Pod Save America - "Bannon Assumes the Deposition."

Episode Date: July 12, 2022

President Biden announces new steps to protect abortion access amid criticism of the White House response to Dobbs. Steve Bannon has a very bad day in court. The January 6th committee airs another episode of Insurrection after some new testimony, and the guys cap things off with another round of Take Appreciator.  If you want to take action, you can donate to Vote Save America's Fuck Bans: Fight Back Fund, which supports the ballot measure in Michigan to codify abortion rights in the state. It also helps to fight anti-choice ballot measures in Kansas and Kentucky. Head to votesaveamerica.com/fightback to chip in today.  For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. Always a different energy. Yeah, yeah. On today's show, President Biden announces new steps to protect abortion access amid criticism of the White House response to Dobbs. The January 6th committee airs another episode of Insurrection after some new testimony. And Chief Take Officer Elijah Cohn is back for another episode of Take Appreciators.

But first, we got some fun live shows coming up in Seattle, Portland, Nashville, and Atlanta. And Love It or Leave It will be in Chicago this Friday the 15th. This Friday. This Friday with guests Ali Barthwell, Abby McEnany, Ashley Rae, and the Gay Men's Chorus. And the Gay Men's...

I said it's Gay Men's Chorus, which I said right the first time. How'd you say it this time? I said the Gay Men's Chorus. It's just one man man's chorus which I said right the first time how'd you say it this time I said the gay man's chorus it's just one man with a chorus I think leave it in great

get your tickets to these shows at crooked.com slash events and come say hi we would love to see you in person the shows are fun

also check out Crooked's newest podcast Imani State of Mind where psychiatrist and TV personality Dr. Imani Walker and co-host comedian meg scoop

thomas normalize the conversation about mental health through insightful and witty discussions about what's happening in news pop culture and our daily lives get real with your relationship with yourself your parents your friends and so much more there you go there you go all right let's get to the news president biden is off to the Middle East after holding a White House event on Monday to tout the first gun violence legislation in 30 years, and an event on Friday where he issued an executive order to help ensure access to abortion medication and emergency contraception. The president also said he's directed his legal and health advisors to determine

whether he can declare an abortion-related public health emergency, which could free up more federal resources to protect abortion access. But he also reiterated that the only way to codify the protections of Roe as a national law is by electing a pro-choice Democratic House and two more pro-choice anti-filibuster Democratic senators in November. Biden also got angry during the speech as he described the story of a 10-year-old girl in Ohio who couldn't get an abortion in that state after she had been raped. 10 years old, raped, six weeks pregnant, already traumatized, was forced to travel to another state. Imagine being that little girl. Just, I'm serious, just imagine being that little girl, 10 years old. Guys, what did you think of Friday's White House event, both the executive orders and the speech itself?

So I thought he did a good job talking about how extreme the Dobbs ruling was and the horrifying human consequences, as the clip, I think, showed. I think he did a good job telling a bigger story about the implications of getting rid of the right to privacy. Generally, that's an important story. That's a bigger piece of this. He tried to use the court's words against them where they sort of cynically told women like, oh, this isn't getting rid of abortion. This is just throwing it back to the states. And he said, you know, we all need to vote. And I thought the substance of the EEO itself was good.

I thought the beginning of the remarks were a little bit confusing. There was sort of like a he was almost debating the court's legal analysis and going back to 1860. It was the least visually compelling option that exists to you in the White House. I'm doing parts I liked and parts I didn't like. Parts I didn't like. I think Biden speaking in front of the VP and the secretary, HHS secretary in some books is not super visually compelling.

It's not the most likely way to get on TV and get picked up. I think ideally you get them out into states, you have them talking with people impacted by the ruling as part of your messaging strategy. But, you know, it's challenging to get the president out of the White House sometimes, I guess. Yeah, I think it's the best things he's done since the ruling came down. And I wish it hadn't taken two weeks to get to a statement as forceful and, you know, combined with an action that seems like it had been in the works for a while. I do think, but I think it was strong. I think he was clearly emotional and kind of giving people the, I think, some of the intensity that they were looking for over the previous

couple of weeks. There was an aside inside of the speech that I think caught some of the problem I think activists and other politicians have had with the way the White House has responded, which is he said, you know, you have to vote, you have to vote. In the meantime, I'm doing this executive order. And there's something about the framing of it as like in the meantime, kind of diminishing the role the president can play. And I'm not disagreeing with a lot of the analysis that says that in many ways the White House is playing like a really shitty hand in the wake of this ruling, but it kind of captures the problem, which is regardless of how weak some of these levers are, there's a sense that they've been observers over the past couple of weeks and not proactive enough, not just trying things,

not pushing the boundaries of what the president can do. Yeah, you want the cadence to be, I'm going to do this, I'm doing this, I'm doing this. And then in November, we're going to make sure we do this. You know, it's that kind of... Now, again, back to Tommy's point, that's harder to do at the setting of the White House, right? And obviously you can't just travel to anywhere

just on a dime sometimes, but you can at least... Go to Michigan go to Michigan where people were collecting signatures to try to get a ballot initiative. But it was good to finally see him angry about the consequences of the decision while he was telling that story of the 10 year old girl. You know, I think more of that is necessary, hopefully outside the White House. is necessary, hopefully outside the White House. We should also add that the Biden administration today announced that hospitals must provide abortion services if the life of the mother is at risk. And they're arguing that federal law on emergency treatment supersedes any state abortion restrictions. So I'm sure that will get challenged, but that's what HHS came out with today. Very important. So the New York Times said that Biden's order, quote, stops far short of demands from abortion rights advocates.

What else could Biden do on his own without Congress to protect abortion access at this point? So one step that a lot of groups have been calling for and some in Congress have been calling for is declaring a public health emergency. There's been some there's been some calls for providing abortion access on federal lands. But you see a lot of disagreements even among activists about if that could work or not, and it might put people at more danger. There really does seem to be a disagreement about that. I went deep on this and started reading all the...

Because a bunch of legal experts are publishing op-eds about this. It looks like... So if the federal government owns federal land in a state where abortion is restricted, the federal government could set up an abortion clinic, right? And ideally, the abortion providers and the patients could not be prosecuted while they were on that federal land. The second they step off that federal land back into the red state, there could be people just waiting for them to arrest them and prosecute them. Now, they could possibly win that legal battle. But I think from

the administration standpoint, they're thinking the risk is not to the federal government in doing that. The risk is to the provider, the doctor, the patient. So I think, you know, I think you can argue it both ways. You can say, well, we'll try and someone will have a test case and let's see what happens with this court. Of course, you don't have high hopes for that. I mean, the question is, are there jurisdictions where you have a local prosecutor who said, I will not prosecute these cases? And then you could figure out a way around it. Well, now you have to overlap.

Where's the federal land with the jurisdiction? So I think there's not a lot of spaces where all that exists. I think there's more, like people sort of talked about this as like, oh, we're going to set up a clinic in Yellowstone National Park. Like that's not really what it is. Like DOD owns a ton of land. The VA owns a ton of land. Some of them have healthcare facilities. So I agree with you that you're trying to create a

Venn diagram with a lot of overlap and it's complicated, but it's not like, I think, creating some clinic, a hospital from scratch in the middle of the Rocky Mountains. I think it's a little simpler. I think the worry is when you step off the line. The prosecution issue is hard. But the other one that I was getting to is, so Nancy Northup, who heads up the Center of Reproductive Rights, said that under a public health emergency declaration by HHS, they could enable out of state prescribing and dispensing of medications for abortion for those in states with abortion bans. It does seem like Biden has now said he's considering doing the public health emergency. There's some question of just exactly what it enables, though And, and some concern that it might backfire though. I trust that a lot of the groups advocating have thought that through as well. And they, they want, they want the White House to do this. And what I look as you, we're not lawyers, but if we read plenty of takes from

them, we read plenty of takes from them. But look, if the amount of mayhem and danger to people who are now having to travel hundreds of miles to access reproductive care, like if this was caused by anything other than like five vicious little right wing freaks, if it was caused by weather, if it's caused by a storm, if it was caused by a blackout, we'd of course call this a public health emergency. Tens of millions of Americans not having access to basic medical care is a public health emergency. We're just uncomfortable with the fact that it's being put upon us by judges as opposed to some natural disaster. But it is an emergency. This is a problem in government that has been around for a long time, which is bureaucracy and particularly legal bureaucracy just sort of snuffs out every interesting creative idea. And you can, and the tell is in some of these stories, it's like, there are some in the white house who do think that we should, they should do the public health emergency that they do think they should do the, you know, that they thought about the

abortion clinics on federal lands, right? There's always sort of a debate because some people think maybe it could happen. And then there's a lawyer that tells you that it shouldn't happen for some reason or there's a bureaucrat that tells you it shouldn't happen the criticism i had the least time for was don't politicize public health i'm sorry what are you talking about i skipped right over that one the one that i thought was more valid was because of the pandemic and that was a public health emergency it would only free up like tens of thousands of dollars instead of millions so there's no money to free up in the public health public health emergency, it would only free up like tens of thousands of dollars instead of millions. So there's no money to free up in the public health emergency.

Public health has been politicized. Which to me was a better argument than the freaking politicization thing. But you have to make the argument about the aspects that aren't just about funding, especially because the federal government's hands are tied on funding because of the Hyde Amendment. So what are the regulatory steps that this opens up?

And some of the pushback from people against the public health emergency declaration are saying it only will give the president a few tools. Take all the tools. And the other piece of this, too, is there's some concern about what the courts will do in response. And I am look, I think it is I think it's worth appreciating that this White House has has always just as a as a posture, not has moved toward decisions that they think will do the most good and have not been very receptive to kind of signals and kind of big displays that don't actually make a difference.

But if your concern is that these things are going to get shut down by the courts at a certain point, let them get shut down. Do things, show people what the courts are doing to restrict access to abortion. Don't worry so much about what some 40-year-old, 2-year-old Trump appointee got his law degree in a cereal box is going to do to you. Make the case and fight and say, hey, we're losing because of this. This is why we need more senators. This is why we need a bigger majority. I think the concern about protecting providers and patients is valid in the legal fight. I think the concern about like the courts just striking it down and having a loss is just silly for all the reasons.

Right. Yeah. How does it how does that end up worse? I don't know. And then the other on that note about courts, you know, the one other thing that Biden hasn't done, of course, is say that it's time for more dramatic court reform, like adding seats, which, you know, I think he should do. like adding seats, which, you know, I think he should do. I believe in that. He doesn't, obviously. But again, if he did that tomorrow, we'd be in the same position we're in right now because, you know, we don't have anyone near the votes in Congress for something like that. We don't even have enough votes for getting rid of the filibuster to codify Roe. So that's the other thing. But that's basically all the different options that he has right now. So the Washington Post had a long story over the weekend about how Democrats and activists were pretty upset over how long it took Biden and the White House to get to

where basically they ended up at Friday's event. What did you guys think of those critiques? It was pretty fair. I mean, you know, everyone knew this was coming because of this leaked opinion. I think that a lot of legal experts, if you listen to strict scrutiny or hysteria, you probably knew this was coming a lot longer. And the White House, according to this post report, seemed to think that the final opinion would drop on June 30th, but it still took until last Friday to get the executive order out. So I just don't get why the executive order wasn't ready. Biden has obviously dealt a tough hand here, right? He's got this radical court. He's got this radical court. He's got a Senate that won't use its power and get rid of the filibuster. But I don't know. It did seem like they were unprepared. The leak was in May. This was the one decision that we had a

heads up on because it was leaked. And again, he's right that he has limited power and what he needs is the Congress to pass a law. But again, I'd love to have seen him gone to Michigan and go do an event with Governor Whitmer. You could go to the West Coast. You could do events with Gavin Newsom in California or the governors of Oregon and Washington or putting together this West Coast Reproductive Rights Compact to provide services. I mean, it just seems like there wasn't a lot of creativity. I even came across an old clip from the primary.

It was the sixth debate. It was a CNN debate. And Kamala Harris was like, hey, we've barely talked about abortion rights at all in six of these debates. And then she made this impassioned case about all these anti-abortion laws getting passed in states and the impact they could have. And it seemed really prescient in hindsight. It's like they could have had the vice president out doing much more events. I mean, it just felt like,

listen, messaging isn't action. It's not going to fix the problem, but it shows people that you're fighting. To go back to the public health emergency analogy for a second, the president can't change the weather, but when terrible disaster strikes, the president goes, he consoles people. He surveys what happened to the country. Which, by the way, this president is quite good at consoling people. And I think the fact that we're still debating whether or not it's a public health emergency, whether it's worth declaring one this many weeks after the decision was handed down, I think what people are responding to, regardless of whether or not the president has specific power

here or there, is please treat this at the scale of emergency that it is. Please respect how big of a crisis the country is going to. And maybe the more you reflect how big of a crisis this is in how you respond, how quickly you get out there, how often you're out there, how quickly you're laying out the steps you believe you do have the capacity to take, doing it immediately in the hours, not weeks after the decision is handed down, maybe that also helps change the politics of the moment too, that you're not just, you're not, that you're helping shape the public response to this event as it unfolds, as the disaster that it is. The reason that you know that it was just, it was a fuck up, is that they eventually got to on Friday, where most activists wanted them to go.

So right after the decision was announced, there was a very viral Twitter thread from AOC where she said Democratic leaders should be specific and say we need two more pro-choice senators. You know, Brian Boitler has been saying that here. Our team at Vote Save America has been saying that. Then, you know, David Plouffe said something. So all these people said it. Brian's doing his own little insurrection outside the White House. Biden eventually got Biden eventually gets there, but he gets there three weeks later, two weeks later. Right. And so that's how, you know, look, if Biden genuinely didn't believe in these things, didn't want to take these actions, didn't think they were possible. That's one thing. They could have made an argument,

but they just weren't ready. Like our team at Vote Save America didn't know the day that the decision was coming down. We were ready. Like, they had since May to get ready. And, like, the fact that they eventually got there is a tell that they just didn't get their shit together in time. Or that, you know, even in this piece that was looking at, you know, all the criticism of the delay, they report that there were meeting after meeting, thinking through what they could do in response. So this may not be up to anyone except Joe Biden himself. Joe Biden himself being slow to make a very important decision that everyone knew he was going to get to.

Well, how did you I mean, how did you not know that the filibuster thing was going to come up? Right. that the filibuster thing was going to come up, right? And so like, sure enough, three days after the decision, he's in Madrid for a press conference and Biden like blurts out on his own, apparently, according to the Post, in a conference call with aides that he wants to come out for getting rid of the filibuster for this.

But I'm like, how was there not a meeting about that specific scenario? John, the timeline is even more convoluted. They were, he was calling into a meeting from Germany after the decision, and then three days later, blurted it out in Madrid at a press conference. It's sort of like,

why would we just sit on this? And then it also puts the vice president in a bad position because she's not getting ahead of, of Biden. So she goes out there, has a terrible interview about this. What is it? Hours daily.

I don't know the exact timeline, but very soon after they actually take that position. Just looks, looks bad. So the White House had quite the response to the post story. Here's the official statement from communications director Kate Bedingfield, quote, Joe Biden's goal in responding to Dobbs is not to satisfy some activists who have been consistently out of step with the mainstream of the Democratic Party is to deliver help to women who are in danger and assemble a broad based coalition to defend a woman's right to choose now, just as he assembled such a coalition to win during the 2020 campaign. Where the hell do you think that came from?

I mean, listen, I think, first of all, it's important to just say this isn't Kate riffing. No. You know what I mean? This wasn't like a TV interview that went badly. This was clearly a prepared statement that I'm sure was signed off on by everyone on the senior staff. And so, yeah, I read that. I couldn't believe it.

I mean, I tried to put on my like most sympathetic, imagine yourself back in that building hat. And just, I thought about the fact that criticism from your friends always hurts more than criticism from your enemies politically. And especially in a case like this, where they know like how challenging the situation is. And I'm sure someone said something that the White House felt was

unfair. I agree with the sentiment that you need the broadest coalition to solve this problem, or frankly, any problem. But it's just bad politics to criticize activists that in a couple weeks, you're going to be asking to organize and get fired up and go work for you in the midterms. And I just think it kind of feels like there's this lingering frustration in the Biden White House with the left. And they feel like, well, during the primary, we ignored Twitter and some of the criticism from the left that drove the day-to-day news cycle. And that's why we won. And there's probably some truth to that, but you just can't lump the overturning of Roe versus Wade and activism around that seismic event in our history with sort of things that were in hindsight, maybe silly to focus on during the democratic primary.

And you can't both be really slow to put out a plan for what to do in the wake of a decision this big and then yell at the activists who are trying to fill the void. You know, and like Biden is facing some real headwinds right now, especially with young voters. And it's just it's not when you're on the record quote is potentially the most damaging part of a story like this. It's a really bad setup. it's a really bad setup. There have been issues where Biden, it's part of how he became the nominee, where Biden has sort of stood astride the politics of the moment and refused to go along with the lefties and made a point of it. This isn't one of those issues. This isn't criticism from an activist left. There's a vast majority of people that are in favor of of codifying roe that are pro-choice uh this criticism is broad-based it isn't left right it is it is a it is it is

it is coming from most democrats but i was gonna say you know one of those people who's in favor of codifying roe and getting rid of the filibuster to do it joe fucking biden right this is what to tommy's point like her quote i i read that i read the quote so many times i was so angry i i i've like rarely been this angry seeing something come from the biden white house because it's like that quote of the the whole rest of the story was basically about how like yeah the white house was slow but they got to a good place right and they and the president had just gotten to a good place on friday We just talked about the speech, you know, little improvements here or there, but finally he got there. He's in the right place. And then because they're so pissed

at activists and so angry, they decide to put that statement out, which is not even a true statement, which is like, even if you take her argument, like you said, that activists are out of step with the mainstream Democratic Party. Yeah, on some issues. Sure. We're some of those activists sometimes. That's fine. Whatever. I'll point out those issues. But like on this issue, you have the president United States just taking the position. Then the president goes out on Sunday and they ask him, what do you have to say to the protesters that are protesting in front of the White House? And Joe Biden says, keep protesting, keep protesting. So he tells the protesters to keep protesting. And Kate Bedingfield told the protesters that they're out of step with the mainstream Democratic Party. It was one of the worst

unforced errors I've ever seen from this White House or any Democratic White House. I could not believe it. It is actually baffling. It's actually just it's it's baffling, especially because this isn't a moment where you there's any there's nothing to be gained by dividing up well it's also the the the the the party on this issue there's just nothing we all have to hang together to win this next i mean again we're all we're all on the same side in this fight right i mean that's the other half of the quote he wants to assemble a broad-based coalition it's like yes that's exactly the point so you can't kick the shit out of the left like which activists out of step with what mainstream like what you know that someone was mad about something specific and drew up a

quote in a way that just pissed off literally everyone and like like i yeah i felt deeply frustrated because like i feel like us on this show we're like always trying to put ourselves in the in the shoes of the people working in government and how hard it is to actually govern versus campaigning and like there is i is, I think, some understandable, but some, I think, silly frustration with the rejoinder, which is we need to win more seats because we fucking do. But when you lash out at activists and then go vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote,

it feeds into that cynicism with pointing to electoral politics and turnout as part of the solution. And I think that's damaging for all of us here. And again, it's like, if you, we can talk about specific provisions, specific issues, like if you don't think that abortion clinics on federal lands is a good idea because you're worried about what will happen to providers and patients, like maybe we can disagree on that, but totally understand that that's your view. If Joe Biden just is not there on court reform yet,

I disagree with him. I think we should reform the court and but you know what that's his position we'll keep trying to persuade him just saying oh you fucking activists are out of step with the party that that's not the way to do it that's not the way to make the argument it'd be one thing if there had been a vote like if there had been a vote where there had been a a different version of codifying gro that like tried to answer the concerns of like collins and murkowski that was more conservative and didn't go far enough. And there was a dissensus amongst the left. And some Democrats were saying, we're going to sink this thing because it doesn't go far enough, right? Like you can come up with a scenario where you could have seen some intra-left issue being important in this moment. That has not happened. That is not what we are

seeing. Yeah, because Joe Biden signed on to the legislation that doesn't just protect Roe, but would expand Roe. Right. So her boss is in the wrong. I mean, it's wild. I won't keep going. I just I couldn't believe that it happened. One note of optimism before we move on. There was another development. Tommy, you've been talking about Michigan a lot. Organizers in Michigan announced on Monday that they turned in over 750,000 signatures to get a ballot initiative this November that would enshrine the right to an abortion in the state's constitution. In order to qualify, they needed just over 425,000 signatures. They got over 750,000, which is huge. If you all want to support the campaign in Michigan, as well as the campaign to stop anti-choice ballot measures in Kansas and Kentucky,

remember there's a vote in Kansas on August 2nd. That's going to be the first time there's an actual vote on abortion in the states since Dobbs. You can donate to Vote Save America's Fight Back Fund at votesaveamerica.com slash fight back. January 6th committee is back this week with a brand new episode of Insurrection on Tuesday. This episode will focus on Trump's connection to violent extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, specifically his December 19th tweet that said, quote, Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there. We'll be wild. On Friday, the committee finally interviewed former White House counsel Pat Cipollone behind closed doors. And over the weekend, they got a surprise offer of testimony from the host of the

War Room podcast, Stephen K. Bannon, who didn't have the best day in court on Monday during the pretrial hearing on his contempt of Congress charges. Maybe we should start there. Tommy, how'd Bannon's hearing go? And what's with the change of heart on his decision to testify? What's he up to here? Yeah, Steve, my mentor, my future co-host. What's been going on in the war room?

He had a bad day. I haven't listened in a minute. I got to get back. I mean, so he had a bad day in court. Steve's, I call him Stevie, Steve's criminal contempt hearing will not be delayed beyond July 18th. Steve wanted it delayed because of the jury pool would be tainted by the publicity in his legal view. The judge ruled against that. They ruled against his motion to subpoena House Democrats. Uh, Bannon cannot argue to the jury that he doesn't have to comply with the January 6th committee because the committee wasn't properly put together. I think that was a novel legal argument they were putting forward. Hail Mary on that one.

The judge called, uh, the last minute offer to testify a last ditch attempt to avoid accountability. Um, basically Steve's only defense is to argue that he didn't understand the deadlines to the point where his exasperated lawyer was basically like, well, what's the point of going to trial if I have no defenses available to me? The best quote of the day. Probably not something you want to hear your lawyer say. So yeah, no, it was pretty bad. How are we supposed to go to trial if we don't have any defense left?

So there was also a Justice Department court filing related to Ben's contempt case that came out on Monday that revealed that the DOJ interviewed Donald Trump's attorney, Justin Clark, two weeks ago. What's that about? Garland finally about to get him? No, no, no. It was literally, I think, just about what they told Steve Bannon. And it seems like what Trump's lawyer said is we never told them that there was executive privilege for what Steve Bannon said, which is interesting, right? Because they've been making obscene, completely ridiculous claims about what executive privilege is or means this whole time. But for whatever reason, they chose on this to not help their boy Steve out. This is genuinely confusing. So there's a letter from October 6th. Clark instructed Bannon to,

quote, where appropriate, invoke any immunities and privileges he may have from compelled testimony in response to the subpoena. He also told Bannon not to produce any privileged documents or testimony. Bannon's lawyers say they were like, what does that mean? Give us more clarity on what specifically was privileged. But then Trump's lawyers didn't offer any more. So my cynical hat take on this is that that seems very convenient for everybody involved. Steve Bannon's like, oh, I was told everything was privileges, so I can't talk. Trump got a key witness to shut up. But now Trump's lawyer is throwing

Bannon's lawyer under the bus. Bannon's guy is pissed. So it's a total mess. Well, I think as a lawyer, he can't be on the record telling someone to do something that isn't like that. He can't give legal advice that isn't based in the law. He can say this is executive yeah i mean the trump's lawyer is saying like look we certainly didn't say you had immunity from testimony right sounds like steve bannon's gonna testify well and and i mean i was worried when i first saw this that this was some this was some stunt where bannon just wanted to like you know talk on tv because yeah everybody thought this was going to be like his messaging but like clearly the junior yeah that's stupid liz isn't gonna let that happen liz you think you think liz woke up this is liz woke up today for the first time this is liz cheney we're talking about

all right she's gonna save this goddamn country all right but i it's also yeah they're not gonna put ban in front of the ban is gonna ban is gonna do something behind closed doors first but it's also funny because it's like bannon like right before his trial begins it's like actually i take back my crime i take back my crime like he's driving back to the bank to put the money back well that's how it works the prosecutors made that case in court today they're like no you don't get to get rid of the contempt charges just because now you offer to testify you already committed the crime that's not how it works you didn't answer the subpoena you didn't answer the subpoena uh what did you forget yeah that well that's that's his last defense that's the last

that's what the lawyer the lawyer literally his last defense is it's an oopsie doopsie misdemeanor charges are punishable by at least 30 days for up to one year in prison upon conviction i think there's two charges there might be up to a hundred thousand dollar fine i mean it's just what's what's just pure justice about this whole thing is he may be guilty for contempt and then he also is going to testify well he's gonna get the testimony anyway john judging by my viewing of the movie double jeopardy couldn't you just do the time and then not testify like what happens then i think well i don't know i think i think he's making i don't know we'll see if i suggest you uh stream double jeopardy yeah where the host is strict screwed and you're just cringing.

Just fucking ask us for 30 seconds. Just give us a call. Bunch of 1L dipshits. Sorry. You guys are very smart. We're not. Speaking of closed-door testimony, Cipollone met with the committee

for eight hours on Friday. Love it. What do we know about what they got out of him? First thing, one thing to note, this has been noted on Twitter, which I think is important. The closed captioning doesn't know how to spell Patsy Bologna. So he's often neither does it. Neither do I. So it's often in closed captioning as Patsy Bologna. Yeah. Which is whatever that does for you. I appreciate it. So he did, you know, declare certain things privileged. There are certain things you refuse

to testify about. But spokesman for the committee said that he provided critical testimony on nearly every major topic. This includes information demonstrating Donald Trump's supreme dereliction of duty. I don't care about dereliction of duty. I roll my eyes at dereliction of duty. The part I like is where it says the testimony also corroborated key elements of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. Remember that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. Remember that Cassidy Hutchinson is the one that said a couple of things that she heard from Cipollone, one of which is keep in touch with me. We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen, which is the movement Trump tried to choke out his driver to get done. And then she was also one who testified that when the violence broke out, Cipollone demanded that Meadows speak to Trump to get him to try to stop it. And when Meadows refused because Trump didn't want to do anything, Cipollone said, something needs to be

done or people are going to die. The blood's going to be on your fucking hands. So this is what it seems Cipollone may have corroborated. So it seems as though Stephanie Murphy was on Meet the Press. She's one of the January 6th committee members. She's going to be leading the hearing on Tuesday. She said that he didn't necessarily confirm exactly the every crimes imaginable quote, but also they said that he didn't contradict it. So they're all saying that he didn't confirm. So they kind of went with the like different people have different memories of similar things.

He did not contradict any testimony from any other witnesses. also didn't necessarily confirm every cassidy hudgenson story he doesn't need to confirm everything if you said at the fucking white house they've got us for every crime imaginable if there was if you didn't say anything close to that you'd be like i never said that's not something i said that's not something i did like these guys these are these are some of those memorable moments i said some crimes you might be able to imagine there look there are forgettable days at work we've all had them this isn't one of them it's going to be the committee said they'll be playing some of cipollone's testimony uh on in tuesday's hearing can't wait so that'll be good and then reportedly we're going to get testimony from the former spokesman for the oath keepers

glad i didn't take that job. And also, one or two- Real sliding doors moment for you? What the fuck? It was a Mark Penn contract. That joke is staying in. Yeah, for sure. Apparently, this guy was not in the Oath Keepers, but was their spokesman and lived with Stuart Rhodes,

one of the founders of the Oath Keepers. I don't know. Life choice, buddy. And then one or two January 6th rally attendees. I'm not sure if that means like jim jordan and matt gates or just you know just run of the mill attendees i mean yeah what what do you think that you know a lot of people are probably listening to this episode tuesday morning right before the hearing um what do you guys think the committee's goal is for the hearing about specifically the connection between trump and the extremist groups like you know we already we already heard from Cassidy Hutchinson say that, like, Trump knew that some of his

supporters were armed and dangerous, urged them to go to the Capitol anyway. So what more can we get from from this one? It's so it sounds like so a few of the committee members want to meet the press and other shows. Right. Murphy was Lofgren was Raskin was out there. And what they said was we're going to connect the dots during these hearings between these groups and those who are trying in government circles to overturn the election. So it seems like this is the final piece of it. They're going to go to that meeting, Team Crazy's meeting at, was it the Willard? The Willard. The Willard Hotel on December 18th. And I think they're going to try to tie what they were going to do at the Capitol

to what the legal creeps were doing to try to overturn the election, trying to finally, that's something we've been talking about for weeks. Like how are they going to make that connection? It seems hopefully this is a hearing where they're going to finally really try to draw that connection. Yeah. They're going to say that Trump was a shofar, the MAGA shofar. The MAGA shofar. Ironically, a bunch of Nazis came to DC. Yeah, that's bad.

But that's the whole point, is that they say this was like a siren song to get the bad guys to come to DC. And the shofar isn't like a thing that calls people. It's fine. It's fine. We'll let it go. I imagine Game of Thrones when you sort of blow something. It's not like a Pied Piper thing. Well, it's pretty loud, right? Yeah, it's loud.

More of a signal. Do we want to put one in here? It's a signal. Shall we put in the shofar? It's more of a signal. Do we want to put one in here? Shall we put in the shofar? No, I mean, I think they've been trying to make the point since the first hearing that these were not random goons who came to D.C., right?

These were organized extremist groups. And some of these organized extremist groups have now been charged by the federal government with seditious conspiracy. And so now they want to connect Trump and his goons and his co-conspirators in the coup to the people who've been charged with seditious conspiracy. And so now they want to connect Trump and his goons and his co-conspirators in the coup to the people who've been charged with seditious conspiracy. I think that's probably the purpose of this. And they really want to get into this meeting that was on December 20th in the 18th, 20th, 18th in the White House that features Sidney Powell, Mike Flynn, and the dude that founded overstock.com for some reason. Sidney Powell, who was going to be the, he was going to appoint as special counsel. Which was supposed to be about declaring

a national security state of emergency. Wait, was that meeting at the White House or was that the one at the Willard? There's one at the White House and one at the Willard. These meetings are everywhere. I don't know. We're going to get it all. It's all going to unfold right now. You're probably listening to this right before the hearing starts. But yeah, that seems like an important meeting to cover. Also, the New York Times this right before the hearing starts but yeah that seems like uh an important meeting to cover yeah also uh the new york times reported right before he came in that uh cassidy hutchinson's

testimony has led doj to start discussing trump's role more openly in terms of whether he himself organized or committed a crime uh oh good what took you so long what do they not know where she was? And that it created pressure to look at his criminal culpability, which, yes, my reaction was the same. Like, good? But why? No, Andrew Weissman of the Mueller crew wrote in the New York Times today, too, that Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony surprised people at the DOJ. They had no idea where that was coming from.

And he's like, that's not a very good sign for DOJ's possible investigation into this, that they were surprised that this Cassidy Hutchinson testimony was out there. Now, I do realize that she had this moment where she's like, OK, I said so much, but now I want to say more. I have a new lawyer. We've talked about this. So she clearly made a decision to say more. And she went to the January 6th committee before she went to federal prosecutors. But, hey, she was available to federal prosecutors, right? They can subpoena anyone. Yeah. It's look, I, I've said many times on this on this podcast of ours that I don't appreciate Merrick Garland's deliberative pace. We don't know what's going on inside of DOJ

and is the kind of thing where the people who know aren't saying very much. But I worry. I appreciate what they're saying, which is we're starting from the bottom and we're working our way up. And they have gotten to people like Jeffrey Clark. Right it's one thing to say, we're going to start with the low level goons and work our way up to the mob boss, but you can't do that if you're afraid to mention the criminality of the mob boss. So it's just, I just, I hope that they're not, I hope that they're working their way up to something,

not afraid of doing something. Yeah. But it seems like it's probably both. Clock's ticking. Who knows? All right. When we come back, take appreciators.

All right. We are back with another round of Take Appreciator. Here, our host of Take Appreciator, Chief Take Officer here at Crooked Media, Elijah Cohn, is with us once again. Hey, John. John. Tommy. How's it going hey lash good to see you hey welcome back to the take appreciators thanks for having us i'm going to share some takes with you all the producers have seen these takes uh you guys have not that's right that works promise you all react and then rate them on a

scale of one to four politicos with four being the worst. Now, we put this together pretty quickly and Andy encouraged me because we don't have an interview today to have several. So would you guys be willing to go over the previously allocated three? Why don't we go till the exact moment we don't want to go any further? Why don't we try that? Okay.

I may have to change my order because there's some that I found later that i really really like okay well do your favorites get your favorites out there early because you don't know when love it's gonna just cut this yeah uh you can't wait you can't be like biden and wait two weeks to get to the point you know i'll take that note to heart and we'll start with this one that is an alley for you love it uh you're tweeting about this piece i actually put it on my radar in the first place uh from the new york times i know this one a piece titled the far left and far right agree on one thing women don't count all right so this piece in its own word says that the right has dedicated itself to stripping women of fundamental rights while the fringe left is also misogynist because of trans inclusive language here's how the piece concludes quote whether

trumpist or traditionalist fringe left activist or academic ideologue misogynist from both extremes of the political spectrum relish equally the power to shut women up. Huh. Op-ed or like a regular writer for the times? That's an opinion piece. If you guys want to take a guess about who wrote it. I mean, I think Love and I know who it is. We know who it is. I do not.

Brett Stevens. It sounds like a Brett Stevens. Well, that's interesting that you would say that because this person has been in their past connected to Brett Stevens. Oh, I didn't know that. Yes, they were married to Bret Stephens. And there is a,

look, this is an unsubstantiated rumor. So the author of this piece ran, I believe, the New York Times Book Review. And basically, it was thought that it was hard to get your book into the New York Times Book Review

if you ever said some shit about Bret Stephens. Oh, wow. That's good gossip. Pamela Paul. It's Pamela Paul. I don't, by the way way i don't know that what i just said is true and i don't care because that's not why this piece sucks first amendment i that's not what the problem is with these columns this is off the charts false equivalency on this one just off the charts in

in in the wake of dobbs just it's truly truly despicable it is so like just sort of know your enemy know what your threat know what if you actually are worried about trumpists and attacks on women from the right the idea that you would equate it to uh language that respects the existence of trans people is obscene it It is ridiculous. It is born of- Or even a debate over that language. It's just so great. It's like so- It's, it just is, it's, it, it, it is so awful. And it just reflects somebody, it reflects a worldview that just doesn't worry about their own risk, right? That just doesn't feel threatened by what's happening enough. Because if you really did internalize how dangerous the right is to women, to all of us,

to trans people, to everybody, you would never in a million years equate it to recognizing the fact that trans people exist and that we are having an important conversation about gender that is long overdue. It's just obscene. I hate it. It's the worst call i've ever seen 15 pinocchios okay full yeah full full playbook from it has to have the i have to give it the full play especially because it was designed it was designed to enrage twitter it was designed to do what it did i'm giving it a full full playbook because in the true way that the take appreciator scale was developed,

it's for someone who just tried really hard to be that annoying. Those are the people who really deserve it. And I think this does. Her next column was about how John Roberts should retire. Oh yeah. She's on a tear.

Just what a waste of space in a newspaper that column is. I didn't read it. So I'm gonna go for politicos because I resisted the siren song of being outraged by an idiot great while on vacation yes by the way elijah all right enough on this one because i was on vacation too when this came out i saw your rage tweeting i was rage tweeting on vacation yeah good i was relaxing and then it take it that hot came across the wire wow all right tommy well let's see how you react to this idiot

oh thank you i'm going to jump around here i'm going to move this one up to make sure we get to it this was from a cable news show it just happened we need a little bit of background for it maybe we should play the red hen Civility Alert. Red Hen Civility Alert. Red Hen Civility Alert. Paging Chuck Todd. Paging Chuck Todd. Tip O'Neill. Ronald Reagan. You are needed with a bourbon in the West Wing. Red Hen. I think you guys know where I'm going with this so recently judge brett kavanaugh went out to eat at morton's steakhouse some protesters found out he was there they went to the restaurant they never went inside but kavanaugh was forced to leave early through the back door this led to a civility outrage news cycle one of our favorites here, which included this clip, Charlotte, whenever you're

ready. But let me let's be very clear. None of us and you do not have a First Amendment right to protest judges. You explicitly and specifically do not have that right. So, yes, I mean, you could do it to the view if you want. There's not a specific and I don't want to interrupt that. That sounds dangerous. Also, whatever happened to they're afraid of a return to norms or they wanted a return to norms. But the more they do this, the more they just encourage people on the right to respond in kind, which people typically don't. But I'm not encouraging that. Obviously, January 6th is a completely different thing. So don't at me. All right, guys, who's who's going to talk about the return to norms?

Who was that? That was Dana Perino, right? Yes. Correct. Recognize the voice. I mean, this is going to have to be a full playbook for me because it's so

fundamentally wrong. Well, you know what it is? There's something going around. There's been something going around that apparently it is illegal to protest outside judges, Supreme court justices homes there is a law about that so so they have twisted that now into there's no first amendment right to

protest wherever to go to morton's there's not yeah there's no like um yeah there's the constitution doesn't like cease existing in a 500 radius of these fucking creeps this one was great because you got a random brand to weigh in with the statement yeah on constitutional rights and like whenever we can get mortons involved in some sort of you know like second amendment third pick an amendment if you can get a dinner chain to weigh in i think that's a that's a winning strategy for terrible takes i don't think anyone's also anyone's challenged the law about not protesting outside justice's home and sometimes and i i might imagine you'd win that challenge how could you you know who's gonna ruin it those fucking assholes why why is this such catnip for cable pun it's like every time they're someone's dining experience gets messed up in some way i'll tell

you why it's a story i'll tell you why in the same way there are certain people that watch nature videos and they see a cheetah chasing a gazelle and they can only see themselves as the cheetah they do not recognize themselves as a gazelle yeah they these are all people that eat at fucking fancy places it is inconceivable of them to not have access to reproductive care but they can imagine their dinner their dinner being disturbed that is easy to imagine not the back door he couldn't go the front right to go to the back door. He had to go to the back door. Did he have to walk by trash too? The poor guy. Poor guy. By the way, for all we know, look, if you've eaten at Morton's, there's many times where

you need to leave quickly to get home to a toilet. And for all we know, Brett Kavanaugh was desperate to shit after eating a huge and really probably delicious but ultimately disgusting meal. And maybe he just needed to get home and those protesters were the cover he needed. Thanks, Elijah. Thanks for including this. You did this. Thanks for doing this.

No, I also like Morton's love it. I give this one three, three, because she wasn't trying, she didn't really, she sort of stumbled into it. She, you know, it's. I don't think Dana Perino thinks the first amendment doesn't apply to judges.

It's live TV. I don't know how anybody does it we edit this thing to pieces it doesn't sound like it does it you'd be amazed you'd be amazed what we don't put out certainly doesn't sound like it i thought the norms talk would get you all the way joe that's that's upsetting to me i mean by this point you know there's only so much outrage we can muster go ahead give it give us another one all right this is again this i don't know if this one fits the normal take appreciators but it's just so fun it's just so outrageous i had to put it in here okay so it also feels appropriate because today we have the january 6th hearing that's focused on extremist groups like the proud boys and oath keepers come watch the january 6th hearings with us on our group thread youtube.com slash crooked media subscribe this piece was in the sarasota herald tribune wow it was so egregious that they actually removed it

today but screenshots live forever so here we go this piece is titled attacking proud boys does a disservice to caring school parents what again the proud boys are in a violent extremist group uh here's a quote when i think of the proud boys i think of fathers business owners and veterans these fathers have spoken at many school board meetings. They are concerned about the direction of their local schools and I commend them for coming to school board hearings. Now does anyone happen to know who wrote this?

I do not. I saw this controversy flare up. Is this a parody? It does seem like when those Russian comedians crank call people and get on the phone with like the secretary of state somehow it can't be someone that we that we know no no i i i i think this falls into the category of is impossible to tell the difference between

extremism and parody without more context because this is such a that shit fucking thing. So the author was Hugh Hewitt. The author is someone none of y'all are going to guess her name. It was Melissa Radovich. But the kicker is that she is married to a member of the Proud Boys. Oh, that explains that. Well, not now. There we go. Well, at least they took it down. But it's quite telling that it went up at all. I mean, you can use the I see them as caring parents excuse with literally any flavor of horrific person throughout history.

Yeah, it is absolutely true that many people who join fascistic right-wing organizations are in other ways considered upstanding members of society. That's in part what has made them so dangerous. Yeah, that's, anyway. I mean, that one's on the op-ed pitch you know what i mean yeah i don't know what's going on in sarasota there's some ideas you don't really need to circulate on your platform that would be a good one no to not um all right what do we want do we want to call it there do we want elijah to do one more let's do one more let's do your last one all right which one should i pick i hope it's just a takedown of the James Webb Space Telescope. Deep field my ass, Elijah said.

There's so many good ones. There's the Dan McLaughlin tweet, but I'm going to pass by that because it's just a tweet. But that one was really good. Yeah, we shouldn't. No one should give Baseball Crank more airtime. I think this is a fun one. I could get some debate going here from you guys. It's from Politico magazine. So kind of a namesake for the segment here. It is titled, If Tucker Runs in 2024, Here's Who the Democrats Need.

So the piece stipulates that Biden should run again, but if he doesn't and Tucker does, Jon Stewart should run. Here's a quote. If Biden doesn't run, Stewart would start with a massive name idea advantage over any Democrat and a vast legion of Daily Show viewers. The show ended six years ago, but Trump's jump from TV to the White House has taught that viewers, even of a declining reality series, can be committed voters. even of a declining reality series, can be committed voters. By that measure, Stewart starts off better position than anyone else in the Democratic field from the start. Man, that is some impressive brain poison right there. I don't hate it. I don't hate it. He fulfills my number one rule, which is famous for 2010. That is, yeah. Which is true for any streaming service or any politician who's going to be president you got to be famous for 2010

um look i'll say what uh nbc executives uh said uh about a lot of uh comedians in the 1990s too vaguely i think that that was for a live show This person needs to Look I love Jon Stewart I love The Daily Show It was not watched By that many people

Is what this person I think is missing It was a very niche Thing Yeah I like Jon Stewart too I think if we're gonna run A comedian For president

I think we'd go with Colbert Oh they're gonna say Gutfeld I would run our site I think That's someone Gutfeld yeah It's Gutfeld Colbert's someone It's're going to say Gutfeld. I would want our site. I think that's someone. Gutfeld, yeah. It's Gutfeld.

Colbert's someone who's got national audience on CBS. Throw in the towel. It's Gutfeld. Middle of the country. Politically astute. I'm going for Colbert. Yeah, Colbert also hasn't evolved the sort of cranky grandpa energy that Jon Stewart has. Yeah.

You know? Yeah. It's a, you know. Which, look, I enjoy. I find very funny, but I think it's challenging politically when you need to, like, talk to people you don't like. Who wrote this? Who wrote this?

Is this Jack Schaefer? No, Jack Schaefer wouldn't do that. Who's this? I'm trying to think. Who would write this piece? You guys just want to know? Yeah, I just want to know. I don't know.

It's Juliana Glover. Oh, there you go it's just from from her desk at cafe milano yeah that's uh i don't know we'll see the bill maher trial balloon soon i'm sure too oh boy no brutal you guys want to throw that a politico rating put it away um one yeah it's a half-hearted your troll bores me and again again i will just say i agree with the analysis on this dais uh but but my first reaction was like but i'll tell you a second i let it roll around in my mind for 30 seconds i let it bounce around this wasn't something that it didn't go it didn't bounce in and right back out i let it roll around in my mind for 30 seconds. I let it bounce around. This wasn't something that it didn't go. It didn't bounce in and right back out. I let it roll around in there.

Just a lot. Just let it, I let it, I let it, I let it walk around. Yes. Certainly better than a lot of the kids. Yeah.

Yeah. I look at, listen, we can, we can talk about the list, put it on, put them on a bracket. I don't think he's out in the first round.

The piece, the actual piece does have a lot of like, I know this is a terrible idea, but bear with me. And I've bared with her and it's a pretty good idea. You bore with her so long that here we are talking about it. Zero politicos. Zero politicos.

Zero. Zero politicos. It is simply a take. I think this story forced. I think Stuart came out and denied it on Twitter. He did. Denied. So did Obama.

And then some journalist was like, this wasn't Sherman-esque. And I really go, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang it. Bye, everyone. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein. Our producer is Haley Muse, and Olivia Martinez is our associate producer. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick.

Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineer the show. Thanks to Tanya Sominator, Sandy Gerard, Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support. And to Tanya Sominator, Sandy Gerrard, Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn,

Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montooth. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash crookedmedia.