed Whalen is a serious lawyer. He's a good man. A lot of integrity. And then the guy fucking goes nuts.

He's got his, it was the one-armed man defense on a fucking 25 tweets. He's got floor plans. He's a reliable lawyer. He's naming another person chosen because his face is roughly the same shape as Brett Kavanaugh's face. He's got maps. At age 18. He's got maps on the thing of how far from the country club he's got. I mean, it was as bad as it is stunning just how painful it is for

a group of people that believe that someone like Brett Kavanaugh can't lie to them to be told that we don't accept them at their word. The other piece of this is it is amazing how quick a lot of conservative intellectuals went to. It's a smear, not we need to hear from this woman. We need to hear about the second allegation. This reporting, it's thin. I'm not sure I can believe this, but no, it has to be a smear. It's a smear by the Democrats. As you said.

So why do you think, how did it get, how did it go that quickly from we should hear her, let's invite her to this hearing, which they did do at first. For Ford. For Ford. To now, the whole thing's a smear, it's a character assassination, let's just get the vote. It really did travel a very far distance very quickly. I think it's a tried and true technique, right? You Donald Trump it, you deny, deny, lie and attack your opponent one. But then there's like a whole group of, uh, conservative, often religious conservatives, like evangelical conservatives, like Eric Erickson, who just so desperately want

another judge on the court that will uphold the things they care about, that they will literally do and say anything. They are depraved people. Againved people again though my my question on that is okay the most important goal for the conservative movement here is to fill the seat with a right-wing judge there there's a whole list of other right-wing judges they could nominate uh amy barrett today and get her confirmed hopefully by no not hopefully sorry then get her confirmed real twist by November they could nominate Hardeman they could nominate any of these fucking people and they don't I mean it was interesting

it's a smart political play free beacon editor Matthew Contenetti was tweeting today he said a defeated Kavanaugh nomination may well become a rallying cry for conservative activists in the midterms, meaning if he's voted down. A pulled nomination in the aftermath of interventions by the New Yorker and Avenatti would cause those same activists to throw up their hands and lose enthusiasm. So this is basically the Trump argument, too. There's a reporting that Trump said to them, like, why did you ever offer her a hearing?

Why don't you just fight? Deny, deny, deny. that Trump said to them, like, why did you ever offer her a hearing? Why don't you just fight? Deny, deny, deny. So there's this belief that if they show weakness at all by pulling this nomination and replacing him, even with someone else who's a rock ribbed conservative that would have all the same exact positions as Brett Kavanaugh, then that is somehow showing weakness and that Republican voters won't come to the polls, which I don't even know if I buy that. Maybe. I don't know their base. I don't think anybody. I don't think anybody knows. There is something sort of twisted in this.

One of the reasons I think we've seen a lot of conservative commentators, Fox News types, your Hugh Hewitts immediately go to a smear. It's it's quite revealing because Neil Gorsuch wasn't smeared, right? Right. Neil Gorsuch wasn't smeared. He actually sailed through with several Democratic votes. And we were angrier about that seat because that was the stolen Garland seat. Still the stolen seat. But for whatever reason, they find it so incredibly plausible that suddenly Dianne Feinstein, who I do not think could put together a successful heist

of, I don't know, a child's piggy bank. And I just don't hit on. I'm sorry. I just don't. Not a criminal. But but but the idea that suddenly Democrats are these masterminds, sophisticated tricksters and hucksters. It speaks to something dark, which is they believe that they could do that to us. Right. They believe that that is the kind of tactics that they could use and have used against Democrats in the past. And, you know, I think the fact that the story in The New Yorker references Senate Democrats investigating this, I think the fact that it did come as we approach this second potential hearing, I think that they all convinced themselves very

quickly to not just say, but to actually convince themselves that this was a dirty trick. I mean, I think Trump's entire ethos is deny everything, fight every allegation, always hit back harder. So like from that narrow lens of understanding him, it makes total sense. But also you see this in a lot of tweets from these guys like Matt Schlapp, these like scummy right wing grifters who just want to play the victim. They want to be the victim of some attack or smear or coordinated campaigns that allows them to continue to rally their base and attack institutions that we care about. They can never admit that, hey, maybe Clarence Thomas wasn't a great pick, guys. Maybe this guy, Judge Kavanaugh, when you could have had anybody else, was not a great pick. Maybe you fucked up and picked someone who is not who you think he is.

They will never allow themselves to get there. The other thing we know for sure, politicians, people in politics, lie about sex scandals all the time. Bill Clinton lied over and over again about his sex scandal. Donald Trump has lied over and over again in the face of overwhelming evidence that he did it. That's what happens. Or, in some cases, you resign. Al Franken resigned. Eric Schneiderman resigned. But Republicans have decided that if they even have a hint of, maybe I did something wrong, maybe I did something

wrong, perhaps the story's right. Maybe you even have different. No, if they say any of that, if they show any sign whatsoever that they may believe women who come forward and make these allegations, then that's weakness. And so they must just deny and lie at any cost. So we know that happens. This whole thing comes down to because most of these Republicans will fall in line. Most of them, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell,

Lindsey Graham just deserves a minute of just flagging how disgusting his comments are. He has said nothing could convince him. He'll hear, he'll say, I'll hear the lady out. Yeah. That's what he said, but I'm not going to play a game here and tell you this will wipe out his entire life because if nothing

changes, it won't with me. I mean, he doesn't give a shit what happened. He's playing for the base. He doesn't give a shit. And a lot of them are basically saying the same thing. It comes down to Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, possibly others who haven't spoken up yet, who've been quiet. Have we gotten any hints from them about how they might vote? The only thing I thought was interesting was Susan Collins said today that she would like to hear Deborah Ramirez testify under oath, which is interesting.

And we know that the White House is worried in particular about Flake, too. Yeah, I mean, you know, somebody asked me this. It's like, why would these allegations matter? Republicans have no bottom. And I'm like, actually, that's actually not true. Donald Trump has no bottom. Kellyanne Conway has no bottom. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has no bottom. Mitch McConnell has no bottom. But I don't think it's I don't think it's high enough. But Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, these are people who still do have a bottom. These are two people

who have shown from time to time, not often enough, integrity. I actually think the truth is whatever they're going to say today, whatever they've said over the past week, we don't know what they're going to do. I don't think they know what they're going to do. So it's still a real fight and it still really matters that people make calls. It still really matters that people keep the pressure up because I don't think Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, I do not think these are, I don't think they've given any indication, nothing that these people have said would be violated by a yes vote or a no vote. Yeah. I mean, I guess it's weird, but it all comes down to the testimony on Thursday, which like I don't know how much we're

going to learn from all of these senators questioning either Ford or Kavanaugh that we don't already know. Like, do we think this, this is theater mostly on Thursday and that like maybe the emotion of the hearing could carry impact on some people? I don't know. I mean, the people arguing that Kavanaugh deserves due process should be appalled what's going to happen on Thursday because no relevant witnesses are being called. This is not due process. He gets to go second. This is garbage. But I do think this is politics. And if people see on roadblock TV coverage someone that is believable, credible, compelling,

I think it will change how they feel about a party that is ramming through a nominee that could have done something. And I think the other thing that could change it is if between now and then, and when they schedule a committee vote, which fucking Mitch McConnell said, or Lindsey Graham, or one of those assholes, we could schedule it as soon as Friday, which goes to show you how pro-former they think the hearing is.

If more allegations surface, or more information services between now and then, I think that could change. Yeah, none of these people are particularly good at predicting the future, nor are we. And I think one truth is TV is unpredictable and the most powerful force in politics. It is. It's why Donald Trump is president. We don't fully understand it. We're not in control of it. And two human beings are going to be human. If this hearing happens, and it's not totally clear, we will get to that hearing. But if we do, two human beings will be put in an incredibly strange and unique position that neither one has ever been before in their lives, that no one is ever in,

and they will be questioned, and it will be surprising in ways we can't predict, and we will see what happens. And Kavanaugh just made a bunch of statements on Fox News that give you easy ways to prove again that he lies often. So we'll see if that happens. Yeah, the lying man. He's an idiot. All right.

Let's talk about the other massive story today. It's so amazing that 50 minutes into this thing, we're getting to Rod Rosenstein. Last week, it was- We had the same problem. I can't believe that Manafort fucking turning isn't the biggest story by Monday. Now I cannot believe that Rod Rosenstein saying, let's kick this guy out using the cabinet is not the biggest story. So the New York Times may have given Donald Trump the excuse he's been looking for to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,

the man with the authority over Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Donald Trump and his campaign. The Times piece, published Friday, reported that Rosenstein suggested last year that Trump be secretly recorded in the aftermath of James Comey's firing to, quote, expose the chaos consuming the administration and that he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office for being unfit. So, first of all, holy shit. Now, John, here's the thing.

Rod Rosenstein would never do that. However, Randy O. Rosenstein, actually, it sounds just like him. Just sounds exactly like the king, that Randy O. Rosenstein. Someone who looks just like him, who lives in a house, also with an upstairs. With a Keebler elf who's mean. So what do we know about where this story came from and who leaked it to the New York Times? I don't think we know that at all. I mean, the main source on the story seems to be former deputy FBI director Andy McCabe's memos that he took contemporaneously.

There is a big question debated on Twitter where all things are solved about whether this was a calculated leak from pro-Trump people who want to give him a reason to get the base's blood boiling and get rid of Rosenstein, or whether this is, you know, maybe it's unfair, maybe Rod Rosenstein was kidding. He said, what do you want me to do? Wear a wire. And, you know, he didn't actually float the idea of the 25th Amendment. It's not, there's a lot of ambiguity here.

And I think ultimately it's, the New York Times, I think, raised a lot of questions in the reporting of the story that weren't answered. It seems the debate is the New York Times report said that Rosenstein was serious. Some other reporting said... The responses to the story said, quotes from the spokespeople. Right, that he was being sarcastic. Yeah, you have to sort of... I think there's two debates.

One is, who stood to benefit from this story? And then the second is, does it accurately describe what Rod Rosenstein was doing? And I think we don't know the answer to that question. But let's say the story was accurately reported. Rod did these things. He talked about the 25th Amendment. He talked about wearing a wire. I'd fire his ass in a heartbeat.

He deserves to be fired. That's crazy. Let's just level set for a minute. Donald Trump's a monster. I want to protect the Mueller investigation, but you can't do that. It's interesting because when I first started seeing this story breaking and seeing the response that, wait a second, he was being sarcastic. Wait a second. Rod Rosenstein apparently has a terrible sense of humor. I was like, yeah, that does sound like something more sarcastic. That does sound something like more like a joke blown out of

proportion. But then you watch the New York Times reporters very strongly push back on it and say, if this was a joke, why was it in these memos? Why is it recorded contemporaneously in a way that suggests this was serious and important and people took note of it? I mean, it does seem like, like I was just saying, I mean, a discussion among Trump cabinet members about invoking the 25th would not completely surprise me. A suggestion by the deputy attorney general to do something which sounds illegal unless there was some you know legal method i'm not aware of to wear a wire it doesn't sound like something that rod rosenstein would seriously you'd have to be pretty stupid to seriously float

that if you're a deputy attorney general presumably knows the law like like oversees FISA. Right, yeah, totally. Also, hey man, listen, the 25th Amendment, it's exciting. It'd be a cool twist. It'd be fitting. Two-thirds of Congress not happening. But you're not in the cabinet. That's not even your vote. You're just butting into somebody else's business. You're not on that committee.

I do forget that the actual Attorney General is Jeff Sessions. Yeah, right. Sort of. So does Trump. I mean, it's just it's one of those things. He doesn't have an attorney general. That's right. I think these are I think trust in New York Times is a general matter. I think these are great reporters. They did royally screw up some reporting about what the FBI did or didn't do during the campaign in 2016. So I do think it's OK to have some skepticism here. Oh, and by the way, they put out a fucking bullshit story today to undercut the New Yorker, which Mitch McConnell was waving around until Dean Becke had to give a statement to Eric Wemple saying Ronan Farrow is terrific.

That's very accessible. Everyone got that. You know what? Go back, take it bit by bit, Google your way to understanding me airing that personal vendetta. Wemple. The point is, the New York Times... Start with Wemple. The point is, Wemple. The New York Times is always 100% accurate, and when you question them, they take it very well. Look, and again, I continue to believe

there are no clear links between Russia and Donald Trump, and that story's been borne out, and they've definitely done enough to make amends for that wonderful Well, regardless of journalism, regardless, Donald Trump read the story. Right. So a lot of people thought Trump would immediately fire Rosenstein over the weekend. And he did it. He did not. Trump senior adviser Sean Hannity actually actually told Trump not to fire him. Why do we think he didn't fire him and he was getting advice not to fire him? Because like you said, Tommy, I mean, it makes sense that you would want to fire him if you read that and thought it was true. I don't know.

I mean, I think that it would fire up the base that it might lead Congress to introduce legislation to protect Mueller, that they want to kill this whole investigation after the midterms. I mean, that's my guess. Yeah. I don't know.

I'm surprised. I think Sean Hannity, just the thing is he wakes up every day and thinks what's best for America. And he knows that Rod Rose's sign in that job thinks what's best for America and he knows that Rod Rose in that job is what's best for the country right now because he wants to make sure that this investigation is concluded fairly and thoroughly I mean I get apparently John Kelly was trying to convince him because you know he's always so successful at these things

um that bad chief of staff bad chief of staff all right I didn't even notice you know what you know what probably um know what? Probably. But he was trying to convince him. I think they've all tried to convince Trump, look, you can do whatever you want after the midterms. Fire Mueller. Chill out for a while. Fire Sessions. Fire Rosenstein.

Fire Don Jr. from a cannon into the Senate. Eliminate the entire cabinet. Make yourself kink. Whatever you want to do, just get past November, because I think they may have sufficiently scared him into thinking Democrats win the House, Democrats win the Senate, you get impeached. And so do all of your firing after the election. So maybe that's what it's about.

Or maybe he just, you know, will read in some post or time story a week from now. Trump did not adequately get as angry as he usually does because he was busy golfing. And then when he had time to look at his TiVo and see all the reports of what Rosenstein did, he became furious and said, I must fire him immediately. And we and we also know that Rod Rosenstein seems to have been quite beseeching today. Right. There's like been stories about him being weeping over this. Well, so we didn't even get so we didn't even get to what happened today. Sorry. So on Monday morning, Axios went so far as to report that Rosenstein

told White House Chief of Staff John Kelly that he'll be resigning. The White House announced later that that's not true, that Trump will be meeting with Rosenstein on Thursday to discuss the New York Times story. So what was that all about? Apparently the New York Times later reported, Mike Schmidt reported tonight, Monday night, that Rosenstein was ready to resign,

that his office had a statement written up, that he was emotional. Emotional. And then you have Vanity Fair reporting that this was an effort to distract from the Brett Kavanaugh allegations because he knew that a story about Rosenstein being fired would be enough to get Kavanaugh off the front pages and closer to confirmation. I think the one thing we know is these are a lot of good reporters talking to liars, trying to check the facts on what those liars have said about other liars in a building full with people who do not care about anything but themselves and perhaps in the case i do love the suggestion that the way the white house would distract from like

horrific story is to create another ungodly awful story for themselves like that is their mo that is a classic uh we released a cat to catch the mouse and a dog to catch the cat and yeah bear to catch the dog. Classic. My favorite anecdote about this is that when Mr. Rosenstein went over to the White House, he was emotional and he wanted to leave on amicable terms, not in a manner that would trigger an angry Twitter tirade from Mr. Trump. He didn't want a tweet storm. Worried about the tweet storm, huh?

Thanks, Rod. Man, sticks and stones, sticks and stones. The tweets will never hurt me. Looking out for the country here. The constitutional crisis would be an inconvenience, but the tweet storm. Deplorable. That would be deplorable. So what happens-

Imagine, imagine just falling down on your hands and knees and begging Donald Trump not to tweet about you. Don't do it. Please don't tweet about me, sir. Don't, not the 280 characters. Not the characters. Don't make me set up a GoFundMe. Oh, no.

Turn the caps lock off. No, not the caps lock. No, don't give me the nickname. No, not the name. Don't give me the nickname. Oh, God, Mr. Turn the caps lock off. No, no. Oh, not the caps lock. No exclamation. Please, Mr. Trump. No, don't give me the nickname. No, no, no. Don't give me the nickname. Oh, God, Mr. Trump. I beg you. I'm so sorry, Mr. Trump.

Oh, you know I love you. I never would have said it. I didn't mean it. Oh, we should have been hanging out more. If we'd hung out more, I'd never put ourselves in this position. Oh, Mr. Trump, I'm so sorry. I hate Jeff, too. Call me Roddy.

These New York Times reporters. Oh, my God. They gave you a bad rap once again. Once again. I don't know what this voice is., they gave you a bad rap once again, once again. I don't know what this voice is. I don't either. It's a bit cowardly lion. It's like cowardly lion and Fredo had a baby, which honestly is not a bad Rod Rosenstein.

I heard more Towley from South Park. Let's move on. What happens to the Roche investigation if Rosenstein is fired? So there seems to be some debate about this, but it will likely be overseen by the current Solicitor General, who is the next Senate confirmed Justice Department official in line. But there's a question if he would need to recuse himself because his old law firm is tied up in this thing too. And then it would go to Stephen Engel, the Assistant Attorney for the Office of

Legal Counsel. But this also revolves around whether he fires Rosenstein or Rosenstein resigns because then Trump could use the Federal Vacancies Act to put someone in his place. And he could do that if he was resigned, but not if he fires him. Or there's confusion if he fires him

if he can use that for that. But it's also not clear what happens even if he does resign and they put someone into that position, whether it wouldn't still go to France. Yeah, it's very confusing. The one thing we know for sure is these uh justice department regulations these things are tighten them up being but they are being taken they're like let's see how good these things work let's let's let's fucking red team these pull apart these yeah man

so then the question is whoever ends up in that position what happens to muller in the investigation uh natasha bertrand wrote today mull would still have broad authority, regardless of who would replace Rosenstein, Mueller would still have broad authority to conduct the probe as he sees fit. Federal guidelines mandate that the special counsel, quote, shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the department, but his replacement would still have the power to stymie the probe by deeming certain investigative or prosecutorial steps, quote, inappropriate or unwarranted. Yeah. So he just reined it in. So again, again, these guidelines, very, who knows? Because the original mandate for Mueller is incredibly broad. It's like look into collusion and any associated crimes that come out of your investigation.

And you could scope that much more. It does seem like whatever happened, whether Mueller gets fired, whether your investigation is curtailed, that this ends up in court. Probably ends up in front of potential Justice Kavanaugh, which is another twist in this whole thing. You know, there was an episode of The Daily, a podcast you should

not listen to, but make an exception. No, it was a fantastic episode that talked to the person that wrote these guidelines. Now, these guidelines were written after... Neil Katyal? I think that's what it was, yeah. That was a fantastic episode that talked to the person that wrote these guidelines. Now, these guidelines were written- Neil Katyal? I think that's right. That was, yeah. That was a good episode. I'm a Barbara Stan. But basically, the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr, that investigated Bill Clinton, there was, I think, a bipartisan consensus after that that that needed to be reined in in some way. That

was allowed to expire. These regulations replaced it. And one of the things he said was they really did try to think about what would happen if these things were put to the test. And we're in it now. Let's take them for a spin. This is these regulations were written for the worst case scenario. We are now in the worst case scenario. And it is an open question as to whether or not they would hold up. I think the truth is so far they have held up. So far, Donald Trump has not been able to defeat Robert Mueller because these rules have insulated him. I also think this far into the investigation with this many guilty pleas, this many indictments, it would be surprising if Robert Mueller has not prepared for this eventuality. Already, we know that pieces of the investigation could get farmed out to various legal divisions.

We've already seen that with Michael Cohen stuff at SDNY, New York State. So the investigation is now- He's a dandelion. You try to blow him over and that sounded weird. He's a dandelion. He's a dandelion. He'll go poof, you know,

and then little bits everywhere. Elijah gets it. This problem has metastasized for Trump. It is out there. No, the dandelion thing was better. What you said was worse. You know, guys, dandelions. And look, this could play into what Rod Rosenstein's thinking, too, about resigning.

Like, he might be thinking to himself, Mueller is wrapping this up and has most of it, and maybe I can step out now. Perhaps. Who knows, man. I'm just trying a dose of optimism in this. I'm with you. Rod Rosenstein. Could be dead wrong. Rod Rosenstein has been. Hot Rod, Hot Rod Rosenstein.

Hot Rod Rosenstein has been so hard to understand from the very beginning when he wrote that crazy statement that was used to justify the Comey firing and then he was surprised by it when obviously that is what it was for. Wasn't his best work. He is a typical D.C. political hack who was humiliated by Trump on day one and spent the last several years clawing back, kissing his ass. Please don't do it, Mr. Trump.

Not the tweets. Oh, Mr. Trump. Put the Twitter away. Oh, my God. Not the tweets. Not again, Mr. Trump. I can't take another tweet. My heart can't take another one of your terrible tweets.

So Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, we got a hearing about the Supreme Court nominee, and we also at the same time have Trump and Rosenstein meeting. It's going to be a big news day. I will say this. The one thing Donald Trump loves more than humiliating someone is someone coming before him and humiliating themselves. And so we'll see. That's my prediction.

All right. Let's move on to our candidate of the day segment. Ooh. Can I just read you guys a quick breaking news? Sure. This is from James Roach, Brett Kavanaugh's freshman roommate at Yale. Blah, blah, blah. Not a very well.

The one who thinks he's a drunk. It is from this experience that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, that he'd be aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. Yeah, yeah.

It's similar to what he told a New Yorker. It's just, that's the guy. Brett Kavanaugh keeps telling us, talk to the people who know me best. There was your college roommate during the incident. And one final lesson on this, something that Ted Cruz didn't learn, something that Brett Kavanaugh didn't learn. Keep your enemies close and your freshman

year roommates closer. Great. Good advice. Okay. Let's get to our candidate of the day segment. All right. This candidate is Jackie Rosen from Nevada. Oh, we know Jackie Rosen. We do. She came, she's a friend of the pod. She was on our live show in Vegas. We had a great conversation with her. She is currently representing Nevada's third congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. And she is running against Republican incumbent Dirty Dean Heller. Dirty Dean. Shifty, dirty politician. Dirty Dean Heller.

We've talked a lot about Dirty Dean here. And yet this race is still considered a toss-up. However, Nevada is the only state that Hillary Clinton won in 2016 that currently has

a Republican senator up for re-election. Man, what a bad... That's just a reminder of how tough that Senate map is, by the way. I know.

Continue. The Senate... So this is one of the few opportunities for Democrats to flip a Republican-held seat. 538 has Rosen's chances at 5 and 9 and Dean Heller's chances at 4 and 9. So this is close.

That's a toss-up. This is closer than it should be. That's a toss-up. What do we know about Jackie Rosen? What do we know about Dean Heller? Can I just tell you why I'm kind of leaning Dean Heller? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I like my politicians spineless, wishy-washy.

I like when you take both sides of the same issue, like repealing the Affordable Care Act or things that really matter to my constituents. I want you to have a foot in both camps so that you can

just shift positions. What a shifty motherfucker that guy is. So that's why I'm leaving. What if you took Marco Rubio, but you said, I want a little less

charisma and a little more shiftiness, a little less courage, and no aptitude for policy. This is someone who votes with Trump, you know, over 90 percent of the time made this big show that he was going to oppose the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, partly because the governor of the state of Nevada, the Republican governor, a heartfelt press conference. John, he did not want to get rid of Medicaid, which a lot of people in Nevada count on. And so he made this big show of it. And then when Trump leaned on him, he just flipped. It's maybe the biggest flip-flop of any politician in all of 2017.

Can I just ask you that? Didn't you find it compelling when he called the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh a little hiccup? A hiccup, yeah. He's still going strong. That was Dean Heller over the weekend. He had a thoughtful, respectful way to talk about a serious issue. Just told a bunch of donors it's a hiccup. We're going to get right through it. Dean Heller sucks.

So I was wondering Kind of hurt my feelings. So my question was why if this is a state that Hillary won by a good margin, that Barack Obama won twice, that is by all accounts turning purple, if not blue. Why this race is so close. John Ralston, political reporter in Nevada.

Dean. The dean of the Nevada press corps. Knows more about Nevada than any other political reporter. He wrote a piece about this the other day. He said it's all about turnout. This is a midterm where turnout's much lower, and that's especially true in the state of Nevada. In 2014, the last midterm, it was 46%.

Compare that to 2016's turnout, 77%. And then, as a result, the electorate is different. In 2016, the Democrats had 49% of the overall electorate, and the Republicans had 36%. In 2014, the last midterm, Republicans were 42% of the electorate and Democrats were only 37 percent. Huge shift. So it's a low turnout midterm.

And when low and low turnout Nevada heavily favors Republicans. So this is when we tell everyone to go vote to register your friends vote especially in the state of Nevada. I mean it's if Dean Heller wins we're not taking back the Senate. I think we've debated this enough. Well. Anyone else have any final words before we make a decision? I'm sorry. Did I hit my talking point about Dean Heller that he sucks?

Yeah, you did. You know, I did forget that we got to spend some time with Jackie Rosen when we were in Nevada. She was incredibly thoughtful. She was the first person in her family to go to college. She was a computer programmer. She really had some interesting experience and some good ideas. So maybe I'm switching. Okay, we got one switcher. Love it. We know how you feel.

I'm Dirty Dean Heller-ing this thing. And as the final vote, I have to say I was incredibly impressed with Jackie Rosen. Go listen to our interview with her to hear more from her. And so we endorse Jackie Rosen. Jackie Rosen. Jackie Rosen.

Jackie Rosen. Jackie Rosen. That was a close one. That was tight. Music swells. When we come back, we will have Lovett and Dan's interview with Mark Leibovich. And I can tell you, I learned a lot about football. And I texted Dan during the interview and I was like, ask more football questions.

I'm fascinated. That happened. Joining us on the pod today is Mark Leibovich. He is the author of a new book about the NFL called Big Game. He's also one of the best political journalists in America. We're very lucky to have him. Dan and I are going to talk to him together. Obviously, it's a book about football, so I'm going to take the lead.

No, I'm not. Dan's going to kick it off. We're going to get to Paul Ryan. We're going to get to the questions about topics I know about,. Dan's going to kick it off. We're going to get to Paul Ryan. We're going to get to the questions about topics I know about. But Dan's going to kick it off on this great new book. Mark, welcome. Thanks, Dan. Great to be with you guys.

And the book is excellent. Thank you. But I remember when you wrote the profile of Tom Brady a few years ago. I remember talking about it at the time. You said it was a respite from covering politics, which you had done your whole career. And now football and politics are completely tied in together. I mean, we sort of kick off football Sunday now with a presidential tweet. Hey, kick off.

Pretty good. See how I did that there? I'm like, I have done. How does the NFL feel about their new role in the center of American politics? Right. I mean, it's a I mean, it's not a purely Trumpian Colin Kaepernick phenomenon. I mean, I do think that in many ways, the NFL and football in general has mimicked a lot of the culture wars that Trump seized upon. I mean, I think even before Trump started talking about Colin Kaepernick and kneeling, during the 2016 campaign, he actually talked about how there are too many penalty flags and too many rules in football and the beautiful violence that we used to enjoy has been completely taken out of the game. And I remember he went on

this riff like at some campaign event, I think it was in Nevada somewhere in January of 2016 where he said, football has gone soft and America has gone soft too. So in a way, the political correctness that he was arguing was ruining the rest of the country, sort of had its hooks into the NFL. And again, I mean, a lot of the Trump belt is also the football belt. I mean, the Rust Belt of Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania and then Alabama, Texas. I mean, these are all football loving places and largely, in many cases, Trump loving places. So there was a natural overlap between the Trump base and the sort of football America. But I also think that, yes, there's always been politics and sports. But Trump has made himself part of the great spectacle of American life, which had been football. And there are these

twin reality shows in our culture these days. I mean, football has always been right up there. And politics has been central to that, too. And Trump obviously wants to be in the middle of everything. So football was a great opportunity that he obviously cares about and he has personal history with. And usually it's around a grievance. In the book, you spend a lot of time talking about the owners, the 32 owners of the NFL teams, and you refer to them as the membership. And these are mostly, almost if not entirely, conservative, old, white, rich men. And so this would seem to, and many of them have donated financially to Trump. Some of them are friends with him. Yet every day he is, every Sunday he's torturing them, right? He is attacking the league. He is raising questions about the future of the game for all the

wrong reasons, obviously. But how does the membership, the quote unquote membership, the owners feel about someone who should be on their side acting the way he does? Largely, they think he's a clown, which explains why they've done everything they could to keep him out of the league for about four decades. I mean, he's tried desperately to get into the NFL. I mean, he owned a USFL team, the New Jersey Generals, that he wanted to merge with the NFL. He's made many unsuccessful attempts to buy a team, most recently in 2014 when he tried to buy the Buffalo Bills. So no, they want nothing to do with him. And yet there is this sort of billionaire

self-interest club that they all kind of belong to. And that involves golfing. That involves just celebrity functions. That involves political donations, that involves, you know, calling Robert Kraft when he wins the Super Bowl, who in turn, you know, gives a million dollars to Trump's inauguration campaign and then, you know, goes to dinner with Shinzo Abe in Mar-a-Lago and Donald Trump two weeks after the inauguration and like a week after the Patriots win the Super Bowl, which, of course, I should credit Sasha Eisenberg with this. He said to reciprocate when President Trump goes to Japan, Shinzo Abe should make him have dinner with the owner of the Nippon ham fighters, which I thought was a very good one. Anyway, no, there is that sort of cultural

and sort of natural billionaire affinity. But I think largely if you ask them privately and in some cases publicly, they think he's a clown. I would note that if the NFL had just let Trump buy the Buffalo Bills four years ago, we probably wouldn't be in this mess as a country. But that's a side note. Don't think that joke or that joke, that reality has not been lost on the NFL owners. But then he – I don't know if the Buffalo Bills fans would be happy. And now would we have to have Terry Pagula, the owner of the Buffalo Bills, as president of the United States, like the fracking magnate? You know what? I know enough about sports to say the Buffalo Bills fans are used to this kind of disappointment and they would have been able to endure it far better than the country has.

Yes, but he would be inflicted on the rest of the owners. See, I think the membership of the NFL owners would be really well served if they had a deal with Donald Trump in their meetings like every couple of years. And they wouldn't have to tweet. When Trump talks about the future of football being in danger, he talks about it in the context of Colin Kaepernick and NFL players making protests. But that is not why the game is in danger, right? And there are very real threats to the future of the game.

You talk about this a lot in the book, but I'm curious how aware the owners and their sort of the owners in the league are about the very real threats to football from advances in brain science that it's sort of unclear whether to me, whether they are sort of fiddling my Rome burns or they starting to realize that this is only going to be around for a certain amount longer and are just trying to have as much fun as they can and make as much money as they can while they're going still good. I think it's the latter. I think it's clearly the latter. I mean, I think these are really, really short-term thinkers. And part of that is that they are really old in many cases. They're not going to be around much longer. Many of them are in lawsuits with their kids over estates and

things. I mean, it's a big mess in many, many cases. But no, these are not long-term thinkers. These are people who worry about a ratings point going down so they might make a couple billion dollars less on the next broadcast contract. I mean, to me, the biggest existential threat to the league, and you talk about concussions, you talk about ratings and cord cutting and things like that, the biggest existential threat to the league is that the people who run and own it are just really rather,

I wouldn't say incompetent, but they're just not very good at their jobs. I think football will survive because it's a phenomenal game, and I think people love it, and I think it has a stranglehold on the American imagination and on television, and ratings back that up year after year. But I think it will also survive in spite of a lot of the owners I was able to spend time with and certainly Roger Goodell and a lot of the people in New York. I just don't see any kind of long-term vision or really any kind of sense of where the culture is going or who their customers even are. If I was sitting at the NFL, I would be paranoid about two things.

The decline in youth football participation and the amount of people who will not let their children play football, including, as you point out in the book, Tom Brady's dad. Yeah, Tom Brady's dad, a lot of football players. And then also the idea that at some point in the next five to 10 years, we will be able to diagnose CTE, the brain disease from multiple concussions,

in living human beings. And when those two things combine together, it feels like there's a chance the game is not here 20 years from now. First of all, I'm not one of these, the game won't be here in 20 years from now. I mean, I think in a way it's kind of a frog boiling thing. Whatever that, people always use that frog boiling thing. I don't – you know, the whole thing about the frog boiling. Yeah, if you put them in the cold water, you discover that their brain has been permanently affected in a way that will have repercussions over the course of their lives.

Despite the helmets that they're being fitted with and the new rules. Look, again, what they're afraid of is some kind of lightning bolt. It's not something that's going to happen over time because, again, I mean, it's like climate change. It's like the frog. It's just something that anything that's not right in front of them or that's not absolutely engulfing a news cycle, like, say, the Ray Rice video a few years ago. I mean, remember that day when the TMZ video came out of Ray Rice just cold cocking his fiance and all of a sudden the league was just in sudden crisis and Roger Goodell was being asked to resign and like, you didn't know where this was going to

go. I mean, it was just a free fall. I mean, that's the kind of thing they're worried about. I mean, Roger Goodell lives in mortal fear, literally mortal fear of a player dying on the field. That would be the kind of, like an incident like that, that would just completely change the game. I mean, it would just, it would change how everyone thinks about it. There's a scene in big game, like at the beginning where Brandon Cooks, a receiver then for the Patriots, he plays for the Rams now, gets a concussion in the second quarter of the Super Bowl against Philadelphia. He just got totally flattened by Malcolm Jenkins.

And he – I forget, Dan. Are you an Eagles fan or a Redskins fan? Like what was your – how did that work? I'm a Washington professional football team fan who isn't constantly reevaluating my decision to root for a team who is so racist you can't say their name. Yes. I'm sorry I said it. But so anyway, Brandon Cook didn't move for two minutes. And I remember saying to Joe Drape, who covers horse racing

for the New York Times, who happened to be covering the Super Bowl, so I was sitting with him, he said, you know, horse racing, I don't think, would ever recover if this ever happened at the Kentucky Derby as it did ten years ago. Horse racing, like, lives in fear of that happening. And, like, the reason he was bringing this up then is because Brandon Cooks

wasn't moving. And we start, you know, all this gallows humor in the press box, like, would they continue the game? Like, what happens when like this happens at the Super Bowl? Thank goodness, Brandon Cook gets off and wobbles off the field, and he was declared out because of a concussion, and we could all go on with our fun. But that's the kind of like, again, thing you can't foresee. Like, you can't foresee 10 years ago that there would be a president tweeting. Like, what does even tweeting mean? Like, it's just one of those things you just know, know, whereas I think a long-term science thing is obviously going to have an impact on the game, but I don't think people think that way around football. Yeah. I mean, it seems like there's definitely a lot of short-term thinking both between, I guess, the owners and their next paycheck in the NFL and the next time the TV rights come up, right?

TV rights, collective bargaining agreement, that kind of thing, yeah. Yeah. Let me ask you just a couple more questions about football, and then we'll hand it over to politics writ large. But a lot of this book is about your fandom of the Patriots. We want people to buy the book, though, Dan, so I should apologize for that immediately. For the 90% of the people listening to this who hate the patriots i'm one of the good ones yeah it's very your your patriots fandom is very self-aware uh so you should you get credit for that thank you um how do you see uh well let me let me put it this way. You talk a lot in the book about the relationship between Brady, Belichick, the Crafts, and Brady's trainer, Alex Guerrero. For Patriots fans, how concerned should they be about the state of the most dominant franchise in professional sports in 50 years?

professional sports in 50 years. Yeah, no, I mean, I think it's sort of the same dynamic. They're worried about the game Sunday. It's like, hey, they might be unhappy, but they keep winning. And, you know, this might be falling apart. And there's a lot of intrigue. And you know what, that sort of entertains us during the offseason. Look, I mean, their biggest feat of all, I mean, Robert Kraft, the owner's biggest feat of all, I mean, yes, he hired Bill Belichick, who drafted Tom Brady. And, you, and so they've been really, really good for two decades. But the idea that they could keep this together. I mean, dynasties don't last 18, 19 years. And that's sort of like it's an amazing thing, like winning just, okay.

Like everyone spent all of training camp thinking this thing is going to blow apart. And I happen to know that Brady's not been happy. And, you know, I mean, they're all concerned. I mean, like it's like a bad marriage that's sort of happening in plain sight. However, the game comes up on Sunday and they won and they're 1-0 and they're, you know, they have a game Sunday and people are going to watch it. So, look, that's sort of how short term and that's sort of how sports fans think. And it's their every right to think that.

Do you feel guilty about rooting for a team that cheats all the time they don't cheat all the time they um they um no i don't feel guilty at all deflate gate was a total total abomination and let's have a whole show about that right i would i would actually love to talk about that because that's the one thing i'm on the sides of the patriots with and i will say thatgazi, the way in which you describe it, is top-notch wordsmanship. Thank you. Thank you. No, it was an abomination. But no, I realize we lead the league in crosses to bear.

All right. First of all, I have to tell you, I went into that conversation about football not being sure how I feel about it. That was fascinating. Really? I am very interested in learning more about this. That is a sincere reaction. I'm going to get it on A this. That is a sincere, sincere reaction. I'm going to get it on Audible. You're really going to get this on Audible? Yeah. Yeah. I'm

going to use it. I'm going to use a credit for it. I'm going to use a credit. You should totally use a credit. I want to because it is true that football seems to be so much more central to our politics right now. And I do feel a little bit outside of it. And I feel like I could use one more thing to talk about. You know what? It always helps. But seriously, I mean actually this is like, this sounds like a shameless plug for the book, but hey, I'm on a book tour. But I mean the most heartening feedback of all in the week it's been on sale is people

who don't like football, people who are not your natural football fans have laughed, have enjoyed it, have learned a lot, have thought about different things. And like there's something on every page. Now maybe I'm getting a little all right this is I mean what is this not not an Amazon fucking publishers thing I'm so sorry but that was awful I feel disgusting quit while I'm a you don't have to read just accept the compliment just accept no I'm leaving this all in accept the compliment but I'm being topical to like

non foot anyway but part of the reason I will read the book, I think still is because of how you write about politics. You wrote a fantastic piece recently about Paul Ryan. You spent some time with him. And I would suggest everyone read the piece. I think everyone should listen to the episode of The Daily where we hear some of the audio. Look, we at Crooked Media, Dan especially, but all of us have a very strong opinion about Paul Ryan's conduct, especially as it relates to Donald Trump. But you spent time with him. You know, I mean, look, we saw even in the past 48 hours, Paul Ryan apologizing and being mealy mouthed around Trump embracing conspiracy theories about the hurricane that hit Puerto Rico on and on and on.

You spent this time with Paul Ryan. Do you believe he is sincere in how he describes his relationship with Donald Trump? I mean, do you feel like this is someone who has genuinely grappled with the moral questions that underlie this moment? I think he has genuinely rationalized and justified his own, you know, basic mild, and justified his own basic mild, hands-off approach to being a check and balance on the White House. I don't know if he's a moral grappler on these issues. I didn't sense that. I mean, look, I think whether his angst is real or not is not of interest to me because I don't care about his angst.

I care about his stewardship of the House of Representatives in the context of the larger political moment we're living through. Look, one thing you learn when you're a political reporter in Washington in this day and age, and I'm sure you guys have heard this all repeatedly, but I've never seen a bigger gap between what you hear publicly from Republicans especially and what you hear privately. I mean, and that's why, I mean, I hate the whole like wink and nod thing that's going on with most reporters in Washington. And look, you can't burn people. If someone's off the record, you can't burn them. But I will just say there is a huge gap between what Republicans are saying for fear of pissing off their base and what they will tell people privately. Because I think it's not unlike NFL owners in that a lot of elected Republicans, you know, think that what Donald Trump, a lot of things he does is appalling,

and they're afraid to say it publicly. Paul Ryan, I think, is in that category. Paul Ryan privately, you know, has serious issues with the president, but he has decided that if he's going to keep his job, and I don't quite fully understand why he's still in his job. I mean, I think he obviously is leaving. He's not running for reelection, but I don't quite understand why he didn't quit earlier. I think, you know, he's decided that he needed to make some trade-offs and he, he wants to be a legislative leader. He wants to pass tax cuts and regulatory, um, you know, reductions and that's sort of what he's done. But he has continued this line about Trump, even now when he is no longer worried about losing his speakership and is no longer worried about being in the House and is not going to be a legislative leader.

He is leaving. And yet even now he continues to tow this line. If he didn't tow the line, a lot of his caucus would be instantly pissed off at him because it would turn the base, their base, Trump's base, against them, and it would make it harder for them to win reelection. Yeah, I'd also add to that, too, that Paul Ryan is also, even as he has had this public kind of refusal to criticize Trump or hold Trump accountable in these private reservations, his super PAC and the ads that he has been connected to have kind of played into this base politics. So it's sort of it's almost as if he has set a trap for himself and stepped into it. What do you make of that? I mean, what do you make of that relationship with Trumpism? Well, look, I mean, newsflash. I mean, Paul Ryan is a hyper partisan. I mean,

the ticket to getting elected, whether it's you or whether it's your caucus in this particular Republican landscape, whether he likes it or not, is to just play that game. That's sort of what he's done. I mean, I'm sort of intrigued by like there's this like weird backlash going on this week about how dare George W. Bush campaign for Republicans. Like, did people forget that the guy's like a partisan Republican? I mean, yes, there's all this kind of nostalgia sort of filtered through the lens of what we've all seen around the Trump era. But I mean, this is who they are. These are Republicans. Remember what Republicans do. They did this five years ago. They do it now. And Donald Trump isn't the game changer in the minds of Republicans who want to get reelected or help their friends get reelected. That, you know, that is the vehicle for liberal wish fulfillment that maybe

people would want them to be. So Lindsey Graham was someone who didn't participate in this capitulation until he went. He is like has the zealotry of a convert. I mean, he is all in. What do you make of that? I would say he has the zealotry of someone who wants to get reelected in South Carolina and who's got nowhere else to go. I mean, that's that whether it's a convert or not, but it's self-perpetuation. You think it's that simple? Yeah, I do.

I think it's, and you know, look, it's stronger than any kind of loyalty, maybe to some degree you had for John McCain, because I think in many ways you just can't circle that square. I mean, like John McCain, I mean, was so out far. I mean, look, everything that John McCain stood for in the last two years, his funeral stood for. You just can't. I don't I don't see how Lindsey Graham could justify it. But and how it described Washington, D.C. before Trump came to town. This was a culture that existed through administrations that didn't care whether you were Democrat or Republican, that was sort of valueless, interested in power and connection. That was sort of the undergirding self-perpetuation, self-perpetuation and a lack of connection to the consequences of politics. Well, here we are.

Donald Trump is president. How has this town changed or has it changed because of Donald Trump? That's a great question. Well, first of all, it hasn't changed at all. I mean, it is wealthier. The only thing that changes in Washington, you know, and this was like the premise of this this town is people just kept getting richer and there was this permanent class. And Trump has made it, you know, it's like a kind of a gold plated hot tub now. But I mean, first of all, if you want to make the swamp the rhetorical vehicle here, the swamp is alive and well. I mean,

it's flourishing. It's flourishing. There's moss. There's moss. Yeah. And it's like a beautiful moss at the Trump Hotel. You ever been to the Trump Hotel? There's moss everywhere. I walked by during a protest. That's the most I've gotten. You know, that thing they do with like the prison, they did that thing where they put things on the wall. Yeah, yeah. I thought that was kind of cool.

I love that. I love that. I can't believe they can do that. How do they do that? I don't know how the lights work. Like, yeah. So, but I guess one question I had about it is, you know, these these people that sort of are this enduring class that lives through administrations. Are they treating Kellyanne Conway like Dana Perino? Are they treating Sarah Huckabee Sanders like they would have treated Andy Card?

I know they think of these Republicans as the same. Are they aware of the moral distinction? I think some do. I think a lot of people in my business certainly do. I mean, I think, look, I mean, I think I would hope that there is a different price to pay if you are Kellyanne Conway at working. Because I do think that, look, one bipartisan thing that you are seeing in Washington, and this is not just sort of the fake, you know, aren't we all friends

here bipartisanship. I mean, I do think that in a weird way, and it's a really weird way, but I do think that the heart of the resistance in many ways is a lot of the sort of official class that I was writing about five years ago. I mean, I think in what's one of the again, this is an irony, but to me, the most steadfast never Trump Republicans have been the sort of media TV people. I mean, and they don't have to run for reelection, but you do get a sense that I didn't before of some true belief coming from the Charlie Sykes's and this, you know, Stuart Stevens's and, you know, the whole gamut of them. I mean, that's to me, that's been some very real common cause. And you could argue, oh, they're irrelevant. They don't

represent Republicans in Ohio. But to me, that's the intellectual basis for a lot of what the resistance is and what it will be. Yeah, no, I think that's a good point. Actually, it connects back to why you're right to say it doesn't matter what Paul Ryan thinks or whether or not he's conflicted. It matters what he does. But the reason I do care about it is because one thing that we have learned since Donald Trump has been president is it is a litmus test. The sad realization is how few people passed it. But it is worth noting that some have. Charlie Sykes had a great actually quote in that Ryan piece, which is he said there's this chicken and egg question, which is, is Paul Ryan just responding to his base by sort of like putting up the white flag? Or are so many Republicans just so quick to accept Donald Trump because leader after leader, allegedly intellectual leader after intellectual leader, has just put up the white flag?

There has been no resistance within the elected class. And those who do resist, you know, like Mark Sanford, you know, get punished at the polls. Right. And we don't know what it would look like for them all to jump together. We I don't think we ever will. And I think that's kind of unfortunate because I think the Republican Party needs to have an argument with itself. And it needed to have that a couple of years ago. And it didn't because Trump filled all the space. And I doubt it's going to happen again. Well, the reality is what we now know is the only way they will have that argument is if they lose. a lot of the newer candidates like, you know, Gillum and some of the others. But I think that I think look, I mean, I think a lot of the Democratic argument has been caught up in just like Trump, Trump, Trump.

I mean, it's sort of the same thing. Yeah, but at the same time, I would we can we can we talk about this, too. But I would say that there has been a debate about what it means to be a Democrat. And I think we have we are trying to answer that. Yeah, yeah. But yeah, topic for another day. Topic for another. Mark Leibovich, thank you so much for being here the book is big game

it sounds fascinating I'm excited to read it Dan has been talking about it all week thanks for being here thanks are we back in the might read it or are we actually probably reading it the love at litmus

I've had a little bit of space from your incredibly brazen flogging of the book so I'm in I'm back to being in. Thanks, man. Time is our friend. Thanks for having me on, guys.

I love your stuff. Thanks again to Mark Leibovich for joining us today. And we'll talk to you guys later in the week. Probably. Hopefully. Probably. problem. Bye.