Pod Save America - "Fox Knews."

Episode Date: March 2, 2023

Joe Biden tests out his message for a reelection campaign that seems all but certain to happen. Rupert Murdoch admits he knew that Fox News hosts were lying about the 2020 election. Strict Scrutiny host Melissa Murray joins to break down the Supreme Court challenge to the President’s student debt relief plan. And later, Jon and Dan bring you the lowest low-lights from a big week of congressional hearings. 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 Dan Pfeiffer. On today's show, Joe Biden tests out his message for a re-election campaign that seems all but certain to happen. Rupert Murdoch admits that he knew Fox News hosts were lying about the 2020 election. Strict Scrutiny's Melissa Murray joins to break down the Supreme Court challenge to the president's student debt relief plan. And later, we bring you the lowest lowlights from a big week of congressional hearings in a segment we're calling the self-owned zone. The self-owned zone. Let me go with that one.

The self-owned zone. I don't know. But first, politics doesn't just happen in even-numbered years. Vote Save America's No Off Years program is here to help you stay engaged throughout 2023's elections, starting with a must-win Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin. Visit votesaveamerica.com right now to donate to help get out the vote in Wisconsin ahead of their April 4th election and sign up to join our No Off years program so you can stay in the loop about what's happening, how you can get involved via remote and in-person volunteer opportunities, targeted donations, and more. That's VoteSaveAmerica.com.

All right, let's get to the news. President Biden still hasn't officially announced that he'll be running for a second term, but he sure seemed like a candidate this week during a health care event in Virginia Beach and a speech at the House Democratic Retreat in Baltimore. We'll talk about what he said in a bit, but just in case anyone still has doubts about whether Biden intends to run again, here's what the first lady had to say during a CNN interview this week. Is there any chance at this point that he's not going to run? Not in my book. You're all for it. I'm all for it, of course.

I don't know. I think there's a chance. Dan, do you think that, you think Jill Biden just missed last week's Politico headline, Biden may not run, that had a few anonymous sources saying he's no longer certain to go for a second term? Did she just miss that one? No, I think she definitely saw that. And that was the point here. You think that was a message to Politico, much like we deliver messages to Politico on this podcast? I think it was a message to all the speculation, all of the questions where the man has said in almost every way possible he is running. The only thing he has not done is file papers with the FEC, something that would trigger a whole host of financial, legal infrastructure obligations they don't need to do right now.

And so she was in her most Jill from Philadelphia way possible, telling people to stop asking her the darn question. And I would say, just on that Politico story, you're giving that report too much credit. There were actually no anonymous sources who suggested he may not run. There were some anonymous people who thought there was a chance he may not run based on absolutely nothing. I think the closest one was an anonymous source who was identified as a Biden confidant who said, it's now not 100% sure that he's going to run. Well, I mean, it's not 100% sure the sun's going to come up tomorrow, but it probably is.

I mean, that was just pure, really like early stage Politico clickbait. It was a very sad, sad, sad story. And it was just so trying so hard because it was like these people who say, well,

you know, he did take a long time in other decisions and he hasn't announced yet. But then, of course, he never was really planning to announce on this time frame and no president had really announced on this time frame. But there are some people who think he may not run. These other Democrats who were thinking of running if Biden didn't run, having killed themselves. So maybe they'll still run. Yeah, no, that was I mean, it seems seems pretty, pretty much of a done deal that he's going still run. Yeah, no, that was, I mean, it seems, seems pretty,

pretty much of a done deal that he's going to run. It seems like the only open question is whether anyone besides Marianne Williamson mounts a primary challenge to Biden. A few episodes ago, we talked about why we think that's unlikely, but our pal Mark Leibovich just wrote a piece in the Atlantic where he urges some free-thinking mischief maker to run with the message, quote, Democrats deserve a choice to vote for someone other than the oldest president in history. The guy well over half of you don't want to run. He also argues that a primary challenge doesn't necessarily have to end in political suicide.

What do you think of Mark's argument? I think like all of Mark's argument, this one is cogent. It's well-written. It's funny. And I think it really stands out as an argument that could work within the pages of an August journal like The Atlantic. Oh, wow. Some Atlantic shade over here. August. I think that's a very nice way to describe this journal of the people, the Atlantic, which is like $70 a year or whatever it is. Anyhow, I don't think it works in the real world. Yeah, I mean, sure. Could someone run against Biden who's not named

Marianne Williamson? Yeah, that is very possible. Do voters deserve a choice? Probably. But the problem with the argument is that we know from history and frankly, just common sense that were someone to run against Biden, a serious Democrat were to run against Biden, it would likely damage Biden and would almost certainly devastate the political future of that person. Because if there was anyone, and this is why it's not going to happen, or is highly unlikely to happen, someone may run against Biden, crooked media says. Yeah, Elijah's clipping that one. That's going to be some trouble. Yeah, exactly. To give voters the choice that Mark, I think, credibly argues they deserve would have to be a serious Democrat who could be a credible candidate for president. And anyone who would meet that test, you know, that's not that's not Marianne Williamson.

That's not some backbench member of Congress. That's a senator or a governor, someone with a national profile. or a governor, someone with a national profile. And anyone who would meet that test is someone who wants to run for president one day, and they're not going to light their career on fire to do this. And so we keep ending up in the same place where we were. Can I just give the devil's advocate argument

with my Easter egg roll tickets hanging in the balance? Yeah, I mean, your Easter egg roll tickets and your pending application to be a columnist for The tickets hanging in the balance. Yeah, I mean, your Easter egg roll tickets and your pending application to be a columnist for The Atlantic handing in the balance. I mean, look, I am for primaries regardless, whether it's a challenge from the left, challenge from the right, whether it's a primary against someone I like.

Elijah, clip that. But John wants someone to challenge Joe Biden from the right. Are you a mansion stand? I'm saying in general, I am going to be consistent on this. An open primary, I think, is a fine thing. It gives people a choice. I'm a fan of that. But after reading Mark's piece, I am more persuaded that a challenger could run a campaign that would not end in a political murder-suicide for Biden and the challenger could run a campaign that would not end in a political murder suicide for Biden and the challenger. He uses the example of Gretchen Whitmer, right? And again, I know Gretchen Whitmer has already said like she's not going to run against Joe Biden, but I think it's worth just

using that as an example. Gretchen Whitmer runs. She doesn't attack Joe Biden other than to say something like, you know, he told us he'd be a bridge to a new generation. I'm taking him up on that. I'm giving voters a choice. I think he's been a great president. I like Joe Biden. I respect him. I'm not going to talk about him in this campaign. I'm just going to talk about what I've achieved in Michigan and why we need a new generation of leadership, which I know the president has agreed upon before. And then she runs her race. And, you know, Mark makes the point that Biden would probably greet that candidacy in the White House. They wouldn't be too happy, but publicly be like, oh, yeah, the more the merrier or whatever.

And so, look, a lot of people thought that Barack Obama and those of us who worked for him would never again get a job in politics if we pissed off the Clintons. We're all still here. We won, you Yahoo! Bernie Sanders ran against her, lost in 2016, did better in 2020. Yeah, because she didn't win. He's still fine. Bernie's fine. All the people that have challenged the the Clintons won or lost are ended up being okay.

Look, I just think there's no doubt that, um, a challenger would have to weigh the fact that most of the democratic party machinery, including the people who can end up running, being in the white house for a second term, Joe Biden and all of his staff would be very unhappy.

If that person ran, the White House for a second term, Joe Biden and all of his staff, would be very unhappy if that person ran. I do not know that would foreclose political opportunities for that candidate for the rest of their career. If they ran a campaign that was very respectful, didn't go after Biden, didn't try to tear the party apart with some huge ideological battle. Like, I think this is all very, very unlikely. Let me be clear about that. But I'm just saying as a scenario, I think it's possible. So let me, can I respond to that? This is fun.

We're just having like an impromptu debate right here, which is. Well, you know, enough of this. Oh, you have a great point. That's a great point too. Let me add to your excellent point. Yeah, I know. My colleague from Boston. The gentleman from Boston.

I think, yes, I think theoretically that all works. And I do think that if the people who worked on that campaign would get jobs in the White House. There are a lot of people who work in this White House who worked for people who opposed Joe Biden in the primary, who actively tried to defeat him. There are a lot of people who worked for Barack Obama in the White House. In fact, the woman who tried to defeat Barack Obama was the Secretary of State for four years. So that can happen.

There are two challenges to this. One is it kind of presumes that there are no other actors looking to make mischief in such a primary, which is what the Republicans, the MAGA media, and others would be doing to seek to highlight those differences, to try to exploit those tensions. It's also – I'm not sure that it – that is really – I don't think just saying, hi, I love this guy. He's a great president. I'm just younger than this great president is really giving people the choice that Biden wants. These campaigns always find differences, even if those differences are minuscule and there's a lot of agreement. So there will have to be in that situation conflict. I don't this is not to say that no one shouldn't run. The Democrats definitely lose if someone runs. It's just that there is a risk profile to this that is, I think, Someone runs. It's just that there is a risk profile to this that is, I think, much higher than what Mark is accounting for in his piece, which is why I think it's unlikely to happen. And what happens to Gretchen Whitmer, who did not ask to be part of this conversation.

Poor Gretchen Whitmer. Yeah, we don't. Just using you as an example. Yes. Where if Gretchen Whitmer to run the campaign you suggest against Biden and then Biden wins easily. Just using you as an example. that. That's where it gets tremendous. That is the risk, I think, that Gretchen Whitmer, who once again does not want to be part of this, would face there. It's a theoretical exercise, but I think... Gretchen Whitmer does not want to

be a part of this narrative. She would like to be removed. Please remove Gretchen Whitmer. You will be removed from this narrative immediately. I just think that ultimately this is why we keep ending up in the same place. Yes, voters could have a choice. Yes, a choice could be good.

Primaries are good, as you say, but the stakes are such. And Biden has, to his credit, not given people a lot of great arguments to use against him because he has both been more substantially successful, more progressive than people imagine, and more politically successful than I think anyone thought possible. And therefore, just the room in which you could run such a campaign becomes so small that it's unlikely to happen. You're like, oh, if I were if I had been president, I would have done a more sweeping student loan executive action and canceled even more debt. Well, yeah, maybe you would have, but you would have gotten fucking shot down by the Supreme Court, just like Joe Biden. So, like, I don't think there are a ton of arguments on the left for that. I think that you'd have to do the generational campaign. And I do think this is where my devil's advocacy goes away.

you think this is where my devil's advocacy goes away. Like you have to feel really confident that you could do better than Biden against Donald Trump and or or Ron DeSantis. Right. Like you have to because the risk is if you or Biden lose, then, you know, were you contributing to that loss by waging the primary? Which I, again, I think primaries are good, but it is, it's a risk. And it's not just a risk to your own political career. It's a risk to like the party and democracy, right? Because we can't, like you said, the stakes are quite high. So you have to be pretty sure. But even if you're just doing the generational thing, you run into the Nikki Haley problem immediately, which is, look, Joe Biden has done great things. I love what he has done. He's been a great

president. He should be sculpted onto Mount Rushmore for what he's done. I just think we need a new generation of leadership. Mr. Favreau, welcome. Welcome to Meet the Press. First question for you. Do you think Joe Biden is too old to be president? No. I think the voters are going to decide that. That's why I'm in the race. Right. I want to give them a choice. That's not for me to decide. Are you saying— I'm running. Are you saying he's too old? He cannot do the job?

I'm not saying that at all. Are you concerned he can't do the job? No, I'm not saying that. I think he's been a very— So you're saying he— I think he's been a very capable president for the last four years. So you're saying he can do the job? I'm saying that he can definitely do the job, but I think, as the president said—

Okay, perfect. I just wanted to nail that down., he is a bridge to a new generation of leadership. And so I think we need a new generation of leadership. Joe Biden's challenger says that Joe Biden can do the job. Yeah, for sure. I think a lot of voters think that too. Enjoy the rest of your campaign. I think a lot of voters think that too, that Joe Biden can do the job, but they're still hungry for a new generation of leadership. Okay.

This is, I mean, if anyone's listening to this that was alive during the Obama- If there's anyone still listening to this, this is the real question. The Obama-Hillary campaign, this was the bulk of our argument at the beginning of that campaign. Let me just – it's just – we had also Washington thinking we were a little tougher against her style of politics than I imagine this imaginary Gretchen Whitmer-esque campaign would be against Joe Biden. But again, the person wouldn't just be young and a new generation. It probably wouldn't be someone in D.C. So it would be a D.C. outsider, and that would probably be part of the message as well. I would just as a message to Governor Whitmer, who has done a phenomenal job and could one day be president very well. Mark Leibovich is the one who brought you into this. That is not our fault.

You know, it's all Mark's fault. It's all Mark's fault. Anyway. OK, let's get back to our current and likely future reality where Joe Biden is the Democrats only serious candidate for president in 2024. We got a preview of what the campaign might look like this week when the president once again hammered Republicans in Congress on Medicare and Social Security during an event in Virginia. But this time he also accused them of wanting to raise the price of people's health insurance premiums and prescription drugs so they can cut taxes for the rich. Let's listen. And if they say they want to cut the deficit, but their plans actually would explode the deficit, how are they going to make the numbers add up? What are they want to cut the deficit, but their plans actually would explode the deficit. How are they going to make the numbers add up?

What are they going to cut? That's the big question. For millions of Americans, health care hangs in the balance. Will they continue to fight to cut the Affordable Care Act and make health insurance more expensive for millions of Americans? more expensive for millions of Americans. If mega Republicans try to take away people's health care by gutting the Medicaid and Affordable Care Act, I will stop them. I will say that Tommy Vitor has now done

so many fake Biden AI clips that I almost started laughing during that clip because I couldn't tell if it was real Joe Biden or Tommy Joe Biden. That's where we are right now. That's where Tommy is right now. Why do you think Biden is now going beyond just accusing Republicans of wanting to cut Medicare and Social Security? I think he is having a hell lot of fun kicking the living crap out of them on a daily basis. And like there was this narrative in 2020 that Joe Biden was too nice a guy to take on the Trump era Republicans, right? He is someone

who says nice things about Mitch McConnell, says nice things about Lindsey Graham, has an ability to be compassionate towards people who deserve no compassion. And I think that is still true. Like he is an incredibly nice, very compassionate, empathetic person. But if you ever thought he wasn't tough enough to come after these people, the last few weeks have proven that wrong. It's not just that he's hammering them. He's doing it somewhat ruthlessly in a way that I love, which is he has found the soft underbelly of Kevin McCarthy as they head into this debt ceiling thing. And Biden knows that Kevin McCarthy is too weak and too stupid to bring his party around a coherent set of demands for a debt ceiling negotiation that should never happen. And so he can just go out and say, oh, you want to cut Social Security? You want to cut Medicare? Oh, now you want to cut health care? Next, you're going to try to ban puppies? And then McCarthy says, that's not our plan. And then Biden goes, what's your plan?

And he just melts into the ground because he can't come up with one. And so he is continually adding up the political pressure on the Republicans to do this. And the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid is helpful because there is some idea that Republicans would never, in this very particular instance, put Social Security and Medicare on the table, which McCarthy has said many times. But Medicaid is a pot of money that they could and are likely go after. And so he has now added that in to try to fence that off as well. Well, and it's not just that it's a likely pot of money. If you take Medicare and Social Security off the table, if the Republicans choose

not to make that part of their ransom demand, the only way to pay for the gigantic tax cuts for the wealthy that they have proposed and still want to pursue is by making people pay more for health care and prescription drugs by cutting into Medicaid, repealing parts of the Affordable Care Act or all of the Affordable Care Act and repealing the Inflation Reduction Act, which lowers the price of prescription drugs, which they are all on record as doing. So I think it's no, I think that that Biden is having a lot of fun. And I like, do you think this should be one of his core reelection messages? Because I kind of think it's perfect, because it basically takes the debate back to sort of the Barack Obama Mitt Romney fight in 2012. And a fight that's worked for Democrats many times in other places and other elections, which is like Republicans are on the side of

fighting for the rich and the biggest corporations and Democrats are on the side of fighting for working people in this country in the middle class. And if that's the debate and you sort of – the culture war debate fades into the background and Joe Biden can talk about all of the things he's accomplished, not just in terms of like isn't life great now that I've accomplished these things, but here's what I've done, which is lowering healthcare costs and energy costs and prescription drug costs for people. And what they want to do is raise those costs for people so they can pay for a tax cut for the wealthy. Yeah, I think it seems like a great seems like the debate you want to have. Absolutely. The core of the argument is going to be that Republicans are too extreme. And if you can have that argument on the grounds of Social Security and Medicare, two issues that are economic in nature and drive a wedge through the Republican coalition. We talked about this before, but in recent polling, when you ask, this is a CBS News YouGov poll from January, I think, about the Republican Congress and what you want the

priority to be, 78% of Trump voters say protect Social Security and Medicare. You're having the extremism fight on the safest, most potent ground for yourself. And this worked in 2022. For all the talk of democracy in January 6th, in abortion, all of which were in varying degrees, particularly abortion, big parts of that campaign, most of the Senate candidates in tough races, one, ran most of their ads on Social Security and Medicare. It just didn't get as much attention. And so a presidential campaign messages are larger narratives. They extend beyond one specific issue or a couple of specific programs. But this will be a huge underlying data point, particularly if Biden ends up running against Ron DeSantis,

who has a long history of wanting to cut these programs. And Tommy keeps pointing this out when we talk about this, that if it's Donald Trump, Donald Trump also had budget after budget where he was trying to cut healthcare, repeal the Affordable Care Act, cut Medicare, cut Social Security, even though he's pretending to be the great defender of Social Security and Medicare now that he's running against Ron DeSantis, most likely. No, yeah, I totally think that. I mean, the Inflation Reduction Act on the prescription drug thing, so it capped the price of insulin at $35 a month for people on Medicare.

Yesterday, the drug manufacturer Eli Lilly announced it would do the same for insulin across the board. So it would only sell insulin for the cap would be $35 a month for everyone. How important is it for the White House to sell this accomplishment? I feel like I haven't looked at any polling on this, but I feel like it's probably pretty popular. If I remember the polling from 2022 correctly, the $35 cap on insulin was the most popular policy proposal or legislative accomplishment of all of the ones that were tested. And so absolutely. And it's important in two ways. One, you have an accomplishment on an incredibly popular issue that speaks to a broad swath

of Americans. But also, in a world in which the Republicans control the House and the larger parts of your legislative agenda are de facto dead, you need a theory of change. And the fact that Biden has used the pen and the phone, if you will, to try to pressure, to enact change is an important part of it. You have to show that you can still get things done in this environment while Republicans are doing nothing. And so it's a great win. It's going to matter to a lot of people. All of us should shout from the rooftops about it because this is not the sort of thing that's going to get enough

attention to break through to people who do not mainline this sort of political news all day long. And it's not just an accomplishment. There are certain bipartisan accomplishments that you can tout that you get credit perhaps for being bipartisan and getting it done. But this is one where the Republicans not only voted against it. A lot of them are still now proposing to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act. So you cap the price of insulin for everyone at thirty five dollars. And probably say, no, no, no, no, no. We want to go back to the days where it was more expensive.

That's just I mean, you mentioned extremism is the overall message. And I totally agree. I think it is extremism that affects your life and your community and your country. Right. Like it because people they care that people say crazy shit. The Republicans say crazy shit all the time. They care more that they do crazy shit that actually negatively impacts their lives. They care more that they do crazy shit that actually negatively impacts their lives. And I think where Biden is right now on Social Security, on Medicare, on the ACA, on prescription drugs and all this health care stuff is he's really laying out the choice between what he's doing, which is fighting to make people's lives better. And what they're doing is fighting to make people's lives worse. And he's really drawing that connection really well. All right, before we bring on Melissa to talk about the Supreme Court, we got to talk about the latest developments in the Dominion lawsuit against Fox News. We now have Rupert Murdoch's deposition in which he acknowledges that he could have stopped Fox hosts from spreading Trump's election conspiracies, but didn't quote from the deposition. Some of our commentators were endorsing it. The

big lie. I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it in hindsight. Oh, in hindsight, isn't that nice? The latest filing also reveals that Fox Corporation board member and Dan Pfeiffer bestie Paul Ryan told Murdoch to, quote, move on from Donald Trump and stop spouting election lies, but did absolutely nothing when neither of those things happened. Dominion lawyers also wrote in the filing that during the 2020 campaign, Murdoch provided Jared Kushner with advanced copies of Joe Biden's television ads before they ran on Fox. Wow. So it certainly seems like Fox should be in a bunch of trouble here. Legal, financial, reputational. You're not a lawyer, but you do play one on this podcast from time to time. What do you make of the latest filing? It's pretty stunning because the Supreme Court has set an incredibly high bar for media

organizations to be legally culpable for defamation. You essentially have to know that you are saying untrue things. You have to actively – the term is actual malice in doing it. And that almost never happens because the vast majority of media organizations don't see it in their interest to just lie. But Fox – and not only did they do that, these fucking pro-insurrection dunderheads texted about it nonstop, right? Like they did not adhere to the Stringerbell rule of taking notes on a criminal conspiracy and have just put it out there for everyone to see. And so they're in huge trouble. So this is going to head in a couple of different directions. One, this could actually go to court. And were it to go to court, not only could Fox lose the $1.7

billion or whatever it is, all of the people talked about here are going to have to testify under oath at open court. Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Suzanne Scott, all those people. That would be – honestly, we should podcast three times a day every day during that trial. It would be amazing. It would be amazing. But because that would be so amazing, that's probably not what's going to happen. And they're probably going to end up settling in some way, shape, or form, which Fox tends to do. They talk a tough game and then they throw a whole bunch of money to make problems go away. Also, Fox is in a whole host of trouble because based on the filings and Rupert Mark's testimony is that the Fox board knew misconduct was happening and did nothing about it. So there was an interview on CNN that Oliver Darcy did with this guy named Jeffrey Seidenfeld, who's a sort of world-renowned business school professor and scholar about

accountability. He's like an associate dean at the Yale School of Management. Yeah, and he focused on corporate governance, right? And he basically said the board is in huge trouble and they're going to have to do something or they're going to open themselves up to lawsuits from shareholders because the board did not meet their fiduciary responsibility to protect the investment. And so it seems likely that some people are going to lose their jobs over this as well. Everyone is speculating about Suzanne Scott, who's the head of Fox News. She replaced Roger Ailes.

Also think this could be the end of Maria Bartiromo or Jeanine Pirro, who are at the center of a whole bunch of this. Oh no, where will they go? It's not going to be good for OK Stop, just to be clear. Like, that's a problem. But it's worth remembering

that Lou Dobbs lost his job because he was at the center of a defamation lawsuit from a different voting machine manufacturer over a conspiracy theory. And so it's going to be very interesting how this plays out. he was at the center of a defamation lawsuit from a different voting machine manufacturer over a conspiracy theory. And so it's going to be interesting how this plays out. But Fox is in a ton of trouble in every way, shape or form. And I would have to say it's quite enjoyable. Now, Murdoch's argument is apparently that while opinion hosts spread conspiracies and he should

have reigned that in, the rest of the network did not, which doesn't really line up with all the rest of the evidence that we've seen. Because if they knew they were lies, why did they continue to book Sidney Powell? Why did they continue to book Rudy Giuliani? Why did they continue to have hosts not challenge them about those lies, even if they supposedly knew, as Rupert Murdoch admitted that they did, that they were election conspiracies. CNN media analyst Sarah Fisher was on and said that her sources in the C-suite level at Fox think that it is likely they will lose this case. So and there is some thinking that perhaps Murdoch knows this. Maybe that's why he was so forthcoming in his deposition.

Also, the Fox when asked, do you think Fox had a responsibility to tell the truth here? Fox's chief legal officer said yes. So they're they just these depositions, they really got them. I mean, I don't know for sure they'll win, but it does. It does seem like that, you know, you could you could see an outcome where they settle this. And there's also rumors now, I think Semaphore reported that murdoch um will make ceo uh suzanne scott take the fall here which i think is kind of cool it's kind of cool i think that's kind of cool i think that's kind of cool um were you surprised that murdoch um was even able to show jared advanced copies of of Biden's ads? How does that work? How far in advanced

networks get those ads? When I first saw that report, it seemed like the sort of third-hand Trump gossip that blew up the internet during the Trump era and then turned out to be not true. It's like the apocryphal story of Chris Christie making McDonald's runs for Donald Trump. That wasn't true? That's actually not true. Sam Numburg. Bummer. The only reason I know this, I was writing about Chris Christie in the message box, and I was going to write in there.

I referred to him as Trump's McDonald's gopher. But I just thought I'd Google to make sure I remember the story correctly, and it turns out it was not true. See? We're not a propaganda outfit here. Yeah. We are fact checking here. There's no malice. I will not.

I am not going to be sued by Chris Christie or McDonald's. That's a fact. And I, and I sort of thought to myself, like when, wait, why would Rupert Murdoch have access to Biden ads? But then a Philip bump of the Washington Post answered this question,

which was very nice of him to do, which is Biden actually ran a shitload of ads on Fox News. He ran more than 100 ads on Fox and Friends alone, because the Biden campaign had this strategy, based possibly on polling that turned out not to be accurate, that there was a swath of Trump voters that you could persuade to come over to Biden or not vote or whatever else, or persuade to walk away from Trump, I guess would be a better way to say that. And so there were plenty of Biden ads that were sitting at Fox headquarters that Murdoch could have shown Kushner. And the way that this generally works is you try to run ads that start over the weekend. And so you will submit them by a deadline on Friday, and they'll start running on the weekend, which means that the other campaign cannot get their

ads up until it opens again on Monday. Why TV stations generally operate on bank hours is an open question. I was going to say, yeah. So you could get a several day, if Murdoch were to show them the ads in advance, they could theoretically change their ad traffic to match that. I sort of doubt that the Brad Parscale-run Trump campaign was operating at that sort of level of speed or that Jared Kushner really even know what to do with any of that information,

but it is an unprecedented breach. That is not a thing that ever happens. And so if this is actually the case, it's a pretty big deal and will cause some real trouble at Fox with their ability to be seen as a even somewhat fair broker for running ads. What do you think about Paul Ryan's courageous attempt to break Fox of its addiction to Trump and election conspiracies? Are you now ready to admit that you were wrong about this selfless public servant? Well, you know, I was intrigued by this report that Paul Ryan had expressed these reservations to someone somewhere about something. And so I went and I saw, I Googled, I did some, once again, I did more research because that's what we do here at Pod Save America. And I saw that in the last few days, Paul Ryan sat down with Charlie Sykes, who was a Wisconsin. Have you listened to it? I read the transcript. I don't think, I am, as you know, I have a propensity for high blood

pressure. And so it's important that I not push it to the limit, right? I was just going to suggest to you, please don't listen to that podcast. Like if you're driving a vehicle. Yeah, it's not. Because it took everything I had driving to work today not to. Yes, I. Veer off the road. So I am a man in my mid to late 40s who has small children.

So I have to be very careful in how I do things like this. So I read the transcript of the podcast. So anywho, Paul Ryan sat down with Charlie Sykes, who was a Wisconsin conservative radio host and has a long history with Ryan and has become a bulwark, never Trumper, very anti-Trump guy. And I don't think Paul Ryan knew what he was getting into when he sat down because one of the things Charlie Sykes has pushed Paul Ryan on publicly in the past is that he should resign his board membership at the Fox Corporation. And so Charlie Sykes, in his very polite, genial way, pushed Paul Ryan on the question of why he's on that board, what he's done on that board, should he resign the board?

And Paul Ryan's answers included words that have meaning and definition, but when added together mean nothing. It is just cowardly, verbal applesauce. He's just – he is melting on stage into a pool of cowardly weakness. And what it comes down to in the end here, as it relates to Paul Ryan, is he has been running around since he decided to resign from Congress talking about, we're going to reform the Republican Party and we have to defeat the MAGA movement. And I'm on the Fox board because Fox is this important part of the conservative movement. The fact of the matter is, even if he has expressed these concerns to anyone, no one has done anything about them.

Did he whisper them? Did he speak them in a language no one understood? Were they in pig Latin? No one had, no one cares what he says. His, basically, I think his kink is having no influence. Like that is his goal. And no one cares.

I figure his kink is cutting retirement programs down to the bone. I think maybe we, I think we now know that his kink was failing at doing that. Yeah, but I think the problem is

Paul Ryan and that brand of Republican has such little influence because there is no constituency for, like, the thing that gets the MAGA voters up in the morning is not cutting Medicare and Social Security. That's also not getting Democrats up in the morning. Basically, there's like a few rich people who I guess like that and and fucking Ayn Rand fans like like Paul Ryan. That's about it. It is a tiny constituency.

He has no influence. The problem is not that Paul Ryan is an effective, powerful leader for a set of issues that has no following. The problem is he's a fucking loser. And he's terrible at everything. Did you hear him in the beginning of the podcast? Charlie asked him something and he was like, yeah. And I said, what in the H? Did you just abbreviate hell?

Look, we swear on this podcast, perhaps we shouldn't. What in the H? What in the H? Oh, Paul Ryan. It is just the thing to know about Paul Ryan is that he's been running around saying he wants to get MAGA out of the Republican Party while he serves on the board of the Fox Corporation, which has done more to advance the MAGA movement than any entity on Earth. And Rupert Murdoch said something in his deposition that I think explains why Paul Ryan is doing this. Not because he's trying to have some sort of quiet, apparently silent fucking influence over the thing.

The reason he's doing it, what Rupert Murdoch said when asked why they put some of these conspiracy theorists on is he said, it's not red or blue, it's green. And that's what Paul Ryan is doing. He's just getting fucking paid. And Charlie Sykes called him out on that. This deposition reveals that. This was such a flashback to the Trump era where Trump would do something terrible and then there would be some report leaked by people we know about how Paul Ryan quietly advised Trump to not do that.

And Trump told him to fuck off. It's just, what a loser. Just what a historic loser. We got some ASMR here on Pod Save America. All right. You know, I think Paul Ryan is bad. When we come back, Melissa Murray joins to answer all our questions about this week's Supreme Court challenge to Joe Biden's student debt relief plan.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case about whether President Biden's student debt relief plan is constitutional. The general consensus is that the conservative majority seems ready to strike it down, which would have major implications for millions of people. So lots to talk about, but we figured it'd be better to bring on a real legal expert than force you to listen to two guys who got their degrees on Twitter. Melissa, welcome back to the pod. Thanks for having me. So when you first heard about Biden's student debt relief plan, what did you think about the constitutionality of that executive action? Well, the first thing I thought was that Republicans all over the country were absolutely going to be salivating for an opportunity to get this in front of the

Supreme Court. And Kel's surprise, I was correct. This went to the court with a bullet. Again, this is sort of the sweet spot for a lot of conservative grievance. It's about redistribution, providing government largesse to individuals. And it also involves the administrative state and agencies, something that conservatives and in particular, some of the conservatives on the Supreme Court have identified as a particular bugaboo that they would like to dismantle. And it also involves a politically salient issue around which a significant number of Americans have real feelings. The cost of higher education has escalated beyond the realm in which most people can afford it. And that in situations where there are times of economic crisis, like a pandemic, for example, there should be some kind of intervention to ameliorate some of the difficulties that those college debts present to people, including young people who find them often crippling as they make their way. Would you think about the merits of this particular challenge to the plan? Well, so it's really important for listeners to understand

that before you can even get to federal court, you have to plead a particular set of procedural issues, including that you have an actual injury. And so here, both of the cases involving the student loan program have two sets of plaintiffs who may not necessarily be injured in a way that you require in order to get into federal court. So the conservative states that have filed the suit against the Biden administration in Biden versus Nebraska are arguing that they're injured because a nonprofit organization in Missouri that handles a lot of student loan and higher education administration in that state, MOHELA, has been injured because it's going to lose some of the funding that it ordinarily gets to distribute in the state of Missouri for higher education. But the challengers argued that's not necessarily an injury to the states themselves. If there's an injury, it is to MOHELA, and MOHELA ought to be the appropriate litigant here. But the states are

arguing that MOHELA is essentially an arm of Missouri. That is something that is under debate in this case. And so when MOHELA is injured, the states themselves are injured. But again, it's a very dicey question of standing and whether or not they should even be here. It's also a similar kind of standing issue for the litigants in the other case, Department of Education versus Brown. There, it's two borrowers who don't qualify under the program or don't qualify for the maximum amount of aid that is being offered. One individual doesn't qualify at all because her loans are serviced by a commercial lender,

not by the government. The other litigant is someone for whom the maximum amount of loan forgiveness isn't available because he doesn't have Pell Grants. They argue that because the administration sort of fast-tracked this through the Department of Education, there wasn't an appropriate period for notice and comment, and therefore they didn't have a chance to register their own views about what this program should have looked like. And they've been injured because the program doesn't look the way that they want it to. In most cases, that sort of injury wouldn't be understood as an injury at all. It would be understood as a kind of generalized grievance

and would be insufficient to allow someone to proceed in federal court. And I think the court was pretty much on the same page as the challengers on that. But with regard to the states, the conservative majority really did seem amenable to granting standing in that circumstance and getting to the merits, whether or not the Biden administration has the authority to pass this program. And what did the conservative justices say to make everyone think they intend to kill the plan about not just the standing issues, but the merits of the of Biden's authority itself? with a kind of relish that I think I've only seen from him in something like Shelby County, where he was insisting that racial discrimination in voting was no longer a thing because the Voting Rights Act had worked so well, so let's dismantle the Voting Rights Act. I mean, he

attacked this question with a kind of relish that was just really uncharacteristic for him. I mean, he was out Alito-ing Justice Alito. I mean, just really revved up here. And he raised a lot of really interesting questions. He often conflated the standing question, the procedural question from the substantive question of whether the president has the authority to do this. And he seemed really eager to get to the substantive question. And it was sort of his eagerness was kind of underlaid with some sense of grievance. Like, you know, there were all of these people like the landscape architect who had not gone to college, but who would be shut out of this program because he didn't go to college. Why should the government's resources be given over to individuals who made choices to attend higher education? Like they should all sort of deal with the choices and the consequences

of their choices themselves. And so it was sort of underlaid with this kind of weird working class grievance that I think we expect in sort of MAGA circles, but we haven't necessarily seen in full flower, certainly from the Chief Justice of the United States. So it was a really interesting argument. And Justice Alito was back there giving him a spot and Justice Thomas the United States. So it was a really interesting argument. And, you know, Justice Alito was back there, you know, giving him a spot. And Justice Thomas was also there. Justice Gorsuch, who has always been very skeptical of the administrative state, you know, he was right there. The real question is whether Justice Kavanaugh is going to go along with this. He seemed to be of the view that the statute here, the HEROES Act that the government says gives them the authority to act in emergency circumstances to waive or modify student loan provisions,

is a really broad statute. And waive or modify could mean canceling student loans. Justices Thomas Alito, Gorsuch, and Roberts argue that if Congress wanted you to cancel student loan debt, they would have explicitly said cancel student loan debt. They wouldn't have talked about waiving or modifying. And indeed, they point to other statutory provisions where Congress explicitly gives the Department of Education the authority to cancel student loan debts or other kinds of debts rather than just simply saying waiver or modification. So it was a really interesting argument, an argument that was really full of sort of textualist energy. This is this idea that you read statutes according to their text, and that's how you understand their meaning. But both sides

had their own vision of what textual healing would look like in this circumstance. And the conservatives were like, if it's going to be canceled, it has to stay canceled. And the liberal justices, again, that Hoppled minority were like, this is a broad statute. Congress doesn't have to say everything with exact specificity. Waiver or modification encompasses this. Did Barrett, Justice Barrett, give any hint to where she falls on this? Well, Lady Safe Haven was very interesting in this oral argument. She keeps her counsel, I think, really well in these things, often not giving where she's going to go on some of this, but she did seem quite skeptical that the states had standing to bring this claim. And indeed, all of the female justices seemed to be on that page. There was a real jurisdictional question here about whether or not these were the appropriate litigants to bring this challenge. Now, whether that means she is

going to be with the liberal wing on the standing question is an entirely different thing. In the earlier case back in 2021 about the constitutionality of SB8 and whether there could be a challenge to SB8, she and Justice Kavanaugh seemed to be giving a lot of vibes that this was a situation where it could not be the case that a law could be entirely shielded

from federal litigation because of some wacko novel enforcement scheme that someone dreamed up. But then when push came to shove and it was time to write the opinion, she was right there with the conservative majority. Justice Roberts, to me, always seems like a real Paul Ryan conservative. Like what gets him up in the morning is just preventing government from helping people who need it. That's what really that's what gets him going.

This is the perfect case for that. I mean, it really does have everything, the sort of antipathy to redistribution coupled with an antipathy to the administrative state to curbing presidential power, but only for Democratic presidents. And, you know, it's all there in this case. Dan, how do you think the Biden administration should prepare for this ruling, which will probably come down right around the time of the first Republican primary debate. Well, I think they obviously know that as we know, we know where this is likely to end. And therefore, there are two things. One is they're going to have to find a way to at least demonstrate to people they're doing everything they can within the power they have remaining to

try to help student borrowers. That may be very limited things, but whatever it is. And I think be fully prepared for that. They received a lot of criticism in the wake of the Roe ruling that they were not fully prepared. They had not fully explored their executive options at that point. They will have to do that here. I recognize that that is going to be cold comfort to a lot of people who are going to get bills because of this.

But the other thing is, in a previous era of American politics, a Supreme Court ruling was an imprimatur of legitimacy that put the president on their back heels. That is no longer the case. The Supreme Court is as unpopular as it's ever been in its history. It is as least trusted as it's ever been in its history. And I think that there is a larger argument to make here against a extreme radical court that is out of step with the American people. The Roe ruling, this ruling, Shelby County could be part of this, but the whole set of things where the corporation is sided against the broad wishes of the American people.

And that's the large argument. I think that's going to be a very important argument in an upcoming presidential campaign. This is just one of many cases where the court is making decisions that are not just against this president, but they're against the broad will of the American people. And so be prepared on the substance, be prepared on the messaging, and come out. Don't pull your punches. Forget you were ever the Judiciary Committee chair for many years and aggressively take on this court. So can I add to that? Sure. I think this is where the administration really made an unforced error with the State of the Union, where they didn't

talk about the Supreme Court at all, other than to say that they were interested in aggressively protecting rights. I mean, that was a really missed opportunity to highlight, while the court and some of the justices were right there in the room, the work that this court has done and how it really is functioning in a counter-majoritarian way that it really may be captured by conservative dark money interests and that it's out of step with the American people and this administration's mandate to pursue the interests of the American people. We would have gotten a civility alert on that one. We would have, remember when Barack Obama- I think there are ways to do it.

You lie, you lie, no. I think there are ways to do it. Yeah, no, I totally agree. I mean, Melissa, do you think there are any ways to modify or narrow this plan? Like if they strike it down so that some kind of student debt relief plan passes muster with this court? So I mean, I think this is tricky, because one of the things the court

was really hammering, and the conservative majority was really hammering during this oral argument was this idea of the major question doctrine. And if you follow strict scrutiny, and you listen to us, we are really skeptical of this major questions doctrine because it seems not unlike the independent state legislature theory to be sort of made up fan fiction that this court has created out of thin air to pursue its own policy preferences that limit the administrative state and the administration and Congress in pursuing sort of broad scale issues like policy issues. And the major question doctrine basically says, if there is something of major significance, whether it's financial

significance or economic significance or even political significance, if an agency is going to act on a grant of congressional authority, Congress has to make its grant, allowing the agency to do that very, very explicit. So in West Virginia versus EPA, which was the first opinion just last year to actually articulate this in a really clear way and call it the major questions doctrine, the court essentially stripped the Clean Air Act of the authority and power for the agency to actually address climate change. Unless Congress specifically envisioned in 1977 the need to do address climate change. Unless Congress specifically envisioned in 1977 the need to do this exact thing, clean power, in order to deal with climate change or

clean air, then the agency can't do it. And so it's a kind of hobbling doctrine that basically says unless Congress, whenever they wrote the statute, and again, Congress is writing statutes that are meant to have a long life and address a wide expanse of problems. If Congress does not specifically hone in on the problem that this agency is addressing right now, then they don't have the authority to do it. So, it is a doctrine that is purposely created to kneecap an administration and the administrative state in addressing problems in real time. And so if this is a major question, I imagine any kind of relief for student loans would similarly fall into the major questions doctrine because it is a matter, according to this court,

of serious financial or economic significance. I mean, Dan, it does seem like if I'm sure the administration will try to figure out some kind of alternative that might be narrower in scope. But if you know what Melissa says is true and they're going to look skeptically on any kind of student debt relief, this court, then it does seem like Biden's only option is to really come out swinging against the court on this because I'm sure they don't want to open themselves up to, hey, you promised me student debt relief and now I didn't get it. And for those of us who pay close attention to the news, we know it's the fault of the Supreme Court. But for a lot of people, they might just say like, hey, why did Joe Biden take back my student debt relief? And this is ultimately the dilemma that is going to infect every executive action the president wants to do with this Supreme Court, which is, do we push the envelope and try

to do what we think is right and hope that we can do it for as long as the court will let us, or we will get lucky in the court or there'll be a standing issue or whatever else, or are we going to allow this rigged Supreme Court to preemptively prevent us from doing what we should do? And in every issue area, that's going to have a different calculus between how it impacts people if it gets overturned at some point in the process or if it gets enjoined at some point in the process. I think the – and obviously, the president always takes blame when something doesn't

happen. That is the argument for going after the court, being aggressive about it, wrapping this court, which was rigged in every way, shape, or form, with the larger MAGA extremism message. And there is one element I thought was really important in what Melissa said, which is that this court is captured by dark money. A lot of us are big proponents of court expansion. We know the president is not. We know. A lot of us are big proponents of court expansion. We know the president is not. We know a lot of Senate Democrats are not. But there is something short. Court reform does not have to include court expansion. It could also include as a step to that is a code of conduct and ethics code. Right now, all of the sort of conflicts of interest

provisions that hamper low-level government employees do not apply to the Supreme Court. Disclosure requirements that apply to political appointees in the White House do not apply to the Supreme Court. Calling for and putting forth, whether it's the president or Senate Democrats or someone else, aggressively for a code of conduct to the Supreme Court is a way to highlight the extreme and potentially corrupt nature of this court, which gives you an argument on all of these questions that are going to matter. This one's student loan. You have polluters, big oil companies, all these interests who do and will continue to do incredibly well in the Roberts court. And so having that sort of argument there, I think, is very helpful. And the court is laying the foundation for this argument to be

made. I mean, there has been unprecedented reporting in the last couple of months about these sort of shadowy dark money interests circulating around the court, some in service of a concerted campaign of influence at the court, others about sort of trying to put the right people on the court and the lower court. So there's the political story that came out just this week by Heidi Presbola about how much money Leonard Leo has amassed for himself in just the last couple of years, as he has also been incredibly successful being the Trump administration's outsource for all of the various judicial appointments that the Trump administration has managed to install in just four years. I mean, that's a really important story that I don't know that a lot of mainstream outlets are picking up and really delving into. But again, it sort of reiterates that there is some kind of

undue relationship between some of these oligopolistic entities and conservative entities with just lots of money. And it all feeds into the court and the lower federal courts. Certainly seems like an argument that not only Joe Biden should be making in his reelect, but all these Senate candidates, because I think control of the Senate becomes that much more important. And so it seems like that should be sort of a central plank. Melissa, before we let you go, have to ask, because we were just talking about it. What do you think about the latest revelations in the Fox Dominion case? Oh, I thought you were going to ask me what I thought about King Charles evicting Harry and Meghan from Frogmore Cottage. I do have thoughts about that as well.

I kind of want to hear that, too. We'll save that for later. What do I think about these latest revelations from Fox and Dominion? Yeah, but Murdoch basically saying that he could have stopped the election conspiracies and did not. So, okay. First, I will say this is really unprecedented in a defamation case, like to have these kinds of revelations, I think usually unheard of because they don't proceed to this point most of the time because it's such a high bar to prove defamation. So usually you plead out at the pleading stage, but this has really advanced beyond discovery. And wow, have they discovered a lot of information, much of it

provided by the top level people at Fox, whether it's Viet Dinh, the general counsel or Rupert Murdoch, the head of the whole show. I mean, a lot of acknowledgement that, yeah, we could have done something, but we didn't because we're worried about our ratings and Newsmax and OAN are eating into our market share. So we had to be as extreme as possible. So we did that. But the other thing that I thought was really, really fascinating and troubling and, again, not picked up in a really clear way by most mainstream media was how much Fox and the Republican Party are inextricably intertwined. And there were various parts in that deposition testimony where Murdoch was like, you know, and then I called my friend Jared Kushner and asked him

about this. And then I reached out to Mitch McConnell to say X. And I was like, this is basically like Pravda for Republicans. Like they are literally in bed with each other. And that is surprising. And, you know, maybe it's good that there is some differentiation in the conservative news diet now that Newsmax and OAN are there. But the way in which Fox has been and was clearly functioning as a mouthpiece for the GOP has to be really troubling. Yeah.

And I know that the legal bar for defamation is quite high, but it feels like they're close to soaring right over it. I mean, I'm surprised we haven't just gotten a settlement at this point because this seems really bad. Melissa Murray, thank you as always. Everyone go check out Strict Scrutiny for more brilliant legal analysis from Melissa and Kate and Leah. And thanks for joining us as always. Thank you. Before we go, it's been a busy week for Republicans in Congress.

in Congress, not because they passed any laws, still waiting on that, but because they held hearings on everything from lab leaks to border security that gave each aspiring MAGA politician the chance to achieve what they came to Congress to do, generate viral clips for Fox News. Sadly, even that simple task proved too difficult for many of the GOP's best and brightest, who could only manage to generate viral clips for Pod Save America in a segment we're calling the self-owned zone. All right. First up, we have the CrossFit enthusiast whom Speaker McCarthy said he will never leave and always take care of, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Marge tried to take the Biden administration to task on everything from school closures to fentanyl.

Let's see how it went. England eighth graders math proficiency dropped by seven points. Reading levels dropped by two points. There are 1,524, 524, and 481. This is over 1 million, 1.5 million. I want you to know that in 2020, there were four point eight thousand pounds of fentanyl seized by CBP. But in 2021, fiscal year 2021, it increased to eleven point two thousand pounds of fentanyl was seized by the CBP. That is a direct result of Biden administration

failure policies. You know, at least the kids who got lower test scores, their excuse is that their schools were closed. What the fuck's her excuse? Yeah, you know what? Oh, so what you're saying is that the Biden administration was able to seize more illegal drugs than the Trump administration. That's the point you're making? That's the failed actions of the Biden administration that we're able to seize more drugs than the Trump administration.

It is, I mean, just two things. One, Marjorie Taylor Greene doing something stupid is as consistent and predictable as a metronome. Like, you know, it's exactly how it's going to happen and when it's going to happen. as a metronome. Like, it's just, you know, it's exactly how it's going to happen and when it's going to happen. And I just do not understand. It's not just her, but every Republican's decision to cite things the Biden administration does at the border as a way to argue that they're not doing their job at the border. It's just, it's so bizarre. Look at all the people they apprehended. Look at all the fentanyl they stopped she also like there's some other hearing where she had this um this mother of um these two brothers who who died of fentanyl

poisoning and uh and marjorie taylor green tweets the clip and is like this is what you get from the biden administration this fail policy these deaths are on their hands, you know, and then you find out that they were that they actually died in 2020 when Donald Trump was president. So once again, it's just I mean, look, in fairness, time stop having meaning in early 2020. Yeah, no, maybe. Yeah, right. She's just still dealing with that. All right. Next up, we have the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who competed to see which one of them could yell the loudest at Merrick Garland. Let's hear it. You are the attorney general of the United States. You are in charge of the Justice Department. And yes, sir, you are responsible. So give me an answer. The FBI does not agree with your. I'm not asking about the FBI. You are the attorney general. As you know, the FBI raided

Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home. And subsequent to that raid, there have been multiple leaks about what was discovered there, including a photograph of documents that were discovered there. Did you know about the leaks from that raid? The photograph was a filing in court in response to a motion filed by Mr. Trump. It was not a leak. You, the Attorney General, make a determination, and you spent 20 years as a judge,

and you're perfectly content with justices being afraid for their children's lives, and you did nothing to prosecute it. Let's shift to another area. Can I answer the question? No, you cannot. That really sums it up. Can I answer the question? No, I am yelling at you for tv you cannot interrupt

my yelling this is my clip that is going on hannity that was um insurrectionist fanboy josh holly who who clearly just watched a little too much few uh a few good men before before his big appearance in congress and then i i really love ted cruz being like were you aware of the leak that showed that picture of the classified it's like no idiot fucking donald trump the reason that picture of the folders came out is because donald trump filed in court i think one of the reasons that the senate can only work three days a week is so that people like josh holly and ted cruz can spend the other two days a week practicing these moments in front of the mirror? It's just so, it's so chance- It's such bad performance art.

And it's just, you know, you would love to see like what they see in their head when these moments are happening. Yeah, well, you know, they get the reinforcements because if you go on MAGA Twitter, if you start searching what like Benny Johnson's tweeting it's like, Ted Cruz destroys Merrick Garland during a hearing. And they play the same clip that we're playing. But they think it's a good thing.

So maybe they're getting that kind of reinforcement. It's a loop. All right. And finally, our winner today is human frat paddle Matt Gaetz, who gifted us an exchange that has now been seen more than two million times on Twitter. It's Matt trying to grill Undersecretary of Defense Colin Call about a conspiracy that a right-wing Ukrainian militia group got access to U.S. weapons. Here it is. Is Zav Battalion getting access to U.S. weapons? Not that I'm aware of, but if you have information, I'd see the consent to enter into the record the Global Times investigative report

that talks about training. It's from the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab, citing that the Azov Battalion was even getting stuff as far back as 2018. Any reason to disagree with that assessment? I'm sorry, is this the Global Times from China? No, this is... That's what you read. Yeah, it might be. Would that be a reason? As a general matter, I don't take Beijing's propaganda at face value.

No, just tell me if the allegation is true or false. I don't have any evidence one way or the other. As a general matter, I don't take Beijing's propaganda at face value. Fair enough. Some people bring receipts. gates brought ccp propaganda but also just he's so used to screwing up that he knew he was fucking up in real time and just kind of let it go yeah he's like where can you go when you you just you've just been exposed reading chinese communist government propaganda at a hearing and taking it seriously.

He took it seriously and literally, I guess. Do you think he went back to the office and was like, how did this foreign propaganda get into my folder of domestic propaganda? I hope he fired someone. I hope he fired a couple people. This is only for domestic,

made in America propaganda. I don't want any of this foreign shit. Oh, Matt Gaetz, congratulations. Congratulations on the cell phone of the week. Thank you to Melissa Murray, as always, for joining us and making us smarter. Thank you. There's no one else. Thank you.

Sorry. Me? You can thank me. Oh, and thank you, Dan. Thank you for joining us. Have a great weekend, and we will talk to you next me. Oh, and thank you, Dan. Thank you for joining us. Have a great weekend, and we will talk to you next week. Bye, everyone. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production.

The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our senior producer is Andy Gardner-Bernstein. Our producers are Hayley Muse and Olivia Martinez. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis sound engineered the show. Thanks to Hallie Kiefer, Ari Schwartz, Sandy Gerard, Andy Taft, and Justine Howe for production support. And to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Phoebe Bradford, Milo Kim, and Amelia Montu. Our episodes are uploaded as videos at youtube.com slash pod save America.