Pod Save America - "Hack away, China."

Episode Date: July 17, 2017

As the health care vote is delayed due to a medical emergency, Andy Slavitt, who ran Medicare, Medicaid & ACA for President Obama, lays out the strategy for this final push. Then Jon, Jon, and Tommy get into all the lies and revelations around the Trump Tower/Russia confab. And Tommy talks with Jeff Mason who leads the White House Correspondence Association to debate press access and freedom.

Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Jon Lovett. I'm Tommy Vitor. On the pod today, we will be talking to the man who ran Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act for the Obama administration, Andy Slavitt. And later, Tommy will be talking to the president of the White House Correspondents Association from Reuters, Jeff Mason, about White House press access. That is accurate. It's a pre-taped interview. It's great. We're very excited about it. How heated it got.

Well, it was pretty tense. I mean, we've been pretty hard on the White House Correspondents Association here on this podcast. Folding like an Indochino knockoff. Tommy was very tough. It's one of those instances where clearly the Trump administration is at fault. They are reducing access. They're attacking the press every day, but like at some point we should have to judge them on success or failure. So that's sort of what I told Jeff.

And when you look at this as an observer, you see less access. He gets into why he gets into how challenging this is. I think it was very helpful context. He's a very good guy, a good reporter. So check it out. Also,

uh, Dre McKesson pod, save the people. There'll be a new episode tomorrow, Tuesday. So download that. Uh, a good reporter so check it out also Dre McKesson Pod Save the People there'll be a new episode tomorrow Tuesday so download that Dre's still

working on all the editing now and then of course remember to you can now get all of our pods Crooked Media's pods on Spotify yeah

it's awesome I love Spotify yeah their Discover Weekly function like gets me almost every new song I like to it's great

and now you can discover podcasts. Yeah, don't discover any other podcasts, though. Just discover Crooked Media podcasts. Okay, so we're going to start by talking to Andy today because healthcare is in the news. Of course, there was supposed to be a CBO score today and a vote on a motion to proceed to debate tomorrow. This has now all been delayed indefinitely because Senator John McCain had surgery over the weekend for a blood clot above his eye. So we hope McCain gets well soon. But it could be like a more intense recovery period. So we actually don't know.

So everything is on hold right now on health care. But there was a lot going on over the weekend. There was a National Governors Association meeting where the Trump administration, Mike Pence, and some others went to go pitch governors on this bill and some of the Medicaid stuff. Very dishonestly. Very dishonestly. Productively from Mike Pence. Pissing off the state of Ohio by misleading everyone about the problems they're having. Are we getting into this now or are we getting into a slavet? We're going to get into a slavet.

So I'm just going to say we're going to talk to Andy about Medicaid and the governor stuff because he had a lot to say about that. And also this Cruz Amendment and this crazy letter, unprecedented letter, I should say, that all the insurers put out against the Cruz Amendment. So he's going to talk about the substance of all of this. And then we'll talk about the politics after that. So when we come back, Andy Slavitt. Don't go anywhere. This is Pod Save America. And there's more on the way.

Don't go anywhere. This is Pod Save America, and there's more on the way. On the pod today, we have with us a very special guest. He ran Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act for the Obama administration. I retweet everything he says. You're just our gospel, man. Andy Slavitt. Honestly, I know what you know and nothing else. Andy, we noticed you have a sort

of a favoritism towards Pod Save the People, so I'm glad you could find some time in your busy schedule doing DeRay's show to be with us today. I just want to fill in the blank with. Yeah, appreciate it. Okay, so lots to talk about with healthcare. Obviously, the vote is delayed. One thing that's gotten some attention over the weekend is the cruise provision. Could you explain to us, sort of in layman's terms, what the Cruz provision would do, why it's so dangerous, and why so few Republican senators have actually spoken out about it yet?

Sure, but I wanted to start by saying I'm not so sure the Cruz amendment stays in. So ultimately, it's a place to focus, but we shouldn't put all our eggs in that basket. I think Cruz, you know, my read is that McConnell uh... it's a place to focus but i we shouldn't put all our age in that basket i think cruise uh... you know my read it in the carmel uh... allowed crews to introduce his own amendment you know a large part

just to keep him in the tent and i think regardless of what happened with the amendment it this is largely to get crews on board if they actually went through however it would be horrific and i think not just because like the rest of the bill it's unfair to low-income people and fair to wealthy people but horrific because it just doesn't pass any of the smell test of

how people could actually buy insurance and how insurance is priced so what it does is it basically creates two types of insurance the type of insurance you get the ACA that has basic protections and then a second types of insurance the type of insurance you get the a p a that had basic protection and the second type of insurance which is basically the anything goes type or as secretary price referred to it just go back up dot the way you do think before obama care which was a comment

that secretary price made over the weekend support if you do that you do you sort of damn both parties because you put half the people in this sort of place where they're going to be disappointed by whatever insurance they buy. And then you take the ACA and you create a giant high-risk pool, which is basically a spiraling, expensive product. And I'll say one more thing about it. It's the first piece of legislation that I've ever seen that has, it's so bad that it has its own bailout inside of it. So they actually have to add $70 billion to undo the damage that they

know the Cruz Amendment causes. So let's say the Cruz Amendment comes out, as you're saying, there's a chance that it would. My understanding of it is that Mike Lee, Cruz, there are a lot of people that hinged their support of this bill on that amendment. At the same time, we've seen this sort of strange phenomenon over and over again, where people draw these lines in the sand, and then the line is crossed, and then they announce why they're going to support the bill anyway. So what do you think is playing out here? The Cruz amendment seems like a poison pill for a lot of these moderates, but it comes out. Is there some other kind of fig leaf for the conservatives that we're not aware of?

If I could imagine how this went, it probably went something like McConnell telling Cruz, look, you want to put this crazy amendment in, fine, but you're going to have to sell it, and you're going to have to sell it to the caucus. And he gave him a week, and he gave him the Senate lunch to do it, and you're going to have to sell it to the parliamentarians. So to a certain extent, McConnell has started to distribute responsibility for whether this thing passes or how it breaks down.

And I think the end of that conversation is, and look, if you can't sell it, I expect you to get on board. So I think Ted Cruz concocted this crazy thing. I would be surprised if Cruz doesn't end up voting for whatever comes to the floor, if it gets to the floor, just because that's the way he is. I think conventional wisdom has been that Mike Lee votes with Cruz, but people are a little bit less sure

of that now, because even Lee looks at that Cruz amendment and is head of communications that nobody really thinks that thing works. Good idea. Andy, good idea. Andy, there's been a lot of speculation about efforts by McConnell to use money he has to buy off area senators, give them carve-outs for deals that would incentivize one specific state to get their vote.

Are you hearing about any progress that's been made on that front? And do you think that that strategy is more or less effective than Trump tweeting five times more often about a golf tournament at a country club he owns than health care? You know, it's really interesting is these deals that are out there, the more they get publicized, the less likely they are to be effective. And I'm really happy, and I'm sure you guys are, to see all the focus on them. You know, the reality is that they're taking out a trillion dollars or more, and they're basically saying, don't worry, we're going to give you back, you know, maybe at best $100 billion, $200 billion. And so a lot of this, to me, you know, and look, you guys did a lot of amazing work in

communications for President Obama, but having to go tell, convince a bunch of governors who are fundamentally smart people and senators that we're going to take away a dollar and give you back 20 cents is a really tough job. And they tried to do it at the National Governors Association this weekend. I don't think it was all that successful. They put a deal in front of Nevada. I think everybody is focused now on a couple places like Nevada and Alaska. If you let these guys spend time with these deals,

they're essentially giving them back nickels from the dollar that they just took away. So I don't think that smart guys are going to go for it. What do you think that people like Dean Heller and Murkowski, maybe Capito, Portman too, I guess, are weighing in their minds right now? Like, what are they trying to decide? What policy moves, basically, does McConnell have left that could persuade them? Well, start with Heller. Heller, I think, is just wetting himself. And I think there's probably nobody more upset by McCain being out for a little while than Heller,

because this is just pure torture for him. I think, you know, he's probably in the hardest spot, because it's very hard for him to win in Nevada as a Republican anyway. He's already sort of made a commitment. Sandoval has got a lot of credibility and a lot more popularity, as you guys pointed out on your last podcast. So I think, you know, there's very little but a political calculation there. I think Portman and Capito are probably the most persuadable, because I think by some of the math we've done, if McConnell spends, you know, $20, $30, $40 billion of the $200 billion that he has left,

he can make some modest changes to Medicaid, and I think it's not hard to picture Portman declaring victory, and Capito would then be left alone. And so I think she might end up going along with that. Now, what we hear is that what's constraining him is not the money, but that there are a lot of conservatives that don't want McConnell to spend the money. And then finally, Murkowski, I think is the most interesting person of all, and probably the person that if I had to speculate that there's a true statesman left out there

that's not willing to be bought, it may be her. Because he and her governor, I think, are just really much, much closer to the realities of Alaska than they are to the realities of Washington. And, you know, I don't think there's much more that can be done there. They've already spent an awful lot of money in Alaska, and it either did the job already or it didn't. So we're in this position where we're waiting for one of these people to go alone and say they're against it. For a lot of political reasons, it's hard to be alone. Is there any chance that we see Heller, Capito, Murkowski, Portman join up with Susan Collins, who has been so outspoken and I think has seen the benefits of that even in her own state, coming out against

this bill? Is there any chance we see them come together during this week-long reprieve because John McCain got wonderful health care from the federal government to say no and they kind of jump together? I think that's what you'd have to hope for. You're dead on. I don't think there's such a thing as a third. I don't think there's anybody that comes out now with a third no. I think it's one of the reasons why Collins and Paul were like out there so quickly. They were like, you know, not it, not it. You know, you get your first two in and you're like safe. So now Collins can be the safe person and she's not the one to kill it. And she gets to Sunday TV time. And I think she's truly saying the right thing to doing it for the right

reasons. I think we can be hopeful that we can get Murkowski out there and we, and, you know, we, and you we and you and many others need to keep, I think, pulling the levers to make that happen. But I think getting them out there as a group, maybe there's a chance, but very hard to imagine someone going alone. I'd love to think that there's someone who's a profile encouraged less in the caucus, and maybe they'll surprise us. And just to zoom in on Dean Heller for a minute, obviously, this would directly impact and harm constituents in his state because they've taken Medicaid expansion. The bill polls that Obamacare

is at 50 percent, GOP replacement is at 24 percent in the Washington Post poll. So what is driving the calculus that would lead him to vote for this? What are you hearing about interest groups or whomever that are pitching him? Well, so I think the Republican National Committee finance chair, Steve Wynn, who owns a lot of casinos here, and Sheldon Adelson. And, you know, I know from one conversation that Heller had with a governor, a Republican governor recently, who was pressing him pretty hard to stay strong as a no. He said, look, I really can't commit. You wouldn't believe the national pressure I'm under.

And he mentioned one of those guys by name. And, look, I think he's not necessarily a guy with the strongest constitution. It's a lot of pressure for anybody. And so it's not – there's not a rational policy path here. In fact, if you look at Nevada, where I just landed, they have done remarkable things with Medicaid expansion over the last couple of years. I mean, truly, Brian Sandoval has done really creative things and launched really creative programs to get kids insured, things that he ought to be incredibly proud of,

things that we're building on top of Obama's vision. And so I don't think Sandoval is going to move. I think the best that the Republican caucus can hope for is that Sandoval stays more or less quiet, and then they get their chance to work him. And there may be some political gift in it for Heller, but I can't think of any other reason. What's going on with the CBO score? Are they going to use the extra? I know it was supposed to come out today. They're saying maybe it will come out tomorrow. But do you think they're going to use the extra time to score the Cruz Amendment?

Or is that still not going to be possible? If I had to guess, I would say we're not going to CBO score anyone this week. Now, I don't have any knowledge to tell me that. And I could be proven wrong by the time your podcast airs, in which case you'll know what kind of guest I was. But if I think they're playing this the way I think they are, they essentially can delay their instructions to the CBO and keep playing around with whatever deals they have. It's not in their interest to have a CBO score out there.

Everyone thinks that the Cruz Amendment is very hard to score, that it might take a couple of weeks, because, in effect, they're creating these things that are these garbage insurance policies that the CBO is fairly clear they don't know how to count as regular insurance. So I think there's a possibility we may never see it scored. So, just a step back, two weeks from now, it seems like either this thing will be passed and onto the House and perhaps law in like a matter of days, or it will have collapsed and failed and we will move on to taxes and what have you.

In this last two-week period, what is the thing that worries you most? What is the thing that you think that if this thing got through, where we will have dropped the ball or fail to understand what McConnell was going to do, like what's your anxiety point here? John, last night I was calling actual brain surgeons to find out recovery time for 80-year-old men who have operations of blood clots. So I feel like paranoia is so seeped into my blood that there's just too many ways out. You know, on the one hand, I think it's like probably what you asked is just the only important

question left, which is, you know, how do we continue to do this? And I think it's retail politics like times a thousand, which I think is all the disability advocates continuing to take up what they're doing. It's continuing to have money to buy ads in these markets. It's getting multi-party letters out there. It's the governors getting together to issue another set of letters. I think they had a very bad MGA. I think they actually had a little momentum going into the National Governors Association. My read is that the administration overplayed their hand by saying things that were just blatantly untrue,

and the governors knew to be untrue. So I think we have, you know, I don't think it's baked either way, but I think we've got to keep these two or three people that you talked about so far strong by just taking a magnifying glass of what's going on specifically in their states and really focusing very, very hard on those things. Great. Well, Andy, I know you're on the ground right now in Las Vegas and holding an event there this evening, so glad you're out there working this pretty hard.

Thank you for joining us. Thank you for giving us an update. And keep up the fight. Thanks, guys. Take care, Andy. All right, guys. So that was Andy Slavitt. He's really smart.

Yeah. Everyone follow him on Twitter, for real. At Andy Slavitt. At Andy Slavitt. Yeah. We're not going to do all your homework for you. Figure it out. It's Andy Slavitt on Twitter.

He's great. Really interesting. It's hard to separate the parts of this that feel like the way politics usually works, It's really interesting. It's hard to separate the parts of this that feel like the way politics usually works, which is pressure, policymaking that still are in play, plus the kind of new sort of extra anti-democratic stuff that's laid on top of this, like McConnell not using's not tomorrow, to really keep the pressure up and try to keep this in the headlines as much as possible and make this as uncomfortable as possible for Dean Heller, for Lisa Murkowski. The most notable thing to me is that governors, people who actually are in charge of states, who have people's well-being, they're responsible for taking care of individuals, are so vehemently opposed to this bill on a bipartisan basis. And even world-class idiots like Scott Walker,

he knows that the National Governors Association is going to have to put out some sort of statement on the bill at some point, but he recommended they do it after the vote because he's courageous. Amazing. Scott Walker saying the perfect time to decide how you feel about a bill is after the decision's been made is one of the most amazing Marco Rubio-esque moments. Marco Rubio, by the way, I just want to say that there was a little story

that went on, which was Marco Rubio tweeting that he was undecided on the bill, literally no one taking him seriously. And then, of course, him saying he'd vote yes on the motion for a seat. Yeah. Look, it's interesting. It sometimes also takes time

for a lot of the information about how bad this bill is to get to some of these senators, right? Because a lot of times they're just going all day, they're in meetings, they're busy, right? And they can only hear about this from their staff. They don't consume, these senators don't consume news as much as many of us do. Right, right. As fast as many of us do. So it takes time for these things to get into their local newspapers,

for people to tell them just how bad the bill is, just how much the administration's been lying to them, right? So, like, the more time Dean Heller has to hear from us and from, you know, all the other news about how bad this bill is, the more of an opportunity we have, same with Lisa Murkowski, same with the rest of them. Yeah, I think Dean Heller's going to make a pretty simple calculation because he's a pretty calculating guy. Am I more likely to lose a primary if I oppose this bill or am I more likely to lose a general election if I support this bill? if I oppose this bill or am I more likely to lose a general election if I support this bill? And we need to make it crystal clear to him that if he votes for this garbage piece of legislation, we will all do everything in our power to support and fund his challenger and make sure that he loses no matter what.

That's totally right because we can't affect what Republicans are telling him behind closed doors, how hard Sandoval will fight, what his money will do, whether they'll back him against some primary. But what we can do is make it very clear that that he'll lose yeah no and this look and the same goes for murkowski and capito and portman even though they're not up in 18 right like this could be we we need to make this and ben wickler has talked about this before a career defining vote for these people yeah that was as big as the iraq war vote was one thing that really does affect these guys are the front pages of their local newspapers. We all worked on the Hill.

Basically, every senator in Washington gets something in the morning, which is like a briefing book and the clips. And some young kid who's a junior staffer and intern goes and gets all the covers from the local newspaper. And the activism that we're seeing is on the cover of all those newspapers. So what can you guys do? Obviously, keep making the calls, but there's also a lot of opportunities for sort of in-person activism this week. I know there's a rally today on the Capitol. By the time you hear this, it'll probably

have been, it'll be going on already. But there's going to be a huge civil disobedience action in the Senate on Wednesday. You can find out about that at StopTrumpCare.net. A lot of constituents are holding sit-ins in the D.C. offices of all the Republican senators, so that's really great. Indivisible has a day of action nationwide and in D.C. on Tuesday.

And every listener can get involved there by going to IndivisibleGuide.com. You can find out where the protest is near you. Planned Parenthood has more than 100 protest plans, so you can figure out that. Organizing for Action, the Obama Group, has a ton of protests planned in cities everywhere, as does Protect Our Care. So there's lots of opportunities to get involved. And especially if you live in Nevada, if you live in Alaska, if you live in West Virginia, if you live in Ohio, these are senators that have ever made in their lives. And they're weighing it right now. And they're weighing it like human beings. And you can make a difference. You can. All right, when we come back, we will talk about the rest of the news, which is basically just Russia. Dasvidaniya. This is Pod Save America. Stick around. There's more great show coming your way. So let's talk about the only other thing that's in the news. We scoured the news.

We tried. Russia. The newspaper, you flip it up and it just says Russia on every page. It's in Russian. We started with healthcare. Most news isn't. But anyway, Russia's still out there. So, let's start with a statement from the President of the United States delivered this morning via the website Twitter.com.

with a statement from the President of the United States delivered this morning via the website twitter.com. He said, Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don Jr. attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics. So, we have gone from I didn't know who I was meeting with and it was just about adoptions to so what if the most senior officials on the Trump campaign

met with a Russian government attorney and a Russian intelligence officer who promised them dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of Putin's support for Trump's candidacy. Who wouldn't have taken that meeting? I mean, we've actually gone even further than that. We've gone even further. There were no such meetings. There was no collusion.

This is a conspiracy theory. This is nonsense. To anybody would have done it. Collusion is cool. Yeah. And we were talking about this before. That's good to know. It's great to know.

I think that we should reach out to, we need like a re-regard action of the good guys. So Denmark, Sweden, France, we are calling on you now.

I would limit ourselves. China, Iran. Iran, you've had a tough run. You're looking to get back in our graces. We gave you that

whole deal thing. Apparently Hillary gave you some plutonium or was that to Russia, Iran? I don't remember Hillary giving you plutonium. She was giving to Russia, Iran? I don't even remember anymore. I don't remember Hillary giving you plutonium.

She was giving out plutonium like gift bags at the Emmys. It's also surprising yet comforting to know that when Democrats work with Chinese government hackers to undermine our political opponents, no one on Fox News is going to care. They're going to be cheering along. That's politics, guys. Politics is us right now. Tucker, Janine, the whole crew, Brit Hume, they're all going to care. They're going to be cheering along. That's politics, guys. Politics is us right now.

Tucker, Janine, the whole group, Brit Hume, they're all going to be saying, you know, anyone would have done that. Of course Democrats should do that. I'm going to reach out to the Chinese consulate and I'm going to say, I need a secret secure room in your facility because I only want your side to hear it. And then we're going to have a conversation

about what America can give you. Alright? This is the quid. are there sanctions you don't like uh you just gotta i just want to read don jones and john jr's emails on wicked lease guys i just want to point something out to you which is that there's a bit of a flaw in their logic because they're actually also saying that when a dnc consultant met with the ukrainian officials about paul manifort's role in working for putin stooges who are running the country of Ukraine and getting millions and millions of dollars off the books, that that was the real bad thing.

And that was the problem. Despite the fact that this person was a consultant with the DNC, probably pretty stupid to take the meeting, but was looking into sort of public documents versus begging them to hack Hillary Clinton or hack the DNinton yeah that person went to a consulate too yeah the uh the whataboutism is out of control like that this is what anybody would do this is normal donald trump also continuing to rely on the fact that donna brazil gave them a debate question during the primary it's his favorite it's so insane it's because again it's like it's like it's like when a 13-year-old

has only heard Led Zeppelin, they think that that's the only band. You know, that's the coolest and only band. Still is. Donald Trump followed politics closely for one election, and he learned seven or eight things, and one of them was this fascinating thing that Donna Brazile gave a question to Hillary Clinton

during the primary. So that's his stairway to heaven? Yeah, that's his thunder road. All right, I'm playing stairway for you later. The thing that's driving me crazy is, if you step back and think about the fact that he refuses to believe that Russia hacked our election, despite all evidence suggesting that's the case, but he believes that 3 million people voted illegally in this country in this last cycle, all for Hillary Clinton. And he is doing everything he can to block investigations to figure out what happened.

He set up a commission that has contacted all 50 states with his buddy, Chris Kobach, about personal voter information. But Mark Warner noted on the Sunday shows that 21 states had election systems targeted by Russia, but not all of those secretaries of state have been briefed. It is insane. This is like criminal negligence and just a refusal to view anything that's happening in the world through a prism outside of his own narrow ego and interests. Also, Mark Warner, friend of the pod, noted on the Sunday show something that he talked about right here first on Pod Save America, thanks to a Tommy Vitor question. Indeed he did. A bold question. to almost precinct level demographics in certain swing states that they're looking into whether the Trump campaign, specifically the Trump digital operation run by one Jared Kushner, had anything to do with helping the Russians figure out where to target. Should shout out McClatchy did some great reporting on this and had a big piece last week that got into the details.

This is a big growing issue for them. It's a problem. Do you think that it is a good sign or a bad sign that Donald Trump has asked Russia to send election observers for the 2018 midterms? Did he really? No. That's so funny. That shows you where we are. The tummy was not necessarily surprised by that.

John and I made that up in the car, and it was plausible. It's also one of those things where like, never mind. No, what? Well, it's one of those things where like, we try to send election observers all over the world, and if they try to send them to our country, we sort of have to welcome them in, or else we look like giant hypocrites. You get in these weird situations. Oh, yeah. Anyway.

I was interested. So over the weekend, Trump's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, did I pronounce that right? Who cares? He's a scumbag. Good. Put on quite a performance. He said if the meeting was so nefarious, why would Secret Service allow these people in? So, A, Secret Service doesn't vet meeting attendees. That's not their gig. And B, we find out that they said in a statement, and now we have Secret Service responding to Trump's lawyer, saying that they weren't protecting Donald Trump Jr. at that point anyway.

Well, it just raises a lot of interesting questions. Now, I was a casual news observer for a few days, and I saw on television Corey Lewandowski on television, and one of the things that I think he had been saying is that Trump was not in Trump Tower, but that has turned out to not be true.

You, of course, believed him. Well, I didn't. It wasn't. It's interesting. Corey says so. It must be true. I didn't hear it directly from him. I saw someone tweet

that he said it without context, and I said, huh, I just didn't think about it, and then it turns out that that's be true. I didn't hear it directly from him. I saw someone tweet that he said it without context. And I said, huh, I just didn't think about it. And then it turns out that that's not true. Trump was in the building. Regardless, I don't think that Secret Service wouldn't vet a meeting participant for counterintelligence purposes. They also wouldn't vet them to see if they were smarter than Donald Trump Jr., even if he were a protectee, because then he wouldn't have any meetings. So this whole thing, to throw the agency under the bus that like literally will take a bullet for your boss because it sounds convenient in the moment is so short sighted.

And it's just it's just the perfect little example of all their dumb excuses here and how all of them have fallen down against any fact. So first of all, like it's exposing an interesting fact that Donald Trump was in the building, right, which raises the question as to who was and wasn't in the meeting. And and like we can't take anything they've said so far face value. So who knows? But there's also it is this their lack of respect for anything, including the people that are there to save their lives, is it really it never ceases to amaze me. And the Secret Service, it is so important. It is one of those things that we are comforted by their existence. We're so we're so used to their protection that we don't allow for even thinking about just how important that role is, how sensitive it is, by the way, not just that they protect the president, but they do so without being politically involved, without picking favorites, without us ever even worrying about any kind of coup or any of the crazy things that history is filled with because it's such a good and important entity.

And then they go on television and use it as an excuse. They've had some challenges recently. Of course. But you know what I mean. But they go to meetings and they don't repeat the substance of the meetings ever, despite the most sensitive conversations in the world. We trust them. Yes, we trust them.

What is also interesting about this is the degree to which even the right wing media was stunned by this. I mean, Shep Smith, who's a pretty principled, interesting guy on Fox News, basically said to Chris Wallace, like, how can we ever believe anything they said again, when for six months they've been saying no collusion, no meetings, no conversation, no nothing. And then we find it was Don Jr. with the email that said re-Russia-Clinton-private and confidential, like the excuse that Jared and Manafort didn't read to the bottom. Subject line was right there, guys. John, do you remember about a week ago we were talking about this and we

said we are going to get to the point where Jared's excuse is he didn't read to the bottom of the thread. Yeah. It was an easy excuse. I mean, but of course like the subject line was, you know. But Jared also said. Russia Clinton collusion. When he sent his SF-86 and left a hundred relevant names off of it

now they say that someone on his team clicked send too early. Oopsie doopsie. This isn't like an email you're copying and pasting to a bunch of friends asking for help moving or something. This is like... Have we talked about the SF-86 on the show? Yeah.

Yeah. A couple times. Okay. I mean, we can talk about it again. It's, you know, you fill it out. They tell you it's under penalty of... It's a federal crime to lie on it. But it's not just a form.

There's interviews. There's like a whole process that goes along with it. You interview FBI agents. And they walk you through the form that you filled out to make sure you didn't leave. Like it's hard to make a mistake. They sit down with you and they painstakingly go through every embarrassing thing you disclosed about your life. And they double check to make sure that you've disclosed the full extent of that. And then they go to your friends and your family and your neighbors and your colleagues and they

confirm with them the things you wrote down. And if there's any daylight there, you don't get a clearance because you're not trustworthy. So there's something darker about Segla's interview that Ruth Marcus pointed out in the Washington Post. At one point, he said to Chuck Todd, so the basis upon which this entire special counsel investigation is taking place is based on what? Illegally leaked information that was a conversation of the president of the United States with the then FBI director. And that to me is problematic from the outset. And I think that raises very serious legal issues as to the scope and nature of what can really take place. So basically what he's saying is because Comey decided to leak his conversation with the president of

the United States, then the whole appointment of Mueller as special prosecutor is illegitimate from the first place. But all I'm saying is like, this is laying the groundwork for Trump to fire Mueller and or issue blanket pardons. Everything is a predicate for getting rid of Mueller or a pardon. Right. And when they do it, they'll say, well, the whole, we all know that the whole investigation was a hoax, that Comey just had it out for the president. Paul Ryan will express discomfort and then go right along.

Look, we've never been here before. The silly kind of surface legal justification that Trump's scumbag lawyer, and he is a true sleaze, that whatever explanation this guy offers, it's a political question. And we just don't know what happens when the president of the United States issues a set of blanket pardons or fires Robert Mueller. We just don't know what's going to happen after that. Here's an issue. Washington Post came out with a poll this weekend, you know, top line numbers, Trump's approval and the toilet, blah, blah, blah. One interesting number. The number of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who think that the Russians sought to influence the election and that the Trump team intentionally helped them has fallen from 18% in April to 9% now. So this is, in popular opinion here, like all of this information that keeps coming out, all this stuff we talk about all the time, it's on the news.

For like most people in the country, it is actually making them think that it is more likely that Russia influenced the election. They're believing that. And maybe it's more likely that the Trump team helped them. For Republicans, it's going the opposite direction. And that is, of course, because of Fox News and Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump and the White House. But mostly Fox News. But mostly Fox News. Mostly Fox News.

We were talking about what a high percentage of strong Republicans and conservatives get their news primarily from Fox News. So it is this vaccine against dangerous ideas. Yeah, I mean, it's a completely calcified state-run media that will defend anything he says. But I mean, he is still, in the Washington Post poll, he's at 48% strongly disapproved. Obama never reached that level. Neither did Bill Clinton. Bush reached that level during the darkest days of the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. So like, there is no silver lining in these numbers.

And Trump tweeting that 36% was really 40%. Oh my God, he rounded up with a six. You didn't round up with a six. You can't go from 36 to 40. That's just against the rules. Yeah, give me a break. It was so perfect. No, that was an issue.

Also, NBC had a poll, too, that was out that basically said that the headline is misleading because the headline says support for Trump at 50% in counties he won, right? So, you know, that's not bad. It's not great either. But he is now underwater in those very important Obama-Trump counties, the ones that switch from Obama to Trump. He's at 44-51 approval there. And those are counties he won by 51-43. So all we say all the time is, oh, well, the base hasn't deserted him, so nothing matters, right? But again, what we really want to be looking at here, the base may never desert him. Ever, ever, ever, ever. We just have to get used to that.

But that doesn't mean that he needs, you know, that he couldn't lose re-election, right? If these counties that voted for Obama twice, that then went to Trump, go back to a Democrat, then the Democrat wins. And also just on these numbers about the shift of Republicans believing less that Russia colluded or Russia was involved, etc. I do think that we always talk about tribalism and that's part of it. But I feel like it manifests itself in two ways. One is people really believing that, right? Really actually believing what their side's telling them.

But there's something else that's always in these polls now, which I think is worth remembering too, which is people know what they need to say to be good teammates. And I do think that that is increasingly something we're seeing in polls, and it's really hard to measure. And that's right. Because everybody's a pundit now. We shouldn't pretend that that doesn't affect people when they answer the phone. Though, I mean, it's just interesting.

Like, their entire strategy is predicated only on the base. They have no effort to reach beyond that. In fact, they are meeting with primary challengers to Senator Jeff Flake. That was amazing. Who is a vulnerable Republican who has pissed Trump off left and right. But the fact that they would try to take someone like him out just shows how short sighted and stupid this strategy is. Yeah. And I'm sure they'll do that with Heller if Heller votes the right way on Trump care. So by the right way, I mean against. Bring it back to healthcare. I mean, we've talked about this Russia story so often, and it is fascinating and it's interesting.

It's something we like talking about, right? We notice that even when more people listen to episodes, when there's big Russia stuff in the news, right? Like everybody is fascinated by Russia. But then I wonder if we're not going to look back and realize that even as we tried so hard to talk about healthcare, we were too preoccupied with this. Well, look, you know, I was saying everyone needs to on Twitter. Everyone needs to focus on health care and like we can yell about Russia later.

And I got a lot of people who are like, we can all walk and shoot gun at the same time. Yes, we can do that. We have to walk and shoot gun at the same time. But I'm talking about ways you can have an impact and influence. Right. In order to hold Donald Trump truly accountable for Russia stuff, right, outside of the special counsel investigation, which no average citizen can impact at all, right, we need 218 votes in the House and about 65, 66, 67 votes in the Senate, right? That's impeachment stuff, okay?

In order, or at least investigation stuff, at least subpoenas and stuff like that from Congress. In order to stop Trumpcare forever, we need one more Republican senator. One more. So just as a matter of which you can have more of an influence on right now, at this moment, it's healthcare. Yeah, it's almost like we can, why don't we treat ourselves to a whole bunch of Russia after we defeat Trumpcare? That is our dessert. We can get back to the fun Russia stuff after Trumpcare goes down. We're still talking about it.

Everyone can still talk about it. We can still debate about it. I'm just saying there is a finite amount of time in the day and a finite amount of energy that people have. And so, you know, focus it on what has the biggest impact. Okay. When we come back, we will have Tommy's interview with the White House Correspondents Association President Jeff Mason. Psyched about that. This is Pod Save America.

Stick around. There's this great stuff coming. Lots of great stuff. On the phone with me today is Jeff Mason, who is the White House Correspondent for Reuters and the president of the White House Correspondents Association. Jeff, thank you so much for jumping on with the Pod Save America slash Crooked Media budding global empire here. My pleasure. Nice to be with you, Tommy. So Jeff, you and I have known each other for a long time. We worked together when I was at the White House. You were a guy who I always respected because you worked your ass off. I don't think people really realize how hard the wire reporters in particular work, especially on foreign trips. You guys were like pulling 20-hour days.

You're also a guy who managed to stay nice and decent and friendly in a high-stress environment. So I just want to reiterate that. I appreciate that. Thank you. You're also the leader of an organization, the White House Correspondents Association, whose charge is to advocate on behalf of journalists covering the White House. That sounds simple. It sounds like a group that might have interests that are aligned, but I would argue that in practice, it's unbelievably complicated. The needs of a TV reporter are very different from the needs of a photographer or the needs of a print reporter. So you're dealing with a ton of different equities and you're dealing with a

press office, which in the Obama administration was me, people like Jay Carney, Robert Gibbs, who are fighting for their boss and have a different perspective than you. So, you know, it's complicated and it's a constant negotiation. And that's, you know, that's honestly how it should be, right? Like you guys should always be fighting for more access. That's your job. And the press office is always going to be fighting to get their message out. That's their job. Things in my view have changed dramatically in the nature of the relationship between the press and the White House during the Trump administration. And I have been very critical of the White House Correspondents Association, which is the organization you lead, the way they've responded. And so, you know, I want to give you an opportunity to respond to those criticisms,

but I want to also start by amending them, which is to say the people who are at fault for any effort to reduce access is the Trump administration, period, paragraph. You guys are fighting like hell to report the news, to figure out what's going on, and to do so at a time when you're under attack rhetorically, your access is under attack day after day, and you're being openly lied to. And so, first of all, thank you for what you do. I know it's a brutally hard, thankless job. So I just wanted to state that up front. And now let's get to the part where we argue and give each other shit about relative efforts to get that access.

All right, well, let me respond to that first. First of all, I appreciate that, and I appreciate your amendment, and you and I have talked about this privately, and I would say it publicly on your podcast as well, but I also have respect for you, and I appreciate the respect that you offered to me, but I found it really misplaced for the anger that I felt that you were directing at the White House Correspondents Association about press access at this White House. I think if people are upset about access, you need to direct that anger towards the Trump administration because it is their decision and it is their call right now,

and we are fighting against that every day. And the Correspondents Association represents the members of the White House Press Corps and sort of by extension the interest of journalists around the country right now because so many people are watching what we do. So we appreciate the support of people who are advocating for a free press. I'm very happy to take criticism when there's something we don't do well or something that we could do better or whether that's true or not. If people feel differently, that's fine. And we're not immune to criticism any more than anyone else is. But if it's about the free press and if it's about access at the White House, the W.H.C.A. is fighting

for that every day. And I would encourage people to, if they're upset about it, direct that anger towards the people who are limiting access, not the people who are fighting for it. Yeah, look, and that's fair. And like, I blame Donald Trump, and I blame the advisors who lie to you guys. And I blame Sean Spicer. But stepping back a bit, like, you know, I'm from Bill Belichick country, and what I care about is outputs. And as a news consumer, I see the White House Correspondents Association and the White House Correspondents getting less access. Because, you know, every day Barack Obama was in town, and he wasn't doing a press conference, we did an on-camera press briefing with Robert Gibbs, Jay Carney, Josh Ernest, or one of their deputies. There were some exceptions to that rule. Yeah, I would agree with you. Almost every day, that's true.

Yeah, the vast majority of days. That's not to say, and I'm sure, and I know you won't dispute this, that's not to say that the White House Correspondents Association or the press corps at large always got what we wanted in terms of access from the Obama administration. That was not the case. But in terms of... Yeah, but that's sort of a, that's an aside, I think, Jeff. And well, it's important. But in terms of pretty regular briefings and having them almost all the time on camera, that was not an issue and certainly not anywhere near the issue that it is right now. Right. So I see that. And I know how important press briefings are for not just the reporters, but also just accountability generally. There are

countless examples of statements or questions that were asked at White House press briefings, whether it was about Benghazi or whether it was back in the day when Scott McClellan was asked about Karl Rove's role in the Valerie Plame disclosure, like any number of examples where the fact that that question at the time was on camera, on the record, was incredibly relevant in the future when facts change. And the fact that that opportunity isn't occurring regularly now bothers me. And I'm just wondering why. It should bother you. Yeah.

Okay. I'm glad it bothers you. I mean, it bothers me too. And I guess, first of all, I appreciate what you were saying in your opening remarks about what the Correspondents Association is, and I would just like to explain to your listeners as well, just briefly, that it's a nine-person board, the WHCA, that represents our membership. The membership, as you alluded to, is made up of television correspondents,

wires, still photographers, radio reporters, and producers, and new media and magazine reporters. So we've got a varied and diverse membership, all of whom have different and sometimes competing needs. And one of our challenges this year has been to stay on the same page as much as possible as a press corps in advocating for our interests. So, you know, I believe, and the Correspondents Association board believes, that it's in the interest of the entire press corps, and not to mention the American public, to have briefings

that are on camera, televised, and where audio can be used so that not only my TV and radio brethren can do the stories and packages that they need to do using the medium that they work in, but also so that viewers at home can watch the back and forth between the fourth estate, i.e., we journalists, and the elected leaders or their representatives that they have put into office. And it is egregious from our point of view that for the last month or so, a lot of those briefings have now been taken off camera. And we're fighting very, very hard for that to change.

So, I mean, I guess I think the question a lot of people have who observe the press corps or read about these issues is like, why don't individual reporters just live stream the event? Or why doesn't CNN just turn on its camera? Can you help explain that to people? Well, and I actually like the way you asked that just now. Those decisions are decisions that would have to be made by the individual news organizations. If the news organizations, if the TV networks, for example, all decide that they are not going to abide by the guidelines that are set by the White House, that's their decision. That's not a WHCA decision. We are not an enforcement association. We don't

enforce the White House's rules. We are the interlocutor between the press corps at large and the White House itself. So it's a good question, but it's not actually one that I can answer. What I can do is be sort of the middleman and explain, and my teammates on the board as well, explain where the press corps is coming from in behind-the-scenes meetings with the White House, and sometimes explain it publicly and argue for it in a more public way. We've had to find that balance between being an effective negotiator behind the scenes. Sometimes it's effective to then not be public, and other times it's effective to do both. And we've had to sort of walk that tightrope when it's tricky to do that. But your question about... I was going to say, lucky you being the middleman there.

Lucky me, exactly. But that's, I mean, that's part of the challenge and that's part of the job. And that's fine. We've embraced that. But to viewers who wonder, you know, why not just turn on those cameras? That's a question that has to be directed at the news organizations themselves. That's a question that has to be directed at the news organizations themselves. And I think you also have to keep in mind the ramifications that, you know, doing that would have a direct impact for television reporters and radio reporters, but it would also potentially affect print reporters and others who attend those briefings and use the content, whether it's televised or not. And this is part of your great challenge is you have a bunch of print reporters who are like, I don't give a shit if this briefing's off camera, I'm just scribbling down quotes. And then you have TV reporters where it's literally useless to them if the briefings are off camera. So there's different equities

here. But I think looking back, the biggest sinners here are the TV networks. They have been cutting side deals all along with White Houses, with the Trump campaign. They cut a deal with the Trump campaign to only show him head on. How is that acceptable if TV networks are only looking out for their own equities and not working with the broader Correspondents Association? Well, I'm not going to throw my TV network colleagues under the bus. We've actually worked very well together. It is true that there are times when different aspects of the press corps have different needs. And I do think, actually, remarkably, this year we've been pretty good about speaking with one voice.

But it's true that in the past there have been times when different aspects of the press corps have gone and not necessarily done that. And I think that has hurt us. I think that right now, I think really broadly, everyone agrees that it is in the interest of transparency to have these briefings be on camera. That said, I know that Sean Spicer, when he came into this job, wanted to mix it up a little bit, and it's the White House's right to do that. It's just that if the trend ends up being where it has come to now, where nearly all of the briefings are not being televised, that's not a trend we can accept. But your question about TV networks know, TV networks specifically,

honestly, Tommy, we've worked really well together in the last six months. That may not have always been the case, but it's been a pretty good collaboration right now. And I'm very happy about that. Okay, that's good. I mean, I get it. Look, I think, you know, anyone listening probably understands that I am very sympathetic to the challenge of collective action with reporters who are literally competing with each other all day, every day for scoops. They have different equities, et cetera. I guess my fear is my concern is that it sort of led to this collective inaction where as an observer, I've seen this this whittling down of the briefing and of your guys' day-to-day access, and also the fact that the deputy spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is going out giving incomplete answers, refusing to get answers to basic questions like, does the president believe in climate change?

And I think that's where my fear lies, that this sort of tacit collective inaction becomes the status quo because of how hard it is. And you're a very diplomatic individual, generally, and you were very diplomatic in the answer about TVs. But is my concern unwarranted? I mean, what's your response? Well, I think I would disagree with your premise, and that sounds like a spokesperson's answer. But I would disagree with the premise. I love this role reversal, man.

Right? How many times have you heard somebody from the podium say, I disagree with the premise? But I actually do in this case. I don't think that what you're seeing is passive inaction. I think quite the contrary. I mean, a lot of what we do at the Correspondents Association, and I referred to this earlier, is behind the scenes.

And we're probably not doing our job if we come out and announce every time I've had a meeting with Sean or Sarah or others on the board have advocated for something with regard to the press. And you will remember that from your time at the White House. There are certainly probably myriad times when someone from the board or a representative of the press corps pushed for something on behalf of the rest of the press corps that we didn't then go out and trumpet and say, look, we just did this and this was the effect or this didn't happen. That's just not how we do our jobs. But I think you will see, and when you can't see it because it's not televised, you will hear or you will read a lot of very difficult and aggressive questioning happening at this White House as there would be for any White House from the press corps when they're not getting answers, when we're not getting access. People have different styles. There are some reporters who have stood up and been very critical about access in the middle of a briefing, and some people, and this has been more the board

style, do that advocacy work behind the scenes. But just because you don't see something happening in a dramatic way on camera or hear about it off camera, doesn't mean that that's not happening. Right. And I will say like, I did a little reporting in advance of this conversation and there's a lot of wins that you guys have that you've been instrumental on that people probably don't know about like this,

you know, some of it is maybe malice, but some of it is this White House just didn't have its shit together in any way. And so there were questions early on whether there was going to be a press pool, which is the pack of reporters that follows a president around wherever he or she goes, that whether that was going to continue to happen, and you fought to make sure that exists. And there was questions about whether there would still be a daily briefing or if the press corps would be moved across the street to a building that is much further removed and not in the West Wing like the current press briefing room is. And you guys fought to preserve that. And that is important. And those are maintenance of access that I don't know that

like if we're just calling balls and strikes that anyone deserves credit for, but it's important, right? It's super important. And I'm glad you highlighted them because when we came into the transition period between the 2016 election and the time when President Trump took office, there were a lot of unknowns about how the Trump team would work with the press. President Trump, as a candidate, did not have reporters on his plane. And so, and had a sort of a loose press pool, but not in the same way that we were accustomed to and expected to have at the White House. So that was a real negotiation. And it was absolutely critical to us that we continue to be able to fly in Air Force One as representatives of the press corps and that sense of the public

and able in our reporting capacity and secured that. And as you mentioned, also secured our place to stay here in the press briefing room, which is, as you know, just steps away from the Oval Office and steps away from where these big decisions are made. So that transparency in that location was really critical to us and wasn't a given. And we got it. You know, yeah, you're right. Absolutely. Should have been a given. I mean, with respect. I mean, it shouldn't have. It's a shame that that was something we even had to negotiate, but it was. And we did successfully. Totally agree. You know, I guess, you know, I was listening to Tim Miller, who was a Bush administration communications person who I'm sure you know well, Republican, was talking about how he sometimes feels like Washington is still abiding by the same set of rules and norms, despite the fact that Donald Trump has exploded them.

they were critical of Obama. And I found a letter to Robert Gibbs on behalf of the WHCA protesting in the strongest possible terms the White House's decision to close a cabinet meeting or a signing of the START treaty to the full press pool. And it's just funny to me because you sort of have mentioned, well, in the beginning of the Trump administration, he actually offered more access than Obama did for the first couple of months, and then things quickly changed. But I do worry like the carrot and stick approach from the WHCA, the stick is not grown commensurate with the Trump administration's willingness to lock you guys out. And I'm wondering, is there any conversation ever about a broader collective action, skipping a briefing if not everyone is able to access it in the way they need, or some sort of retort, some sort of repercussion if, for example, they lie about contacts with Russian officials for

six months and then it comes out that Don Jr. in fact had a meeting with a Russian lawyer offering opposition research on Hillary Clinton. It's like, I just don't get how you guys kind of continue to do your jobs in the way you do, given the changing context. I know this is a convoluted, complicated question, but I wanted to throw that out at you. Well, I have a couple different answers to that. First of all, I would disagree that the WHCA hasn't sort of changed some of its tactics. I mean, this was not an organization that in earlier days made as many public statements as we have unfortunately had to make over the last six months ever. I mean, that's just not something that we did. The occasional letter like you referenced, perhaps was made public, but the vocal advocacy role that we have fallen into, or not really

fallen into, but actively taken because of the changes that we have faced here is new. And I think it's been positive. And whether that continues to evolve and change under future boards, you know, we'll have to see. But I would also direct you to, and I'm sure you watched, Tommy, unless you were there, and I honestly don't know if you were at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, but people who were and people who watched it on television saw the robust statement that we made in advance or in favor of the First Amendment and that I made on behalf of the board in response to the very damaging rhetoric that President Trump has employed against the press. I said that we are not fake news, we are not failing news organizations, and we are not the enemy of the American people. And that's not the type of thing you would normally hear at a dinner like that. And we highlighted it in a robust way.

Now, in the second response to your question about how do we, you know, are there consequences for the responses that come from this White House end up not being true, I mean, I think the best thing a journalist can do and the best thing that we are doing is show up to work every day and do our jobs. And you're seeing some amazing journalism going on right now in Washington and elsewhere about this administration, about many other issues, because that's what our role is. It's to shine light on any administration, be it Republican or Democrat, that's in power, and to tell the story of the president and how he or she is

governing, and to make sure when truth is not offered that we get to the bottom of what the truth is. And honestly, you know, reporters don't want to be the story. The White House Correspondents Association doesn't want to be the story. We want to make sure that our members have an ability to do their jobs because doing their jobs is the most important way that we can fulfill our role. Listen, I know you have to go soon. I really appreciate this. I will say this is like an amazing era for journalism. There's incredible journalism happening every day. You guys deserve enormous credit for that. And we are all grateful as readers. The thing I would quibble with is you guys are the story. Donald

Trump makes you the story every day. It is a strategy to make you guys the story, which to me means that this has become a messaging fight. And when you talk about the sort of White House Correspondents Association dinner, which I did not go to, but I've been to before, I did read that statement. I think it's hard to fight, you know, sort of a knife to a gunfight scenario there when Trump is out there calling you guys fake news every day. And I just worry that that fight is not being joined. Like you can't win a messaging war if you're not in the debate. And so I know that's not your role, but how do you react?

So we are in the debate. I mean, I would just totally disagree with that statement. Yeah, of course we are. I mean, it's, and you're right that the president has made us a story because of the rhetoric that he employs against the media. You're absolutely right about that. We didn't ask for that, but that is something that he has done, and that's why we have to respond in the way that we do. And, you know, if you're feeling that there should be a different response or a more vocal response, anyone's entitled to their opinion about that. I have to encourage you not to ignore the robust response that we have made vocally at that dinner, on on television in written statements

and then of course in the behind the scenes meetings that i'm talking to you about yeah but i mean jeff when you guys are reporting on a white house messaging effort and it's ineffective you you point out that it's ineffective and that's what i'm doing here is that i just don't think you guys are winning it and you know like jim acosta you can argue that he's grandstanding or preening but at least he's out there fighting. And then I pick up the paper and there's like a style section story with his unnamed colleagues shitting on him. And sort of, I know that I think the right response is probably a middle ground there. But I do think people like me are really, I'm a highly partisan individual, stated for a

fact. Yes, you are. And you're allowed to be, and I'm an imperfect messenger for telling the press what to do. Cause you guys are better at your jobs than I am, but I know what a fight, a messaging fight. And I worry about their ability to use the leverage they have and lock you guys out and reduce access and further drive down sort of people's views of the press core in a, in a totally unfair way.

And I would like to see the punching back a little harder through journalism and then through just sort of a response generally. So I guess that's my two cents here. And I guess I would just underscore the second part of what you just said there. Our job is to be journalists. Our job is to do journalism and to report the facts and to uncover the facts and to uncover stories about this administration or any beat that we happen to be covering. You mentioned Jim Acosta. I love Jim. I think he's a terrific colleague. I said that some people have different styles in how they do this.

He has his style. Others have their styles. I can certainly appreciate the fact, as somebody in your case who is concerned about press freedom, that it is satisfying to see someone publicly stand up in that way. But that, and as I said, I think Jim is a terrific colleague and has done terrific work, both as a journalist, and he's stating his views on this in a way that has resonated with a lot of people. But just because you don't see that necessarily from everybody else who is involved in this issue, in this case in particular the White House Correspondents Association, doesn't mean that it's not happening.

And, you know, I would also quibble, and I understand the quibbling that you're doing as well, but I would quibble with the language of war. I mean, we don't believe we're at war with this president. That is language that he uses. It is not language that we use. We are fighting for the right to do our jobs. We are fighting for the things that are protected by the First Amendment and continuing to push for that. But it is our job, as I've said already, and I'll just repeat myself now, to just keep doing our jobs. And that's the best way that we can stand up for our rights.

So my concluding thought on that is you're right. You are not at war with the president. Your role is not to defeat him, to better him, to best him, anything of that nature. Your job is to report the facts. But I do think you guys have a responsibility, and I think I have a responsibility as a budding podcaster, You guys have a responsibility. And I think I have a responsibility as a budding podcaster to help people understand why the First Amendment and why journalism is so important to them. And that part of this, to me, is a messaging fight. And we all need to do better there because journalists are the tip of the spear.

They're the most important part of democracy. The founders knew that. It's clear as ever today. And so I guess I should just say thank you for all the work you did. Reuters, thank you for your time at the White House Correspondents Association. And thanks for doing the show, man. Thank you, Tommy. It's my pleasure. And I would just say as a concluding remark to what you just said, that, look, the press is grateful for the support of the American public and people who are listening to your podcast.

If they're upset about access at the White House or things that affect the press, reach out and tell people about it. Watch the news. Read the news. Be consumers of news or informed about where you're getting it. It is an important part of our democracy, and that is the role that we are filling. And pay for the news. Yeah, I mean, yes. Buy subscriptions. And I think that's an interesting thing to watch,

is how subscriptions for major newspapers have gone up, and obviously ratings have gone up. People do want to stay informed, and it's our job to keep them that way. Yes. All right. Jeff, we'll leave it there. Thanks, man. Thank you, Tommy. Keep doing a great job. Appreciate it. Take care. See you, buddy. Thanks again to Andy Slavitt and to Jeff Mason for talking with us today.

And yeah, we'll see you guys later. Oh, this is the outro? This is the outro. Keep calling. College Senator. Keep calling. Find out which Facebook friends live in Nevada and then call them and have them call Dino. Boom.

Bye. End of show. Thank you.