Pod Save America - “Cyber Ninjas Stop the Steal.”

Episode Date: September 27, 2021

The Democratic agenda is on the line this week as the House prepares to vote on President Biden’s infrastructure and Build Back Better plans, Donald Trump and his allies lay the groundwork to steal the 2024 election despite an embarrassment in Arizona, and Tommy talks to Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian about 544 Days, a new podcast that follows the true story of when Jason was held hostage in Iran and accused of being an American spy.For a closed-captioned version of this episode, please visit crooked.com/podsaveamerica. 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. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. On the pod today, the entire Democratic agenda is on the line this week as the House prepares to vote on President Biden's infrastructure and build back better plans. Donald Trump and his allies keep laying the groundwork to steal the 2024 election despite an embarrassment in Arizona. And Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian talks to Tommy about 544 days, a brand new podcast launching tomorrow that follows the true story

of when Jason was held hostage in Iran and accused of being an American spy. You can catch it on Spotify tomorrow. It's free. It's on Spotify. Can I give you guys

a little tip? Please, please. It's gripping. It's like a better Argo. That's not a tip. That's an opinion. No, it's a tip. It's a tip about

your listening habits. If you're listening to it, just remember this. It'll help you listen. It's a really about your listening habits. Hey, if you're listening too, just remember this. It'll help you listen. It's a really good podcast. I've heard all of the episodes. Jason is hilarious. It's like a better argument.

The hilarious true story of being in prison. Well, that's the weird part, right? Like you wouldn't think a story about being wrongfully imprisoned for nearly two years would be funny, but it's very, very funny. Jason's funny. His wife, Anthony Bourdain, makes an appearance. Like it's an incredible show. I'm super excited to listen.

One more quick note before we begin. September is National Voter Registration Month. And Vote Save America is working to raise $1.5 million through our No Off Years Fund. Donations will go to help voter registration efforts in Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. These are all places where reaching new voters will especially help make the difference in our ability to win in 22, Texas, and Wisconsin. These are all places where reaching new voters will especially help make the difference in our ability to win in 22, 24, and beyond. We know that 1.5 million is a big goal,

but the sooner we get new voters registered, the sooner organizers can start building relationships and expanding their work to reach every last voter. It's all about the friends you made along the way for these organizers, you know? This is the work you do now so that before the election we you know we don't start hearing a bunch of stories but republicans did better in vote registration where were we blah blah this is the time that's how we'll sound then the time that's how we always sound i think it's funny that it's national voter

registration month like okay i mean i love a fake holiday wake you up when uh september ends john is that what you're saying go Go, go, go, go. Hurry. We like news hooks here in the business. Yeah, we do. To chip in, head to votesaveamerica.com slash donate to learn more. All right, let's get to the news. Nancy Pelosi has announced that the vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill will take

place on Thursday. And since infrastructure is unlikely to pass unless House progressives feel confident that the president's Build Back Better plan will also pass, Democrats in Congress have just a few days to make sure that every last policy detail is agreed on by just about every single member of their caucuses, from AOC to Josh Gottheimer to Bernie Sanders to Joe Manchin, everyone in between. mansion, everyone in between. Right now, there are still serious disagreements within the party over taxes, health care, climate, and a whole bunch of other issues. And once they figure all that out, they also have to pass a bill that will fund the federal government before it's forced to shut down on Friday. Pelosi summed up the challenge in her characteristically understated way, telling Democrats, quote, the next few days will be a time of intensity. Okay, great. Yeah yeah great way to say she had a knife to gotheimer's neck at the point which i think is lost in the quote

oh on a scale of one to ten the political press has dialed up the stakes of this week to about a thousand all the cliches are make or break do or die, grave consequences if it doesn't pass. How much of this is their usual hyperventilation and how much is real, do you think? Tommy, you want to kick it off? I mean, I feel like the stakes are pretty high, no? Yeah, I mean, here's the thing. Here's what I'd say. I think, I don't know if it's possible for both of these things to be true. I kind of agree that the stakes are impossibly high. However, if we succeed and pass both of these things and fund the government, next week we will be talking about how Joe Biden and the Democrats can still very easily lose Congress in the White House.

And if we fail to pass these things, we won't like shut down, like, you know, we'll continue trying to figure out what to do. So like, I think the stakes are incredibly high because they will not only set, they will set the tenor for the next year and it will determine whether or not we really have a shot of making our best case for the argument. I think we've been making for a very long time, which is Democrats have to deliver. That is the only way we can subvert the kind of historic expectations that we will do terribly in the upcoming midterms. Last week in Los Angeles, we had a sunset at like 4 p.m. that was blood red because of the climate fires.

So for me, that put the stakes up pretty high when it comes to like, will they pass something to meaningfully deal with climate change? Or will this be our last chance holding majority for a long time? So that's pretty high stakes. Like the total disaster scenario is pretty catastrophic. I guess the government shutdown, the U. The US could default on its debt. The Biden legislative agenda could implode if both of these bills go down. Playbook could be really upset about his lack of leadership. You know what I mean?

We don't want to let that happen. So I'm not saying all those things could happen. That's the worst case. Whether it happens this week, I think, is where it's getting a little amped up. Like Pelosi already punted one of the deadlines from Monday to Thursday. So she's trying to buy some time to get things done. That's not ideal. We don't want to squeeze everything as close to the end of the legislative calendar as we possibly can, but that's what tends to happen here. Tommy, can I just say, I'm very happy that when you talked about consequences for not passing this,

you talked about real world consequences and not just purely political consequences. That's all I did. Like we're fucking pundits in a TV box talking about climate change it's on the radio on your phone i don't know i feel like that's what i did there are there are some real world there are people who won't have the blood moon child care help there are people who will go without health insurance there's like yeah and you're right like if we do not pass i i i for one think that the political press is not hyperventilating i think the stakes are huge love it to your point i one, think that the political press is not hyperventilating. I think the stakes are huge. Lovett, to your point, I don't think that passing both bills guarantees midterm success,

but midterm success will be nearly impossible if they fail. It is a prerequisite for midterm success, even though passing it does not guarantee it. But I think that if we don't pass these, I think, aside from the real world consequences that are terrible, because who knows when we will have a majority again and a chance to pass this again um but i think the political consequences are going to be pretty rough as well i also agree with you tommy though that if it doesn't get done this week it's not the fucking end of the world the government has the government the government has to get funded this week and the debt ceiling has to get done by mid-october i think is well they don't know that's part of the fun of the debt limit it's a bit of a

gamble yeah jan Janet Yellen's fucking juggling coins and stuff. I don't know. Who runs a bank account like that? She's writing IOUs handing them to people. I think I can stretch till Christmas. I mean, if it does pass this week, then one piece of good news is that

it's the last time we'll hear Infrastructure Week jokes. You think that Twitter will squeeze a little more blood from that stone? D.C. is full of people who are unfunny but make the same set of jokes every few months, unfortunately. The infrastructure vote was initially supposed to be today, Monday. Clearly, Pelosi didn't have the votes. But what do you guys think her announcement of a Thursday vote

tells you about how she thinks these negotiations will play out? I think it shows that she's trying to figure out what the hell everybody wants. And they're trying to figure out a framework for what the larger Build Back Better bill could look like, cut a deal with progressives on sort of the outlines of what might be in it, because it's not going to be $3.5 trillion dollars even though dan won't let us say that it's going to be smaller than that so smaller how is the big question um and then initially pelosi had told the moderate faction that the gotheimer sort of uh splinter cell that they would get a vote on the bipartisan bill today she had to appease them uh but then punted that to thursday so the fact that the moderates aren't mad tells you that they feel

comfortable with the state of things. And the progressives who are trying to figure out what is going to get cut from this $3.5 trillion vision that are worried. Yeah, I mean, the other thing I would add too is it's hard at this point to separate the kind of posturing and negotiations from what their actual positions are internally. And you've seen people like Manchin say, oh, why would we even do this right now? There's no reason we should push it off. But then everyone is behaving as though there's a real possibility that this can get done this week. Like if Manchin was signaling privately, there was no point in all this.

Nancy Pelosi wouldn't be setting this vote. These negotiations wouldn't be as fierce and contentious and ongoing as they are. And I think you start to see some of the moderates saying things like, why would progressives jeopardize the bipartisan bill? They would never do that. They wouldn't do that to Joe Biden. It's because they're all trying to create leverage in this moment as they try to get to the point where both bills go at the same time. Yeah. The big question here is, can they all reach an agreement on Build Back Better by Thursday? There is currently no paper. There's only a couple days here. It seems like a tall order.

So then the question is, how much of an agreement do they have to reach to keep the progressives happy enough to vote for the infrastructure bill? On Sunday, Congresswoman Mila Jayapal, who leads the Progressive Caucus, I believe was on one of the Sunday shows. I don't watch them. I just read the news about them. Just getting mad about them online. Yeah, exactly.

And I think she said she wants an ironclad commitment from the centrists before they do anything. But then today she tweeted that the Build Back Better bill needs to pass at the same time, which seems like a tall order to get done by Thursday. It's not going to happen by Thursday. I just don't think it – I don't know. It really reminds me of – Which means that the vote gets postponed again, right? It has to. It reminds me of...

There was this moment at Camp David where Hud Barak and Yasser Arafat were both walking into the negotiating room with Bill Clinton. And there was this moment where, like, kind of bravado and, like, manners overlapped. And neither one of them wanted to walk through the door first. And so they ended up, like,

physically fighting at the door to stop the other one from getting it first. And finally, Bill Clinton just basically pushed them both through at the same time while laughing. I feel like that's a little bit of the vibe right now. To extend your metaphor, I mean, you are seeing a lot of complaining in the press from moderates and progressives that Joe Biden isn't engaged enough, that he's not twisting arms, that he's not cajoling members, that he's doing too much listening and not enough pressuring, I guess. Do we think that that's typical carping or is there some truth there? It's typical carping in the sense that it gives me deja vu that they used to say this about Obama

all the time. He's too aloof. He's not engaged. Right. But I don't know. Who knows? Usually presidents sort of stand back for reasons like they stay out of this for reasons. And then at the very end, they go in and start twisting arms. So maybe he's just trying to let it all come together. Jayapal also told Greg Sargent that Biden is not pressuring progressives to vote for the infrastructure bill, which the moderates hope that he would do. For the two bill, which the moderates hoped that he would do. For the two-bill solution. Yeah, there's also just a bit of, I think, I mean, a lot of, there is just some basic mistrust that I think you see in those comments by Jayapal, which is that, like, commitments can be evaded and talked out of. There's a real fear, I think, correctly on the part of progressives, that if they go along with the bipartisan bill, all of a sudden, a bunch of people that claim they would go along with the deal suddenly find reasons that they can claim don't subvert what they said in the past to

prevent this thing. Yeah, I think that's some healthy skepticism. Yeah, that's and so I agree with that. Completely, completely. And nothing about the way they've behaved over the past couple of months would argue against that. I mean, Biden got his booster shot this morning on television and was answering questions while got his booster shot this morning on television and was answering questions while getting the booster shot. Speaking really fast. He said, it may not be by the end of the week. I hope it's by the end of the week.

So even he is imagining that it may slip into... He's trying to chill out the whole deadline thing. Yeah. One of the huge issues left to resolve is how to pay for Build Back Better. Pelosi and Schumer said on Friday that Democrats have, quote, reached an agreement on a framework, a menu of options that would finance the bill with a combination of tax increases on corporations and people making over $400,000 a year. But the New York Times has reported that Kyrsten Sinema is opposed to higher tax rates for both corporations and rich people,

which is why Democrats are now exploring a tax on carbon as a way to pay for the bill. What do you think about that? Love it. Kyrsten Sinema is completely vexing. I don't understand her philosophy, don't understand what she wants. I also don't totally know if that rendering of her position is accurate. Does she oppose any increases? Does she oppose a specific version of the proposal? Is it a negotiation to try to get a carbon tax in there and defray some of the costs by reducing the amount that they increase taxes on corporations on the rich? It's really not clear. But if the end result is that this leads to a carbon tax as

part of this that still honors the biden pledge uh for not raising taxes on the middle class through some kind of a dividend like i think that's a really positive outcome though i want the tax i mean i want like obviously i want the highest tax cuts on the rich here's how you would have to do a carbon tax that doesn't hurt people making under four hundred thousand dollars you tax them just like you tax everyone else, and then you mail them rebates. That's not going to go over politically well, I'll tell you. There's a bunch of different versions of it, right? One version of it is that the tax increases are not aimed at everybody.

But then the understanding that because some of the costs read down to consumers, you do a dividend that applies to people making under $400,000. There's a number of different ways you can do it. The problem is the best version of a carbon tax that doesn't seem to hurt middle class people is not one that helps you pay for other parts of your bill. It's one that just is kind of neutral and the benefits flow to the middle. That's, which is something that I've always felt was like, doesn't get you much. Like if you really believe climate change is this threat, you don't use a carbon tax to pay for other priorities. You demonstrate that a carbon tax is a means of not just protecting the

planet, but also like actually making lives better by sending those kind of tax benefits to regular people. Yeah, I think what they have in the plan right now, which is you charge the companies that are polluting and then you reward the companies that are transitioning to clean energy is much better. But also, let's just go back to the tax, the opposition to the tax increases, like increasing the tax rates on the wealthiest one or two percent and and and corporations is like, again, one of the most popular policies that you pull. Raising taxes on corporations pulls at 66 percent approval. Sixty one percent of the country thinks we should raise taxes on household incomes over four hundred thousand dollars.

So you can either four hundred that you can care about debts deficits, or you can care about climate change, or you can care about, I don't, like, tell us what you care about, Kirsten Sinema. But this is, like, this position is indefensibly stupid from a policy and political standpoint. And so what is she doing? It's baffling. Try not to overreact to like a statement, like a quote in the 30th graph of a New York Times story that she hasn't confirmed or denied. But it's like it's baffling.

Also, you can't if you don't increase tax rates on individuals or corporations, you can't pay for three point five trillion dollars. Now, can you pay for a one point five trillion dollar bill or two point trillion? You probably get around 700 billion from the prescription drug thing. So you're getting closer, but you're closing loopholes and all this bullshit. So maybe you can get there with math. I doubt it. One other piece of this too, though, Tommy,

is like, I agree. It's like this weird throwaway line, maybe based on some like kind of larger reporting that's a bit more nuanced. But the Post reported that Mitch McConnell has been privately reassuring his allies that cinema will help prevent tax increases on the rich and corporations as well.

So there's clearly there's truth to it. Yeah. I mean, I guess there's just sort of a political question of like, do you have do you want to be able to say this thing was paid for? And what I want to be able to say to voters is, hey, you know, those billionaires buying islands and taking vacations and fucking space, we're going to tax them, tax them more. And we're going to use that money to pay for things that matter to you. That I think is the winning political argument. Not that we're balancing the budget or we're doing X, Y, Z. It's like, no, we're going to tax the billionaires who pay like 8% in taxes because they can

rig the system. It's popular in and of itself. It doesn't need to be popular because it helps you pay for the bill. You're right, Tommy, that it's the winning political message. I think it's also required under the budget rules in the budget reconciliation. Like, I don't think you can, I think you have to actually show how you pay for this. One thing on cinema over the weekend, the Arizona Democratic Party has pledged a vote of no confidence in cinema if she fails to reform the filibuster or doesn't support Build Back Better.

You know, there's a lot of this like activists at home aren't happy with cinema stuff that you wonder if it's going to go anywhere. The Arizona Democratic Party doing this is it's sort of a big deal. Again, you know, Mark Kelly, pretty moderate senator from Arizona. He's not fucking everything up. You don't hear Mark Kelly yelling about taxes on the rich tax, increasing taxes on rich people. Axes on rich people. Someday soon, I'm going to be out of the office because I'm going to be at the urgent care center because I will have broken my finger

hitting the act blue button to donate to her primary plan. Good for the Arizona Democratic Party. I, too, am with Lovett. I'd like to see a little pressure from the left on Kirsten Sinema. Meanwhile, the Arizona Republican Party is taking bong hits with Mike Lindell over in the corner. God knows what's going on out there. That state needs some help. Tell knows what's going on out there.

That state needs some help. Tell us what's going on, Arizona residents. And by the way, like, you know, a lot of this gets couched as like, oh, she's trying to create a kind of like independent brand for herself when, you know, some of these policies we're talking about, these are not far left progressive. What brand is this? Raising taxes on corporations and rich people is like independence. What is her brand? Mitch McConnell? Is that her brand? So I'm not going to like independence. What is her brand? Mitch McConnell.

Is that her brand? I'm not going to tell you. That's my brand. Yeah. We've talked a lot about how democratic centrist political concerns about build back better fly in the face of poll after poll that show healthy majorities of voters support the overall bill. But just to be fair,

we do want to play one of the ads that the American action network is running as part of their $7.5 million campaign. That's targeting 24 of the most vulnerable House Democrats. Let's listen. D.C. liberals overspending. It benefits a few while working Americans suffer. Now they're pushing a $3 trillion socialist spending plan. Where's the money go? Pelosi snagged $200 million for a park in San Francisco. And her rich friends get tax breaks on electric cars with Chinese parts. But Maine's middle class gets stuck with the bill. New taxes and even higher prices.

Tell Congressman Golden to vote against Pelosi's spending spree. That's a real paint-by-number Republican attack. With Chinese parts. With Chinese parts. i didn't like the score to me strings yeah you didn't like the music no i haven't really listened to secession and then try to rip that off next time you know i think they've got in there a piece of new information right the park right you know it's some line item budget somewhere right it's a they got that and there's

that's going to stick in your mind the electric vehicle what i what i when i heard that ad though what i thought when i heard it was like that like there are ads that i think are kind of misleading but like faithful to a core idea of some sort but when you hear that ad you just think you will be vilified and attacked as a pelosi Democrat who's overspending on Chinese electric car parts, no matter what you fucking do, no matter what you do. It's all Orwellian. It's like American job creators for a strong economy arguing against a bunch of things that would improve the economy. I mean, I do think that, I don't know if these ads are effective with voters. I do think they're almost always effective when it comes to making

members of Congress get really scared and kind of wet the bed. So, you know, we should be worried about them. There are ads from the other side. There's 2 million in cable ads running, calling for paid family and medical leave to be in the bill, right? So there's pressure in both directions. Who knows how it'll shake out? But, you know, this is like a period of really intense lobbying on these members of Congress. I do think to your point about the ads on the other side, I think it's really important for Democrats and Democratic allied groups that are running these ads to pick out individual issues to run ads on. Like some of these ads that we've seen on our side, there's one on paid family leave. Like you said, there's one running in Stephanie Murphy's district from the League of Conservation of Voters about climate and how climate's impacting Florida and why it's important. It really is hard to message on the entirety of the Build Back Better agenda. It is much more effective and easier, I think,

to pick out its component parts and talk about them separately. And I think that's probably the best path for Democrats. Yes. I also remember when the stimulus passed and there was this moment where we all said, hey, Democrats in Congress, remember this feeling. Remember the good tidings that come with passing big things despite the opposition, despite the claims that it was on a partisan basis. Remember the overall change in the political climate that overtakes some of these smaller political attacks. And I hope they do. Yeah. Biden's polling numbers went up and then childhood poverty was cut in half. A couple of good reasons to want to continue some of these policies we passed. I do get the fear that some

of these Democrats must experience when they when they see these ads. You're right, Lovett, that they're going to attack us no matter what. Now, on some things, you know, back to big spenders no matter what, partly because they all voted for the rescue package. They're going to have to do the debt limit on their own. We're not going to get any Republican help with the debt limit. So there are going to be real spending things that they're going to be able to attack Democrats for. So whether or not they sink the Build Back Better agenda. So you might as well as oppose. The answer is not to oppose it. It's to sell it to voters. It's to sell your reasons for voting for it. I have no doubt that the ad whizzes who came up with the ad we just listened to could go through the bills that have

already been passed and create a nearly identical version that makes the exact same argument without having to ever think about the Build Back Better plan. Donald Trump is president. Dumb Republicans are running, putting out press releases, taking credit for provisions in the COVID relief bills that they voted against. Up is down, down is up. Just do what's right. Yeah, you'll be, by the way, some of those ads will use the bipartisan infrastructure plan to attack you as a Nancy Pelosi big spender, without a doubt. They'll always find a way. They'll always find a way. There was a CNN op-ed this morning from Pramila jayapal uh ilhan omar and katie porter about how progressives are going to put their votes on the lines to to get both the

infrastructure and build back better done they had a line in there that i think is a pretty good message to sort of sum up the overall bill uh if we allow corporate lobbyists to dictate our legislative agenda the economic recovery will grind to a halt i do think it's time for democrats from the progressives to Biden to the centrists to start talking about special interests standing in the way. And we're fighting on behalf of the American people, because you can see Republicans in that ad trying to say, we're for the middle class. They're for rich people with electric vehicles and the Chinese and San Francisco parks. What's interesting about that, you know, Pelosi kitchen sink anti-China ad was that it didn't include inflation because that's the one thing you've

been hearing from people in DC is that voters are really worried about inflation. It's showing up in focus groups and polling. And like, I don't know if that's true or not. I know that I filled up my gas tank yesterday and it was outrageously expensive and I did not like that. Chuck Schumer over here. Yeah. I'm being gouged. On the radio, yeah. But yeah, that wasn't part of that ad and you'd think if that was the really powerful attack,

it would be in there. But I agree. We passed the Recovery Act in 2009 and then nothing else got done and it meant the economy stumbled along for years.

Okay. So, I'm sure that'll all get done. Fine. Everything will be great at the end of this week. We'll be doing a pod next Monday

and just cheering the passage of the Build Back Better bill at the signing ceremony. I think we're going to be in legislative purgatory for a long time. Cool, cool, cool.

We're lost. One thing I do notice is that a lot of people who don't like Nancy Pelosi, they don't really know what to say during these periods of time when she's ferociously

trying to figure out how to make all this happen at the same time. Even if you really dislike her, no one really wants to bet against her. No. Terry McAuliffe summed it up well. Voters didn't send Democrats

to Washington to sit around and chitty chat all day. They need to get this done. Yeah, you're right, Terry. I do think I'm glad you brought that up. I thought it was interesting that and he said that in response to them not passing the infrastructure bill that Terry McAuliffe is really hoping they just pass the infrastructure bill, even if it doesn't mean Build Back Better passes right away. That's him probably feeling the pressure of a very competitive race in Virginia. Yeah. Terry wants to deal with the commuting time in northern Virginia or whatever, like parochial thing is in that bill. Yeah, absolutely. And he just wants to be aligned with the party that's getting stuff done for the economy.

So while Democrats and Republicans in Washington are engaged in a high stakes, but relatively normal legislative battle, there's a parallel universe where Donald Trump is putting the pieces in place to make sure his next coup succeeds. You might think that after Arizona Republicans wasted $6 million on their own private election review just to have the Cyber Ninjas report that Joe Biden won Maricopa County by more votes than we originally thought, MAGA World would at least pump the brakes for a bit. But no. Instead, they just pretended that the sham audit proved that there was fraud. Of course it proved there was fraud, right? The headline was, Biden actually wins more votes in Maricopa County. See, we told you there was fraud. Of course it proved there was fraud, right? The headline was Biden actually wins more votes in Maricopa County. See, we told you there was fraud. Arizona Republicans called for other counties to be audited after the report came out. Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania Republicans said

they're moving forward with their own 2020 audits. Trump himself issued seven separate statements lying about the Arizona results before calling on officials to decertify the election during a rally in Georgia on Saturday night. Here's a clip. We won on the Arizona forensic audit yesterday at a level that you wouldn't believe. The headlines claiming that Biden won. that Biden won are fake news and a very big lie. It is clear in Arizona that they must decertify the election. You heard the numbers. We won on a very high level.

We won on a very high level. That makes a lot of sense. How do you spend $6 million on a sham audit run by a shady firm called the Cyber Ninjas only to have them find more votes for the guy that you're trying to pretend to be. It's actually kind of confusing, to be honest. It's not a real audit. These are not real people doing this.

They took hard drives into the woods and jerked each other off for six weeks, and they came out making Biden more the winner. I don't really, I'm actually surprised, to be honest. I was too. If you had asked me to bet, obviously we're not in the prediction business. If you had asked me to bet before this, would the cyber ninjas find that Trump actually won? I would say, yes, of course. That's the whole reason they're there.

These aren't the people that count the Oscar votes. They should get their money back. Cyber ninjas sucks at everything. They suck at actually counting votes. They suck at corruption. Yeah. And probably ninja stuff. They can't throw a star to save their life.

Oh, man. Can't use nunchucks. Yeah, they're hitting themselves in the face with these nunchucks. Yeah, that's weird. It was surprising. No one said that these were smart fascists. No. But you don't have to be smart to be dangerous.

Right. I mean, the problem, like the Trump will spin anything into an argument that he won. And this audit process has become a long dragged out PR stunt that created tons and tons of stories that question the legitimacy of the election itself. So like they did the job without, you know, getting the result they wanted. Yeah. The fact of the audit was the goal of the audit. He's lying about the results because the results never really matter. There is no actual outcome here that wouldn't be useful to them because the whole point is to drum up enough uncertainty and questions among the base to sort of set the stage for the next two elections. Yeah. And Trump's already created the context where

to get the MAGA base, you have to be all in on the big lie. So the Arizona attorney general who is running for Senate, he knows he has to win that primary. And he said he is going to create some sort of future investigations, do whatever the next iteration is. You're seeing moves in Texas, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado to create sort of similar style audits. So it's spreading. The cancer is spreading. Yeah. And I'm sure some people are wondering, like, why are they so focused on audits of the 2020 election when we're like almost into the 2022 midterm cycle, it does seem like if you make people believe or you make enough people believe that the last election was stolen, it will seem more legitimate to steal the next election. Yeah, it's also you guys got you stole one from us. Now

we're going to steal one from you. And fair is fair. Also, you know, Trump is a television programmer and 2021 is a programming hole. That's also what it is. And like, this is a great way to like get on stage and fill that programming hole with an interesting story that he can tell in Georgia and Arizona and everywhere else he wants to go. And shitheads like Mitch McConnell can pretend they don't like what's happening in Arizona, but then use the political support it creates to pass voter suppression laws and do other things that make it harder for mostly black Democrats to vote. And it is, you know, it is programming that sets up the theme of the 2024 election,

which is revenge, right? That's Trump's theme. That's going to be the theme to the base, the country that his base wants revenge against a couple years of Joe Biden and the Democrats winning. They think it was stolen for them. And so it will drive them into the next election. Conservative columnist Robert Kagan wrote a terrifying Washington Post piece that was getting shared everywhere this weekend. He wrote that, quote, the United States is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War, with a reasonable chance over the next three to four years of incidents of mass violence. And he argued the amateurish stop the steal efforts have become an organized national campaign to ensure that Trump and his supporters will have full control over the state and local officials they need to steal a close election. Woodward's new book also has a 2020 memo from Trump campaign lawyer John Eastman that laid out how Trump could overturn the election by

getting Republican legislatures to send their own electors to congress with the help of mike pence and republicans in congress uh what's your level of alarm about this love it hi i keep it i keep it pretty high i keep it pretty high you know i i talked to adam schiff uh for love to relieve it and he has this bill around sort of some of the trump abuses but i asked him about the eastman memo and i think i think one aspect of it that i think has been sort of lost in the kind of conversation about how dangerous it is, is how accurate it is, right? Like, you know, Adam Schiff is not saying, oh, that description of how this would unfold is not accurate. I don't think he's saying it's accurate, but I don't, but basically like the question is what would happen if one point of failure in the form of the vice president did what this memo

said instead of rebuking it. It is not clear that what he has outlined in the remainder of those steps would not have transpired. It is not clear that the courts would step in. The point about the courts not wanting to litigate a kind of political question like this is not a crazy one. The reason that we were okay in 2020, the mike pence thing we can argue back and forth but nancy pelosi was the speaker of the house kevin mccarthy is the speaker of the house um and if the republican if the senate is in republican hands um it is there is a very easy path to steal the next election a very easy path because of the, you know, electoral count act of 18, whatever the fuck it was that lets all this happen. And I think it is shocking to me that we have not had legislation proposed that would amend that act to say that Congress

basically does have a ceremonial role or that if Congress really thinks that there are problems in some of the states, it would take like a super majority in both houses to go back to the states and have them get new electors or whatever it is, because that would take like a super majority in both houses to go back to the states and have them get new electors or whatever it is, because that would take it out of the partisan realm. I would love for someone to tell me why this hasn't happened yet. Well, there's two bills, right? There's the Preventing Election Subversion Act, and then there's the Right to Vote Act that are supposed to get at some of these election subversion issues that weren't in the original H.R. 1 or S.1, which were introduced in 2019,

because we weren't really worried about this stuff yet. So, I mean, but the Kagan's op-ed gets to the point at the end, basically says like, look, Mitt Romney and some of these other Republicans did a noble thing by voting for impeachment or standing up to the big lie, et cetera, et cetera. But now they got to put their money where their mouth is, work with Democrats to pass bills that would make it impossible for these state legislatures to basically steal elections for states, name their own slate of delegates, et cetera, et cetera, like all the things in that Eastman memo.

So we haven't talked about this much, but the new H.R. 1 is called the Freedom to Vote Act. That's the mansion-led compromise. That has a few provisions in it that would help with election subversion that we haven't seen before. It would allow election officials to bring lawsuits challenging their removal if it's for reasons other than gross negligence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. So that's pretty good that it gives some level of protection to people who might get canned. But that doesn't help much with if like Trumpy people become Secretary of State and then have

power over the election apparatus. It also expands records of what must be preserved after elections, more penalties for tampering with ballots and not preserving records. So it helps a little bit. either, either Manchin and Sinema have to get rid of the filibuster or Mitt Romney and Susan Collins and some of these Republicans who said they won't help on election reform at all or voting rights reform at all have to fucking put their money where their mouth is there, you know, and actually do something about this. Yeah, I would just say I do think everybody should just read the cake and piece in full. I was actually like surprised by how honest it was about what has taken place inside of Republican politics.

Like there was one one aspect of all of this that I think sometimes, especially kind of anti-Trump conservatives allied is outside of the kind of political calculus. There's this this is what Kagan writes. Perhaps American conservatism was never comfortable with the American experiment in liberal democracy. But certainly since Trump took over their party, many conservatives have revealed a hostility to core American beliefs. And so much of what we're talking about is that problem. And we still are not reckoning with that problem. He is clearly avoiding the word that we are now more comfortable to use, which is we're talking about fascism and fascism has taken hold in the

Republican party. It is a huge motivating aspect of why they support Trump, why they're anti-democracy, why they storm the Capitol. And it is hard to grapple with that because it is something you can't grapple with inside of our political process. It is something outside of our political process, threatening it every single day. And I think that makes people like Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Murkowski, it makes them very uncomfortable actually facing it. They're very uncomfortable. The other scary thing is just that the attack on the Capitol, there's a lot of talk about the three percenters and the oath keepers and these scary militia groups that were part of that attack. But 90% of the people arrested or charged were not part of those groups. They were middle-aged, middle-class, schlubby white people from purple counties

who got caught up in this big lie. And propaganda works. Demagogues are powerful. Like that's what we've seen. And fascist movements in the past have included those very people. So, you know, one option here to protect our democracy in our elections is there's a there's a policy option. There's passing these Freedom to Vote Act and other election subversion provisions. There's also sort of a political cultural path here, which is just raising the alarm about this, talking more about it. Democrats talking more about it. Everyone yelling more about it. We are the news is completely consumed with as news usually is what Joe Biden's doing and what his administration is doing, what the fights in Congress are. But it is very frightening that there is this sort of parallel reality.

You know, the right wing media universe is covering it all the time where Trump and all of his henchmen are putting in place the pieces. And it does seem like everyone else is just sitting around doing nothing, yelling about it once in a while, being scared, sharing a Washington Post op-ed. Like one place I wonder is we got these one six hearings, right? We've got the subpoenas out for the one six hearings. Now the Biden administration is making a decision on whether they waive executive privilege to make sure a bunch of documents come out about Trump. I do wonder if the real purpose of the one six hearings in Democrats' minds should be to tell the story of an ongoing threat to democracy from Trump and his supporters and not just look backwards. Yeah, I was not thrilled to see that there's a big fight over executive privilege in the

White House withholding documents on a case-by-case basis out of concern that it might create some precedent that would, who cares? It's an unprecedented moment in our history. The Capitol was stormed. I am the beneficiary of executive privilege and the fact that White House records aren't routinely released. All kinds of privilege actually. All kinds of privilege. But like in this instance, like I do think like the White House is often end up turning over documents in extreme cases like this, like the Benghazi committee, whatever it might be. Of course, they should be turning over records about Donald Trump's activities those days or like what senior aides did. I know that I saw that they subpoenaed a few people. They subpoenaed people who were around Trump that day and had a part, maybe had a role in, you know, decisions he did or did not make about tweeting to tell his supporters to calm down or whatnot. But I do think,

I hope the Biden White House will just not let lawyers bog this down and kind of use common sense here. I mean, we got to a point briefly in January where Donald Trump was so toxic that even Mitch McConnell was telling, you know, was criticizing him publicly. And, you know, we got nine, 10 Republicans in the House and Senate voting for his impeachment. Like, we need to get back to that place where Donald Trump and his henchmen are once again so toxic to democracy that, you know, that we prevent this outcome that we can all see coming. Yeah, I mean, one thing I was thinking about, which is, you know, something that happened after the insurrection and because HR1 was kind of there as the stocking

horse for our democracy agenda is I think sometimes in our political conversation, for our democracy agenda is I think sometimes in our political conversation, we have combined electoral suppression and electoral subversion into kind of one soup of anti-democratic policies. And I do wonder, and like, I'm sure people would argue against this, but I do wonder, like, what does it look like for democratic politicians to really view the electoral subversion threat as the key threat to the future of the country. What does that look like? And what it looks like is stripping out anything else and focusing on a bill that is exclusively about that.

Now, I think like Manchin and Klobuchar have stripped out some of the other provisions to kind of make a more targeted bill. But it does seem like there's some kind of a debate to be had with the Romneys and the Toomeys and the Collinses and the Murkowskis to say, what is it that you want to do to protect our democracy that you're comfortable with? And how can we get you to come aboard when there's still such a strong desire on their part to not

to be anti-Trump while still kind of being Republicans in one way or another. And that doesn't seem to be happening. And it seems like it should be happening. I also think that the names of every official, every Trumpy official who embraces the big lie that are election officials, state officials, local officials needs to be known by everyone. They need to be highlighted. People need to understand the threat.

Like it just, we should be talking about it more. And I think the other question too is how much do Democrats make this part of their midterm message? We've had this long running discussion about whether you talk about all the good stuff that Democrats have delivered and Joe Biden sort of getting the country out of the pandemic and bring the economy back or talking about Republicans and the threat from the growing fascism within the party. And I do think that whether it's politically effective or not, it's the truth.

So I think that we probably has to be part of the message. The good news part is a little TBD too. So, you know, we don't really have to, it's been unfortunately a false choice at the moment. But you know, good news, TK. Good news, TK. But what the, you know, the odd thing is that support for the big lie is a litmus test in all Republican primaries.

That litmus test gets more and more extreme by the day because now you have Eric Greitens in Missouri, Josh Mandel, that schlubby putz in Ohio running against J.D. Vance calling for election reviews of the 2020 results. So they're they're sprinting to the more extreme end of this conversation. And I do think it's worthwhile to highlight them. The problem is we highlight the Josh Mendels and Eric Greitens of the world right now to our peril because it will help them in the Republican primary. So it's kind of like a sequencing thing. Well, there is some evidence that this could be a politically effective issue for Democrats as opposed to just the right one to talk about. I think it could be too. Which Glenn Youngkin in Virginia just told Axios that he wouldn't say whether he would have voted to overturn the election because he knows that this is an issue that doesn't just unite Democrats and independents, but it splits the Republican

base. Now there's probably like 60% ofans who are like yeah we should vote to overturn the election that it was stolen blah blah but that's still he needs the whole republican base to win virginia and so i do think like i am imagining that in the next debate between mccullough and yunkin mccullough's going to go up there and be like you wouldn't answer the question would you have voted to overturn the election and pin him on it because trump by the way gave an interview uh you know a couple weeks ago he's like i don't know about the yeah yunkin uh he seems like he's running away from me i don't know about this that'll work great in virginia it's just a question of whether it works in ohio or missouri oh no well those are yeah i mean there has to be the hope right based on 2018

that like basically what we're talking about is making people seem radical and nutty like that's sort of what we're trying to to sort of signal to the kind of suburban moderates that helped deliver districts that otherwise we would have lost. Either seem radical and nutty themselves or if you want to just be honest about it, embracing a radical and nutty agenda in order to win. Either way. Absolutely. And I think at this point, I don't care about the difference at all. We don't. We don't certainly.

And I think at this point, I don't care about the difference at all. We don't, but yeah. But I do think also there is actually a connection between the kind of economic and policy argument and the democratic argument, right? I don't know if this is good politics or the right way to square the circle, but just in reality, they're so uninterested in helping you. They're so uninterested in the reality of your life. They're so uninterested in doing things that are good for the broad middle of this country that they're willing to subvert democracy so that they continue to focus tax breaks and benefits and deregulation on a wealthy and mostly white few. Right. Like that

is the reality of this. You just run a six me into a DLC message from the 90s. Look, you need some constructive feedback. No, I don't.'t i don't it's on the bumper sticker it's on a t-shirt you two can both suck a dick put that on a bumper sticker that fits that fits that's actually catchy yeah it's catchy sd 2022 i'm really sorry everybody that's okay i just felt so attacked i also sit between them it's a sandwich but not in a good way here's the god here's the thing here's the thing to an ad i have a uh i have a trump card that i can play at any time which is to make my boys uncomfortable uh by subverting their heteronormative expectations

just try it just try it i um i do think you're right though that you need to combine both of those messages i don't think that i don't think you can choose at the end i think you need to oh so you agree with me even though you even though you kind of like did local dick. No, well, I'm going to workshop the actual message in private off microphone, and then I can bring it back later. That's our shtick. Why?

When we come back. People don't pay for this. If you want to hear more, though, there's going to be an extra message session behind a paywall, $6.99. I don't hate that. We'll just launch the masterclass. Now that we're brainstorming on air.

There you go. Okay. When we come back, Tommy talks to Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian about the brand new podcast launching tomorrow on Spotify. 544 days. I am so excited to welcome back to the pod, Jason Rezaian. Jason, it's so great to see you again. Tommy, it is great to be here. I'm talking to you from my basement bunker.

My little 11-month-old is screaming somewhere upstairs. And here we are, again, after a long time. A lot has changed. A lot feels the same. I'm in the same place you are. So we are here to talk about your incredible new podcast, 544 Days. It is hosted by you. It is written by you and produced by Gimlet,

Crooked Media, and A24. So some decent production companies there. It's the story of the 544 days you spent in the notorious hellish prison in Iran after they wrongly accused you of being an American spy. Your wife, Yegi,

was also taken prisoner. The story is about your detention, the massive effort by the U.S. government, your family, was also taken prisoner. Stories about your detention, the massive effort by the US government and your family, your colleagues at the Washington Post to get you out. Oh, and by the way, Barack Obama was cutting a nuclear deal with Iran at the same time. So not at all complicated. There's not a lot of moving pieces there. So just for listeners who might not be familiar with your story, can we just start with the basics of why the Iranians arrested you in the first place? Yeah. So I was the Tehran Bureau Chief for the Washington Post in the summer of 2014. I'd been living in Tehran since 2009, working as a reporter

for international media, freelancing really for several years until I was hired by the Post in 2012. And at that time when I was hired, I really thought that this relationship with one of the main newspapers of the world, the paper of record of the US Capitol, i thought that gave me some cover right some protective cover um and as the uh nuclear negotiations started heating up in 2013 and 2014 one thing that nobody really factored in was that there were actors within the iranian regime that did not want to see uh any kind of rapprochement between ir and the West and Iran and the US specifically. So when I was taken in July of 2014, it was right at the height of those negotiations. The timeframe for coming to a deal, the deadline had been extended by several months. And I think

anybody who was following this closely believed that the deal was kind of a fait accompli. I mean, it was going to happen one way or the other. And as you know, from being here in Washington at that time, there were a lot of opponents in the U.S. against diplomacy with Iran and that deal in particular. Inside Iran, there were opponents as well. And the main opponent was the Revolutionary Guard Corps. And agents of their intelligence wing raided my home and abducted my wife and I very subtly without any kind of warning, and took us to E Evan Prison, where we really had no idea what we were being accused of. I mean, they said, okay, you're a spy. They put us in interrogation rooms for

weeks on end. And during that time, they asked us all manner of questions, which showed very clearly they had absolutely no evidence that we were doing anything wrong. I mean, I was just a reporter working with, with state permission in that country, um, who was, was kind of rounded up as, as, as bait. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you're very clear when you talk about the experience, I mean, being put in solitary confinement for that long, being interrogated on those, under those conditions, it is torture. But what is surprising about this show and this podcast and like just you generally is how funny the show is. You, your wife, your mom, your brother, like you are all able to somehow look back and laugh at this experience. You guys make fun of your tormentors. Is that something you figured out how to do after the fact? Or did you keep your sense of humor in

prison? That's me, right? I mean, you know, that's how I've walked through life so far. I've tried to look at the lighter side of every situation I've ever been subjected to. You know, my dad, who died 10 years ago, he used to say, if you worry, you're going to die. And if you don't worry, you're going to die. So don't worry. And I've tried to kind of incorporate that mantra into as many moments in my life as I could. Obviously, this was a very extreme one, right? And I had no way of knowing if and when I would get out, but I had to assume that I was going to survive this thing somehow. And, you know, you get to a certain point after several days

when you realize, okay, am I going to be a friend to myself or am I going to be my enemy? Because I'm in solitary confinement. There ain't anybody else around. So you look for things to laugh at. You look for memories, you plan for the future, conversations you had, and you can very easily go down very dangerous mental rabbit holes if you let yourself. I chose not to let myself. And part of that, a big part of that was finding things to laugh at. And as my,

my world in prison opened up a little bit more interactions with my interrogator and getting to know my guards. And then after time having a cellmate, I just found endless things to poke fun at because ultimately this was really the most absurd thing that had ever happened to me. And I really wanted to pull out that absurdity in retelling this story. Yeah. Is it traumatic? Do I still have, you know, emotional and psychological scars? Fuck yes. Am I going to let that stop me from laughing at it?

I better not because then I'm really screwed. Yeah. Yeah. And so while you're in prison, there is this government effort to try to negotiate your release. At the same time, there are ongoing negotiations over what will eventually become the JCPOA or the Iran nuclear agreement. What's amazing in this podcast is you interviewed all these people about the process of negotiating your release, negotiating the JCPOA, and you talked to them during the Trump administration when they were out of government, when they were willing to let their hair down and speak freely and not be like the talking point robots that we all turn into when we go back in. And now a bunch of them, John Kerry, John Finer, the deputy national security advisor are all back in government. Like what are, what are people going to hear from those individuals that might surprise them? Look, I mean, I think that, you know, we, we always

think of people in government as, um, you know, superhuman or subhuman, but definitely not human. And I think when you hear these people, you're going to realize that they are in so many ways dealing with issues in the same ways that anybody else would. They're just people tasked with a job, a huge job. And I think that the sort of impossible challenge of weighing massive geopolitical issues against the concerns of a single family. It's something the government has to deal with all the time. They're not necessarily always really graceful about it publicly or privately. Yeah. But I think we really see into that here.

And for me, you know, I've had the opportunity over the last five years to get to know a lot of these people. And also people in the Trump administration, specifically around the issue of hostage taking and hostage recovery. There's a level of trust and intimacy that I've been able to build up with these folks. But as you say, I mean, they can't really let their hair down right now. They have a lot of other things to deal with. I'm, you know, of the, the eight or nine high level officials, uh, that we, we interviewed for the show, uh, Ben would probably be the only one that would be willing to talk to me right now, uh, for this subject. And I know that because, you know, I continue to report on hostage cases. Um, And I can't get any of these folks

on the record at this point. So you know, that's no knock on them. That's just kind of the, the nature of how things work here in Washington. But I would say there's a level of intimacy to this show that you almost never get when you put somebody in government alongside with somebody who was affected by the policies that they're tasked with implementing. I mean, look, it's not all government dorks in the show. Your wife, Yagi, is interviewed a lot and is hilarious. Your mom, your brother. Also, Anthony Bourdain has a big piece of the show. Can you tell people how Anthony Bourdain became part of the story? Because for me, listening to that trailer and

hearing his voice again, someone who I followed and listened to and revered in some ways, it was both jarring and also so wonderful to hear the guy's voice again. Yeah. So when we were arrested in 2014, six weeks earlier, we had been asked to appear on Parts Unknown when he was in Tehran. We spent an afternoon with him and it was, you know, it was a really lovely experience all the way around. And then when we were arrested, you know, invariably someone's going to start thinking okay it must have something to do with you know with being on that show right there's a lot of people who thought it had something to do with them it didn't have anything to do with any anybody but but bourdain was somebody who really um from the get-go was full-throated in his advocacy for our release. And that never stopped. It kept going.

And a couple of weeks after we got out, we had the opportunity to meet up with him in New York. We had a meal and some beers and talked a lot. And Bourdain just gave Yegi and I incredible life advice. And from that moment until he died, he was somebody who was very much in our corner, very supportive of us. a memoir and, you know, wrote up the proposal and we took it to publishers. You know, we had sort of one of these mini bidding wars where half a dozen different publishers wanted to publish the book. He reached out to me and said, hey, Jason, you know, whether you choose me or not, just give it some consideration. I'd like to publish your book on

my imprint. It's such an important story to me. And I want you to tell it how you want to tell it. And by the way, he ended up bumping up the fee that he was willing to pay, the book advance above and beyond any other publisher just to seal the deal. So it's just like, when we made the decision, Yegi really kind of looked me in the eye and was like, Jason, were you ever even considering doing this with anybody else? And the answer was no. Right. I mean, this guy believed in us and we believed in him. So, you know, that's how that happened. And as part of reporting out my story for the book, I spent an afternoon with him at his condo in Manhattan. We had some beers and turned on the microphone and just kind of recorded a conversation. And I think, you know, magically, it really fits into the story that we're telling here.

Yeah. I mean, it's weird to miss someone I've never met, but I do. Mike Pompeo, my favorite former Secretary of State, failed Secretary of State, still likes to demagogue your release from Iran, still likes to rant about pallets of cash going from the US to Iran. Can you explain for listeners once and for all what actually happened with the pallets of cash and how it makes you feel to have Mike Pompeo out there peddling this fable years and years later? Well, I don't want to give away too much because I think it's a pretty powerful part of the climax of our story. But I think that what I will say is that it was not a ransom payment. And we debunk that pretty well, I think, in the description of it in the show, told from the people who were involved in deciding on whether or not the U.S. should pay what was essentially an old debt to Iran that nobody disputed.

We knew we needed to pay that back to them. It was just a matter of how we were going to pay it back. Very quickly after my release, some members of Congress from the Republican Party decided to seize on this as a political talking point. And, you know, it has stuck to the extent that Pompeo was on Fox over the weekend. And he said that the US had sent $150 billion to Iran, and that it was Brett McGurk who sent this money to Iran. Well, it boggles the mind. I was glad to see that the fact checker section of the Washington Post wrote another fact check article about this. They call the $150 billion claim a zombie claim, which is basically, you know, a piece of misinformation that has been debunked so many times, but continues to rise into the culture. It bothers me, it bothers me less and less. But I think it's a really, uh, youthful thing in terms of,

um, you know, people might ask, why are we talking about Jason Rezaian and his imprisonment five years after he was released? Um, why are we making a show about this? Well,

I don't know, but fucking Mike Pompeo still cares about it. Apparently he's got his butt all bunched up over this. He talks about it all the time all the time all the time uh so 544 days you can only listen to it on spotify do not complain to me because it's free you can get it for free on spotify the episodes are out september 28th you can listen to three of them right away so you can do like a little mini binge whet your appetite then we cut you off for a week then you get more and more and more.

But Jason, congratulations, man. It's just an amazing show. I'm lucky enough to have heard early versions. But it's not just the show. I mean, the music is amazing. The sound design is incredible. Like it's an all-star team. I'm so thankful that we were able to do this

and I'm excited to get it out into the world and just keep talking about these issues, about this story, about Iran, about America. And I'm hoping we can do more. Thanks to Jason for joining us. We'll talk to you guys on Thursday. You bet. Maybe. $6.99? $7.99? What's the price point? We'll talk about it. Let's get a meeting. Get the business minds

revved up. I don't think it was so DLC. It was about anti-DLC. The DLC version of the... It was the DLC thing that hurt him the most. It did hurt me the most. I didn't think that I was doing that. The DLC version of that is we need, you know, the middle class is the middle of our priorities.

We need to build a bridge to the 21st century. Isn't that a Hillary speech? Didn't you write that? Getting absolutely crushed today. What was the terrible Obama one? That one got Elijah and Kyle laughing. Win the future. Win the future.

For some reason, I was reading Dan's blog when obama released his long-form birth certificate when we really shut that guy trump up for good and uh it concludes with dan saying win the future in it and it made me so sad it's just so forced it wasn't dan's fault everyone agreed on thursday's pod yeah dan listen to the end see if you did did. No soup from Bob Woodward, but plenty of win the future comments. Bob Woodward. He really railroaded Belushi. Look it up.

Follow the money. Woodward's not as good as people think. Off the rails. Off the rails. Are we still recording? People listening right now? Yeah, leave this in. Leave this in.

As long as there's music, it's fine. Are any of you here? They've all switched over to Ezra's podcast. I need something smart. I gotta have something more sophisticated. Get me Ezra. Get me Ezra. I want to know... Do we need money?

I love Ezra Klein's podcast. I love Ezra Klein's podcast. For the record. Leave all this in. Now it's over. I left the studio 10 minutes ago. Pate of America is a Crooked Media production. The executive producer is Michael Martinez.

Our senior producer is Flavia Casas. And our associate producer is Olivia Martinez. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin is our sound engineer. Thanks to Tanya Somenator, Katie Long, Roman Papadimitriou, Caroline Rustin, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, Yale Freed, and Narmel Konian, who film and share our episodes as videos every week.